# Official Journal C 433/14 D

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 433 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6314 December 2020 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 433

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6314 December 2020

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2020/C 433/01 | 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

2020/C 433/01

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 |
| 2020/C 433/02 | Case C-623/17: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Investigatory Powers Tribunal — London — United Kingdom) — Privacy International v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Secretary of State for the Home Department, Government Communications Headquarters, Security Service, Secret Intelligence Service (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Processing of personal data in the electronic communications sector — Providers of electronic communications services — General and indiscriminate transmission of traffic data and location data — Safeguarding of national security — Directive 2002/58/EC — Scope — Article 1(3) and Article 3 — Confidentiality of electronic communications — Protection — Article 5 and Article 15(1) — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Articles 7, 8 and 11 and Article 52(1) — Article 4(2) TEU) | 2 |
| 2020/C 433/03 | Joined Cases C-511/18, C-512/18 and C-520/18: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 October 2020 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État, Constitutional Court — Belgium, France) — La Quadrature du Net (C-511/18 and C-512/18), French Data Network (C-511/18 and C-512/18), Fédération des fournisseurs d’accès à Internet associatifs (C-511/18 and C-512/18), Igwan.net (C-511/18) v Premier ministre (C-511/18 and C-512/18), Garde des Sceaux, ministre de la Justice (C-511/18 and C-512/18), Ministre de l’Intérieur (C-511/18), Ministre des Armées (C-511/18), Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone, Académie Fiscale ASBL, UA, Liga voor Mensenrechten ASBL, Ligue des Droits de l’Homme ASBL, VZ, WY, XX v Conseil des ministres (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Processing of personal data in the electronic communications sector — Providers of electronic communications services — Hosting service providers and Internet access providers — General and indiscriminate retention of traffic and location data — Automated analysis of data — Real-time access to data — Safeguarding national security and combating terrorism — Combating crime — Directive 2002/58/EC — Scope — Article 1(3) and Article 3 — Confidentiality of electronic communications — Protection — Article 5 and Article 15(1) — Directive 2000/31/EC — Scope — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Articles 4, 6, 7, 8 and 11 and Article 52(1) — Article 4(2) TEU) | 3 |
| 2020/C 433/04 | Case C-521/18: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Pegaso Srl Servizi Fiduciari, Sistemi di Sicurezza Srl, YW v Poste Tutela SpA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Procurement in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors — Directive 2014/25/EU — Article 13 — Activities relating to the provision of postal services — Contracting entities — Public undertakings — Admissibility) | 6 |
| 2020/C 433/05 | Case C-611/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 October 2020 — Pirelli & C. SpA v European Commission, Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi Srl (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for power cables — Market allocation in connection with projects — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 23(2) — Powers of the European Commission in the area of fines — Imputability of the infringement — Presumption of actual exercise of decisive influence — Obligation to state reasons — Fundamental rights — Beneficium ordinis seu excussionis — Unlimited jurisdiction) | 6 |
| 2020/C 433/06 | Joined Cases C-720/18 and C–721/18: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 October 2020 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Ferrari SpA v DU (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Trade marks — Directive 2008/95/EC — Article 12(1) — Genuine use of trade mark — Burden of proof — Article 13 — Proof of use in respect of some of the goods or services — Trade mark covering a car model the production of which has stopped — Use of the trade mark in respect of replacement parts as well as for services relating to that model — Use of the trade mark for used vehicles — Article 351 TFEU — Convention between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Swiss Confederation — Reciprocal protection of patents, designs and trade marks) | 7 |
| 2020/C 433/07 | Case C-112/19: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 28 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Aachen — Germany) — Marvin M. v Kreis Heinsberg (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2006/126/EC — Article 2(1) and Article 11(4) — Driving licence — Mutual recognition — Extent of the obligation to recognise — Driving licence having been the subject of an exchange — Exchange made at a time when the right to drive had been withdrawn by the issuing Member State — Fraud — Refusal to recognise the driving licence issued in the context of the exchange) | 8 |
| 2020/C 433/08 | Case C-243/19: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) — Latvia) — A v Veselības ministrija (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social security — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Article 20(2) — Directive 2011/24/EU — Article 8(1), (5) and (6)(d) — Health insurance — Hospital care provided in a Member State other than the Member State of affiliation — Refusal of prior authorisation — Hospital treatment which can be provided effectively in the Member State of affiliation — Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Difference in treatment based on religion) | 9 |
| 2020/C 433/09 | Case C-273/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 22 October 2020 — Ethniko Kentro Erevnas kai Technologikis Anaptyxis (EKETA) v European Commission (Appeal — Arbitration clause — Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 — Article 52 — Regulation (EC) No 2321/2002 — Decision No 1513/2002/EC — Grant agreement — Sensation project — Sixth framework programme — Eligible costs — Conflict of interests — Burden of proof — Time sheets — Audit report — Probative value — Principle of good financial management — Principle of proportionality) | 10 |
| 2020/C 433/10 | Case C-274/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 22 October 2020 — Ethniko Kentro Erevnas kai Technologikis Anaptyxis (EKETA) v European Commission (Appeal — Arbitration clause — Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 — Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 — Regulation (EC) No 1906/2006 — Actibio grant agreement — Actibio project — Seventh framework programme — Eligible costs — Conflict of interests — Burden of proof — Time sheets — Audit report — Probative value — Principle of proportionality) | 10 |
| 2020/C 433/11 | Case C-275/19: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 22 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça — Portugal) — Sportingbet PLC, Internet Opportunity Entertainment Ltd v Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services — Notion of technical regulation — Obligation on Member States to notify the European Commission of all draft technical regulations — Technical regulations which have not been notified cannot be enforced against individuals — Inapplicability to service providers) | 11 |
| 2020/C 433/12 | Case C-313/19 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 October 2020 — Associazione Nazionale GranoSalus — Liberi Cerealicoltori & Consumatori (Associazione GranoSalus) v European Commission (Appeal — Placing of plant protection products on the market — Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 — Renewal of the approval of the active substance glyphosate — Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2324 — Action for annulment brought by an association — Admissibility — Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU — Regulatory act not entailing implementing measures — Person directly concerned) | 12 |
| 2020/C 433/13 | Case C-321/19: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen — Germany) — BY, CZ v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 1999/62/EC — Directive 2006/38/EC — Charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures — Article 7(9) — Article 7a(1) and (2) — Tolls — Principle of the recovery of infrastructure costs — Infrastructure costs — Operating costs — Costs related to traffic police — Cost overrun — Direct effect — Ex post justification of an excessive toll rate — Limitation of the temporal effects of the judgment) | 12 |
| 2020/C 433/14 | Case C-576/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 29 October 2020 — Intercept Pharma Ltd, Intercept Pharmaceuticals Inc. v European Medicines Agency (Appeal — Access to documents of the institutions, bodies, offices or agencies of the European Union — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Second indent of Article 4(2) — Exception relating to the protection of court proceedings — First indent of Article 4(2) — Exception relating to the protection of commercial interests — Documents submitted in the context of a marketing authorisation application for a medicinal product for human use — Decision to grant a third party access to the documents) | 13 |
| 2020/C 433/15 | Case C-608/19: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 28 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Istituto nazionale per l’assicurazione contro gli infortuni sul lavoro (INAIL) v Zennaro Giuseppe Legnami Sas di Zennaro Mauro & C. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — State aid — Regulation (EU) No 1407/2013 — Article 3 — De minimis aid — Article 6 — Monitoring — Undertakings exceeding the de minimis ceiling because of cumulation with aid obtained previously — Option of choosing between reduction and forgoing previous aid so as to comply with the de minimis ceiling) | 14 |
| 2020/C 433/16 | Case C-637/19: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Svea hovrätt — Patent- och marknadsöverdomstolen — Sweden) — BY v CX (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Copyright and related rights — Directive 2001/29/EC — Information society — Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights — Article 3(1) — Communication to the public — Notion of public — Transmission by electronic means to a court of a protected work as evidence in court proceedings) | 14 |
| 2020/C 433/17 | Case C-702/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 22 October 2020 — Silver Plastics GmbH & Co. KG, Johannes Reifenhäuser Holding GmbH & Co. KG v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Retail food packaging market — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 23 — Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights — Fundamental right to a fair trial — Principle of equality of arms — Right to an examination in person — Hearing of witnesses — Statement of reasons — Single and continuous infringement — Upper limit of fine) | 15 |
| 2020/C 433/18 | Case C-623/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy v Gorzowie Wielkopolskim (Poland) lodged on 3 October 2018 — Prokuratura Rejonowa w Słubicach v BQ | 15 |
| 2020/C 433/19 | Case C-361/20 P: Appeal brought on 4 August 2020 by YG against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 28 May 2020 in Case T-518/18, YG v Commission | 16 |
| 2020/C 433/20 | Case C-372/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzgericht (Austria) lodged on 6 August 2020 — QY v Finanzamt Wien für den 8., 16. und 17. Bezirk | 16 |
| 2020/C 433/21 | Case C-388/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 14 August 2020 — Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e. V. v Dr. August Oetker Nahrungsmittel KG | 18 |
| 2020/C 433/22 | Case C-421/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 8 September 2020 — Acacia Srl v Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft | 19 |
| 2020/C 433/23 | Case C-434/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 16 September 2020 — flightright GmbH v SunExpress Günes Ekspres Havacilik A.S. | 20 |
| 2020/C 433/24 | Case C-435/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Schleswig-Holsteinisches Verwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 16 September 2020 — C v Bundesrepublik Deutschland | 20 |
| 2020/C 433/25 | Case C-438/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 18 September 2020 — BT v Eurowings GmbH | 21 |
| 2020/C 433/26 | Case C-442/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Nürnberg (Germany) lodged on 21 September 2020 — Flightright GmbH v Ryanair Designated Activity Company | 22 |
| 2020/C 433/27 | Case C-443/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Nürnberg (Germany) lodged on 21 September 2020 — Flightright GmbH v Ryanair Designated Activity Company | 22 |
| 2020/C 433/28 | Case C-444/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Nürnberg (Germany) lodged on 21 September 2020 — Flightright GmbH v Ryanair Designated Activity Company | 23 |
| 2020/C 433/29 | Case C-445/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Nürnberg (Germany) lodged on 21 September 2020 — PN and LM v Ryanair Designated Activity Company | 24 |
| 2020/C 433/30 | Case C-449/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 22 September 2020 — Real Vida Seguros, S. A. v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira | 24 |
| 2020/C 433/31 | Case C-451/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg (Austria) lodged on 23 September 2020 — Airhelp Limited v Austrian Airlines AG | 25 |
| 2020/C 433/32 | Case C-454/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rayonen sad Lukovit (Bulgaria) lodged on 23 September 2020 — Criminal proceedings against AZ | 25 |
| 2020/C 433/33 | Case C-456/20 P: Appeal brought on 21 September 2020 by Crédit agricole SA against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber enlarged) delivered on 8 July 2020 in Case T–576/18, Crédit agricole SA v ECB | 26 |
| 2020/C 433/34 | Case C-457/20 P: Appeal brought on 21 September 2020 by Crédit agricole Corporate and Investment Bank against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber enlarged) delivered on 8 July 2020 in Case T–577/18, Crédit agricole Corporate and Investment Bank v ECB | 27 |
| 2020/C 433/35 | Case C-458/20 P: Appeal brought on 21 September 2020 by CA Consumer Finance against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber enlarged) delivered on 8 July 2020 in Case T–578/18, CA Consumer Finance v ECB | 28 |
| 2020/C 433/36 | Case C-462/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano (Italy) lodged on 25 September 2020 — Associazione per gli Studi Giuridici sull’Immigrazione (ASGI) and Others v Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri — Dipartimento per le politiche della famiglia, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze | 28 |
| 2020/C 433/37 | Case C-464/20 P: Appeal brought on 26 September 2020 by KF against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 10 July 2020 in Case T-619/19, KF v SatCen | 29 |
| 2020/C 433/38 | Case C-467/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 28 September 2020 — BC v Deutsche Lufthansa AG | 31 |
| 2020/C 433/39 | Case C-470/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus (Estonia) lodged on 29 September 2020 — Veejaam AS, Espo OÜ v Elering AS | 31 |
| 2020/C 433/40 | Case C-473/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 30 September 2020 — INVEST FUND MANAGEMENT AD v Komisiya za finansov nadzor | 32 |
| 2020/C 433/41 | Case C-484/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München (Germany) lodged on 1 October 2020 — Vodafone Kabel Deutschland GmbH v Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V. | 33 |
| 2020/C 433/42 | Case C-487/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia (Romania) lodged on 2 October 2020 — Philips Orăștie S.R.L. v Direcția Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili | 34 |
| 2020/C 433/43 | Case C-489/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 2 October 2020 — UB v Kauno teritorinė muitinė | 34 |
| 2020/C 433/44 | Case C-490/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria) lodged on 2 October 2020 — V.M.A. v Stolichna Obsthina, Rayon Pancharevo | 35 |
| 2020/C 433/45 | Case C-497/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 30 September 2020 — Randstad Italia SpA v Umana SpA and Others | 36 |
| 2020/C 433/46 | Case C-499/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias (Greece) lodged on 1 October 2020 — DIMCO Dimovasili M.I.K.E. v Ypourgos Perivallontos kai Energeias | 37 |
| 2020/C 433/47 | Case C-508/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark (Austria) lodged on 9 October 2020 — RM v Landespolizeidirektion Steiermark | 38 |
| 2020/C 433/48 | Case C-510/20: Action brought on 12 October 2020 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria | 39 |
| 2020/C 433/49 | Case C-520/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Silistra (Bulgaria) lodged on 16 October 2020 — DB, LY v Nachalnik na Rayonno upravlenie Silistra pri Oblastna direktsiya na Ministerstvoto na vatreshnite raboti | 40 |
| | General Court |
| 2020/C 433/50 | Joined Cases T-479/11 RENV and T-157/12 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2020 — France and IFP Énergies nouvelles v Commission (State aid — Oil exploration — State aid scheme implemented by France — Implied and unlimited guarantee conferred by IFPEN by the grant of the status of EPIC — Advantage — Presumption of the existence of an advantage — Proportionality) | 41 |
| 2020/C 433/51 | Case T-316/18: Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2020 — První novinová společnost v Commission (State aid — Postal sector — Universal service obligation — Decision not to raise any objections — Safeguarding procedural rights — Duration of the procedure — Complete and sufficient examination of the case by the Commission — Compensation for the discharge of the universal service obligation — Service of general economic interest — Directive 97/67/EC — Net avoided cost methodology — Obligation to state reasons) | 42 |
| 2020/C 433/52 | Case T-583/18: Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2020 — GVN v Commission (State aid — Public transport of passengers — Offsetting of the costs involved in the performance of public service obligations — Obligation to establish maximum tariffs for pupils, students, apprentices and persons with reduced mobility — Article 7a of the Niedersächsisches Nahverkehrsgesetz (Law on local transport of the Land of Lower Saxony) — Decision not to raise objections — Article 3(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 — Transfer of financial resources from a Land to transport authorities at municipal level — Concept of aid) | 42 |
| 2020/C 433/53 | Case T-597/18: Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2020 — Hermann Albers v Commission (State aid — Public transport of passengers — Offsetting of the costs involved in the performance of public service obligations — Obligation to establish maximum tariffs for pupils, students, apprentices and persons with reduced mobility — Article 7a of the Niedersächsisches Nahverkehrsgesetz (Law on local transport of the Land of Lower Saxony) — Decision not to raise objections — Article 3(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 — Transfer of financial resources from a Land to transport authorities at municipal level — Concept of aid — Obligation to notify) | 43 |
| 2020/C 433/54 | Case T-48/19: Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2020 — smart things solutions v EUIPO — Samsung Electronics (smart:)things) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark smart:)things — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Article 59(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001) | 44 |
| 2020/C 433/55 | Case T-249/19: Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2020 –Karpeta-Kovalyova v Commission (Civil service — Members of the contract staff — Remuneration — Decision refusing entitlement to the expatriation allowance, the daily subsistence allowance, the installation allowance and to reimbursement of removal expenses and travel costs on taking up duties — Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Diplomatic status — Five-year reference period — Concept of habitual residence) | 45 |
| 2020/C 433/56 | Case T-349/19: Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2020 — Decathlon v EUIPO — Athlon Custom Sportswear (athlon custom sportswear) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark athlon custom sportswear — Earlier EU word mark DECATHLON — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 45 |
| 2020/C 433/57 | Case T-607/19: Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2020 — Itinerant Show Room v EUIPO (FAKE DUCK) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark FAKE DUCK — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Principles of equal treatment and legality) | 46 |
| 2020/C 433/58 | Case T-788/19: Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2020 — Body Attack Sports Nutrition v EUIPO — Sakkari (Sakkattack) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark Sakkattack — Earlier international word marks ATTACK and Body Attack and earlier international figurative mark Body Attack SPORTS NUTRITION — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 46 |
| 2020/C 433/59 | Case T-818/19: Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2020 — Dvectis CZ v EUIPO — Yado (Support pillow) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered community design representing a support pillow — Earlier Community design — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — Informed user — Degree of freedom of the designer — No different overall impression — Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Obligation to state reasons) | 47 |
| 2020/C 433/60 | Case T-847/19: Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2020 — X-cen-tek v EUIPO — Altenloh, Brinck & Co. (PAX) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark PAX — Earlier EU and international figurative marks SPAX — Relative ground for refusal — Dominant element — No counteraction — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Application of the law ratione temporis) | 48 |
| 2020/C 433/61 | Case T-851/19: Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2020 — Body Attack Sports Nutrition v EUIPO — Sakkari (SAKKATTACK) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark SAKKATTACK — Earlier international word marks ATTACK and Body Attack and earlier international figurative mark Body Attack SPORTS NUTRITION — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 48 |
| 2020/C 433/62 | Case T-2/20: Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2020 — Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — Bio-tec Biologische Naturverpackungen (BIOPLAST BIOPLASTICS FOR A BETTER LIFE) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark BIOPLAST BIOPLASTICS FOR A BETTER LIFE — Earlier EU word mark BIOPLAK — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 49 |
| 2020/C 433/63 | Case T-49/20: Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2020 — Rothenberger v EUIPO — Paper Point (ROBOX) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark ROBOX — Earlier EU word mark OROBOX — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Independent subcategory of goods — Taking into consideration of a descriptive element — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 50 |
| 2020/C 433/64 | Case T-180/20: Order of the General Court of 6 October 2020 — Sharpston v Council and Conference of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States (Action for annulment — Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union — Declaration by the Conference of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States on the consequences of the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union for the Advocates General of the Court of Justice — Act not open to challenge — Inadmissibility) | 50 |
| 2020/C 433/65 | Case T-184/20: Order of the General Court of 6 October 2020 — Sharpston v Court of Justice of the European Union (Action for annulment — Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union — Letter from the President of the Court of Justice inviting the Member States to provide for the appointment of an Advocate General — Act not open to challenge — Inadmissibility) | 51 |
| 2020/C 433/66 | Case T-550/20: Order of the General Court of 6 October 2020 — Sharpston v Council and Representatives of the Governments of the Member States (Action for annulment — Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union — Decision of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States to appoint an Advocate General to the Court of Justice — Act not open to challenge — Manifest inadmissibility) | 51 |
| 2020/C 433/67 | Case T-575/20: Action brought on 11 September 2020 — OD v Commission | 52 |
| 2020/C 433/68 | Case T-576/20: Action brought on 17 September 2020 — Evropská vodní doprava-sped. and Others v Parliament and Council | 53 |
| 2020/C 433/69 | Case T-586/20: Action brought on 24 September 2020 — MN v Europol | 55 |
| 2020/C 433/70 | Case T-587/20: Action brought on 24 September 2020 — MO v Council | 55 |
| 2020/C 433/71 | Case T-608/20: Action brought on 29 September 2020 — JD v EIB | 56 |
| 2020/C 433/72 | Case T-614/20: Action brought on 1 October 2020 — Casino, Guichard-Perrachon v Commission | 58 |
| 2020/C 433/73 | Case T-618/20: Action brought on 5 October 2020 — FZ and Others v Commission | 59 |
| 2020/C 433/74 | Case T-619/20: Action brought on 5 October 2020 — FJ and Others v EEAS | 60 |
| 2020/C 433/75 | Case T-625/20: Action brought on 5 October 2020 — Les Mousquetaires and ITM Entreprises v Commission | 60 |
| 2020/C 433/76 | Case T-629/20: Action brought on 15 October 2020 — Delifruit v Commission | 61 |
| 2020/C 433/77 | Case T-638/20: Action brought on 15 October 2020 — JP v Commission | 62 |
| 2020/C 433/78 | Case T-639/20: Action brought on 22 October 2020 — TIB Chemicals v Commission | 62 |
| 2020/C 433/79 | Case T-646/20: Action brought on 23 October 2020 — NG and Others v Parliament and Council | 64 |
| 2020/C 433/80 | Case T-649/20: Action brought on 27 October 2020 — Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking v NG | 65 |
| 2020/C 433/81 | Case T-653/20: Action brought on 28 October 2020 — Mylan Ireland v EMA | 65 |
| 2020/C 433/82 | Case T-657/20: Action brought on 30 October 2020 — Ryanair v Commission | 66 |
| 2020/C 433/83 | Case T-658/20: Action brought on 2 November 2020 — Jakober v EUIPO (Shape of a cup) | 67 |
| 2020/C 433/84 | Case T-298/18: Order of the General Court of 30 September 2020 — Banco Comercial Português and Others v Commission | 67 |
| 2020/C 433/85 | Case T-694/18: Order of the General Court of 30 September 2020 — DEI v Commission | 68 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2020/C 433/02

Case C-623/17: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Investigatory Powers Tribunal — London — United Kingdom) — Privacy International v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Secretary of State for the Home Department, Government Communications Headquarters, Security Service, Secret Intelligence Service (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Processing of personal data in the electronic communications sector — Providers of electronic communications services — General and indiscriminate transmission of traffic data and location data — Safeguarding of national security — Directive 2002/58/EC — Scope — Article 1(3) and Article 3 — Confidentiality of electronic communications — Protection — Article 5 and Article 15(1) — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Articles 7, 8 and 11 and Article 52(1) — Article 4(2) TEU)

2

2020/C 433/03

Joined Cases C-511/18, C-512/18 and C-520/18: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 October 2020 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État, Constitutional Court — Belgium, France) — La Quadrature du Net (C-511/18 and C-512/18), French Data Network (C-511/18 and C-512/18), Fédération des fournisseurs d’accès à Internet associatifs (C-511/18 and C-512/18), Igwan.net (C-511/18) v Premier ministre (C-511/18 and C-512/18), Garde des Sceaux, ministre de la Justice (C-511/18 and C-512/18), Ministre de l’Intérieur (C-511/18), Ministre des Armées (C-511/18), Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone, Académie Fiscale ASBL, UA, Liga voor Mensenrechten ASBL, Ligue des Droits de l’Homme ASBL, VZ, WY, XX v Conseil des ministres (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Processing of personal data in the electronic communications sector — Providers of electronic communications services — Hosting service providers and Internet access providers — General and indiscriminate retention of traffic and location data — Automated analysis of data — Real-time access to data — Safeguarding national security and combating terrorism — Combating crime — Directive 2002/58/EC — Scope — Article 1(3) and Article 3 — Confidentiality of electronic communications — Protection — Article 5 and Article 15(1) — Directive 2000/31/EC — Scope — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Articles 4, 6, 7, 8 and 11 and Article 52(1) — Article 4(2) TEU)

3

2020/C 433/04

Case C-521/18: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Pegaso Srl Servizi Fiduciari, Sistemi di Sicurezza Srl, YW v Poste Tutela SpA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Procurement in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors — Directive 2014/25/EU — Article 13 — Activities relating to the provision of postal services — Contracting entities — Public undertakings — Admissibility)

6

2020/C 433/05

Case C-611/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 October 2020 — Pirelli & C. SpA v European Commission, Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi Srl (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for power cables — Market allocation in connection with projects — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 23(2) — Powers of the European Commission in the area of fines — Imputability of the infringement — Presumption of actual exercise of decisive influence — Obligation to state reasons — Fundamental rights — Beneficium ordinis seu excussionis — Unlimited jurisdiction)

6

2020/C 433/06

Joined Cases C-720/18 and C–721/18: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 October 2020 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Ferrari SpA v DU (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Trade marks — Directive 2008/95/EC — Article 12(1) — Genuine use of trade mark — Burden of proof — Article 13 — Proof of use in respect of some of the goods or services — Trade mark covering a car model the production of which has stopped — Use of the trade mark in respect of replacement parts as well as for services relating to that model — Use of the trade mark for used vehicles — Article 351 TFEU — Convention between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Swiss Confederation — Reciprocal protection of patents, designs and trade marks)

7

2020/C 433/07

Case C-112/19: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 28 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Aachen — Germany) — Marvin M. v Kreis Heinsberg (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2006/126/EC — Article 2(1) and Article 11(4) — Driving licence — Mutual recognition — Extent of the obligation to recognise — Driving licence having been the subject of an exchange — Exchange made at a time when the right to drive had been withdrawn by the issuing Member State — Fraud — Refusal to recognise the driving licence issued in the context of the exchange)

8

2020/C 433/08

Case C-243/19: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) — Latvia) — A v Veselības ministrija (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social security — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Article 20(2) — Directive 2011/24/EU — Article 8(1), (5) and (6)(d) — Health insurance — Hospital care provided in a Member State other than the Member State of affiliation — Refusal of prior authorisation — Hospital treatment which can be provided effectively in the Member State of affiliation — Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Difference in treatment based on religion)

9

2020/C 433/09

Case C-273/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 22 October 2020 — Ethniko Kentro Erevnas kai Technologikis Anaptyxis (EKETA) v European Commission (Appeal — Arbitration clause — Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 — Article 52 — Regulation (EC) No 2321/2002 — Decision No 1513/2002/EC — Grant agreement — Sensation project — Sixth framework programme — Eligible costs — Conflict of interests — Burden of proof — Time sheets — Audit report — Probative value — Principle of good financial management — Principle of proportionality)

10

2020/C 433/10

Case C-274/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 22 October 2020 — Ethniko Kentro Erevnas kai Technologikis Anaptyxis (EKETA) v European Commission (Appeal — Arbitration clause — Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 — Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 — Regulation (EC) No 1906/2006 — Actibio grant agreement — Actibio project — Seventh framework programme — Eligible costs — Conflict of interests — Burden of proof — Time sheets — Audit report — Probative value — Principle of proportionality)

10

2020/C 433/11

Case C-275/19: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 22 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça — Portugal) — Sportingbet PLC, Internet Opportunity Entertainment Ltd v Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services — Notion of technical regulation — Obligation on Member States to notify the European Commission of all draft technical regulations — Technical regulations which have not been notified cannot be enforced against individuals — Inapplicability to service providers)

11

2020/C 433/12

Case C-313/19 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 October 2020 — Associazione Nazionale GranoSalus — Liberi Cerealicoltori & Consumatori (Associazione GranoSalus) v European Commission (Appeal — Placing of plant protection products on the market — Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 — Renewal of the approval of the active substance glyphosate — Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2324 — Action for annulment brought by an association — Admissibility — Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU — Regulatory act not entailing implementing measures — Person directly concerned)

12

2020/C 433/13

Case C-321/19: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen — Germany) — BY, CZ v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 1999/62/EC — Directive 2006/38/EC — Charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures — Article 7(9) — Article 7a(1) and (2) — Tolls — Principle of the recovery of infrastructure costs — Infrastructure costs — Operating costs — Costs related to traffic police — Cost overrun — Direct effect — Ex post justification of an excessive toll rate — Limitation of the temporal effects of the judgment)

12

2020/C 433/14

Case C-576/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 29 October 2020 — Intercept Pharma Ltd, Intercept Pharmaceuticals Inc. v European Medicines Agency (Appeal — Access to documents of the institutions, bodies, offices or agencies of the European Union — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Second indent of Article 4(2) — Exception relating to the protection of court proceedings — First indent of Article 4(2) — Exception relating to the protection of commercial interests — Documents submitted in the context of a marketing authorisation application for a medicinal product for human use — Decision to grant a third party access to the documents)

13

2020/C 433/15

Case C-608/19: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 28 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Istituto nazionale per l’assicurazione contro gli infortuni sul lavoro (INAIL) v Zennaro Giuseppe Legnami Sas di Zennaro Mauro & C. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — State aid — Regulation (EU) No 1407/2013 — Article 3 — De minimis aid — Article 6 — Monitoring — Undertakings exceeding the de minimis ceiling because of cumulation with aid obtained previously — Option of choosing between reduction and forgoing previous aid so as to comply with the de minimis ceiling)

14

2020/C 433/16

Case C-637/19: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Svea hovrätt — Patent- och marknadsöverdomstolen — Sweden) — BY v CX (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Copyright and related rights — Directive 2001/29/EC — Information society — Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights — Article 3(1) — Communication to the public — Notion of public — Transmission by electronic means to a court of a protected work as evidence in court proceedings)

14

2020/C 433/17

Case C-702/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 22 October 2020 — Silver Plastics GmbH & Co. KG, Johannes Reifenhäuser Holding GmbH & Co. KG v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Retail food packaging market — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 23 — Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights — Fundamental right to a fair trial — Principle of equality of arms — Right to an examination in person — Hearing of witnesses — Statement of reasons — Single and continuous infringement — Upper limit of fine)

15

2020/C 433/18

Case C-623/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy v Gorzowie Wielkopolskim (Poland) lodged on 3 October 2018 — Prokuratura Rejonowa w Słubicach v BQ

15

2020/C 433/19

Case C-361/20 P: Appeal brought on 4 August 2020 by YG against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 28 May 2020 in Case T-518/18, YG v Commission

16

2020/C 433/20

Case C-372/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzgericht (Austria) lodged on 6 August 2020 — QY v Finanzamt Wien für den 8., 16. und 17. Bezirk

16

2020/C 433/21

Case C-388/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 14 August 2020 — Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e. V. v Dr. August Oetker Nahrungsmittel KG

18

2020/C 433/22

Case C-421/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 8 September 2020 — Acacia Srl v Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft

19

2020/C 433/23

Case C-434/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 16 September 2020 — flightright GmbH v SunExpress Günes Ekspres Havacilik A.S.

20

2020/C 433/24

Case C-435/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Schleswig-Holsteinisches Verwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 16 September 2020 — C v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

20

2020/C 433/25

Case C-438/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 18 September 2020 — BT v Eurowings GmbH

21

2020/C 433/26

Case C-442/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Nürnberg (Germany) lodged on 21 September 2020 — Flightright GmbH v Ryanair Designated Activity Company

22

2020/C 433/27

Case C-443/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Nürnberg (Germany) lodged on 21 September 2020 — Flightright GmbH v Ryanair Designated Activity Company

22

2020/C 433/28

Case C-444/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Nürnberg (Germany) lodged on 21 September 2020 — Flightright GmbH v Ryanair Designated Activity Company

23

2020/C 433/29

Case C-445/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Nürnberg (Germany) lodged on 21 September 2020 — PN and LM v Ryanair Designated Activity Company

24

2020/C 433/30

Case C-449/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 22 September 2020 — Real Vida Seguros, S. A. v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

24

2020/C 433/31

Case C-451/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg (Austria) lodged on 23 September 2020 — Airhelp Limited v Austrian Airlines AG

25

2020/C 433/32

Case C-454/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rayonen sad Lukovit (Bulgaria) lodged on 23 September 2020 — Criminal proceedings against AZ

25

2020/C 433/33

Case C-456/20 P: Appeal brought on 21 September 2020 by Crédit agricole SA against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber enlarged) delivered on 8 July 2020 in Case T–576/18, Crédit agricole SA v ECB

26

2020/C 433/34

Case C-457/20 P: Appeal brought on 21 September 2020 by Crédit agricole Corporate and Investment Bank against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber enlarged) delivered on 8 July 2020 in Case T–577/18, Crédit agricole Corporate and Investment Bank v ECB

27

2020/C 433/35

Case C-458/20 P: Appeal brought on 21 September 2020 by CA Consumer Finance against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber enlarged) delivered on 8 July 2020 in Case T–578/18, CA Consumer Finance v ECB

28

2020/C 433/36

Case C-462/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano (Italy) lodged on 25 September 2020 — Associazione per gli Studi Giuridici sull’Immigrazione (ASGI) and Others v Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri — Dipartimento per le politiche della famiglia, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze

28

2020/C 433/37

Case C-464/20 P: Appeal brought on 26 September 2020 by KF against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 10 July 2020 in Case T-619/19, KF v SatCen

29

2020/C 433/38

Case C-467/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 28 September 2020 — BC v Deutsche Lufthansa AG

31

2020/C 433/39

Case C-470/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus (Estonia) lodged on 29 September 2020 — Veejaam AS, Espo OÜ v Elering AS

31

2020/C 433/40

Case C-473/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 30 September 2020 — INVEST FUND MANAGEMENT AD v Komisiya za finansov nadzor

32

2020/C 433/41

Case C-484/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München (Germany) lodged on 1 October 2020 — Vodafone Kabel Deutschland GmbH v Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V.

33

2020/C 433/42

Case C-487/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia (Romania) lodged on 2 October 2020 — Philips Orăștie S.R.L. v Direcția Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili

34

2020/C 433/43

Case C-489/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 2 October 2020 — UB v Kauno teritorinė muitinė

UB

Kauno teritorinė muitinė

34

2020/C 433/44

Case C-490/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria) lodged on 2 October 2020 — V.M.A. v Stolichna Obsthina, Rayon Pancharevo

35

2020/C 433/45

Case C-497/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 30 September 2020 — Randstad Italia SpA v Umana SpA and Others

36

2020/C 433/46

Case C-499/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias (Greece) lodged on 1 October 2020 — DIMCO Dimovasili M.I.K.E. v Ypourgos Perivallontos kai Energeias

37

2020/C 433/47

Case C-508/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark (Austria) lodged on 9 October 2020 — RM v Landespolizeidirektion Steiermark

38

2020/C 433/48

Case C-510/20: Action brought on 12 October 2020 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria

39

2020/C 433/49

Case C-520/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Silistra (Bulgaria) lodged on 16 October 2020 — DB, LY v Nachalnik na Rayonno upravlenie Silistra pri Oblastna direktsiya na Ministerstvoto na vatreshnite raboti

40

General Court

2020/C 433/50

Joined Cases T-479/11 RENV and T-157/12 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2020 — France and IFP Énergies nouvelles v Commission (State aid — Oil exploration — State aid scheme implemented by France — Implied and unlimited guarantee conferred by IFPEN by the grant of the status of EPIC — Advantage — Presumption of the existence of an advantage — Proportionality)

41

2020/C 433/51

Case T-316/18: Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2020 — První novinová společnost v Commission (State aid — Postal sector — Universal service obligation — Decision not to raise any objections — Safeguarding procedural rights — Duration of the procedure — Complete and sufficient examination of the case by the Commission — Compensation for the discharge of the universal service obligation — Service of general economic interest — Directive 97/67/EC — Net avoided cost methodology — Obligation to state reasons)

42

2020/C 433/52

Case T-583/18: Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2020 — GVN v Commission (State aid — Public transport of passengers — Offsetting of the costs involved in the performance of public service obligations — Obligation to establish maximum tariffs for pupils, students, apprentices and persons with reduced mobility — Article 7a of the Niedersächsisches Nahverkehrsgesetz (Law on local transport of the Land of Lower Saxony) — Decision not to raise objections — Article 3(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 — Transfer of financial resources from a Land to transport authorities at municipal level — Concept of aid)

42

2020/C 433/53

Case T-597/18: Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2020 — Hermann Albers v Commission (State aid — Public transport of passengers — Offsetting of the costs involved in the performance of public service obligations — Obligation to establish maximum tariffs for pupils, students, apprentices and persons with reduced mobility — Article 7a of the Niedersächsisches Nahverkehrsgesetz (Law on local transport of the Land of Lower Saxony) — Decision not to raise objections — Article 3(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 — Transfer of financial resources from a Land to transport authorities at municipal level — Concept of aid — Obligation to notify)

43

2020/C 433/54

Case T-48/19: Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2020 — smart things solutions v EUIPO — Samsung Electronics (smart:)things) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark smart:)things — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Article 59(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)

44

2020/C 433/55

Case T-249/19: Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2020 –Karpeta-Kovalyova v Commission (Civil service — Members of the contract staff — Remuneration — Decision refusing entitlement to the expatriation allowance, the daily subsistence allowance, the installation allowance and to reimbursement of removal expenses and travel costs on taking up duties — Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Diplomatic status — Five-year reference period — Concept of habitual residence)

45

2020/C 433/56

Case T-349/19: Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2020 — Decathlon v EUIPO — Athlon Custom Sportswear (athlon custom sportswear) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark athlon custom sportswear — Earlier EU word mark DECATHLON — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

45

2020/C 433/57

Case T-607/19: Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2020 — Itinerant Show Room v EUIPO (FAKE DUCK) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark FAKE DUCK — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Principles of equal treatment and legality)

46

2020/C 433/58

Case T-788/19: Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2020 — Body Attack Sports Nutrition v EUIPO — Sakkari (Sakkattack) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark Sakkattack — Earlier international word marks ATTACK and Body Attack and earlier international figurative mark Body Attack SPORTS NUTRITION — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

46

2020/C 433/59

Case T-818/19: Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2020 — Dvectis CZ v EUIPO — Yado (Support pillow) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered community design representing a support pillow — Earlier Community design — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — Informed user — Degree of freedom of the designer — No different overall impression — Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Obligation to state reasons)

47

2020/C 433/60

Case T-847/19: Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2020 — X-cen-tek v EUIPO — Altenloh, Brinck & Co. (PAX) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark PAX — Earlier EU and international figurative marks SPAX — Relative ground for refusal — Dominant element — No counteraction — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Application of the law ratione temporis)

48

2020/C 433/61

Case T-851/19: Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2020 — Body Attack Sports Nutrition v EUIPO — Sakkari (SAKKATTACK) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark SAKKATTACK — Earlier international word marks ATTACK and Body Attack and earlier international figurative mark Body Attack SPORTS NUTRITION — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

48

2020/C 433/62

Case T-2/20: Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2020 — Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — Bio-tec Biologische Naturverpackungen (BIOPLAST BIOPLASTICS FOR A BETTER LIFE) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark BIOPLAST BIOPLASTICS FOR A BETTER LIFE — Earlier EU word mark BIOPLAK — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

49

2020/C 433/63

Case T-49/20: Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2020 — Rothenberger v EUIPO — Paper Point (ROBOX) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark ROBOX — Earlier EU word mark OROBOX — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Independent subcategory of goods — Taking into consideration of a descriptive element — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

50

2020/C 433/64

Case T-180/20: Order of the General Court of 6 October 2020 — Sharpston v Council and Conference of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States (Action for annulment — Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union — Declaration by the Conference of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States on the consequences of the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union for the Advocates General of the Court of Justice — Act not open to challenge — Inadmissibility)

50

2020/C 433/65

Case T-184/20: Order of the General Court of 6 October 2020 — Sharpston v Court of Justice of the European Union (Action for annulment — Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union — Letter from the President of the Court of Justice inviting the Member States to provide for the appointment of an Advocate General — Act not open to challenge — Inadmissibility)

51

2020/C 433/66

Case T-550/20: Order of the General Court of 6 October 2020 — Sharpston v Council and Representatives of the Governments of the Member States (Action for annulment — Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union — Decision of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States to appoint an Advocate General to the Court of Justice — Act not open to challenge — Manifest inadmissibility)

51

2020/C 433/67

Case T-575/20: Action brought on 11 September 2020 — OD v Commission

52

2020/C 433/68

Case T-576/20: Action brought on 17 September 2020 — Evropská vodní doprava-sped. and Others v Parliament and Council

53

2020/C 433/69

Case T-586/20: Action brought on 24 September 2020 — MN v Europol

55

2020/C 433/70

Case T-587/20: Action brought on 24 September 2020 — MO v Council

55

2020/C 433/71

Case T-608/20: Action brought on 29 September 2020 — JD v EIB

56

2020/C 433/72

Case T-614/20: Action brought on 1 October 2020 — Casino, Guichard-Perrachon v Commission

58

2020/C 433/73

Case T-618/20: Action brought on 5 October 2020 — FZ and Others v Commission

59

2020/C 433/74

Case T-619/20: Action brought on 5 October 2020 — FJ and Others v EEAS

60

2020/C 433/75

Case T-625/20: Action brought on 5 October 2020 — Les Mousquetaires and ITM Entreprises v Commission

60

2020/C 433/76

Case T-629/20: Action brought on 15 October 2020 — Delifruit v Commission

61

2020/C 433/77

Case T-638/20: Action brought on 15 October 2020 — JP v Commission

62

2020/C 433/78

Case T-639/20: Action brought on 22 October 2020 — TIB Chemicals v Commission

62

2020/C 433/79

Case T-646/20: Action brought on 23 October 2020 — NG and Others v Parliament and Council

64

2020/C 433/80

Case T-649/20: Action brought on 27 October 2020 — Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking v NG

65

2020/C 433/81

Case T-653/20: Action brought on 28 October 2020 — Mylan Ireland v EMA

65

2020/C 433/82

Case T-657/20: Action brought on 30 October 2020 — Ryanair v Commission

66

2020/C 433/83

Case T-658/20: Action brought on 2 November 2020 — Jakober v EUIPO (Shape of a cup)

67

2020/C 433/84

Case T-298/18: Order of the General Court of 30 September 2020 — Banco Comercial Português and Others v Commission

67

2020/C 433/85

Case T-694/18: Order of the General Court of 30 September 2020 — DEI v Commission

68

---

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/1

---

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

(2020/C 433/01)

Last publication

OJ C 423, 7.12.2020

Past publications

OJ C 414, 30.11.2020

OJ C 399, 23.11.2020

OJ C 390, 16.11.2020

OJ C 378, 9.11.2020

OJ C 371, 3.11.2020

OJ C 359, 26.10.2020

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Investigatory Powers Tribunal — London — United Kingdom) — Privacy International v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Secretary of State for the Home Department, Government Communications Headquarters, Security Service, Secret Intelligence Service

(Case C-623/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Processing of personal data in the electronic communications sector - Providers of electronic communications services - General and indiscriminate transmission of traffic data and location data - Safeguarding of national security - Directive 2002/58/EC - Scope - Article 1(3) and Article 3 - Confidentiality of electronic communications - Protection - Article 5 and Article 15(1) - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Articles 7, 8 and 11 and Article 52(1) - Article 4(2) TEU)

(2020/C 433/02)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Investigatory Powers Tribunal — London

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Privacy International

Defendants: Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Secretary of State for the Home Department, Government Communications Headquarters, Security Service, Secret Intelligence Service

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 1(3), Article 3 and Article 15(1) of 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), as amended by Directive 2009/136/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009, read in the light of Article 4(2) TEU, must be interpreted as meaning that national legislation enabling a State authority to require providers of electronic communications services to forward traffic data and location data to the security and intelligence agencies for the purpose of safeguarding national security falls within the scope of that directive. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 1(3), Article 3 and Article 15(1) of 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), as amended by Directive 2009/136/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009, read in the light of Article 4(2) TEU, must be interpreted as meaning that national legislation enabling a State authority to require providers of electronic communications services to forward traffic data and location data to the security and intelligence agencies for the purpose of safeguarding national security falls within the scope of that directive.

| 2. | Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58, as amended by Directive 2009/136, read in the light of Article 4(2) TEU and Articles 7, 8 and 11 and Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation enabling a State authority to require providers of electronic communications services to carry out the general and indiscriminate transmission of traffic data and location data to the security and intelligence agencies for the purpose of safeguarding national security. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58, as amended by Directive 2009/136, read in the light of Article 4(2) TEU and Articles 7, 8 and 11 and Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation enabling a State authority to require providers of electronic communications services to carry out the general and indiscriminate transmission of traffic data and location data to the security and intelligence agencies for the purpose of safeguarding national security.

---

(1)  OJ C 22, 22.1.2018.

---

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 October 2020 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État, Constitutional Court — Belgium, France) — La Quadrature du Net (C-511/18 and C-512/18), French Data Network (C-511/18 and C-512/18), Fédération des fournisseurs d’accès à Internet associatifs (C-511/18 and C-512/18), Igwan.net (C-511/18) v Premier ministre (C-511/18 and C-512/18), Garde des Sceaux, ministre de la Justice (C-511/18 and C-512/18), Ministre de l’Intérieur (C-511/18), Ministre des Armées (C-511/18), Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone, Académie Fiscale ASBL, UA, Liga voor Mensenrechten ASBL, Ligue des Droits de l’Homme ASBL, VZ, WY, XX v Conseil des ministres

(Joined Cases C-511/18, C-512/18 and C-520/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Processing of personal data in the electronic communications sector - Providers of electronic communications services - Hosting service providers and Internet access providers - General and indiscriminate retention of traffic and location data - Automated analysis of data - Real-time access to data - Safeguarding national security and combating terrorism - Combating crime - Directive 2002/58/EC - Scope - Article 1(3) and Article 3 - Confidentiality of electronic communications - Protection - Article 5 and Article 15(1) - Directive 2000/31/EC - Scope - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Articles 4, 6, 7, 8 and 11 and Article 52(1) - Article 4(2) TEU)

(2020/C 433/03)

Language of the case: French

Referring courts

Conseil d’État, Cour constitutionnelle

Parties to the main proceedings

(Cases C-511/18 and C-512/18)

Applicants: La Quadrature du Net (C-511/18 and C-512/18), French Data Network (C-511/18 and C-512/18), Fédération des fournisseurs d’accès à Internet associatifs (C-511/18 and C-512/18), Igwan.net (C-511/18)

Defendants: Premier ministre (C-511/18 and C 512/18), Garde des Sceaux, ministre de la Justice (C-511/18 and C-512/18), Ministre de l’Intérieur (C-511/18), Ministre des Armées (C-511/18)

Interveners: Privacy International (C-512/18), Center for Democracy and Technology (C-512/18)

(Case C-520/18)

Applicants: Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone, Académie Fiscale ASBL, UA, Liga voor Mensenrechten ASBL, Ligue des Droits de l’Homme ASBL, VZ, WY, XX

Defendants: Conseil des ministres

Intervener: Child Focus (C 520/18)

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 15(1) of 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), as amended by Directive 2009/136/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009, read in the light of Articles 7, 8 and 11 and Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as precluding legislative measures which, for the purposes laid down in Article 15(1), provide, as a preventive measure, for the general and indiscriminate retention of traffic and location data. By contrast, Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58, as amended by Directive 2009/136, read in the light of Articles 7, 8 and 11 and Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, does not preclude legislative measures that:






  — | allow, for the purposes of safeguarding national security, recourse to an instruction requiring providers of electronic communications services to retain, generally and indiscriminately, traffic and location data in situations where the Member State concerned is confronted with a serious threat to national security that is shown to be genuine and present or foreseeable, where the decision imposing such an instruction is subject to effective review, either by a court or by an independent administrative body whose decision is binding, the aim of that review being to verify that one of those situations exists and that the conditions and safeguards which must be laid down are observed, and where that instruction may be given only for a period that is limited in time to what is strictly necessary, but which may be extended if that threat persists; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Article 15(1) of 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), as amended by Directive 2009/136/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009, read in the light of Articles 7, 8 and 11 and Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as precluding legislative measures which, for the purposes laid down in Article 15(1), provide, as a preventive measure, for the general and indiscriminate retention of traffic and location data. By contrast, Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58, as amended by Directive 2009/136, read in the light of Articles 7, 8 and 11 and Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, does not preclude legislative measures that:

—

allow, for the purposes of safeguarding national security, recourse to an instruction requiring providers of electronic communications services to retain, generally and indiscriminately, traffic and location data in situations where the Member State concerned is confronted with a serious threat to national security that is shown to be genuine and present or foreseeable, where the decision imposing such an instruction is subject to effective review, either by a court or by an independent administrative body whose decision is binding, the aim of that review being to verify that one of those situations exists and that the conditions and safeguards which must be laid down are observed, and where that instruction may be given only for a period that is limited in time to what is strictly necessary, but which may be extended if that threat persists;

| — | provide, for the purposes of safeguarding national security, combating serious crime and preventing serious threats to public security, for the targeted retention of traffic and location data which is limited, on the basis of objective and non-discriminatory factors, according to the categories of persons concerned or using a geographical criterion, for a period that is limited in time to what is strictly necessary, but which may be extended; |
| --- | --- |

—

provide, for the purposes of safeguarding national security, combating serious crime and preventing serious threats to public security, for the targeted retention of traffic and location data which is limited, on the basis of objective and non-discriminatory factors, according to the categories of persons concerned or using a geographical criterion, for a period that is limited in time to what is strictly necessary, but which may be extended;

| — | provide, for the purposes of safeguarding national security, combating serious crime and preventing serious threats to public security, for the general and indiscriminate retention of IP addresses assigned to the source of an Internet connection for a period that is limited in time to what is strictly necessary; |
| --- | --- |

—

provide, for the purposes of safeguarding national security, combating serious crime and preventing serious threats to public security, for the general and indiscriminate retention of IP addresses assigned to the source of an Internet connection for a period that is limited in time to what is strictly necessary;

| — | provide, for the purposes of safeguarding national security, combating crime and safeguarding public security, for the general and indiscriminate retention of data relating to the civil identity of users of electronic communications systems; |
| --- | --- |

—

provide, for the purposes of safeguarding national security, combating crime and safeguarding public security, for the general and indiscriminate retention of data relating to the civil identity of users of electronic communications systems;

| — | allow, for the purposes of combating serious crime and, a fortiori, safeguarding national security, recourse to an instruction requiring providers of electronic communications services, by means of a decision of the competent authority that is subject to effective judicial review, to undertake, for a specified period of time, the expedited retention of traffic and location data in the possession of those service providers, |
| --- | --- |

—

allow, for the purposes of combating serious crime and, a fortiori, safeguarding national security, recourse to an instruction requiring providers of electronic communications services, by means of a decision of the competent authority that is subject to effective judicial review, to undertake, for a specified period of time, the expedited retention of traffic and location data in the possession of those service providers,

provided that those measures ensure, by means of clear and precise rules, that the retention of data at issue is subject to compliance with the applicable substantive and procedural conditions and that the persons concerned have effective safeguards against the risks of abuse.

| 2. | Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58, as amended by Directive 2009/136, read in the light of Articles 7, 8 and 11 and Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, must be interpreted as not precluding national rules which requires providers of electronic communications services to have recourse, first, to the automated analysis and real-time collection, inter alia, of traffic and location data and, second, to the real-time collection of technical data concerning the location of the terminal equipment used, where:






  — | recourse to automated analysis is limited to situations in which a Member State is facing a serious threat to national security which is shown to be genuine and present or foreseeable, and where recourse to such analysis may be the subject of an effective review, either by a court or by an independent administrative body whose decision is binding, the aim of that review being to verify that a situation justifying that measure exists and that the conditions and safeguards that must be laid down are observed; and where |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58, as amended by Directive 2009/136, read in the light of Articles 7, 8 and 11 and Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, must be interpreted as not precluding national rules which requires providers of electronic communications services to have recourse, first, to the automated analysis and real-time collection, inter alia, of traffic and location data and, second, to the real-time collection of technical data concerning the location of the terminal equipment used, where:

—

recourse to automated analysis is limited to situations in which a Member State is facing a serious threat to national security which is shown to be genuine and present or foreseeable, and where recourse to such analysis may be the subject of an effective review, either by a court or by an independent administrative body whose decision is binding, the aim of that review being to verify that a situation justifying that measure exists and that the conditions and safeguards that must be laid down are observed; and where

| — | recourse to the real-time collection of traffic and location data is limited to persons in respect of whom there is a valid reason to suspect that they are involved in one way or another in terrorist activities and is subject to a prior review carried out either by a court or by an independent administrative body whose decision is binding in order to ensure that such real-time collection is authorised only within the limits of what is strictly necessary. In cases of duly justified urgency, the review must take place within a short time. |
| --- | --- |

—

recourse to the real-time collection of traffic and location data is limited to persons in respect of whom there is a valid reason to suspect that they are involved in one way or another in terrorist activities and is subject to a prior review carried out either by a court or by an independent administrative body whose decision is binding in order to ensure that such real-time collection is authorised only within the limits of what is strictly necessary. In cases of duly justified urgency, the review must take place within a short time.

| 3. | Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’), must be interpreted as not being applicable in the field of the protection of the confidentiality of communications and of natural persons as regards the processing of personal data in the context of information society services, such protection being governed by Directive 2002/58, as amended by Directive 2009/136, or by 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, as appropriate. Article 23(1) of Regulation 2016/679, read in the light of Articles 7, 8 and 11 and Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which requires that providers of access to online public communication services and hosting service providers retain, generally and indiscriminately, inter alia, personal data relating to those services; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’), must be interpreted as not being applicable in the field of the protection of the confidentiality of communications and of natural persons as regards the processing of personal data in the context of information society services, such protection being governed by Directive 2002/58, as amended by Directive 2009/136, or by 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, as appropriate. Article 23(1) of Regulation 2016/679, read in the light of Articles 7, 8 and 11 and Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which requires that providers of access to online public communication services and hosting service providers retain, generally and indiscriminately, inter alia, personal data relating to those services;

| 4. | A national court may not apply a provision of national law empowering it to limit the temporal effects of a declaration of illegality, which it is bound to make under that law, in respect of national legislation imposing on providers of electronic communications services — with a view to, inter alia, safeguarding national security and combating crime — an obligation requiring the general and indiscriminate retention of traffic and location data that is incompatible with Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58, as amended by Directive 2009/136, read in the light of Articles 7, 8 and 11 and Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Article 15(1), interpreted in the light of the principle of effectiveness, requires national criminal courts to disregard information and evidence obtained by means of the general and indiscriminate retention of traffic and location data in breach of EU law, in the context of criminal proceedings against persons suspected of having committed criminal offences, where those persons are not in a position to comment effectively on that information and that evidence and they pertain to a field of which the judges have no knowledge and are likely to have a preponderant influence on the findings of fact. |
| --- | --- |

4.

A national court may not apply a provision of national law empowering it to limit the temporal effects of a declaration of illegality, which it is bound to make under that law, in respect of national legislation imposing on providers of electronic communications services — with a view to, inter alia, safeguarding national security and combating crime — an obligation requiring the general and indiscriminate retention of traffic and location data that is incompatible with Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58, as amended by Directive 2009/136, read in the light of Articles 7, 8 and 11 and Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Article 15(1), interpreted in the light of the principle of effectiveness, requires national criminal courts to disregard information and evidence obtained by means of the general and indiscriminate retention of traffic and location data in breach of EU law, in the context of criminal proceedings against persons suspected of having committed criminal offences, where those persons are not in a position to comment effectively on that information and that evidence and they pertain to a field of which the judges have no knowledge and are likely to have a preponderant influence on the findings of fact.

---

(1)  OJ C 392, 29.10.2018.

OJ C 408, 12.11.2018.

---

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Pegaso Srl Servizi Fiduciari, Sistemi di Sicurezza Srl, YW v Poste Tutela SpA

(Case C-521/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Procurement in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors - Directive 2014/25/EU - Article 13 - Activities relating to the provision of postal services - Contracting entities - Public undertakings - Admissibility)

(2020/C 433/04)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Pegaso Srl Servizi Fiduciari, Sistemi di Sicurezza Srl, YW

Defendant: Poste Tutela SpA

Interveners: Poste Italiane SpA, Services Group

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13(1) of Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on procurement by entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors and repealing Directive 2004/17/EC must be interpreted as applying to activities consisting in the provision of caretaking, reception and access control services for the premises of postal services providers, where such activities are connected with the activity falling within the postal sector, in the sense that such activities actually serve to carry out that activity by enabling it to be carried out adequately, having regard to the normal conditions under which it is carried out.

---

(1)  OJ C 436, 3.12.2018.

---

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 October 2020 — Pirelli & C. SpA v European Commission, Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi Srl

(Case C-611/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for power cables - Market allocation in connection with projects - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 23(2) - Powers of the European Commission in the area of fines - Imputability of the infringement - Presumption of actual exercise of decisive influence - Obligation to state reasons - Fundamental rights - Beneficium ordinis seu excussionis - Unlimited jurisdiction)

(2020/C 433/05)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Pirelli & C. SpA (represented by: M. Siragusa and G. Rizza, avvocati)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Malferrari, P. Rossi, C. Sjödin and T. Vecchi, acting as Agents), Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi Srl (represented initially by C. Tesauro and L. Armati, avvocati, subsequently by V. Roppo and P. Canepa, avvocati)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Pirelli & C. SpA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Pirelli & C. SpA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi Srl to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi Srl to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 408, 12.11.2018.

---

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 October 2020 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Ferrari SpA v DU

(Joined Cases C-720/18 and C–721/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Trade marks - Directive 2008/95/EC - Article 12(1) - Genuine use of trade mark - Burden of proof - Article 13 - Proof of use ‘in respect of some of the goods or services’ - Trade mark covering a car model the production of which has stopped - Use of the trade mark in respect of replacement parts as well as for services relating to that model - Use of the trade mark for used vehicles - Article 351 TFEU - Convention between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Swiss Confederation - Reciprocal protection of patents, designs and trade marks)

(2020/C 433/06)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ferrari SpA

Defendant: DU

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 12(1) and Article 13 of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that a trade mark registered in respect of a category of goods and replacement parts thereof must be regarded as having been put to ‘genuine use’ within the meaning of Article 12(1), in connection with all the goods in that category and the replacement parts thereof, if it has been so used only in respect of some of those goods, such as high-priced luxury sports cars, or only in respect of replacement parts or accessories of some of those goods, unless it is apparent from the relevant facts and evidence that a consumer who wishes to purchase those goods will perceive them as an independent subcategory of the category of goods in respect of which the mark concerned was registered; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 12(1) and Article 13 of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that a trade mark registered in respect of a category of goods and replacement parts thereof must be regarded as having been put to ‘genuine use’ within the meaning of Article 12(1), in connection with all the goods in that category and the replacement parts thereof, if it has been so used only in respect of some of those goods, such as high-priced luxury sports cars, or only in respect of replacement parts or accessories of some of those goods, unless it is apparent from the relevant facts and evidence that a consumer who wishes to purchase those goods will perceive them as an independent subcategory of the category of goods in respect of which the mark concerned was registered;

| 2. | Article 12(1) of Directive 2008/95 must be interpreted as meaning that a trade mark is capable of being put to genuine use by its proprietor when that proprietor resells second-hand goods put on the market under that mark; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 12(1) of Directive 2008/95 must be interpreted as meaning that a trade mark is capable of being put to genuine use by its proprietor when that proprietor resells second-hand goods put on the market under that mark;

| 3. | Article 12(1) of Directive 2008/95 must be interpreted as meaning that a trade mark is put to genuine use by its proprietor where that proprietor provides certain services connected with the goods previously sold under that mark, on condition that those services are provided under that mark; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 12(1) of Directive 2008/95 must be interpreted as meaning that a trade mark is put to genuine use by its proprietor where that proprietor provides certain services connected with the goods previously sold under that mark, on condition that those services are provided under that mark;

| 4. | The first paragraph of Article 351 TFEU must be interpreted as allowing a court of a Member State to apply a convention concluded between a Member State of the European Union and a non-member State before 1 January 1958 or, for States acceding to the European Union, before the date of their accession, such as the Convention between Switzerland and Germany concerning the Reciprocal Protection of Patents, Designs and Trademarks, signed in Berlin on 13 April 1892, as amended, which provides that the use of a trade mark registered in that Member State in the territory of the non-member State must be taken into consideration in order to determine whether that mark has been put to ‘genuine use’ within the meaning of Article 12(1) of Directive 2008/95, until such time as one of the steps referred to in the second paragraph of Article 351 TFEU makes it possible to eliminate any incompatibilities between the TFEU and that convention; |
| --- | --- |

4.

The first paragraph of Article 351 TFEU must be interpreted as allowing a court of a Member State to apply a convention concluded between a Member State of the European Union and a non-member State before 1 January 1958 or, for States acceding to the European Union, before the date of their accession, such as the Convention between Switzerland and Germany concerning the Reciprocal Protection of Patents, Designs and Trademarks, signed in Berlin on 13 April 1892, as amended, which provides that the use of a trade mark registered in that Member State in the territory of the non-member State must be taken into consideration in order to determine whether that mark has been put to ‘genuine use’ within the meaning of Article 12(1) of Directive 2008/95, until such time as one of the steps referred to in the second paragraph of Article 351 TFEU makes it possible to eliminate any incompatibilities between the TFEU and that convention;

| 5. | Article 12(1) of Directive 2008/95 must be interpreted as meaning that the burden of proof that a trade mark has been put to ‘genuine use’, within the meaning of that provision, rests on the proprietor of that mark. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Article 12(1) of Directive 2008/95 must be interpreted as meaning that the burden of proof that a trade mark has been put to ‘genuine use’, within the meaning of that provision, rests on the proprietor of that mark.

---

(1)  OJ C 54, 11.2.2019.

---

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 28 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Aachen — Germany) — Marvin M. v Kreis Heinsberg

(Case C-112/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2006/126/EC - Article 2(1) and Article 11(4) - Driving licence - Mutual recognition - Extent of the obligation to recognise - Driving licence having been the subject of an exchange - Exchange made at a time when the right to drive had been withdrawn by the issuing Member State - Fraud - Refusal to recognise the driving licence issued in the context of the exchange)

(2020/C 433/07)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Aachen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Marvin M.

Defendant: Kreis Heinsberg

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 2(1) of Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences must be interpreted as meaning that mutual recognition, without any formality, which it lays down, is applicable to a driving licence issued following an exchange under Article 11(1) of that directive, subject to the exceptions provided for by that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 2(1) of Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences must be interpreted as meaning that mutual recognition, without any formality, which it lays down, is applicable to a driving licence issued following an exchange under Article 11(1) of that directive, subject to the exceptions provided for by that directive;

| 2. | The second subparagraph of Article 11(4) of Directive 2006/126 must be interpreted as meaning that it allows a Member State to refuse to recognise a driving licence which was the subject of an exchange pursuant to Article 11(1) of that directive, on the ground that that Member State had, prior to that exchange, withdrawn the authorisation to drive from the holder of that driving licence. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The second subparagraph of Article 11(4) of Directive 2006/126 must be interpreted as meaning that it allows a Member State to refuse to recognise a driving licence which was the subject of an exchange pursuant to Article 11(1) of that directive, on the ground that that Member State had, prior to that exchange, withdrawn the authorisation to drive from the holder of that driving licence.

---

(1)  OJ C 172, 20.5.2019.

---

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) — Latvia) — A v Veselības ministrija

(Case C-243/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Article 20(2) - Directive 2011/24/EU - Article 8(1), (5) and (6)(d) - Health insurance - Hospital care provided in a Member State other than the Member State of affiliation - Refusal of prior authorisation - Hospital treatment which can be provided effectively in the Member State of affiliation - Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Difference in treatment based on religion)

(2020/C 433/08)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa (Senāts)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: A

Defendant: Veselības ministrija

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 20(2) 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, read in the light of Article 21(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as not precluding the insured person’s Member State of residence from refusing to grant that person the authorisation provided for in Article 20(1) of that regulation, where hospital care, the medical effectiveness of which is not contested, is available in that Member State, although the method of treatment used is contrary to that person’s religious beliefs; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 20(2) 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, read in the light of Article 21(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as not precluding the insured person’s Member State of residence from refusing to grant that person the authorisation provided for in Article 20(1) of that regulation, where hospital care, the medical effectiveness of which is not contested, is available in that Member State, although the method of treatment used is contrary to that person’s religious beliefs;

| 2. | Article 8(5) and (6)(d) of Directive 2011/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011 on the application of patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare, read in the light of Article 21(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as precluding a patient’s Member State of affiliation from refusing to grant that patient the authorisation provided for in Article 8(1) of that directive, where hospital care, the medical effectiveness of which is not contested, is available in that Member State, although the method of treatment used is contrary to that patient’s religious beliefs, unless that refusal is objectively justified by a legitimate aim relating to maintaining treatment capacity or medical competence, and is an appropriate and necessary means of achieving that aim, which it is for the referring court to determine. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 8(5) and (6)(d) of Directive 2011/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011 on the application of patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare, read in the light of Article 21(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as precluding a patient’s Member State of affiliation from refusing to grant that patient the authorisation provided for in Article 8(1) of that directive, where hospital care, the medical effectiveness of which is not contested, is available in that Member State, although the method of treatment used is contrary to that patient’s religious beliefs, unless that refusal is objectively justified by a legitimate aim relating to maintaining treatment capacity or medical competence, and is an appropriate and necessary means of achieving that aim, which it is for the referring court to determine.

---

(1)  OJ C 182, 27.5.2019.

---

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 22 October 2020 — Ethniko Kentro Erevnas kai Technologikis Anaptyxis (EKETA) v European Commission

(Case C-273/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Arbitration clause - Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 - Article 52 - Regulation (EC) No 2321/2002 - Decision No 1513/2002/EC - Grant agreement - Sensation project - Sixth framework programme - Eligible costs - Conflict of interests - Burden of proof - Time sheets - Audit report - Probative value - Principle of good financial management - Principle of proportionality)

(2020/C 433/09)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Ethniko Kentro Erevnas kai Technologikis Anaptyxis (EKETA) (represented by: V. Christianos and D. Karagkounis, dikigoroi)

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

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Ethniko Kentro Erevnas kai Technologikis Anaptyxis (EKETA) to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ethniko Kentro Erevnas kai Technologikis Anaptyxis (EKETA) to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 182, 27.5.2019.

---

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 22 October 2020 — Ethniko Kentro Erevnas kai Technologikis Anaptyxis (EKETA) v European Commission

(Case C-274/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Arbitration clause - Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 - Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 - Regulation (EC) No 1906/2006 - Actibio grant agreement - Actibio project - Seventh framework programme - Eligible costs - Conflict of interests - Burden of proof - Time sheets - Audit report - Probative value - Principle of proportionality)

(2020/C 433/10)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Ethniko Kentro Erevnas kai Technologikis Anaptyxis (EKETA) (represented by: V. Christianos, dikigoros)

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

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Ethniko Kentro Erevnas kai Technologikis Anaptyxis (EKETA) to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ethniko Kentro Erevnas kai Technologikis Anaptyxis (EKETA) to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 182, 27.5.2019.

---

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 22 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça — Portugal) — Sportingbet PLC, Internet Opportunity Entertainment Ltd v Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa

(Case C-275/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services - Notion of ‘technical regulation’ - Obligation on Member States to notify the European Commission of all draft technical regulations - Technical regulations which have not been notified cannot be enforced against individuals - Inapplicability to service providers)

(2020/C 433/11)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal de Justiça

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Sportingbet PLC, Internet Opportunity Entertainment Ltd

Defendant: Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa

Intervening parties: Sporting Clube de Braga, Sporting Clube de Braga — Futebol SAD

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 1(5) of Council Directive 83/189/EEC of 28 March 1983 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations, as amended by Council Directive 88/182/EEC of 22 March 1988, must be interpreted as meaning that national legislation which provides that the right to operate games of chance is reserved to the State and may be exercised only by undertakings that are established as public limited companies, to which the Member State concerned awards the corresponding concession, and which lays down the conditions and the zones for exercising that activity does not amount to a ‘technical regulation’ within the meaning of that provision; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 1(5) of Council Directive 83/189/EEC of 28 March 1983 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations, as amended by Council Directive 88/182/EEC of 22 March 1988, must be interpreted as meaning that national legislation which provides that the right to operate games of chance is reserved to the State and may be exercised only by undertakings that are established as public limited companies, to which the Member State concerned awards the corresponding concession, and which lays down the conditions and the zones for exercising that activity does not amount to a ‘technical regulation’ within the meaning of that provision;

| 2. | Article 1(11) of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services, as amended by Directive 98/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 July 1998, read in conjunction with Article 1(5) of that directive, as amended, must be interpreted as meaning that national legislation which provides that the exclusive right to operate certain games of chance awarded to a public entity for the entire national territory is to include such operations on the internet constitutes a ‘technical regulation’ within the meaning of the first of those provisions, and the failure to communicate that regulation to the European Commission, in accordance with Article 8(1) of that directive, as amended, makes that legislation unenforceable against individuals. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 1(11) of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services, as amended by Directive 98/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 July 1998, read in conjunction with Article 1(5) of that directive, as amended, must be interpreted as meaning that national legislation which provides that the exclusive right to operate certain games of chance awarded to a public entity for the entire national territory is to include such operations on the internet constitutes a ‘technical regulation’ within the meaning of the first of those provisions, and the failure to communicate that regulation to the European Commission, in accordance with Article 8(1) of that directive, as amended, makes that legislation unenforceable against individuals.

---

(1)  OJ C 206, 17.6.2019.

---

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/12

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 October 2020 — Associazione Nazionale GranoSalus — Liberi Cerealicoltori & Consumatori (Associazione GranoSalus) v European Commission

(Case C-313/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Placing of plant protection products on the market - Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 - Renewal of the approval of the active substance glyphosate - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2324 - Action for annulment brought by an association - Admissibility - Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU - Regulatory act not entailing implementing measures - Person directly concerned)

(2020/C 433/12)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Associazione Nazionale GranoSalus — Liberi Cerealicoltori & Consumatori (Associazione GranoSalus) (represented by: G. Dalfino, avvocato)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, D. Bianchi and I. Naglis, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Associazione Nazionale GranoSalus — Liberi Cerealicoltori & Consumatori to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Associazione Nazionale GranoSalus — Liberi Cerealicoltori & Consumatori to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 270, 12.8.2019.

---

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/12

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen — Germany) — BY, CZ v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-321/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 1999/62/EC - Directive 2006/38/EC - Charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures - Article 7(9) - Article 7a(1) and (2) - Tolls - Principle of the recovery of infrastructure costs - Infrastructure costs - Operating costs - Costs related to traffic police - Cost overrun - Direct effect - Ex post justification of an excessive toll rate - Limitation of the temporal effects of the judgment)

(2020/C 433/13)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: BY, CZ

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 7(9) of Directive 1999/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 1999 on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures, as amended by Directive 2006/38/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006, must be interpreted as meaning that costs related to traffic police do not fall within the concept of ‘costs of operating’ within the meaning of that provision. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 7(9) of Directive 1999/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 1999 on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures, as amended by Directive 2006/38/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006, must be interpreted as meaning that costs related to traffic police do not fall within the concept of ‘costs of operating’ within the meaning of that provision.

| 2. | Article 7(9) of Directive 1999/62, as amended by Directive 2006/38, must be interpreted as precluding the weighted average tolls from exceeding the infrastructure costs of the infrastructure network concerned by 3,8 % or by 6 % as a result of what are not insignificant calculation errors or because costs that do not fall within the concept of ‘infrastructure costs’ within the meaning of that provision have been taken into account. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 7(9) of Directive 1999/62, as amended by Directive 2006/38, must be interpreted as precluding the weighted average tolls from exceeding the infrastructure costs of the infrastructure network concerned by 3,8 % or by 6 % as a result of what are not insignificant calculation errors or because costs that do not fall within the concept of ‘infrastructure costs’ within the meaning of that provision have been taken into account.

| 3. | An individual may directly rely, before national courts, on the obligation to take into account only the infrastructure costs referred to in Article 7(9) of Directive 1999/62, as amended by Directive 2006/38, that is imposed by that provision and by Article 7a(1) and (2) thereof, against a Member State where that Member State has failed to comply with that obligation or has failed to transpose it correctly. |
| --- | --- |

3.

An individual may directly rely, before national courts, on the obligation to take into account only the infrastructure costs referred to in Article 7(9) of Directive 1999/62, as amended by Directive 2006/38, that is imposed by that provision and by Article 7a(1) and (2) thereof, against a Member State where that Member State has failed to comply with that obligation or has failed to transpose it correctly.

| 4. | Directive 1999/62, as amended by Directive 2006/38, read in the light of paragraph 138 of the judgment of 26 September 2000, Commission v Austria (C-205/98, EU:C:2000:493), must be interpreted as precluding an excessive toll rate from being justified ex post by a new calculation of the infrastructure costs that is produced in the context of judicial proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Directive 1999/62, as amended by Directive 2006/38, read in the light of paragraph 138 of the judgment of 26 September 2000, Commission v Austria (C-205/98, EU:C:2000:493), must be interpreted as precluding an excessive toll rate from being justified ex post by a new calculation of the infrastructure costs that is produced in the context of judicial proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 220, 1.7.2019.

---

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 29 October 2020 — Intercept Pharma Ltd, Intercept Pharmaceuticals Inc. v European Medicines Agency

(Case C-576/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Access to documents of the institutions, bodies, offices or agencies of the European Union - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Second indent of Article 4(2) - Exception relating to the protection of court proceedings - First indent of Article 4(2) - Exception relating to the protection of commercial interests - Documents submitted in the context of a marketing authorisation application for a medicinal product for human use - Decision to grant a third party access to the documents)

(2020/C 433/14)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Intercept Pharma Ltd, Intercept Pharmaceuticals Inc. (represented by: L. Tsang, Solicitor and F. Campbell, Barrister and by J. Mulryne and E. Amos, Solicitors)

Other party to the proceedings: European Medicines Agency (represented by: T. Jabłoński, S. Drosos, R. Pita, S. Marino and H. Kerr, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Intercept Pharma Ltd and Intercept Pharmaceuticals Inc. to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Intercept Pharma Ltd and Intercept Pharmaceuticals Inc. to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Medicines Agency (EMA).

---

(1)  OJ C 432, 23.12.2019.

---

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 28 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Istituto nazionale per l’assicurazione contro gli infortuni sul lavoro (INAIL) v Zennaro Giuseppe Legnami Sas di Zennaro Mauro & C.

(Case C-608/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - State aid - Regulation (EU) No 1407/2013 - Article 3 - De minimis aid - Article 6 - Monitoring - Undertakings exceeding the de minimis ceiling because of cumulation with aid obtained previously - Option of choosing between reduction and forgoing previous aid so as to comply with the de minimis ceiling)

(2020/C 433/15)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Istituto nazionale per l’assicurazione contro gli infortuni sul lavoro (INAIL)

Defendant: Zennaro Giuseppe Legnami Sas di Zennaro Mauro & C.

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Articles 3 and 6 of Commission Regulation (EU) No 1407/2013 of 18 December 2013 on the application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to de minimis aid must be interpreted as meaning that an undertaking, the Member State of establishment of which intends to grant it de minimis aid that, because of existing previous aid, would raise the total amount of aid granted to that undertaking to a level above the EUR 200 000 ceiling over a period of three fiscal years laid down in Article 3(2) of Regulation No 1407/2013, may opt, until such aid is granted, to reduce the funding required or to forgo, in full or in part, previous financial assistance already received, so as not to exceed that ceiling. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Articles 3 and 6 of Commission Regulation (EU) No 1407/2013 of 18 December 2013 on the application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to de minimis aid must be interpreted as meaning that an undertaking, the Member State of establishment of which intends to grant it de minimis aid that, because of existing previous aid, would raise the total amount of aid granted to that undertaking to a level above the EUR 200 000 ceiling over a period of three fiscal years laid down in Article 3(2) of Regulation No 1407/2013, may opt, until such aid is granted, to reduce the funding required or to forgo, in full or in part, previous financial assistance already received, so as not to exceed that ceiling.

| 2. | Articles 3 and 6 of Regulation No 1407/2013 must be interpreted as meaning that Member States are not required to allow applicant undertakings to amend their applications for aid before such aid is granted, so as not to exceed the EUR 200 000 ceiling over a period of three fiscal years laid down by Article 3(2) of Regulation No 1407/2013. It is for the referring court to assess the legal consequences of the fact that undertakings do not have the option of making such changes, it being understood that they may be made only at a date prior to that on which the de minimis aid is granted. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Articles 3 and 6 of Regulation No 1407/2013 must be interpreted as meaning that Member States are not required to allow applicant undertakings to amend their applications for aid before such aid is granted, so as not to exceed the EUR 200 000 ceiling over a period of three fiscal years laid down by Article 3(2) of Regulation No 1407/2013. It is for the referring court to assess the legal consequences of the fact that undertakings do not have the option of making such changes, it being understood that they may be made only at a date prior to that on which the de minimis aid is granted.

---

(1)  OJ C 357, 21.10.2019.

---

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Svea hovrätt — Patent- och marknadsöverdomstolen — Sweden) — BY v CX

(Case C-637/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Copyright and related rights - Directive 2001/29/EC - Information society - Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights - Article 3(1) - Communication to the public - Notion of ‘public’ - Transmission by electronic means to a court of a protected work as evidence in court proceedings)

(2020/C 433/16)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Svea hovrätt — Patent- och marknadsöverdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: BY

Defendant: CX

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘communication to the public’, referred to in that provision, does not cover the transmission by electronic means of a protected work to a court, as evidence in judicial proceedings between individuals.

---

(1)  OJ C 372, 4.11.2019.

---

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/15

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 22 October 2020 — Silver Plastics GmbH & Co. KG, Johannes Reifenhäuser Holding GmbH & Co. KG v European Commission

(Case C-702/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Retail food packaging market - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 23 - Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights - Fundamental right to a fair trial - Principle of equality of arms - Right ‘to an examination in person’ - Hearing of witnesses - Statement of reasons - Single and continuous infringement - Upper limit of fine)

(2020/C 433/17)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellants: Silver Plastics GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: M. Wirtz and S. Möller, Rechtsanwälte), Johannes Reifenhäuser Holding GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: C. Karbaum, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: G. Meessen, I. Zaloguin and L. Wildpanner, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Silver Plastics GmbH & Co. KG and Johannes Reifenhäuser Holding GmbH & Co. KG to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Silver Plastics GmbH & Co. KG and Johannes Reifenhäuser Holding GmbH & Co. KG to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 383, 11.11.2019.

---

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/15

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy v Gorzowie Wielkopolskim (Poland) lodged on 3 October 2018 — Prokuratura Rejonowa w Słubicach v BQ

(Case C-623/18)

(2020/C 433/18)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy v Gorzowie Wielkopolskim

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Prokuratura Rejonowa w Słubicach

Defendant: BQ

By order of 6 October 2020, the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) ruled that the request for a preliminary ruling is manifestly inadmissible.

---

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/16

---

Appeal brought on 4 August 2020 by YG against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 28 May 2020 in Case T-518/18, YG v Commission

(Case C-361/20 P)

(2020/C 433/19)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: YG (represented by: A. Champetier, avocate, S. Rodrigues, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside, in part, the contested judgment and declare the appellant’s requests in Case T-518/18 admissible and well-founded, confirming the payment of the costs by the defendant; and consequently |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside, in part, the contested judgment and declare the appellant’s requests in Case T-518/18 admissible and well-founded, confirming the payment of the costs by the defendant; and consequently

| — | annul the contested decisions in the first instance;
  or, if this is not possible, |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decisions in the first instance;

or, if this is not possible,

| — | refer the case back to the General Court for judgement. |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back to the General Court for judgement.

Pleas in law and main arguments

| 1. | Distortion of evidence and breach of the rights of the defence. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Distortion of evidence and breach of the rights of the defence.

| 2. | Insufficient and contradictory reasoning. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Insufficient and contradictory reasoning.

---

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/16

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzgericht (Austria) lodged on 6 August 2020 — QY v Finanzamt Wien für den 8., 16. und 17. Bezirk

(Case C-372/20)

(2020/C 433/20)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: QY

Defendant: Finanzamt Wien für den 8., 16. und 17. Bezirk

Questions referred

Question 1:

Is Article 11(3)(e) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 (1) to be interpreted as covering a situation in which a female worker who is a national of a Member State in which she and her children also reside enters into an employment relationship as a development aid worker with an employer established in another Member State, and that employment relationship is subject to the compulsory insurance scheme under the legislation of the State of establishment, and she is posted by the employer to a third country not immediately after being employed but after completing a preparatory period and returning to the State of establishment for reintegration periods?

Question 2:

Does a legal provision of a Member State such as Paragraph 53(1) of the Familienlastenausgleichsgesetz (Law on compensation for family expenses) (FLAG), which, inter alia, makes independent provision for equal status with nationals, infringe the prohibition on the transposition of regulations within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 288 TFEU?

Questions 3 and 4 relate to the case where the applicant’s situation falls within Article 11(3)(e) of Regulation No 883/2004 and where EU law requires only the Member State of residence to provide family benefits.

Question 3:

Is the prohibition of discrimination based on nationality enshrined for employees in Article 45(2) TFEU and, on a subsidiary basis, in Article 18 TFEU to be interpreted as meaning that it is incompatible with a national provision such as Paragraph 13(1) of the Entwicklungshelfergesetz (Law on development aid workers (EHG)) in the version applicable until 31 December 2018 (‘old version’), which connects entitlement to family benefits in the Member State not responsible under EU law with the fact that the development aid worker must have had his centre of interests or habitual residence in the territory of the Member State of establishment before commencing employment, whereby that requirement must also be met by nationals?

Question 4:

Are Article 68(3) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 and Article 60(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing social security systems to be interpreted as meaning that the institution of the Member State which was presumed by the applicant to be the State of employment with primary responsibility and to which the application for family benefits was submitted, but whose legislation is applicable on neither a primary nor secondary basis, but in which there is an entitlement to family benefits under an alternative rule of the law of the Member State, must apply by analogy the provisions relating to the obligation to forward the application, to inform the person concerned, to take a provisional decision on the priority rules to be applied and to provide provisional cash benefits?

Question 5:

Is the obligation to take a provisional decision on the priority rules to be applied incumbent solely on the respondent authority, as the institution, or also on the administrative court seised on appeal?

Question 6:

At what point in time is the administrative court obliged to take a provisional decision on the priority rules to be applied?

Question 7 relates to the case where the applicant’s situation falls within Article 11(3)(a) of Regulation No 883/2004 and EU law requires the Member State of employment and the Member State of residence to provide family benefits jointly.

Question 7:

Are the words ‘th[e] institution shall forward the application’ in Article 68(3)(a) of Regulation No 883/2004 and in Article 60 of Regulation No 987/2009 to be interpreted as meaning that those provisions link the institution of the Member State with primary responsibility and the institution of the Member State with secondary responsibility in such a way that both Member States must jointly settle ONE (one as in a singular) application for family benefits, or must the applicant make a separate application for the additional payment that may have to be made by the institution of the Member State whose legislation is applicable on a secondary basis, with the result that the applicant must submit two physical applications (forms) to two institutions of two Member States, which, by their nature, will trigger different time limits?

Questions 8 and 9 concern the period from 1 January 2019, when Austria abolished, alongside the introduction of the indexation of family allowances, the granting of family allowances for development aid workers by repealing Paragraph 13(1) EHG, old version.

Question 8:

Are Articles 4(4), 45, 208 TFEU, Article 4(3) TEU and Articles 2, 3, 7 and Title II of Regulation No 883/2004 to be interpreted as meaning that they generally prohibit a Member State from abolishing family benefits for a development aid worker who takes his family members with him to the place of employment in the third country?

In the alternative, Question 9:

Are Articles 4(4), 45, 208 TFEU, Article 4(3) TEU and Articles 2, 3, 7 and Title II of Regulation No 883/2004 to be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, they guarantee to a development aid worker who has already acquired entitlement to family benefits for previous periods of time an individual and specific continuation of that entitlement to family benefits for periods of time, even though the Member State has abolished the granting of family benefits for development aid workers?

---

(1)  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 2004 L 166, p. 1).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2009 L 284, p. 1).

---

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/18

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 14 August 2020 — Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e. V. v Dr. August Oetker Nahrungsmittel KG

(Case C-388/20)

(2020/C 433/21)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law: Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e. V.

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Dr. August Oetker Nahrungsmittel KG

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the second subparagraph of Article 31(3) of the FIR (1) be interpreted as meaning that that article applies solely to foods which require preparation and for which preparation instructions have been provided? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must the second subparagraph of Article 31(3) of the FIR (1) be interpreted as meaning that that article applies solely to foods which require preparation and for which preparation instructions have been provided?

| 2. | If Question 1 is answered in the negative: Does the phrase ‘per 100 g’ in the second subparagraph of Article 33(2) FIR only refer to 100 grams of the product as sold, or does it also — at least additionally — refer to 100 grams of the food after preparation? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If Question 1 is answered in the negative: Does the phrase ‘per 100 g’ in the second subparagraph of Article 33(2) FIR only refer to 100 grams of the product as sold, or does it also — at least additionally — refer to 100 grams of the food after preparation?

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on the provision of food information to consumers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1924/2006 and (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Commission Directive 87/250/EEC, Council Directive 90/496/EEC, Commission Directive 1999/10/EC, Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Commission Directives 2002/67/EC and 2008/5/EC and Commission Regulation (EC) No 608/2004 (OJ 2011 L 304, p. 18).

---

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/19

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 8 September 2020 — Acacia Srl v Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft

(Case C-421/20)

(2020/C 433/22)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Acacia Srl

Defendant: Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft

Questions referred

| 1. | In proceedings for an infringement of Community designs, can the national court dealing with the infringement proceedings having international jurisdiction pursuant to Article 82(5) of the Community Designs Regulation (1) apply the national law of the Member State in which the court dealing with the infringement proceedings is situated (lex fori) to subsequent claims in relation to the territory of its Member State? |
| --- | --- |

1.

In proceedings for an infringement of Community designs, can the national court dealing with the infringement proceedings having international jurisdiction pursuant to Article 82(5) of the Community Designs Regulation (1) apply the national law of the Member State in which the court dealing with the infringement proceedings is situated (lex fori) to subsequent claims in relation to the territory of its Member State?

| 2. | If Question 1 is answered in the negative: Can the ‘initial place of infringement’ for the purposes of the CJEU judgments in Cases C-24/16, C-25/16, Nintendo, (2) regarding the determination of the law applicable to subsequent claims under Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (‘Rome II’) (3) also lie in the Member State where the consumers to whom internet advertising is addressed are located and where goods infringing designs are put on the market within the meaning of Article 19 of the Community Designs Regulation, in so far as only the offering and the putting on the market in that Member State are challenged, even if the internet offers on which the offering and the putting on the market are based were launched in another Member State? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If Question 1 is answered in the negative: Can the ‘initial place of infringement’ for the purposes of the CJEU judgments in Cases C-24/16, C-25/16, Nintendo, (2) regarding the determination of the law applicable to subsequent claims under Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (‘Rome II’) (3) also lie in the Member State where the consumers to whom internet advertising is addressed are located and where goods infringing designs are put on the market within the meaning of Article 19 of the Community Designs Regulation, in so far as only the offering and the putting on the market in that Member State are challenged, even if the internet offers on which the offering and the putting on the market are based were launched in another Member State?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs (OJ 2002 L 3, p. 1).

(2)  ECLI:EU:C:2017:724.

(3)  OJ 2007 L 199, p. 40.

---

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/20

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 16 September 2020 — flightright GmbH v SunExpress Günes Ekspres Havacilik A.S.

(Case C-434/20)

(2020/C 433/23)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Frankfurt am Main

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: flightright GmbH

Defendant: SunExpress Günes Ekspres Havacilik A.S.

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Articles 4 and 7 of Council Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) be interpreted as meaning that a rebooking onto another, earlier flight by which the passenger reaches his final destination 10 hours and 1 minute before the scheduled arrival time of the flight originally booked constitutes a case of denied boarding triggering an obligation to pay compensation? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Articles 4 and 7 of Council Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) be interpreted as meaning that a rebooking onto another, earlier flight by which the passenger reaches his final destination 10 hours and 1 minute before the scheduled arrival time of the flight originally booked constitutes a case of denied boarding triggering an obligation to pay compensation?

| 2. | In the event that the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative, must the passenger, even in that event, have presented himself for check-in and boarding at the time indicated and no later than 45 minutes before the published departure time of the originally booked flight — as required in principle by Article 3(2) and Article 2(j) of Council Regulation (EC) No 261/2004) — in order for that regulation to be applicable and, more specifically, in order to give rise to a case of denied boarding triggering an obligation to pay compensation, even though this was in fact no longer possible because the passenger had taken the rebooked earlier replacement flight? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the event that the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative, must the passenger, even in that event, have presented himself for check-in and boarding at the time indicated and no later than 45 minutes before the published departure time of the originally booked flight — as required in principle by Article 3(2) and Article 2(j) of Council Regulation (EC) No 261/2004) — in order for that regulation to be applicable and, more specifically, in order to give rise to a case of denied boarding triggering an obligation to pay compensation, even though this was in fact no longer possible because the passenger had taken the rebooked earlier replacement flight?

---

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

---

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/20

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Schleswig-Holsteinisches Verwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 16 September 2020 — C v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-435/20)

(2020/C 433/24)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Schleswig-Holsteinisches Verwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: C

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Questions referred

| 1. | Is national legislation under which an application for international protection can be rejected as an inadmissible subsequent application compatible with Article 33(2)(d) and Article 2(q) of Directive 2013/32/EU (1) if the unsuccessful initial asylum procedure was conducted in a different EU Member State? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is national legislation under which an application for international protection can be rejected as an inadmissible subsequent application compatible with Article 33(2)(d) and Article 2(q) of Directive 2013/32/EU (1) if the unsuccessful initial asylum procedure was conducted in a different EU Member State?

| 2. | If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: Is national legislation under which an application for international protection can be rejected as an inadmissible subsequent application compatible with Article 33(2)(d) and Article 2(q) of Directive 2013/32/EU also if the unsuccessful initial asylum procedure was not conducted in an EU Member State, but in Switzerland? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: Is national legislation under which an application for international protection can be rejected as an inadmissible subsequent application compatible with Article 33(2)(d) and Article 2(q) of Directive 2013/32/EU also if the unsuccessful initial asylum procedure was not conducted in an EU Member State, but in Switzerland?

| 3. | If the answer to Question 2 is in the negative: Is national legislation under which an application for asylum is inadmissible in the event of a subsequent application and which makes no distinction between refugee status and subsidiary protection status compatible with Article 33(2)[(d)] of Directive 2013/32/EU? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the answer to Question 2 is in the negative: Is national legislation under which an application for asylum is inadmissible in the event of a subsequent application and which makes no distinction between refugee status and subsidiary protection status compatible with Article 33(2)[(d)] of Directive 2013/32/EU?

---

(1)  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 (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 60).

---

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/21

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 18 September 2020 — BT v Eurowings GmbH

(Case C-438/20)

(2020/C 433/25)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: BT

Defendant: Eurowings GmbH

Questions referred

| 1. | Is there a case of ‘denied boarding’ within the meaning of Article 4 and Article 2(j) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) even in the case where passengers are denied boarding on the flight in question not at the boarding gate (departure gate) but earlier, at the check-in desk, and for that reason do not even get as far as the boarding gate (departure gate)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is there a case of ‘denied boarding’ within the meaning of Article 4 and Article 2(j) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) even in the case where passengers are denied boarding on the flight in question not at the boarding gate (departure gate) but earlier, at the check-in desk, and for that reason do not even get as far as the boarding gate (departure gate)?

| 2. | If the first question is answered in the affirmative, is there a case of ‘denied boarding’ within the meaning of Article 4 and Article 2(j) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 even in the case where the passenger is refused acceptance onto the flight at the check-in desk only a few minutes before the scheduled time of departure, that is to say at a point in time by which it is clear that boarding has already closed and it is effectively no longer possible to accept passengers onto the flight? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the first question is answered in the affirmative, is there a case of ‘denied boarding’ within the meaning of Article 4 and Article 2(j) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 even in the case where the passenger is refused acceptance onto the flight at the check-in desk only a few minutes before the scheduled time of departure, that is to say at a point in time by which it is clear that boarding has already closed and it is effectively no longer possible to accept passengers onto the flight?

| 3. | If the second question is answered in the negative, does the fact that the passenger is rebooked onto another flight constitute a case of ‘denied boarding’ within the meaning of Article 4 and Article 2(j) of the Regulation, in the case where the passenger reaches the check-in desk only a few minutes before the scheduled time of departure, that is to say at a point in time by which it is clear that boarding has already closed and it is effectively no longer possible to accept passengers onto the flight, and has been denied boarding because boarding has already closed? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the second question is answered in the negative, does the fact that the passenger is rebooked onto another flight constitute a case of ‘denied boarding’ within the meaning of Article 4 and Article 2(j) of the Regulation, in the case where the passenger reaches the check-in desk only a few minutes before the scheduled time of departure, that is to say at a point in time by which it is clear that boarding has already closed and it is effectively no longer possible to accept passengers onto the flight, and has been denied boarding because boarding has already closed?

| 4. | In the event that questions 1 to 3 are answered in the negative, is Article 2(j) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 to be interpreted as meaning that a situation in which passengers join the queue at the check-in desk in good time (here, approximately two hours) before departure, but, because of organisational shortcomings on the part of the airline (such as not opening enough check-in desks, short staffing and not providing information to passengers over the public announcement system) and/or on account of disruptions affecting the airport (in this instance, a baggage carousel malfunction), do not reach the front of the queue at the check-in desk until a point in time (in this instance, five minutes before the scheduled time of departure) by which boarding has already closed and for that reason passengers are no longer being accepted onto the flight, constitutes a case of ‘denied boarding’ within the meaning of Article 2(j) of the Regulation? |
| --- | --- |

4.

In the event that questions 1 to 3 are answered in the negative, is Article 2(j) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 to be interpreted as meaning that a situation in which passengers join the queue at the check-in desk in good time (here, approximately two hours) before departure, but, because of organisational shortcomings on the part of the airline (such as not opening enough check-in desks, short staffing and not providing information to passengers over the public announcement system) and/or on account of disruptions affecting the airport (in this instance, a baggage carousel malfunction), do not reach the front of the queue at the check-in desk until a point in time (in this instance, five minutes before the scheduled time of departure) by which boarding has already closed and for that reason passengers are no longer being accepted onto the flight, constitutes a case of ‘denied boarding’ within the meaning of Article 2(j) of the Regulation?

---

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

---

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/22

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Nürnberg (Germany) lodged on 21 September 2020 — Flightright GmbH v Ryanair Designated Activity Company

(Case C-442/20)

(2020/C 433/26)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Nürnberg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Flightright GmbH

Defendant: Ryanair Designated Activity Company

Questions referred

| 1. | Does a trade union-organised strike by an operating air carrier’s own staff constitute ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1) |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does a trade union-organised strike by an operating air carrier’s own staff constitute ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1)

| 2. | Is it of any significance that the strike was held in connection with staff demands not previously agreed by contract between the staff and the operating air carrier? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is it of any significance that the strike was held in connection with staff demands not previously agreed by contract between the staff and the operating air carrier?

| 3. | Is it of any significance that the strike in question was triggered by the operating air carrier’s conduct during negotiations with the trade union? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is it of any significance that the strike in question was triggered by the operating air carrier’s conduct during negotiations with the trade union?

---

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

---

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/22

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Nürnberg (Germany) lodged on 21 September 2020 — Flightright GmbH v Ryanair Designated Activity Company

(Case C-443/20)

(2020/C 433/27)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Nürnberg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Flightright GmbH

Defendant: Ryanair Designated Activity Company

Questions referred

| 1. | Does a trade union-organised strike by an operating air carrier’s own staff constitute ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does a trade union-organised strike by an operating air carrier’s own staff constitute ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1)?

| 2. | Is it of any significance that the strike was held in connection with staff demands not previously agreed by contract between the staff and the operating air carrier? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is it of any significance that the strike was held in connection with staff demands not previously agreed by contract between the staff and the operating air carrier?

| 3. | Is it of any significance that the strike in question was triggered by the operating air carrier’s conduct during negotiations with the trade union? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is it of any significance that the strike in question was triggered by the operating air carrier’s conduct during negotiations with the trade union?

---

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

---

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/23

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Nürnberg (Germany) lodged on 21 September 2020 — Flightright GmbH v Ryanair Designated Activity Company

(Case C-444/20)

(2020/C 433/28)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Nürnberg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Flightright GmbH

Defendant: Ryanair Designated Activity Company

Questions referred

| 1. | Does a trade union-organised strike by an operating air carrier’s own staff constitute ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 (1)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does a trade union-organised strike by an operating air carrier’s own staff constitute ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 (1)?

| 2. | Is it of any significance that the strike was held in connection with staff demands not previously agreed by contract between the staff and the operating air carrier? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is it of any significance that the strike was held in connection with staff demands not previously agreed by contract between the staff and the operating air carrier?

| 3. | Is it of any significance that the strike in question was triggered by the operating air carrier’s conduct during negotiations with the trade union? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is it of any significance that the strike in question was triggered by the operating air carrier’s conduct during negotiations with the trade union?

---

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

---

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/24

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Nürnberg (Germany) lodged on 21 September 2020 — PN and LM v Ryanair Designated Activity Company

(Case C-445/20)

(2020/C 433/29)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Nürnberg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: PN, LM

Defendant: Ryanair Designated Activity Company

Questions referred

| 1. | Does a trade union-organised strike by an operating air carrier’s own staff constitute ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 (1)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does a trade union-organised strike by an operating air carrier’s own staff constitute ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 (1)?

| 2. | Is it of any significance that the strike was held in connection with staff demands not previously agreed by contract between the staff and the operating air carrier? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is it of any significance that the strike was held in connection with staff demands not previously agreed by contract between the staff and the operating air carrier?

| 3. | Is it of any significance that the strike in question was triggered by the operating air carrier’s conduct during negotiations with the trade union? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is it of any significance that the strike in question was triggered by the operating air carrier’s conduct during negotiations with the trade union?

---

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

---

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/24

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 22 September 2020 — Real Vida Seguros, S. A. v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

(Case C-449/20)

(2020/C 433/30)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Real Vida Seguros, S. A.

Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Question referred

Does the fact that, for the purposes of calculating the amount of the imposto sobre [o rendimento] [d]as pessoas coletivas (Corporation Tax; IRC) due from the appellant in respect of financial years 1999 and 2000, Articles 31 and 2 of the Estatuto dos Benefícios Fiscais (Statute governing Tax Benefits) permit a 50 % deduction in dividends obtained on national (Portuguese) stock exchanges but exclude dividends obtained on the stock exchanges of other countries of the European Union from benefiting from the deduction, constitute a breach of the free movement of capital under Article 63 et seq. TFEU?

---

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/25

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg (Austria) lodged on 23 September 2020 — Airhelp Limited v Austrian Airlines AG

(Case C-451/20)

(2020/C 433/31)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht Korneuburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Airhelp Limited

Defendant: Austrian Airlines AG

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) be interpreted as meaning that that regulation also applies to an air route booked under a single booking but consisting of two flights, both of which are operated by (the same) Community air carrier, if both the place of departure of the first flight and place of arrival of the second flight are in a third country and only the place of arrival of the first flight and the place of departure of the second flight are in the territory of a Member State?
  If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) be interpreted as meaning that that regulation also applies to an air route booked under a single booking but consisting of two flights, both of which are operated by (the same) Community air carrier, if both the place of departure of the first flight and place of arrival of the second flight are in a third country and only the place of arrival of the first flight and the place of departure of the second flight are in the territory of a Member State?

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:

| 2. | Must Article 5(1)(c)(iii) of Regulation No 261/2004 be interpreted as meaning that a passenger is entitled to compensation under Article 7(1) of that Regulation even if, on the alternative flight offered to him, his scheduled arrival time at the final destination would have been less than two hours after the scheduled arrival time of the cancelled flight, but he does not actually arrive within that time? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must Article 5(1)(c)(iii) of Regulation No 261/2004 be interpreted as meaning that a passenger is entitled to compensation under Article 7(1) of that Regulation even if, on the alternative flight offered to him, his scheduled arrival time at the final destination would have been less than two hours after the scheduled arrival time of the cancelled flight, but he does not actually arrive within that time?

---

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

---

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/25

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rayonen sad Lukovit (Bulgaria) lodged on 23 September 2020 — Criminal proceedings against AZ

(Case C-454/20)

(2020/C 433/32)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Rayonen sad Lukovit

Accused person

AZ

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the principle of legality of criminal offences and penalties allow national legislation which provides for both administrative and criminal liability for the same act, namely driving a motor vehicle that is not duly registered, in the absence of any criteria enabling the objective assessment of the degree of danger to society? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the principle of legality of criminal offences and penalties allow national legislation which provides for both administrative and criminal liability for the same act, namely driving a motor vehicle that is not duly registered, in the absence of any criteria enabling the objective assessment of the degree of danger to society?

| 2. | Should the Court of Justice answer the first question in the negative, what powers does the national court have to ensure the effective application of the principles of EU law? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Should the Court of Justice answer the first question in the negative, what powers does the national court have to ensure the effective application of the principles of EU law?

| 3. | Does the procedural possibility for the court to acquit the person accused of committing a criminal offence and impose an administrative penalty on him or her constitute a sufficient safeguard against the arbitrary application of the law? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the procedural possibility for the court to acquit the person accused of committing a criminal offence and impose an administrative penalty on him or her constitute a sufficient safeguard against the arbitrary application of the law?

| 4. | Is a penalty involving deprivation of liberty of up to a year proportionate for the purpose of Article 49(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union as regards a criminal offence committed by driving a motor vehicle which is not duly registered? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is a penalty involving deprivation of liberty of up to a year proportionate for the purpose of Article 49(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union as regards a criminal offence committed by driving a motor vehicle which is not duly registered?

---

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/26

---

Appeal brought on 21 September 2020 by Crédit agricole SA against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber enlarged) delivered on 8 July 2020 in Case T–576/18, Crédit agricole SA v ECB

(Case C-456/20 P)

(2020/C 433/33)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Crédit agricole SA (represented by: A. Champsaur and A. Delors, avocates)

Other party to the proceedings: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

| — | Set aside paragraph 2 of the operative part of the judgment delivered by the General Court on 8 July 2020 in Case T–576/18, Crédit Agricole SA v ECB dismissing the remainder of the appellant’s claims to annul ECB Decision ECB/SSM/2018-FRCAG-75 of 16 July 2018; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside paragraph 2 of the operative part of the judgment delivered by the General Court on 8 July 2020 in Case T–576/18, Crédit Agricole SA v ECB dismissing the remainder of the appellant’s claims to annul ECB Decision ECB/SSM/2018-FRCAG-75 of 16 July 2018;

| — | Grant in its entirety the form of order sought by the appellant at first instance before the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

Grant in its entirety the form of order sought by the appellant at first instance before the General Court;

| — | Order the ECB to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the ECB to pay all the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant claims that:

| (1) | the General Court erred in law in applying the provisions of Article 26(3) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and infringed the principle of retroactive application of the less severe penalty by holding that the appellant had committed a breach in respect of its Pillar 3 disclosures and its COREP statement for the second quarter of 2016; |
| --- | --- |

(1)

the General Court erred in law in applying the provisions of Article 26(3) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and infringed the principle of retroactive application of the less severe penalty by holding that the appellant had committed a breach in respect of its Pillar 3 disclosures and its COREP statement for the second quarter of 2016;

| (2) | the General Court erred in law and infringed the obligation to state reasons by failing to reply to the plea based on the infringement of the principle of legal certainty by Decision ECB/SSM/2018-FRCAG-75 and infringed the principle of legal certainty by holding that there had been a breach of Article 26(3) of Regulation No 575/2013 while expressly acknowledging the lack of clarity of that provision; |
| --- | --- |

(2)

the General Court erred in law and infringed the obligation to state reasons by failing to reply to the plea based on the infringement of the principle of legal certainty by Decision ECB/SSM/2018-FRCAG-75 and infringed the principle of legal certainty by holding that there had been a breach of Article 26(3) of Regulation No 575/2013 while expressly acknowledging the lack of clarity of that provision;

| (3) | the General Court infringed Article 18(1) of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions, as well as the obligation to state reasons, by failing to show negligent conduct on the part of the appellant; |
| --- | --- |

(3)

the General Court infringed Article 18(1) of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions, as well as the obligation to state reasons, by failing to show negligent conduct on the part of the appellant;

| (4) | the General Court erred in law and infringed the obligation to state reasons by failing to reply to the plea alleging infringement by decision ECB/SSM/2018-FRCAG-75 of the principle of proportionality and the principle of equal treatment, and infringed those two principles by implicitly holding that the penalty was well founded in principle. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

the General Court erred in law and infringed the obligation to state reasons by failing to reply to the plea alleging infringement by decision ECB/SSM/2018-FRCAG-75 of the principle of proportionality and the principle of equal treatment, and infringed those two principles by implicitly holding that the penalty was well founded in principle.

---

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/27

---

Appeal brought on 21 September 2020 by Crédit agricole Corporate and Investment Bank against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber enlarged) delivered on 8 July 2020 in Case T–577/18, Crédit agricole Corporate and Investment Bank v ECB

(Case C-457/20 P)

(2020/C 433/34)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Crédit agricole Corporate and Investment Bank (represented by: A. Champsaur and A. Delors, avocates)

Other party to the proceedings: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

| — | Set aside paragraph 2 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court of 8 July 2020 in Case T–577/18, Crédit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank v ECB dismissing the remainder of the appellant’s claims to annul ECB Decision ECB/SSM/2018-FRCAG-76 of 16 July 2018; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside paragraph 2 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court of 8 July 2020 in Case T–577/18, Crédit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank v ECB dismissing the remainder of the appellant’s claims to annul ECB Decision ECB/SSM/2018-FRCAG-76 of 16 July 2018;

| — | Grant in its entirety the form of order sought by Crédit agricole Corporate and Investment Bank at first instance before the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

Grant in its entirety the form of order sought by Crédit agricole Corporate and Investment Bank at first instance before the General Court;

| — | Order the ECB to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the ECB to pay all the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

By the three grounds of appeal, the appellant claims that:

| (1) | the General Court erred in law and infringed the obligation to state reasons by failing to reply to the plea based on the infringement of the principle of legal certainty by Decision ECB/SSM/2018-FRCAG-76 and infringed the principle of legal certainty by holding that there had been a breach of Article 26(3) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firm while expressly acknowledging the lack of clarity of that provision; |
| --- | --- |

(1)

the General Court erred in law and infringed the obligation to state reasons by failing to reply to the plea based on the infringement of the principle of legal certainty by Decision ECB/SSM/2018-FRCAG-76 and infringed the principle of legal certainty by holding that there had been a breach of Article 26(3) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firm while expressly acknowledging the lack of clarity of that provision;

| (2) | the General Court infringed Article 18(1) of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions, as well as the obligation to state reasons, by failing to show negligent conduct on the part of the appellant; |
| --- | --- |

(2)

the General Court infringed Article 18(1) of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions, as well as the obligation to state reasons, by failing to show negligent conduct on the part of the appellant;

| (3) | the General Court erred in law and infringed the obligation to state reasons by failing to reply to the plea alleging infringement by decision ECB/SSM/2018-FRCAG-76 of the principle of proportionality and the principle of equal treatment, and infringed those two principles by implicitly holding that the penalty was well founded in principle. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

the General Court erred in law and infringed the obligation to state reasons by failing to reply to the plea alleging infringement by decision ECB/SSM/2018-FRCAG-76 of the principle of proportionality and the principle of equal treatment, and infringed those two principles by implicitly holding that the penalty was well founded in principle.

---

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/28

---

Appeal brought on 21 September 2020 by CA Consumer Finance against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber enlarged) delivered on 8 July 2020 in Case T–578/18, CA Consumer Finance v ECB

(Case C-458/20 P)

(2020/C 433/35)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: CA Consumer Finance (represented by: A. Champsaur and A. Delors, avocates)

Other party to the proceedings: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

| — | Set aside paragraph 2 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court of 8 July 2020 in Case T–578/18, CA Consumer Finance v ECB dismissing the remainder of the appellant’s claims to annul ECB Decision ECB/SSM/2018-FRCAG-77 of 16 July 2018; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside paragraph 2 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court of 8 July 2020 in Case T–578/18, CA Consumer Finance v ECB dismissing the remainder of the appellant’s claims to annul ECB Decision ECB/SSM/2018-FRCAG-77 of 16 July 2018;

| — | Grant in its entirety the form of order sought by CA Consumer Finance at first instance before the General Court; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Grant in its entirety the form of order sought by CA Consumer Finance at first instance before the General Court; and

| — | Order the ECB to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the ECB to pay all the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

By the three grounds of appeal, the appellant claims that:

| (1) | the General Court erred in law and infringed the obligation to state reasons by failing to reply to the plea based on the infringement of the principle of legal certainty by Decision ECB/SSM/2018-FRCAG-77 and infringed the principle of legal certainty by holding that there had been a breach of Article 26(3) of Regulation No (EU) 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firm while expressly acknowledging the lack of clarity of that provision; |
| --- | --- |

(1)

the General Court erred in law and infringed the obligation to state reasons by failing to reply to the plea based on the infringement of the principle of legal certainty by Decision ECB/SSM/2018-FRCAG-77 and infringed the principle of legal certainty by holding that there had been a breach of Article 26(3) of Regulation No (EU) 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firm while expressly acknowledging the lack of clarity of that provision;

| (2) | the General Court infringed Article 18(1) of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions, as well as the obligation to state reasons, by failing to show negligent conduct on the part of the appellant; |
| --- | --- |

(2)

the General Court infringed Article 18(1) of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions, as well as the obligation to state reasons, by failing to show negligent conduct on the part of the appellant;

| (3) | the General Court erred in law and infringed the obligation to state reasons by failing to reply to the plea alleging infringement by decision ECB/SSM/2018-FRCAG-77 of the principle of proportionality and the principle of equal treatment, and infringed those two principles by implicitly holding that the penalty was well founded in principle. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

the General Court erred in law and infringed the obligation to state reasons by failing to reply to the plea alleging infringement by decision ECB/SSM/2018-FRCAG-77 of the principle of proportionality and the principle of equal treatment, and infringed those two principles by implicitly holding that the penalty was well founded in principle.

---

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/28

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano (Italy) lodged on 25 September 2020 — Associazione per gli Studi Giuridici sull’Immigrazione (ASGI) and Others v Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri — Dipartimento per le politiche della famiglia, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze

(Case C-462/20)

(2020/C 433/36)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Milano

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Associazione per gli Studi Giuridici sull’Immigrazione (ASGI), Avvocati per niente onlus (APN), Associazione NAGA — Organizzazione di volontariato per l’Assistenza Socio-Sanitaria e per i Diritti di Cittadini Stranieri, Rom e Sinti

Defendants: Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri — Dipartimento per le politiche della famiglia, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze

Questions referred

| 1. | Does Article 11(1)(d) or (f) of Directive 2003/109/EC (1) preclude national legislation such as that under consideration here, which provides for the issue by the government of a Member State to nationals of that Member State or of other Member States of the European Union, but not to third-country nationals who are long-term residents, of a document which confers entitlement to discounts on supplies of goods and services by public and private entities that have entered into an agreement with the government of the Member State in question? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does Article 11(1)(d) or (f) of Directive 2003/109/EC (1) preclude national legislation such as that under consideration here, which provides for the issue by the government of a Member State to nationals of that Member State or of other Member States of the European Union, but not to third-country nationals who are long-term residents, of a document which confers entitlement to discounts on supplies of goods and services by public and private entities that have entered into an agreement with the government of the Member State in question?

| 2. | Does Article 12(1)(e) of Directive 2011/98/EU (2), in conjunction with Article 1(z) and Article 3[(1)](j) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 (3), or Article 12(1)(g) of Directive 2011/98/EU preclude national legislation such as that under consideration here, which provides for the issue by the government of a Member State to nationals of that Member State or of other Member States of the European Union, but not to third-country nationals as referred to in Article 3(1)(b) and (c) of Directive 2011/98/EU, of a document which confers entitlement to discounts on supplies of goods and services by public and private entities that have entered into an agreement with the government of the Member State in question? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does Article 12(1)(e) of Directive 2011/98/EU (2), in conjunction with Article 1(z) and Article 3[(1)](j) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 (3), or Article 12(1)(g) of Directive 2011/98/EU preclude national legislation such as that under consideration here, which provides for the issue by the government of a Member State to nationals of that Member State or of other Member States of the European Union, but not to third-country nationals as referred to in Article 3(1)(b) and (c) of Directive 2011/98/EU, of a document which confers entitlement to discounts on supplies of goods and services by public and private entities that have entered into an agreement with the government of the Member State in question?

| 3. | Does Article 14(1)(e) of Directive 2009/50/EC, (4) in conjunction with Article 1(z) and Article 3[(1)](j) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004, or Article 14(1)(g) of Directive 2009/50/EC, preclude national legislation such as that under consideration here, which provides for the issue by the government of a Member State to nationals of that Member State or of other Member States of the European Union, but not to third-country nationals holding an ‘EU Blue Card’ within the meaning of Directive 2009/50/EC, of a document which confers entitlement to discounts on supplies of goods and services by public and private entities that have entered into an agreement with the government of the Member State in question? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does Article 14(1)(e) of Directive 2009/50/EC, (4) in conjunction with Article 1(z) and Article 3[(1)](j) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004, or Article 14(1)(g) of Directive 2009/50/EC, preclude national legislation such as that under consideration here, which provides for the issue by the government of a Member State to nationals of that Member State or of other Member States of the European Union, but not to third-country nationals holding an ‘EU Blue Card’ within the meaning of Directive 2009/50/EC, of a document which confers entitlement to discounts on supplies of goods and services by public and private entities that have entered into an agreement with the government of the Member State in question?

| 4. | Does Article 29 of Directive 2011/95/EU preclude national legislation such as that under consideration here, which provides for the issue by the government of a Member State to nationals of that Member State or of other Member States of the European Union, but not to third-country nationals benefiting from international protection, of a document which confers entitlement to discounts on supplies of goods and services by public and private entities that have entered into an agreement with the government of the Member State in question? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Does Article 29 of Directive 2011/95/EU preclude national legislation such as that under consideration here, which provides for the issue by the government of a Member State to nationals of that Member State or of other Member States of the European Union, but not to third-country nationals benefiting from international protection, of a document which confers entitlement to discounts on supplies of goods and services by public and private entities that have entered into an agreement with the government of the Member State in question?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents (OJ 2004 L 16, p. 44).

(2)  Directive 2011/98/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on a single application procedure for a single permit for third-country nationals to reside and work in the territory of a Member State and on a common set of rights for third-country workers legally residing in a Member State (OJ 2011 L 343, p. 1).

(3)  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 2004 L 166, p. 1).

(4)  Council Directive 2009/50/EC of 25 May 2009 on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purposes of highly qualified employment (OJ 2009 L 155, p. 17).

---

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/29

---

Appeal brought on 26 September 2020 by KF against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 10 July 2020 in Case T-619/19, KF v SatCen

(Case C-464/20 P)

(2020/C 433/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: KF (represented by: A. Kunst, Rechtsanwältin)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Satellite Centre (SatCen)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the order under appeal (first head of claim); |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the order under appeal (first head of claim);

| — | uphold the application except for the fourth head of claim (second head of claim); and consequently |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the application except for the fourth head of claim (second head of claim); and consequently

| — | annul the decision of the Director of SatCen of 3 July 2019 to restart the administrative investigation and the decision of the Director confirming that decision subsequent to an internal complaint; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Director of SatCen of 3 July 2019 to restart the administrative investigation and the decision of the Director confirming that decision subsequent to an internal complaint;

| — | order SatCen to pay the applicant a fair compensation out of the judgment of the General Court’s in Case T-286/15, KF v SatCen (‘the judgment to be implemented’), as the only possibility capable of reversing the illegalities therein, restoring the applicant’s legal position, implementing the judgment; |
| --- | --- |

—

order SatCen to pay the applicant a fair compensation out of the judgment of the General Court’s in Case T-286/15, KF v SatCen (‘the judgment to be implemented’), as the only possibility capable of reversing the illegalities therein, restoring the applicant’s legal position, implementing the judgment;

| — | order SatCen to compensate the applicant for the material and immaterial harm suffered as a result of the restart of the administrative investigation, assessed provisionally on an ex aequo et bono at €30 000; |
| --- | --- |

—

order SatCen to compensate the applicant for the material and immaterial harm suffered as a result of the restart of the administrative investigation, assessed provisionally on an ex aequo et bono at €30 000;

| — | in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court to rule on the substance; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court to rule on the substance;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on three grounds:

| 1. | First ground of appeal, alleging an infringement of Article 266 TFEU and the appellant’s right to full compliance with the judgment to be implemented in that the General Court erred in law by holding that the decision to restart the administrative investigation was a preparatory act not adversely affecting the interests of KF.
  It was a decision to not properly implement a judgment pursuant to Article 266 TFEU, also taking into account the specific circumstances of KF’s case, and thereby it affected her interests immediately and directly.
  The General Court erred in law by failing to take into account the specific circumstances of KF’s case, including irreversible illegalities in the initial administrative investigation.
  The General erred in law by failing to recognize that:






  — | the SatCen is objectively not capable of reversing the illegalities by restarting the administrative investigation, given also how unduly witnesses in the initial administrative investigation were influenced and the serious attacks on KF’s good repute and professional reputation as found to have occurred in the judgment to be implemented; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First ground of appeal, alleging an infringement of Article 266 TFEU and the appellant’s right to full compliance with the judgment to be implemented in that the General Court erred in law by holding that the decision to restart the administrative investigation was a preparatory act not adversely affecting the interests of KF.

It was a decision to not properly implement a judgment pursuant to Article 266 TFEU, also taking into account the specific circumstances of KF’s case, and thereby it affected her interests immediately and directly.

The General Court erred in law by failing to take into account the specific circumstances of KF’s case, including irreversible illegalities in the initial administrative investigation.

The General erred in law by failing to recognize that:

—

the SatCen is objectively not capable of reversing the illegalities by restarting the administrative investigation, given also how unduly witnesses in the initial administrative investigation were influenced and the serious attacks on KF’s good repute and professional reputation as found to have occurred in the judgment to be implemented;

| — | the guarantees of a fair procedure cannot be provided and |
| --- | --- |

—

the guarantees of a fair procedure cannot be provided and

| — | there is a breach of the reasonable time principle. |
| --- | --- |

—

there is a breach of the reasonable time principle.

| 2. | Second ground of appeal, alleging an infringement of Article 266 TFEU and a breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations in that the General Court erred in law by disregarding and failing to hold that:






  — | the discretion in properly implementing judgments can be reduced, as in KF’s case, to one possible measure, which is compensating her fairly for the illegalities found to have occurred in the judgment to be implemented; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second ground of appeal, alleging an infringement of Article 266 TFEU and a breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations in that the General Court erred in law by disregarding and failing to hold that:

—

the discretion in properly implementing judgments can be reduced, as in KF’s case, to one possible measure, which is compensating her fairly for the illegalities found to have occurred in the judgment to be implemented;

| — | any final decision which would conclude the entire process and any decision paving the way to it would necessarily and obligatorily have the same illegality as identified by the judgment to be implemented; |
| --- | --- |

—

any final decision which would conclude the entire process and any decision paving the way to it would necessarily and obligatorily have the same illegality as identified by the judgment to be implemented;

| — | compliance with the judgment poses special difficulties; |
| --- | --- |

—

compliance with the judgment poses special difficulties;

| — | KF had legitimate expectations to be compensated fairly; |
| --- | --- |

—

KF had legitimate expectations to be compensated fairly;

| — | the payment of a fair compensation is the only way to reverse the illegalities found to have occurred. |
| --- | --- |

—

the payment of a fair compensation is the only way to reverse the illegalities found to have occurred.

| 3. | Third ground of appeal, alleging an infringement of Articles 268 and 340(2) TFEU in that the General Court erred in law by holding that the action for compensation for non-contractual liability regarding the decision to restart the administrative investigation is inadmissible. KF submitted an action, which is admissible, consequently the related action for compensation is admissible. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third ground of appeal, alleging an infringement of Articles 268 and 340(2) TFEU in that the General Court erred in law by holding that the action for compensation for non-contractual liability regarding the decision to restart the administrative investigation is inadmissible. KF submitted an action, which is admissible, consequently the related action for compensation is admissible.

---

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/31

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 28 September 2020 — BC v Deutsche Lufthansa AG

(Case C-467/20)

(2020/C 433/38)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: BC

Defendant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

Question referred

Are Article 5(1)(c) and Article 7(1) of Regulation No 261/2004 (1), read together with Article 3(5) of that regulation, to be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of connecting flights, where there are two flights that are the subject of a single reservation, departing from an airport located outside the territory of a Member State (third country) and travelling to an airport located in a Member State, a passenger who suffers a delay in reaching his or her destination of 3 hours or more, the cause of that delay arising in the first flight, operated, under a code-share agreement, by a carrier established in a non-Member State, may bring his or her action for compensation under that regulation against the Community air carrier with which the booking of the entire journey was made and that only performed the second leg of that journey?

---

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

---

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/31

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus (Estonia) lodged on 29 September 2020 — Veejaam AS, Espo OÜ v Elering AS

(Case C-470/20)

(2020/C 433/39)

Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Riigikohus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Veejaam AS, Espo OÜ

Defendant: Elering AS

Questions referred

| 1. | Are EU rules on State aid, including the incentive effect required under paragraph 50 of the Communication from the Commission ‘Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020’ (1) to be interpreted as meaning that an aid scheme which allows a renewable energy producer to apply for State aid after work has started on a project is compatible with those rules where domestic legislation grants every producer which fulfils the requirements laid down by law the right to apply for the subsidy without granting the competent authorities any discretion in that regard? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are EU rules on State aid, including the incentive effect required under paragraph 50 of the Communication from the Commission ‘Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020’ (1) to be interpreted as meaning that an aid scheme which allows a renewable energy producer to apply for State aid after work has started on a project is compatible with those rules where domestic legislation grants every producer which fulfils the requirements laid down by law the right to apply for the subsidy without granting the competent authorities any discretion in that regard?

| 2. | Is the incentive effect of aid always precluded where the investment on which the aid application is based was made due to a change to the terms of environmental approval, even where, as in this case, the applicant would probably have ceased its activity due to the stricter terms of approval had it not received the State aid? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the incentive effect of aid always precluded where the investment on which the aid application is based was made due to a change to the terms of environmental approval, even where, as in this case, the applicant would probably have ceased its activity due to the stricter terms of approval had it not received the State aid?

| 3. | In light, inter alia, of the findings of the Court in its judgment in Case C-590/14 P (paragraphs 49 and 50) (2), where, in a case, such as this one, in which the Commission has adopted a decision on State aid finding that an existing aid scheme and planned changes are compatible with the internal market and the State has announced, inter alia, that it will only apply the existing aid scheme up to a particular cut-off date, the existing aid scheme based on the applicable provisions of law is applied beyond the cut-off date announced by the State, does it qualify as new aid within the meaning of Article 1(c) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 (3)? |
| --- | --- |

3.

In light, inter alia, of the findings of the Court in its judgment in Case C-590/14 P (paragraphs 49 and 50) (2), where, in a case, such as this one, in which the Commission has adopted a decision on State aid finding that an existing aid scheme and planned changes are compatible with the internal market and the State has announced, inter alia, that it will only apply the existing aid scheme up to a particular cut-off date, the existing aid scheme based on the applicable provisions of law is applied beyond the cut-off date announced by the State, does it qualify as new aid within the meaning of Article 1(c) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 (3)?

| 4. | Where the Commission decides ex post facto not to raise any objections to an aid scheme applied in breach of Article 108(3) TFEU, are persons with a claim to operating aid entitled to apply for payment of the aid for the period prior to the Commission’s Decision, provided that domestic procedural rules so permit? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Where the Commission decides ex post facto not to raise any objections to an aid scheme applied in breach of Article 108(3) TFEU, are persons with a claim to operating aid entitled to apply for payment of the aid for the period prior to the Commission’s Decision, provided that domestic procedural rules so permit?

| 5. | Does an applicant which applied for operating aid under an aid scheme and which started to implement a project which fulfilled the criteria for compatibility with the internal market at a time when the aid scheme was lawfully applied, but applied for the State aid at time when the aid scheme had been extended without notifying the Commission, have a claim to State aid notwithstanding the rule enacted in Article 108(3) TFEU? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Does an applicant which applied for operating aid under an aid scheme and which started to implement a project which fulfilled the criteria for compatibility with the internal market at a time when the aid scheme was lawfully applied, but applied for the State aid at time when the aid scheme had been extended without notifying the Commission, have a claim to State aid notwithstanding the rule enacted in Article 108(3) TFEU?

---

(1)  OJ 2014 C 200, p. 1.

(2)  Judgment of the Court of Justice of 26 October 2016DEI v Commission (C-590/14 P, ECLI:EU:C:2016:797).

(3)  Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9).

---

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/32

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 30 September 2020 — ‘INVEST FUND MANAGEMENT’ AD v Komisiya za finansov nadzor

(Case C-473/20)

(2020/C 433/40)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski rayonen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘INVEST FUND MANAGEMENT’ AD

Defendant: Komisiya za finansov nadzor

Questions referred

| 1. | What meaning did the European legislature intend to give to the term ‘essential elements’ of the prospectus within the meaning of Article 72 of Directive 2009/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (1)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

What meaning did the European legislature intend to give to the term ‘essential elements’ of the prospectus within the meaning of Article 72 of Directive 2009/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (1)?

| 2. | Is Article 69(2) of Directive 2009/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 to be interpreted as meaning that any change to the minimum information in prospectuses provided for in Schedule A of Annex I is always covered by the term ‘essential elements’ within the meaning of Article 72 of the Directive, so that these must be updated in due time? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is Article 69(2) of Directive 2009/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 to be interpreted as meaning that any change to the minimum information in prospectuses provided for in Schedule A of Annex I is always covered by the term ‘essential elements’ within the meaning of Article 72 of the Directive, so that these must be updated in due time?

| 3. | If Question 2 is answered in the negative, is it to be assumed that information about a change in the composition of the board of directors of a particular management company that concerns non-executive members who are not assigned any management functions is included in the term ‘essential elements’ within the meaning of Article 72 of Directive 2009/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If Question 2 is answered in the negative, is it to be assumed that information about a change in the composition of the board of directors of a particular management company that concerns non-executive members who are not assigned any management functions is included in the term ‘essential elements’ within the meaning of Article 72 of Directive 2009/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009?

| 4. | Is Article 99а(r) of Directive 2009/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 to be interpreted as meaning that it is only permissible to impose a penalty on a management company (for each of the investment funds managed by it) in the event of repeated non-compliance with obligations concerning information to be provided to investors imposed in accordance with the national provisions transposing Articles 68 to 82 of Directive 2009/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is Article 99а(r) of Directive 2009/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 to be interpreted as meaning that it is only permissible to impose a penalty on a management company (for each of the investment funds managed by it) in the event of repeated non-compliance with obligations concerning information to be provided to investors imposed in accordance with the national provisions transposing Articles 68 to 82 of Directive 2009/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009?

---

(1)  OJ 2009 L 302, p. 32.

---

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/33

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München (Germany) lodged on 1 October 2020 — Vodafone Kabel Deutschland GmbH v Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V.

(Case C-484/20)

(2020/C 433/41)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vodafone Kabel Deutschland GmbH

Defendant: Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V.

Question referred

Is Article 62(4) of Directive 2015/2366 (1) to be interpreted in such a way that it prevents a national regulation or practice, in the form of a transitional provision, that only allows the prohibition of charges for the use of payment instruments and payment services in accordance with the corresponding national implementing provision in relation to ongoing contractual obligations with consumers, if the underlying contractual obligation arose after 13 January 2018, but not if the underlying contractual obligation arose prior to 13 January 2018, where settlement of (other) payment transactions does not start until after 13 January 2018?

---

(1)  Directive (EU) 2015/2366 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on payment services in the internal market, amending Directives 2002/65/EC, 2009/110/EC and 2013/36/EU and Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, and repealing Directive 2007/64/EC (OJ 2015 L 337, p. 35).

---

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/34

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia (Romania) lodged on 2 October 2020 — Philips Orăștie S.R.L. v Direcția Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili

(Case C-487/20)

(2020/C 433/42)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Philips Orăștie S.R.L.

Defendant: Direcția Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili

Question referred

May the provisions of [the first paragraph of] Article 179 and [the first paragraph of] Article 183 of Directive 112/2006/EC (1), regard being had to the principles of equivalence, effectiveness and neutrality, be interpreted as precluding national legislation or practices in accordance with which the amount of VAT to be refunded is reduced by including in the calculation of the VAT due amounts representing additional liabilities established in a notice of assessment that has been annulled by a judgment that is not yet final, where such additional liabilities are guaranteed by a bank guarantee and the national tax procedure rules recognise that such a guarantee has the effect of staying enforcement in the case of other taxes and duties?

---

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

---

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/34

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 2 October 2020 — UB v Kauno teritorinė muitinė

(Case C-489/20)

(2020/C 433/43)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: UB

Respondent: Kauno teritorinė muitinė

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 124(1)(e) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code to be interpreted as meaning that a customs debt is extinguished where, in a situation such as that in the present case, smuggled goods were seized and subsequently confiscated after they had already been unlawfully introduced (released for consumption) into the customs territory of the European Union? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 124(1)(e) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code to be interpreted as meaning that a customs debt is extinguished where, in a situation such as that in the present case, smuggled goods were seized and subsequently confiscated after they had already been unlawfully introduced (released for consumption) into the customs territory of the European Union?

| 2. | If the first question is answered in the affirmative, are Articles 2(b) and 7(1) of Council Directive 2008/118/EC (2) of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC and Articles 2(1)(d) and 70 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (3) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax to be interpreted as meaning that the obligation to pay excise duty and/or VAT is not extinguished where, as in the present case, smuggled goods are seized and subsequently confiscated after they have already been unlawfully introduced (released for consumption) into the customs territory of the European Union, even if the customs debt has been extinguished on the ground provided for in Article 124(1)(e) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the first question is answered in the affirmative, are Articles 2(b) and 7(1) of Council Directive 2008/118/EC (2) of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC and Articles 2(1)(d) and 70 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (3) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax to be interpreted as meaning that the obligation to pay excise duty and/or VAT is not extinguished where, as in the present case, smuggled goods are seized and subsequently confiscated after they have already been unlawfully introduced (released for consumption) into the customs territory of the European Union, even if the customs debt has been extinguished on the ground provided for in Article 124(1)(e) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013?

---

(1)  OJ 2013 L 269, p. 1.

(2)  OJ 2009 L 9, p. 12.

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

---

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/35

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria) lodged on 2 October 2020 — V.M.A. v Stolichna Obsthina, Rayon ‘Pancharevo’

(Case C-490/20)

(2020/C 433/44)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Sofia-grad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: V.M.A.

Defendant: Stolichna Obsthina, Rayon ‘Pancharevo’

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 20 TFEU and Article 21 TFEU and Articles 7, 24 and 45 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that the Bulgarian administrative authorities to which an application for a document certifying the birth of a child of Bulgarian nationality in another Member State of the EU was submitted, which had been certified by way of a Spanish birth certificate in which two persons of the female sex are registered as mothers without specifying whether one of them, and if so, which of them, is the child’s biological mother, are not permitted to refuse to issue a Bulgarian birth certificate on the grounds that the applicant refuses to state which of them is the child’s biological mother? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 20 TFEU and Article 21 TFEU and Articles 7, 24 and 45 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that the Bulgarian administrative authorities to which an application for a document certifying the birth of a child of Bulgarian nationality in another Member State of the EU was submitted, which had been certified by way of a Spanish birth certificate in which two persons of the female sex are registered as mothers without specifying whether one of them, and if so, which of them, is the child’s biological mother, are not permitted to refuse to issue a Bulgarian birth certificate on the grounds that the applicant refuses to state which of them is the child’s biological mother?

| 2. | Must Article 4(2) TEU and Article 9 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that respect for the national identity and constitutional identity of the Member States of the European Union means that those Member States have a broad discretion as regards the rules for establishing parentage? Specifically:






  — | Must Art. 4(2) TEU be interpreted as allowing Member State to request information on the biological parentage of the child? |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Must Article 4(2) TEU and Article 9 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that respect for the national identity and constitutional identity of the Member States of the European Union means that those Member States have a broad discretion as regards the rules for establishing parentage? Specifically:

—

Must Art. 4(2) TEU be interpreted as allowing Member State to request information on the biological parentage of the child?

| — | Must Article 4(2) TEU in conjunction with Article 7 and Article 24(2) of the Charter be interpreted as meaning that it is essential to strike a balance of interests between, on the one hand, the national identity and constitutional identity of a Member State and, on the other hand, the best interests of the child, having regard to the fact that, at the present time, there is neither a consensus as regards values nor, in legal terms, a consensus about the possibility of registering as parents on a birth certificate persons of the same sex without providing further details of whether one of them, and if so, which of them, is the child’s biological parent? If this question is answered in the affirmative, how could that balance of interests be achieved in concrete terms? |
| --- | --- |

—

Must Article 4(2) TEU in conjunction with Article 7 and Article 24(2) of the Charter be interpreted as meaning that it is essential to strike a balance of interests between, on the one hand, the national identity and constitutional identity of a Member State and, on the other hand, the best interests of the child, having regard to the fact that, at the present time, there is neither a consensus as regards values nor, in legal terms, a consensus about the possibility of registering as parents on a birth certificate persons of the same sex without providing further details of whether one of them, and if so, which of them, is the child’s biological parent? If this question is answered in the affirmative, how could that balance of interests be achieved in concrete terms?

| 3. | Is the answer to Question 1 affected by the legal consequences of Brexit in that one of the mothers listed on the birth certificate issued in another Member State is a UK national whereas the other mother is a national of an EU Member State, having regard in particular to the fact that the refusal to issue a Bulgarian birth certificate for the child constitutes an obstacle to the issue of an identity document for the child by an EU Member State and, as a result, may impede the unlimited exercise of her rights as an EU citizen? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is the answer to Question 1 affected by the legal consequences of Brexit in that one of the mothers listed on the birth certificate issued in another Member State is a UK national whereas the other mother is a national of an EU Member State, having regard in particular to the fact that the refusal to issue a Bulgarian birth certificate for the child constitutes an obstacle to the issue of an identity document for the child by an EU Member State and, as a result, may impede the unlimited exercise of her rights as an EU citizen?

| 4. | If the first question is answered in the affirmative: does EU law, in particular the principle of effectiveness, oblige the competent national authorities to derogate from the model birth certificate which forms part of the applicable national law? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If the first question is answered in the affirmative: does EU law, in particular the principle of effectiveness, oblige the competent national authorities to derogate from the model birth certificate which forms part of the applicable national law?

---

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/36

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 30 September 2020 — Randstad Italia SpA v Umana SpA and Others

(Case C-497/20)

(2020/C 433/45)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Randstad Italia SpA

Respondents: Umana SpA, Azienda USL Valle d’Aosta, IN. VA SpA and Synergie Italia agenzia per il lavoro SpA

Questions referred

| 1. | Do Article 4(3) TEU, Article 19(1) TEU, Article 2(1) and (2) TFEU, and Article 267 TFEU, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, preclude an interpretative practice such as that regarding the eighth paragraph of Article 111 of the Italian Constitution, Article 360(1)(1) and Article 362(1) of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure, and Article 110 of the Italian Code of Administrative Procedure — under which provisions an appeal in cassation against a judgment of the Consiglio di Stato (Council of State) may be brought for ‘reasons of jurisdiction’ — such as that which emerges from Judgment No 6/2018 of the Corte costituzionale (Constitutional Court) and from subsequent national case-law, in which it has been held, marking a departure from the approach previously taken, that the remedy of an appeal in cassation, on grounds of a ‘lack of jurisdiction’, is not available for the purpose of challenging judgments in which the Council of State has applied interpretative practices developed nationally but in conflict with judgments of the Court of Justice, in sectors governed by EU law (in the present case, public procurement) and with regard to which the Member States have waived their right to exercise sovereign powers in a manner incompatible with EU law, with the effect of consolidating infringements of Community law that might have been rectified using the remedy of an appeal in cassation and of undermining the uniform application of EU law and the effectiveness of the judicial protection afforded to individuals in legal situations of Community significance, contrary to the requirement that EU law be fully and duly applied by every court in a manner necessarily consistent with its correct interpretation by the Court of Justice, regard being had to the limits on the ‘procedural autonomy’ of the Member States in the structuring of their rules of procedure? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do Article 4(3) TEU, Article 19(1) TEU, Article 2(1) and (2) TFEU, and Article 267 TFEU, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, preclude an interpretative practice such as that regarding the eighth paragraph of Article 111 of the Italian Constitution, Article 360(1)(1) and Article 362(1) of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure, and Article 110 of the Italian Code of Administrative Procedure — under which provisions an appeal in cassation against a judgment of the Consiglio di Stato (Council of State) may be brought for ‘reasons of jurisdiction’ — such as that which emerges from Judgment No 6/2018 of the Corte costituzionale (Constitutional Court) and from subsequent national case-law, in which it has been held, marking a departure from the approach previously taken, that the remedy of an appeal in cassation, on grounds of a ‘lack of jurisdiction’, is not available for the purpose of challenging judgments in which the Council of State has applied interpretative practices developed nationally but in conflict with judgments of the Court of Justice, in sectors governed by EU law (in the present case, public procurement) and with regard to which the Member States have waived their right to exercise sovereign powers in a manner incompatible with EU law, with the effect of consolidating infringements of Community law that might have been rectified using the remedy of an appeal in cassation and of undermining the uniform application of EU law and the effectiveness of the judicial protection afforded to individuals in legal situations of Community significance, contrary to the requirement that EU law be fully and duly applied by every court in a manner necessarily consistent with its correct interpretation by the Court of Justice, regard being had to the limits on the ‘procedural autonomy’ of the Member States in the structuring of their rules of procedure?

| 2. | Do Article 4(3) TEU, Article 19(1) TEU, and Article 267 TFEU, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, preclude the eighth paragraph of Article 111 of the Italian Constitution, Article 360(1)(1) and Article 362(1) of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure, and Article 110 of the Italian Code of Administrative Procedure from being interpreted and applied, as they have been in national judicial practice, in such a manner that an appeal in cassation before the Combined Chambers [of the Court of Cassation] for ‘reasons of jurisdiction’, on grounds of a ‘lack of jurisdiction’, cannot be brought for the purpose of challenging a judgment in which the Council of State, ruling in a dispute involving issues concerning the application of EU law, refrains, without reason, from making a reference to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling, where the conditions relieving a national court of that obligation, which have been exhaustively listed by the Court of Justice (in its judgment of 6 October 1982, Cilfit and Others, C-238/81) and which must be strictly interpreted, are absent, contrary to the principle that national rules and procedural practices, even those arising from legislation or the Constitution, are incompatible with EU law if they prevent a national court (of last instance or otherwise), even temporarily, from making a reference for a preliminary ruling, with the effect of usurping the Court of Justice’s exclusive jurisdiction to interpret Community law correctly and in binding fashion, of making any conflicts of interpretation between the law applied by national courts and EU law irremediable (and promoting the consolidation of such conflicts of interpretation), and of undermining the uniform application and effective judicial protection of the rights enjoyed by individuals under EU law? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Do Article 4(3) TEU, Article 19(1) TEU, and Article 267 TFEU, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, preclude the eighth paragraph of Article 111 of the Italian Constitution, Article 360(1)(1) and Article 362(1) of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure, and Article 110 of the Italian Code of Administrative Procedure from being interpreted and applied, as they have been in national judicial practice, in such a manner that an appeal in cassation before the Combined Chambers [of the Court of Cassation] for ‘reasons of jurisdiction’, on grounds of a ‘lack of jurisdiction’, cannot be brought for the purpose of challenging a judgment in which the Council of State, ruling in a dispute involving issues concerning the application of EU law, refrains, without reason, from making a reference to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling, where the conditions relieving a national court of that obligation, which have been exhaustively listed by the Court of Justice (in its judgment of 6 October 1982, Cilfit and Others, C-238/81) and which must be strictly interpreted, are absent, contrary to the principle that national rules and procedural practices, even those arising from legislation or the Constitution, are incompatible with EU law if they prevent a national court (of last instance or otherwise), even temporarily, from making a reference for a preliminary ruling, with the effect of usurping the Court of Justice’s exclusive jurisdiction to interpret Community law correctly and in binding fashion, of making any conflicts of interpretation between the law applied by national courts and EU law irremediable (and promoting the consolidation of such conflicts of interpretation), and of undermining the uniform application and effective judicial protection of the rights enjoyed by individuals under EU law?

| 3. | Do the principles expressed by the Court of Justice in its judgments of 5 September 2019, Lombardi, C-333/18, of 5 April 2016, PFE, C-689/13, and of 4 July 2013, Fastweb, C-100/12, in connection with Article 1(1) and (3) and Article 2(1) of Directive 89/665/EEC (1), as amended by Directive 2007/66/EC (2), apply to the case in the main proceedings in which an undertaking has challenged its exclusion from a tendering procedure and the award of the contract to another undertaking and the Council of State has examined the substance only of the ground of appeal whereby the excluded undertaking disputed the points awarded to its technical offer, which were below the ‘minimum threshold’, and has examined as a matter of priority the cross-appeals brought by the contracting authority and the successful tenderer, has upheld them and has declared inadmissible (and refrained from examining the substance of) the other grounds of the main appeal disputing the outcome of the tendering procedure for other reasons (imprecise tender assessment criteria in the tendering specifications, failure to justify the marks awarded, unlawful appointment and composition of the tender committee), in accordance with national judicial practice according to which an undertaking that has been excluded from a tendering procedure has no standing to bring a claim disputing the award of the contract to a competitor undertaking, even by way of the lapse of the tendering procedure, it being necessary to determine the compatibility with EU law of the effect of depriving the undertaking of the right to submit for the court’s examination each and every reason for which it disputes the outcome of the tendering procedure, in a situation where that undertaking’s exclusion has not been definitively established and where every competitor may argue a similar legitimate interest in the exclusion of its competitors’ tenders, which could make it impossible for the contracting authority to choose a regular tender and make it necessary to launch a new tendering procedure in which every tenderer might participate? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Do the principles expressed by the Court of Justice in its judgments of 5 September 2019, Lombardi, C-333/18, of 5 April 2016, PFE, C-689/13, and of 4 July 2013, Fastweb, C-100/12, in connection with Article 1(1) and (3) and Article 2(1) of Directive 89/665/EEC (1), as amended by Directive 2007/66/EC (2), apply to the case in the main proceedings in which an undertaking has challenged its exclusion from a tendering procedure and the award of the contract to another undertaking and the Council of State has examined the substance only of the ground of appeal whereby the excluded undertaking disputed the points awarded to its technical offer, which were below the ‘minimum threshold’, and has examined as a matter of priority the cross-appeals brought by the contracting authority and the successful tenderer, has upheld them and has declared inadmissible (and refrained from examining the substance of) the other grounds of the main appeal disputing the outcome of the tendering procedure for other reasons (imprecise tender assessment criteria in the tendering specifications, failure to justify the marks awarded, unlawful appointment and composition of the tender committee), in accordance with national judicial practice according to which an undertaking that has been excluded from a tendering procedure has no standing to bring a claim disputing the award of the contract to a competitor undertaking, even by way of the lapse of the tendering procedure, it being necessary to determine the compatibility with EU law of the effect of depriving the undertaking of the right to submit for the court’s examination each and every reason for which it disputes the outcome of the tendering procedure, in a situation where that undertaking’s exclusion has not been definitively established and where every competitor may argue a similar legitimate interest in the exclusion of its competitors’ tenders, which could make it impossible for the contracting authority to choose a regular tender and make it necessary to launch a new tendering procedure in which every tenderer might participate?

---

(1)  Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33).

(2)  Directive 2007/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007 amending Council Directives 89/665/EEC and 92/13/EEC with regard to improving the effectiveness of review procedures concerning the award of public contracts (OJ 2007 L 335, p. 31).

---

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/37

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias (Greece) lodged on 1 October 2020 — DIMCO Dimovasili M.I.K.E. v Ypourgos Perivallontos kai Energeias

(Case C-499/20)

(2020/C 433/46)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Symvoulio tis Epikrateias

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: DIMCO Dimovasili M.I.K.E.

Defendant: Ypourgos Perivallontos kai Energeias

Questions referred

| — | Must Articles 4(1.1), 7(4) and 8 of Directive 97/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 May 1997 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States concerning pressure equipment (OJ 1997 L 181), read in combination with Annex I to that Directive, be interpreted as meaning that they preclude national regulations, such as the contested paragraphs 1.2.4, P9.5.6.9 and P9.5.8.2 of the Greek Technical Regulation for Gas Installations with an operating pressure of up to 0.5 bar, which impose conditions and restrictions as to the installation method used for pressure equipment (gas pipes), such as compulsory ventilation and a ban on underfloor pipe lines, in order to protect persons, primarily from earthquakes, especially where those conditions and restrictions also apply indiscriminately to pipes which, as in this case, have the CE marking and which the manufacturer guarantees can be safely installed and used without complying with the abovementioned conditions and restrictions? |
| --- | --- |

—

Must Articles 4(1.1), 7(4) and 8 of Directive 97/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 May 1997 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States concerning pressure equipment (OJ 1997 L 181), read in combination with Annex I to that Directive, be interpreted as meaning that they preclude national regulations, such as the contested paragraphs 1.2.4, P9.5.6.9 and P9.5.8.2 of the Greek Technical Regulation for Gas Installations with an operating pressure of up to 0.5 bar, which impose conditions and restrictions as to the installation method used for pressure equipment (gas pipes), such as compulsory ventilation and a ban on underfloor pipe lines, in order to protect persons, primarily from earthquakes, especially where those conditions and restrictions also apply indiscriminately to pipes which, as in this case, have the CE marking and which the manufacturer guarantees can be safely installed and used without complying with the abovementioned conditions and restrictions?

| — | Or, conversely, must the above provisions of Directive 97/23/ΕC, read in combination with Article 2 of the Directive, be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude conditions and restrictions as to the installation method used for pressure equipment (gas pipes), such as those at issue in this case? |
| --- | --- |

—

Or, conversely, must the above provisions of Directive 97/23/ΕC, read in combination with Article 2 of the Directive, be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude conditions and restrictions as to the installation method used for pressure equipment (gas pipes), such as those at issue in this case?

---

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/38

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark (Austria) lodged on 9 October 2020 — RM v Landespolizeidirektion Steiermark

(Case C-508/20)

(2020/C 433/47)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: RM

Defendant: Landespolizeidirektion Steiermark

| 1. | In the context of criminal proceedings that are being conducted in order to protect a monopoly system, must the national court or tribunal examine the applicable criminal penalty rule in the light of the freedom to provide services if it has previously examined the monopoly system in accordance with the guidance provided by the European Court of Justice and that examination has revealed that the monopoly system is justified? |
| --- | --- |

1.

In the context of criminal proceedings that are being conducted in order to protect a monopoly system, must the national court or tribunal examine the applicable criminal penalty rule in the light of the freedom to provide services if it has previously examined the monopoly system in accordance with the guidance provided by the European Court of Justice and that examination has revealed that the monopoly system is justified?

| 2. | If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:






  2(a) | Must Article 56 TFEU be interpreted as precluding a national provision according to which, by way of sanction for making prohibited lotteries commercially available contrary to the Law on games of chance, a fine must be imposed per gaming machine, with no absolute limit on the total amount of the fines imposed? |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:

2(a)

Must Article 56 TFEU be interpreted as precluding a national provision according to which, by way of sanction for making prohibited lotteries commercially available contrary to the Law on games of chance, a fine must be imposed per gaming machine, with no absolute limit on the total amount of the fines imposed?

| 2(b) | Must Article 56 TFEU be interpreted as precluding a national provision which, by way of sanction for making prohibited lotteries commercially available contrary to the Law on games of chance, provides for the mandatory imposition of a minimum penalty of EUR 6 000 per gaming machine? |
| --- | --- |

2(b)

Must Article 56 TFEU be interpreted as precluding a national provision which, by way of sanction for making prohibited lotteries commercially available contrary to the Law on games of chance, provides for the mandatory imposition of a minimum penalty of EUR 6 000 per gaming machine?

| 2(c) | Must Article 56 TFEU be interpreted as precluding a national provision which, by way of sanction for making prohibited lotteries commercially available contrary to the Law on games of chance, provides for a custodial sentence in the event of non-payment per gaming machine, with no absolute limit on the total number of custodial sentences imposed? |
| --- | --- |

2(c)

Must Article 56 TFEU be interpreted as precluding a national provision which, by way of sanction for making prohibited lotteries commercially available contrary to the Law on games of chance, provides for a custodial sentence in the event of non-payment per gaming machine, with no absolute limit on the total number of custodial sentences imposed?

| 2(d) | Must Article 56 TFEU be interpreted as precluding a national provision which, in the event of a penalty being imposed for making prohibited lotteries commercially available contrary to the Law on games of chance, requires the payment of a contribution to the costs of criminal proceedings amounting to 10 % of the fines imposed? |
| --- | --- |

2(d)

Must Article 56 TFEU be interpreted as precluding a national provision which, in the event of a penalty being imposed for making prohibited lotteries commercially available contrary to the Law on games of chance, requires the payment of a contribution to the costs of criminal proceedings amounting to 10 % of the fines imposed?

| 3. | If Question 1 is answered in the negative:






  3(a) | Must Article 49(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) (1) be interpreted as precluding a national provision according to which, by way of sanction for making prohibited lotteries commercially available contrary to the Law on games of chance, a fine must be imposed per gaming machine, with no absolute limit on the total amount of the fines imposed? |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

If Question 1 is answered in the negative:

3(a)

Must Article 49(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) (1) be interpreted as precluding a national provision according to which, by way of sanction for making prohibited lotteries commercially available contrary to the Law on games of chance, a fine must be imposed per gaming machine, with no absolute limit on the total amount of the fines imposed?

| 3(b) | Must Article 49(3) of the Charter be interpreted as precluding a national provision which, by way of sanction for making prohibited lotteries commercially available contrary to the Law on games of chance, provides for the mandatory imposition of a minimum penalty of EUR 6 000 per gaming machine? |
| --- | --- |

3(b)

Must Article 49(3) of the Charter be interpreted as precluding a national provision which, by way of sanction for making prohibited lotteries commercially available contrary to the Law on games of chance, provides for the mandatory imposition of a minimum penalty of EUR 6 000 per gaming machine?

| 3(c) | Must Article 49(3) of the Charter be interpreted as precluding a national provision which, by way of sanction for making prohibited lotteries commercially available contrary to the Law on games of chance, provides for a custodial sentence in the event of non-payment per gaming machine, with no absolute limit on the total number of custodial sentences imposed? |
| --- | --- |

3(c)

Must Article 49(3) of the Charter be interpreted as precluding a national provision which, by way of sanction for making prohibited lotteries commercially available contrary to the Law on games of chance, provides for a custodial sentence in the event of non-payment per gaming machine, with no absolute limit on the total number of custodial sentences imposed?

| 3(d) | Must Article 49(3) of the Charter be interpreted as precluding a national provision which, in the event of a penalty being imposed for making prohibited lotteries commercially available contrary to the Law on games of chance, requires the payment of a contribution to the costs of criminal proceedings amounting to 10 % of the fines imposed? |
| --- | --- |

3(d)

Must Article 49(3) of the Charter be interpreted as precluding a national provision which, in the event of a penalty being imposed for making prohibited lotteries commercially available contrary to the Law on games of chance, requires the payment of a contribution to the costs of criminal proceedings amounting to 10 % of the fines imposed?

---

(1)  OJ 2010 C 83, p. 389.

---

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/39

---

Action brought on 12 October 2020 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria

(Case C-510/20)

(2020/C 433/48)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: O. Beynet and Ivan Zalogin, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Bulgaria

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(2)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) and Article 17(2) and (3) of Directive 2008/56/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of marine environmental policy; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(2)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) and Article 17(2) and (3) of Directive 2008/56/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of marine environmental policy;

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

—

order the Republic of Bulgaria to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

According to the Commission, the Republic of Bulgaria, in breach of the abovementioned provisions of Directive 2008/56/EC, has failed to send to the Commission, within the prescribed period, the mandatory updates of (i) the initial assessment of the status of the marine environment, (ii) the determination of good environmental status and (iii) the environmental targets.

---

(1)  OJ 2008 L 164, p. 19.

---

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/40

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Silistra (Bulgaria) lodged on 16 October 2020 — DB, LY v Nachalnik na Rayonno upravlenie Silistra pri Oblastna direktsiya na Ministerstvoto na vatreshnite raboti

(Case C-520/20)

(2020/C 433/49)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Silistra

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: DB, LY

Defendant: Nachalnik na Rayonno upravlenie Silistra pri Oblastna direktsiya na Ministerstvoto na vatreshnite raboti

Question referred

Must Article 39 of Council Decision 2007/533/JHA of 12 June 2007 on the establishment, operation and use of the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II), and in particular Article 39(3) thereof, be interpreted as meaning that it allows national rules and administrative practices under which, if the competent executing authority has valid reason to conclude that the alert entered in the SIS is not covered by the objectives for which it has been registered, and in particular the objectives laid down in Article 38(1), that authority can and must refuse to execute it?

---

General Court

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/41

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2020 — France and IFP Énergies nouvelles v Commission

(Joined Cases T-479/11 RENV and T-157/12 RENV) (1)

(State aid - Oil exploration - State aid scheme implemented by France - Implied and unlimited guarantee conferred by IFPEN by the grant of the status of EPIC - Advantage - Presumption of the existence of an advantage - Proportionality)

(2020/C 433/50)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant in Case T-479/11 RENV: French Republic (represented by: P. Dodeller, acting as Agent)

Applicant in Case T-157/12 RENV: IFP Énergies nouvelles (Rueil-Malmaison, France) (represented by: E. Lagathu and É. Barbier de La Serre, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky and D. Grespan, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision of 29 June 2011 on State aid granted by France to the Institut Français du Pétrole (Case C 35/08 (ex NN 11/08)) (OJ 2012 L 14, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Article 5(3) and (4) and Article 6(1) in so far as it concerns the maximum impact of the State guarantee as estimated in Article 5(3) and (4) of Commission Decision 2012/26/EU of 29 June 2011 on State aid granted by France to the Institut Français du Pétrole (Case C 35/08 (ex NN 11/08); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Article 5(3) and (4) and Article 6(1) in so far as it concerns the maximum impact of the State guarantee as estimated in Article 5(3) and (4) of Commission Decision 2012/26/EU of 29 June 2011 on State aid granted by France to the Institut Français du Pétrole (Case C 35/08 (ex NN 11/08);

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

2.

Dismisses the actions as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission, the French Republic and IFP Énergies nouvelles each to bear their own costs in Cases T-479/11 and T-157/12; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission, the French Republic and IFP Énergies nouvelles each to bear their own costs in Cases T-479/11 and T-157/12;

| 4. | Orders the French Republic, IFP Énergies nouvelles and the Commission each to bear their own costs in Case C-438/16 P; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the French Republic, IFP Énergies nouvelles and the Commission each to bear their own costs in Case C-438/16 P;

| 5. | Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission in Case T-479/11 RENV; |
| --- | --- |

5.

Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission in Case T-479/11 RENV;

| 6. | Orders IFP Énergies nouvelles and the Commission each to bear their own costs in Case T-157/12 RENV. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Orders IFP Énergies nouvelles and the Commission each to bear their own costs in Case T-157/12 RENV.

---

(1)  OJ C 340, 19.11.2011.

---

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/42

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2020 — První novinová společnost v Commission

(Case T-316/18) (1)

(State aid - Postal sector - Universal service obligation - Decision not to raise any objections - Safeguarding procedural rights - Duration of the procedure - Complete and sufficient examination of the case by the Commission - Compensation for the discharge of the universal service obligation - Service of general economic interest - Directive 97/67/EC - Net avoided cost methodology - Obligation to state reasons)

(2020/C 433/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: První novinová společnost a.s., successor in law to Mediaservis s.r.o. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: D. Vosol and C. Schneider, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, D. Recchia and K. Blanck, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Vláčil, T. Müller and I. Gavrilová, acting as Agents), Česká pošta s. p. (Prague) (represented by: P. Kadlec, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2018) 753 final of 19 February 2018, State aid SA.45281 (2017/N) and State aid SA. 44859 (2016/FC), declaring that the compensations granted by the Czech Republic to Česká pošta for the performance of its postal activities under a universal service obligation for the period 2013 to 2017 constitute State aid compatible with the internal market, pursuant to Article 106(2) TFEU.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders První novinová společnost a.s., successor in law to Mediaservis s. r. o., to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders První novinová společnost a.s., successor in law to Mediaservis s. r. o., to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders the Czech Republic and Česká pošta s. p. to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Czech Republic and Česká pošta s. p. to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 276, 6.8.2018.

---

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/42

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2020 — GVN v Commission

(Case T-583/18) (1)

(State aid - Public transport of passengers - Offsetting of the costs involved in the performance of public service obligations - Obligation to establish maximum tariffs for pupils, students, apprentices and persons with reduced mobility - Article 7a of the Niedersächsisches Nahverkehrsgesetz (Law on local transport of the Land of Lower Saxony) - Decision not to raise objections - Article 3(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 - Transfer of financial resources from a Land to transport authorities at municipal level - Concept of aid)

(2020/C 433/52)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Gesamtverband Verkehrsgewerbe Niedersachsen e.V. (GVN) (Hannover, Germany) (represented by: C. Antweiler, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Tomat and K.-P. Wojcik, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: J. Möller, D. Klebs and S. Heimerl, acting as Agents) and Land Niedersachsen (Germany) (represented by: S. Barth and H. Gading, lawyers)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2018) 4385 final of 12 July 2018 not to raise objections to the measure adopted by the Land Niedersachsen under Article 7a of the Niedersächsisches Nahverkehrsgesetz [Case SA.46538 (2017/NN)] (OJ 2018 C 292, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Gesamtverband Verkehrsgewerbe Niedersachsen e.V. (GVN) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Gesamtverband Verkehrsgewerbe Niedersachsen e.V. (GVN) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders the Federal Republic of Germany and the Land Niedersachsen to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Federal Republic of Germany and the Land Niedersachsen to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.

---

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/43

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2020 — Hermann Albers v Commission

(Case T-597/18) (1)

(State aid - Public transport of passengers - Offsetting of the costs involved in the performance of public service obligations - Obligation to establish maximum tariffs for pupils, students, apprentices and persons with reduced mobility - Article 7a of the Niedersächsisches Nahverkehrsgesetz (Law on local transport of the Land of Lower Saxony) - Decision not to raise objections - Article 3(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 - Transfer of financial resources from a Land to transport authorities at municipal level - Concept of aid - Obligation to notify)

(2020/C 433/53)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Hermann Albers e.K. (Neubörger, Germany) (represented by: S. Roling, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Tomat and K.-P. Wojcik, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: J. Möller, D. Klebs and S. Heimerl, acting as Agents) and Land Niedersachsen (Germany) (represented by: S. Barth and H. Gading, lawyers)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2018) 4385 final of 12 July 2018 not to raise objections to the measure adopted by the Land Niedersachsen under Article 7a of the Niedersächsisches Nahverkehrsgesetz (Law on local transport of the Land of Lower Saxony) [Case SA. 46697 (2017/NN)] (OJ 2018 C 292, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Hermann Albers e.K. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Hermann Albers e.K. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders the Federal Republic of Germany and the Land Niedersachsen to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Federal Republic of Germany and the Land Niedersachsen to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.

---

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/44

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2020 — smart things solutions v EUIPO — Samsung Electronics (smart:)things)

(Case T-48/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark smart:)things - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Article 59(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2020/C 433/54)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: smart things solutions GmbH (Seefeld, Germany) (represented by: R. Dissmann, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Söder, H. O’Neill and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Samsung Electronics GmbH (Schwalbach/Taunus, Germany) (represented by: T. Schmitz, M. Breuer and I. Dimitrov, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 November 2018 (Case R 835/2018-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Samsung Electronics and smart things solutions.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders smart things solutions GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Samsung Electronics GmbH. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders smart things solutions GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Samsung Electronics GmbH.

---

(1)  OJ C 103, 18.3.2019.

---

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/45

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2020 –Karpeta-Kovalyova v Commission

(Case T-249/19) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the contract staff - Remuneration - Decision refusing entitlement to the expatriation allowance, the daily subsistence allowance, the installation allowance and to reimbursement of removal expenses and travel costs on taking up duties - Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Diplomatic status - Five-year reference period - Concept of ‘habitual residence’)

(2020/C 433/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Marina Karpeta-Kovalyova (Woluwe-Saint-Pierre, Belgium) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

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

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of the Commission decision of 14 June 2018 refusing the applicant entitlement to the expatriation allowance, the daily subsistence allowance, the installation allowance and to reimbursement of travel costs on taking up duties and of removal expenses.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Ms Marina Karpeta-Kovalyova to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ms Marina Karpeta-Kovalyova to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 187, 3.6.2019.

---

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/45

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2020 — Decathlon v EUIPO — Athlon Custom Sportswear (athlon custom sportswear)

(Case T-349/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark athlon custom sportswear - Earlier EU word mark DECATHLON - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2020/C 433/56)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Decathlon (Villeneuve-d’Ascq, France) (represented by: A. Cléry and C. Devernay, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Athlon Custom Sportswear PC (Kallithea, Greece)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 March 2019 (Case R 1724/2018-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Decathlon and Athlon Custom Sportswear.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

Orders Decathlon to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 255, 29.7.2019.

---

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/46

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2020 — Itinerant Show Room v EUIPO (FAKE DUCK)

(Case T-607/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark FAKE DUCK - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Principles of equal treatment and legality)

(2020/C 433/57)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

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

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 July 2019 (Case R 830/2019-2) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign FAKE DUCK as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Itinerant Show Room Srl to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Itinerant Show Room Srl to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 372, 4.11.2019.

---

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/46

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2020 — Body Attack Sports Nutrition v EUIPO — Sakkari (Sakkattack)

(Case T-788/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark Sakkattack - Earlier international word marks ATTACK and Body Attack and earlier international figurative mark Body Attack SPORTS NUTRITION - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2020/C 433/58)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Body Attack Sports Nutrition GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: S. Labesius, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Maria Sakkari (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: M. Nikolaraki, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 August 2019 (Joined Cases R 2432/2018-4 and R 2562/2018-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Body Attack Sports Nutrition and Ms Sakkari.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Body Attack Sports Nutrition GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Body Attack Sports Nutrition GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 10, 13.1.2020.

---

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/47

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2020 — Dvectis CZ v EUIPO — Yado (Support pillow)

(Case T-818/19) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered community design representing a support pillow - Earlier Community design - Ground for invalidity - No individual character - Informed user - Degree of freedom of the designer - No different overall impression - Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Obligation to state reasons)

(2020/C 433/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Dvectis CZ s. r. o. (Brno, Czech Republic) (represented by: J. Svojanovská, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Yado s. r. o. (Handlová, Slovakia)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 September 2019 (Case R 513/2018-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Yado and Dvectis CZ.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Dvectis CZ s. r. o. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Dvectis CZ s. r. o. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 27, 27.1.2020.

---

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/48

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2020 — X-cen-tek v EUIPO — Altenloh, Brinck & Co. (PAX)

(Case T-847/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark PAX - Earlier EU and international figurative marks SPAX - Relative ground for refusal - Dominant element - No counteraction - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Application of the law ratione temporis)

(2020/C 433/60)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: X-cen-tek GmbH & Co. KG (Wardenburg, Germany) (represented by: H. Hillers, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Altenloh, Brinck & Co. GmbH & Co. KG (Ennepetal, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 September 2019 (Case R 2324/2018-2) regarding opposition proceedings between Altenloh, Brinck & Co. and X-cen-tek.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders X-cen-tek GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders X-cen-tek GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 45, 10.2.2020.

---

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/48

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2020 — Body Attack Sports Nutrition v EUIPO — Sakkari (SAKKATTACK)

(Case T-851/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark SAKKATTACK - Earlier international word marks ATTACK and Body Attack and earlier international figurative mark Body Attack SPORTS NUTRITION - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2020/C 433/61)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Body Attack Sports Nutrition GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: S. Labesius, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Maria Sakkari (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: M. Nikolaraki, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 October 2019 (Case R 2560/2018-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Body Attack Sports Nutrition and Ms Sakkari.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Body Attack Sports Nutrition GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Body Attack Sports Nutrition GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 61, 24.2.2020.

---

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/49

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2020 — Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — Bio-tec Biologische Naturverpackungen (BIOPLAST BIOPLASTICS FOR A BETTER LIFE)

(Case T-2/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark BIOPLAST BIOPLASTICS FOR A BETTER LIFE - Earlier EU word mark BIOPLAK - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2020/C 433/62)

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. Crespo Carrillo and E. Śliwińska, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Bio-tec Biologische Naturverpackungen GmbH & Co. KG (Emmerich, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 October 2019 (Case R 418/2019-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Laboratorios Ern and Bio-tec Biologische Naturverpackungen.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Laboratorios Ern, SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Laboratorios Ern, SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 68, 2.3.2020.

---

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/50

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2020 — Rothenberger v EUIPO — Paper Point (ROBOX)

(Case T-49/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark ROBOX - Earlier EU word mark OROBOX - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Independent subcategory of goods - Taking into consideration of a descriptive element - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2020/C 433/63)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Rothenberger AG (Kelkheim, Germany) (represented by: V. von Bomhard and J. Fuhrmann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: G. Sakalaitė-Orlovskienė, J.F. Crespo Carrillo and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Paper Point S.n.c di Daria Fabbroni e Simone Borghini (Arezzo, Italy)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 October 2019 (Case R 210/2019-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Paper Point and Rothenberger.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Rothenberger AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Rothenberger AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 87, 16.3.2020.

---

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/50

---

Order of the General Court of 6 October 2020 — Sharpston v Council and Conference of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States

(Case T-180/20) (1)

(Action for annulment - Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union - Declaration by the Conference of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States on the consequences of the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union for the Advocates General of the Court of Justice - Act not open to challenge - Inadmissibility)

(2020/C 433/64)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Eleanor Sharpston (Schoenfels, Luxembourg) (represented by: N. Forwood and J. Robb, Barristers, and H. Mercer QC)

Defendants: Council of the European Union and Conference of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States (represented by: M. Bauer, R. Meyer and A. Sikora-Kalėda, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFUE seeking partial annulment of the Declaration by the Conference of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States on the consequences of the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union for the Advocates General of the Court of Justice of the European Union, of 29 January 2020.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Ms Eleanor Sharpston shall bear her own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union and the Conference of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Ms Eleanor Sharpston shall bear her own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union and the Conference of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States.

---

(1)  OJ C 201, 15.6.2020.

---

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/51

---

Order of the General Court of 6 October 2020 — Sharpston v Court of Justice of the European Union

(Case T-184/20) (1)

(Action for annulment - Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union - Letter from the President of the Court of Justice inviting the Member States to provide for the appointment of an Advocate General - Act not open to challenge - Inadmissibility)

(2020/C 433/65)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Eleanor Sharpston (Schoenfels, Luxembourg) (represented by: N. Forwood, Barrister)

Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union (represented by: J. Inghelram and Á. Almendros Manzano, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of the decision contained in the letter of the President of the Court of Justice of 31 January 2020 addressed to the President of the Council of the European Union inviting the Member States to provide for the appointment of an Advocate General to the post currently held by the applicant.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Ms Eleanor Sharpston shall bear her own costs and pay those incurred by the Court of Justice of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Ms Eleanor Sharpston shall bear her own costs and pay those incurred by the Court of Justice of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 201, 15.6.2020.

---

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/51

---

Order of the General Court of 6 October 2020 — Sharpston v Council and Representatives of the Governments of the Member States

(Case T-550/20) (1)

(Action for annulment - Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union - Decision of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States to appoint an Advocate General to the Court of Justice - Act not open to challenge - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2020/C 433/66)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Eleanor Sharpston (Schoenfels, Luxembourg) (represented by: N. Forwood, Barrister, and J. Flynn QC)

Defendants: Council of the European Union and Representatives of the Governments of the Member States (represented by: M. Bauer, R. Meyer and A. Sikora-Kalėda, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking partial annulment of Decision (EU) 2020/1251 of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of 2 September 2020 appointing three Judges and an Advocate General to the Court of Justice (OJ 2020 L 292, p. 1), in so far as it concerns the appointment of Mr Athanasios Rantos to the post of Advocate General at the Court of Justice.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Ms Eleanor Sharpston shall bear her own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union and the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States, including those incurred in the proceedings for interim relief before the General Court and the Court of Justice in Cases T-550/20 R, C-423/20 P(R) and C-424/20 P(R). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Ms Eleanor Sharpston shall bear her own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union and the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States, including those incurred in the proceedings for interim relief before the General Court and the Court of Justice in Cases T-550/20 R, C-423/20 P(R) and C-424/20 P(R).

---

(1)  OJ C 348, 10.10.2020.

---

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/52

---

Action brought on 11 September 2020 — OD v Commission

(Case T-575/20)

(2020/C 433/67)

Language of the case: Slovenian

Parties

Applicant: OD (represented by: V. Cukrov, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul in its entirety Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/1025 of 13 July 2020 on the applicability of Article 34 of Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council to railway freight transport in Slovenia (notified under document number C(2020) 4540) (OJ 2020 L 226, p. 5; ‘the implementing decision’), with regard to both Article 1 of that decision, pursuant to which Directive 2014/25/EU continues to apply to contracts awarded by contracting entities and intended to enable the rail freight transport services to be carried out on the territory of Slovenia, and Article 2 of that decision, which provides that that decision is addressed to the Republic of Slovenia; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul in its entirety Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/1025 of 13 July 2020 on the applicability of Article 34 of Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council to railway freight transport in Slovenia (notified under document number C(2020) 4540) (OJ 2020 L 226, p. 5; ‘the implementing decision’), with regard to both Article 1 of that decision, pursuant to which Directive 2014/25/EU continues to apply to contracts awarded by contracting entities and intended to enable the rail freight transport services to be carried out on the territory of Slovenia, and Article 2 of that decision, which provides that that decision is addressed to the Republic of Slovenia;

| — | Order the European Commission to pay all the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred by the applicant as set out in the statement for fees, within 15 days from the date of delivery of judgment, in addition to statutory interest in the event of late payment running from the expiry of that 15-day period. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the European Commission to pay all the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred by the applicant as set out in the statement for fees, within 15 days from the date of delivery of judgment, in addition to statutory interest in the event of late payment running from the expiry of that 15-day period.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging substantive illegality of the contested decision as it indicates the incorrect addressee:






  — | in Article 2 of the contested decision, the defendant indicated that the addressee of that decision is the Republic of Slovenia, whereas the applicant was the sole intervener in the procedure before the defendant and had, moreover, requested that the decision be addressed to both the applicant and the Republic of Slovenia. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging substantive illegality of the contested decision as it indicates the incorrect addressee:

—

in Article 2 of the contested decision, the defendant indicated that the addressee of that decision is the Republic of Slovenia, whereas the applicant was the sole intervener in the procedure before the defendant and had, moreover, requested that the decision be addressed to both the applicant and the Republic of Slovenia.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging formal illegality of the contested decision:






  — | the defendant did not invite the applicant to submit the necessary additional information and, in the absence of that information, adopted an incorrect decision, on the basis of which the (goods) market taken into consideration does not include freight transport by road, thereby infringing the right to sound administration; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging formal illegality of the contested decision:

—

the defendant did not invite the applicant to submit the necessary additional information and, in the absence of that information, adopted an incorrect decision, on the basis of which the (goods) market taken into consideration does not include freight transport by road, thereby infringing the right to sound administration;

| — | the defendant failed to state sufficient reasons for the contested decision with regard to the third, fourth and fifth pleas in law, in so far as that decision did not adopt a position regarding the defendant’s own previous decisions that are favourable to the applicant, thereby committing a substantial infringement of procedural rules. |
| --- | --- |

—

the defendant failed to state sufficient reasons for the contested decision with regard to the third, fourth and fifth pleas in law, in so far as that decision did not adopt a position regarding the defendant’s own previous decisions that are favourable to the applicant, thereby committing a substantial infringement of procedural rules.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging substantive illegality of the contested decision on the ground that it incorrectly defines the (goods) market taken into consideration:






  — | the defendant, going against its own practice (for example, Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/132 of 24 January 2017), circumscribed the (goods) market taken into consideration, limiting it to the railway transport market rather than including the market for railway, road and air transport; |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging substantive illegality of the contested decision on the ground that it incorrectly defines the (goods) market taken into consideration:

—

the defendant, going against its own practice (for example, Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/132 of 24 January 2017), circumscribed the (goods) market taken into consideration, limiting it to the railway transport market rather than including the market for railway, road and air transport;

| — | in so doing, the defendant infringed the principle of equal treatment and the prohibition of discrimination, to the applicant’s detriment, in so far as, in the substantially similar situation referred to in the previous indent, the defendant adopted a decision in favour of the investor, whereas it rejected the current applicant’s request. |
| --- | --- |

—

in so doing, the defendant infringed the principle of equal treatment and the prohibition of discrimination, to the applicant’s detriment, in so far as, in the substantially similar situation referred to in the previous indent, the defendant adopted a decision in favour of the investor, whereas it rejected the current applicant’s request.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging substantive illegality of the contested decision on the ground that it incorrectly defines the geographical market:






  — | the defendant unjustifiably limited the geographical market to the territory of the Republic of Slovenia on the basis of an incorrect interpretation of Special Report No 8/2016, entitled ‘Rail freight transport in the EU: still not on the right track’ published by the European Court of Auditors, thereby failing to take into account the applicant’s claims and evidence that it in fact operates on the international market. |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging substantive illegality of the contested decision on the ground that it incorrectly defines the geographical market:

—

the defendant unjustifiably limited the geographical market to the territory of the Republic of Slovenia on the basis of an incorrect interpretation of Special Report No 8/2016, entitled ‘Rail freight transport in the EU: still not on the right track’ published by the European Court of Auditors, thereby failing to take into account the applicant’s claims and evidence that it in fact operates on the international market.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging substantive illegality of the contested decision on the ground that it fails to take into account all the indicators for the assessment of the competitive situation:






  — | in the assessment of the competitive situation, the defendant took into consideration the applicant’s market share alone, whereas it should have taken into account several other factors, such as the actual or potential presence of competition for the purposes of Article 34(2) of Directive 2014/25/EU; the defendant failed to take into consideration the fact that four new competitors had joined the market in addition to the three competitors already on the market, as well as the fact that, for that reason, the applicant’s market share would subsequently decrease; |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging substantive illegality of the contested decision on the ground that it fails to take into account all the indicators for the assessment of the competitive situation:

—

in the assessment of the competitive situation, the defendant took into consideration the applicant’s market share alone, whereas it should have taken into account several other factors, such as the actual or potential presence of competition for the purposes of Article 34(2) of Directive 2014/25/EU; the defendant failed to take into consideration the fact that four new competitors had joined the market in addition to the three competitors already on the market, as well as the fact that, for that reason, the applicant’s market share would subsequently decrease;

| — | the defendant, taking into consideration the applicant’s market share alone, incorrectly found that that share (85.21 %) is too high to conclude that the market is open to competition, even though it had already established in previous decisions that market shares of 86,7 % and 73,6 % are not too high if account is taken of other circumstances (Commission Decision 2007/706/EC of 29 October 2007 and Commission Decision 2006/422/EC of 29 October 2007). |
| --- | --- |

—

the defendant, taking into consideration the applicant’s market share alone, incorrectly found that that share (85.21 %) is too high to conclude that the market is open to competition, even though it had already established in previous decisions that market shares of 86,7 % and 73,6 % are not too high if account is taken of other circumstances (Commission Decision 2007/706/EC of 29 October 2007 and Commission Decision 2006/422/EC of 29 October 2007).

---

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/53

---

Action brought on 17 September 2020 — Evropská vodní doprava-sped. and Others v Parliament and Council

(Case T-576/20)

(2020/C 433/68)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Evropská vodní doprava-sped. s. r. o. (Prague, Czech Republic), Konakl s. r. o. (Klíčany, Czech Republic), Eurex AD s. r. o. (Děčín, Czech Republic), Ladislav Říha (Heřmanov, Czech Republic), Vladimír Hurych (Ústí nad Labem, Czech Republic) (represented by: A. Verny, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament and Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul Regulation (EU) 2020/1054 (1) amending Regulations (EC) No 561/2006 and (EU) No 165/2014, adopted on the basis of Directive (EU) 2018/957 (2) amending Directive 96/71/EC (3) concerning the posting of workers; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Regulation (EU) 2020/1054 (1) amending Regulations (EC) No 561/2006 and (EU) No 165/2014, adopted on the basis of Directive (EU) 2018/957 (2) amending Directive 96/71/EC (3) concerning the posting of workers;

| — | annul Regulation (EU) 2020/1055 (4) amending Regulations (EC) No 1071/2009, (EC) No 1072/2009 and (EU) No 1024/2012, adopted on the basis of Directive (EU) 2018/957 amending Directive 96/71/EC concerning the posting of workers; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Regulation (EU) 2020/1055 (4) amending Regulations (EC) No 1071/2009, (EC) No 1072/2009 and (EU) No 1024/2012, adopted on the basis of Directive (EU) 2018/957 amending Directive 96/71/EC concerning the posting of workers;

| — | annul Directive (EU) 2020/1057 (5) laying down specific rules with respect to Directives 96/71/EC and 2014/67/EU and amending Directive 2006/22/EC, (6) adopted on the basis of Directive (EU) 2018/957 amending Directive 96/71/EC concerning the posting of workers; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Directive (EU) 2020/1057 (5) laying down specific rules with respect to Directives 96/71/EC and 2014/67/EU and amending Directive 2006/22/EC, (6) adopted on the basis of Directive (EU) 2018/957 amending Directive 96/71/EC concerning the posting of workers;

| — | applying Article 68 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court by analogy, join these proceedings with Cases C-626/18 and C-620/18 for the purpose of the decision, if that is considered admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

applying Article 68 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court by analogy, join these proceedings with Cases C-626/18 and C-620/18 for the purpose of the decision, if that is considered admissible;

| — | pursuant to Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, order the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to pay the costs necessarily incurred. |
| --- | --- |

—

pursuant to Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, order the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to pay the costs necessarily incurred.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

The action, brought within the time limit, primarily concerns the legislative instruments of the European Parliament and of the Council of the European Union referred to in the first three heads of claim in the form of order sought, which were adopted on the basis of Directive (EU) 2018/957 amending Directive 96/71/EC concerning the posting of workers and which allegedly discriminate against the applicants and are prejudicial to them in terms of competition.

The content of those legislative instruments contains a significant advantage for the road transport sector, in the form of the ‘Mobility Package’ for road transport, as compared with the mandatory rules which continue to apply to the applicants in accordance with Directive (EU) 2018/957.

In the alternative, the applicants, like the Republic of Poland in Case C-626/18 and the Republic of Hungary in Case C-620/18, seek the partial or, in the alternative, complete annulment of Directive (EU) 2018/957, since that directive forms the basis for the discrimination, described below, against the service sector represented by the applicants.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) 2020/1054 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2020 amending Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 as regards minimum requirements on maximum daily and weekly driving times, minimum breaks and daily and weekly rest periods and Regulation (EU) No 165/2014 as regards positioning by means of tachographs (OJ 2020 L 249, p. 1).

(2)  Directive (EU) 2018/957 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 June 2018 amending Directive 96/71/EC concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services (OJ 2018 L 173, p. 16).

(3)  Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services (OJ 1997 L 18, p. 1).

(4)  Regulation (EU) 2020/1055 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2020 amending Regulations (EC) No 1071/2009, (EC) No 1072/2009 and (EU) No 1024/2012 with a view to adapting them to developments in the road transport sector (OJ 2020 L 249, p. 17).

(5)  Directive (EU) 2020/1057 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2020 laying down specific rules with respect to Directive 96/71/EC and Directive 2014/67/EU for posting drivers in the road transport sector and amending Directive 2006/22/EC as regards enforcement requirements and Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 (OJ 2020 L 249, p. 49).

(6)  Directive 2006/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on minimum conditions for the implementation of Council Regulations (EEC) No 3820/85 and (EEC) No 3821/85 concerning social legislation relating to road transport activities and repealing Council Directive 88/599/EEC (OJ 2006 L 102, p. 35).

---

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/55

---

Action brought on 24 September 2020 — MN v Europol

(Case T-586/20)

(2020/C 433/69)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: MN (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: The European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of 6 March 2020 not to renew the applicant’s contract for an indefinite period; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 6 March 2020 not to renew the applicant’s contract for an indefinite period;

| — | order Europol to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 25 000 for the non-material harm suffered by the applicant as a result of the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

order Europol to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 25 000 for the non-material harm suffered by the applicant as a result of the contested decision;

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

—

order Europol to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging illegality of the criterion used to justify the non-renewal of the applicant’s contract for an indefinite period, in that it does not allow the interests of the service to be identified. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging illegality of the criterion used to justify the non-renewal of the applicant’s contract for an indefinite period, in that it does not allow the interests of the service to be identified.

| 2. | Second plea in law, in the alternative, alleging multiple manifest errors of assessment vitiating the contested decision. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, in the alternative, alleging multiple manifest errors of assessment vitiating the contested decision.

---

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/55

---

Action brought on 24 September 2020 — MO v Council

(Case T-587/20)

(2020/C 433/70)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: MO (represented by: A. Guillerme, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Conclusions

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the appointing authority of 19 November 2019 to reassign MO to the Romanian language translation unit; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the appointing authority of 19 November 2019 to reassign MO to the Romanian language translation unit;

| — | annul the applicant’s 2019 appraisal report; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the applicant’s 2019 appraisal report;

| — | declare the conduct of the administration towards her since 2016 unlawful and order the defendant to pay EUR 277 371,36 for the harm suffered; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the conduct of the administration towards her since 2016 unlawful and order the defendant to pay EUR 277 371,36 for the harm 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 three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, concerning the annulment of the decision to reassign her to the Romanian language translation unit, alleges infringement of the duty to have regard to the interests of officials. This plea is divided into two parts.






  — | First part, alleging that the reassignment decision respects neither the interests of the service, the interests of the applicant nor the principle of equivalence of posts; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, concerning the annulment of the decision to reassign her to the Romanian language translation unit, alleges infringement of the duty to have regard to the interests of officials. This plea is divided into two parts.

—

First part, alleging that the reassignment decision respects neither the interests of the service, the interests of the applicant nor the principle of equivalence of posts;

| — | Second part, alleging failure to observe the right to be heard prior to the adoption of the decision to reassign her. |
| --- | --- |

—

Second part, alleging failure to observe the right to be heard prior to the adoption of the decision to reassign her.

| 2. | Second plea in law, concerning the annulment of the decision to reassign her to the Romanian language translation unit, alleging infringement of the right to be heard. This plea is divided into two parts.






  — | First part, alleging breach of the right to a prior hearing in not communicating to the applicant the elements allowing her to defend herself properly; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, concerning the annulment of the decision to reassign her to the Romanian language translation unit, alleging infringement of the right to be heard. This plea is divided into two parts.

—

First part, alleging breach of the right to a prior hearing in not communicating to the applicant the elements allowing her to defend herself properly;

| — | Second part, alleging errors of fact and a manifest error of assessment vitiating the applicant’s 2019 appraisal report. |
| --- | --- |

—

Second part, alleging errors of fact and a manifest error of assessment vitiating the applicant’s 2019 appraisal report.

| 3. | Third plea in law, concerning the compensation of the harm assessed, subject to upward or downward revision in the course of the procedure, at EUR 277 371,36, and alleging unlawful conduct and decisions on the part of the Council. This plea is divided into five parts.






  — | First part, alleging unlawful conduct on the part of the administration during and after the administrative inquiry into acts of harassment towards the applicant; |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, concerning the compensation of the harm assessed, subject to upward or downward revision in the course of the procedure, at EUR 277 371,36, and alleging unlawful conduct and decisions on the part of the Council. This plea is divided into five parts.

—

First part, alleging unlawful conduct on the part of the administration during and after the administrative inquiry into acts of harassment towards the applicant;

| — | Second part, alleging that the reassignment decision behind the harm for which the applicant is seeking compensation is unlawful; |
| --- | --- |

—

Second part, alleging that the reassignment decision behind the harm for which the applicant is seeking compensation is unlawful;

| — | Third part, alleging that the applicant was not attested in the 2014 reform of the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

Third part, alleging that the applicant was not attested in the 2014 reform of the Staff Regulations;

| — | Fourth part, alleging breach of the applicant’s medical data; |
| --- | --- |

—

Fourth part, alleging breach of the applicant’s medical data;

| — | Fifth part, alleging that the 2019 appraisal exercise was unlawful. |
| --- | --- |

—

Fifth part, alleging that the 2019 appraisal exercise was unlawful.

---

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/56

---

Action brought on 29 September 2020 — JD v EIB

(Case T-608/20)

(2020/C 433/71)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: JD (represented by: H. Hansen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank (EIB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision (i) requiring the applicant to sign an addendum to his employment contract waiving guaranteed benefits, and (ii) preventing the applicant from entering into the defendant’s service unless he sign said addendum, which manifested itself through (a) a letter from the defendant to the applicant dated 20 January 2020 but only sent by e-mail of 23 January 2020, (b) an e-mail exchange between the defendant and the applicant between 29 January 2020 and 7 February 2020, and (c) a letter from the defendant to the applicant of 3 March 2020; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision (i) requiring the applicant to sign an addendum to his employment contract waiving guaranteed benefits, and (ii) preventing the applicant from entering into the defendant’s service unless he sign said addendum, which manifested itself through (a) a letter from the defendant to the applicant dated 20 January 2020 but only sent by e-mail of 23 January 2020, (b) an e-mail exchange between the defendant and the applicant between 29 January 2020 and 7 February 2020, and (c) a letter from the defendant to the applicant of 3 March 2020;

| — | annul the decision upon administrative review, confirming the original decision, which manifested itself through a letter from the defendant to the applicant’s lawyer dated 18 June 2020 but only sent by e-mail of 19 June 2020; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision upon administrative review, confirming the original decision, which manifested itself through a letter from the defendant to the applicant’s lawyer dated 18 June 2020 but only sent by e-mail of 19 June 2020;

| — | thus, order the defendant to withdraw its letter dated 20 January 2020, its letter dated 18 June 2020, and the associated demand that the applicant sign the addendum in question as a precondition for entry into service; |
| --- | --- |

—

thus, order the defendant to withdraw its letter dated 20 January 2020, its letter dated 18 June 2020, and the associated demand that the applicant sign the addendum in question as a precondition for entry into service;

| — | rectify the medical certificate issued by the defendant’s occupational health practitioner, dated 10 January 2020, and sent to the applicant by e-mail on the same date, to the extent that it should not have included a clause according to which there exists a pre-existing medical condition which allegedly might give rise to invalidity in the future; |
| --- | --- |

—

rectify the medical certificate issued by the defendant’s occupational health practitioner, dated 10 January 2020, and sent to the applicant by e-mail on the same date, to the extent that it should not have included a clause according to which there exists a pre-existing medical condition which allegedly might give rise to invalidity in the future;

| — | and order, principally, that the defendant provide the applicant with a viable possibility to enter into the service of the EIB, with retroactive remuneration and benefits as from the contractual date of entry into service, i.e. 1 February 2020, or, alternatively, award compensation as follows: |
| --- | --- |

—

and order, principally, that the defendant provide the applicant with a viable possibility to enter into the service of the EIB, with retroactive remuneration and benefits as from the contractual date of entry into service, i.e. 1 February 2020, or, alternatively, award compensation as follows:

| — | order the defendant to pay the applicant damages in the amount of four years’ salary, i.e. EUR 367 499,52; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the applicant damages in the amount of four years’ salary, i.e. EUR 367 499,52;

| — | in any case, order the following compensation to be paid:






  — | order the defendant to pay the applicant EUR 20 000 as non-material damages; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

in any case, order the following compensation to be paid:

—

order the defendant to pay the applicant EUR 20 000 as non-material damages;

| — | order the defendant to pay the applicant the amount of EUR 2 104,19 as compensation for removal expenses; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the applicant the amount of EUR 2 104,19 as compensation for removal expenses;

| — | order the defendant to pay the applicant the amount of EUR 15 312,48 as compensation for the installation allowance which was not paid; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the applicant the amount of EUR 15 312,48 as compensation for the installation allowance which was not paid;

| — | in any case, order the defendant to pay the applicant EUR 15 000 as compensation for legal fees incurred with regard to advice received before the introduction of the present case, to the extent that said fees are not included in the costs recoverable by the applicant, the applicant expressly reserving his right to increase this head of claim in the course of the proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

in any case, order the defendant to pay the applicant EUR 15 000 as compensation for legal fees incurred with regard to advice received before the introduction of the present case, to the extent that said fees are not included in the costs recoverable by the applicant, the applicant expressly reserving his right to increase this head of claim in the course of the proceedings;

| — | order that the costs shall be borne exclusively by the defendant; and |
| --- | --- |

—

order that the costs shall be borne exclusively by the defendant; and

| — | reserve any and all rights of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

reserve any and all rights of the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of an essential procedural requirement.






  — | It is argued that the occupational health physician’s medical certificate of 10 January 2020 contained personal data of the applicant, which went beyond what was required to be disclosed under the applicable regulatory framework. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of an essential procedural requirement.

—

It is argued that the occupational health physician’s medical certificate of 10 January 2020 contained personal data of the applicant, which went beyond what was required to be disclosed under the applicable regulatory framework.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of a rule of law relating to the application of the Treaties.






  — | It is argued that there was no legal basis for excluding the applicant from benefits or insurance coverage; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of a rule of law relating to the application of the Treaties.

—

It is argued that there was no legal basis for excluding the applicant from benefits or insurance coverage;

| — | The applicant further argues that the defendant erroneously interpreted Article 6-1 of the Pension Scheme Regulations by applying an argument based on Article 32 of the Conditions of Employment of other Servants of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

—

The applicant further argues that the defendant erroneously interpreted Article 6-1 of the Pension Scheme Regulations by applying an argument based on Article 32 of the Conditions of Employment of other Servants of the European Union;

| — | In addition, it is argued that the defendant’s interpretation of Article 6-1 of the Pension Scheme Regulations is contradicted by (i) the history of the text and (ii) the defendant’s own communication with its staff. |
| --- | --- |

—

In addition, it is argued that the defendant’s interpretation of Article 6-1 of the Pension Scheme Regulations is contradicted by (i) the history of the text and (ii) the defendant’s own communication with its staff.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of a rule of law relating to the application of the Treaties.






  — | By this plea, the applicant argues that there was no legal basis for the requirement imposed on him by the defendant to sign an addendum to the employment contract, under which he would have waived certain social security rights. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of a rule of law relating to the application of the Treaties.

—

By this plea, the applicant argues that there was no legal basis for the requirement imposed on him by the defendant to sign an addendum to the employment contract, under which he would have waived certain social security rights.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the Treaties and, in particular, various provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.






  — | The applicant argues that the defendant’s behaviour is discriminatory and in breach of Articles 21(1) and 34(1) of the Charter; |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the Treaties and, in particular, various provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

—

The applicant argues that the defendant’s behaviour is discriminatory and in breach of Articles 21(1) and 34(1) of the Charter;

| — | The applicant’s procedural rights under Article 41 and his right to access documents under Article 42 of the Charter were infringed; |
| --- | --- |

—

The applicant’s procedural rights under Article 41 and his right to access documents under Article 42 of the Charter were infringed;

| — | Furthermore, the applicant’s rights under the Charter to an effective remedy and a fair trial were also infringed. |
| --- | --- |

—

Furthermore, the applicant’s rights under the Charter to an effective remedy and a fair trial were also infringed.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of an essential procedural requirement.






  – | The applicant argues that the pre-employment medical assessment must be performed through an in-person medical assessment, which did not occur in the present case. |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of an essential procedural requirement.

–

The applicant argues that the pre-employment medical assessment must be performed through an in-person medical assessment, which did not occur in the present case.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging a further infringement of an essential procedural requirement.






  — | It is argued that the contested confirmatory decision was taken by persons who purported to be acting upon delegation of the EIB President’s powers of review, when there was no legal basis for such delegation; |
| --- | --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging a further infringement of an essential procedural requirement.

—

It is argued that the contested confirmatory decision was taken by persons who purported to be acting upon delegation of the EIB President’s powers of review, when there was no legal basis for such delegation;

| — | In the alternative, assuming the EIB President had the possibility of validly delegating his review powers, the contested confirmatory decision must be annulled because it was taken by individuals who were in a situation of conflict of interests and thus not impartial. There was, thus, a breach of the principle of good administration and of the requirements flowing from Article 41 of the Charter. |
| --- | --- |

—

In the alternative, assuming the EIB President had the possibility of validly delegating his review powers, the contested confirmatory decision must be annulled because it was taken by individuals who were in a situation of conflict of interests and thus not impartial. There was, thus, a breach of the principle of good administration and of the requirements flowing from Article 41 of the Charter.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, by which the applicant refers to the remedies sought by him in the present case.






  — | The applicant requests, as his principal claim, the performance of his contract, i.e. that he be allowed to enter into the service of the defendant with retroactive payment of his salary; |
| --- | --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, by which the applicant refers to the remedies sought by him in the present case.

—

The applicant requests, as his principal claim, the performance of his contract, i.e. that he be allowed to enter into the service of the defendant with retroactive payment of his salary;

| — | Alternatively, the applicant requests that he be awarded damages equivalent to the amount of the salary for the fixed-term agreed between the parties; |
| --- | --- |

—

Alternatively, the applicant requests that he be awarded damages equivalent to the amount of the salary for the fixed-term agreed between the parties;

| — | In any case, i.e. independently of whether the Court grants the applicant’s principal or alternative claim for a remedy, the applicant requests that he be awarded damages for various heads of losses suffered because of the defendant’s behaviour and illegal decisions. |
| --- | --- |

—

In any case, i.e. independently of whether the Court grants the applicant’s principal or alternative claim for a remedy, the applicant requests that he be awarded damages for various heads of losses suffered because of the defendant’s behaviour and illegal decisions.

---

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/58

---

Action brought on 1 October 2020 — Casino, Guichard-Perrachon v Commission

(Case T-614/20)

(2020/C 433/72)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Casino, Guichard-Perrachon (Saint-Étienne, France) (represented by: O. de Juvigny, A. Sunderland, I. Simic and G. Aubron, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, Decision C(2020) 5192 final of the European Commission of 23 July 2020; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, Decision C(2020) 5192 final of the European Commission of 23 July 2020;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the entirety of the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is unlawful, to the extent that it was adopted on the basis of documents obtained by the Commission during pre-inspections carried out on the basis of unlawful decisions, subject to applications for annulment in Cases T-249/17, Casino, Guichard-Perrachon v Commission, and T-538/19, Casino, Guichard-Perrachon v Commission.

---

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/59

---

Action brought on 5 October 2020 — FZ and Others v Commission

(Case T-618/20)

(2020/C 433/73)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: FZ and 17 other applicants (represented by: J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Commission establishing the applicants’ pay slip for the month of December 2019 in so far as it applies, for the first time, correction coefficients, which were prescribed with retroactive effect from 1 April and 1 July 2019; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Commission establishing the applicants’ pay slip for the month of December 2019 in so far as it applies, for the first time, correction coefficients, which were prescribed with retroactive effect from 1 April and 1 July 2019;

| — | 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 pleas in law, alleging infringement of Articles 64 and 65 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’), infringement of the principle of equal treatment in terms of equivalence of purchasing power, and manifest error of assessment.

The applicants claim that, in order to set the correction coefficient applicable to the salary of the applicants posted outside the European Union, EUROSTAT should collect data specific to their place of employment, in accordance with the rules for application of Articles 64 and 65 of the Staff Regulations, as laid down in Annex XI thereto.

They also argue that the coefficients, which were laid down in the context of an international collaboration agreement between EUROSTAT, the OECD and the UN, fell from January 2018 to January 2019 from 239,7 to 94,0 whereas, for that same period, the coefficients applied to the salaries of UN personnel were increased to take account of inflation. In 2017, the Congolese franc (CDF) underwent a sharp devaluation as against the dollar (USD) and the euro, which, coupled with substantial inflation, resulted in a significant increase in prices in USD, according to the analysis of the IMF.

The applicants take the view that the defendant has not explained how the coefficients applied take account of those essential elements.

---

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/60

---

Action brought on 5 October 2020 — FJ and Others v EEAS

(Case T-619/20)

(2020/C 433/74)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: FJ and five other applicants (represented by: J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

Defendant: European External Action Service

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

| — | annul the applicants’ pay slips for the month of December 2019 in so far as they apply, for the first time, correction coefficients, which were prescribed with retroactive effect from 1 April and 1 July 2019; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the applicants’ pay slips for the month of December 2019 in so far as they apply, for the first time, correction coefficients, which were prescribed with retroactive effect from 1 April and 1 July 2019;

| — | 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 pleas in law, alleging infringement of Articles 64 and 65 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’), infringement of the principle of equal treatment in terms of equivalence of purchasing power, and manifest error of assessment.

The applicants claim that, in order to set the correction coefficient applicable to the salary of the applicants posted outside the European Union, EUROSTAT should collect data specific to their place of employment, in accordance with the rules for application of Articles 64 and 65 of the Staff Regulations, as laid down in Annex XI thereto.

They also argue that the coefficients, which were laid down in the context of an international collaboration agreement between EUROSTAT, the OECD and the UN, fell from January 2018 to January 2019 from 239,7 to 94,0 whereas, for that same period, the coefficients applied to the salaries of UN personnel were increased to take account of inflation. In 2017, the Congolese franc (CDF) underwent a sharp devaluation as against the dollar (USD) and the euro, which, coupled with substantial inflation, resulted in a significant increase in prices in USD, according to the analysis of the IMF.

The applicants take the view that the defendant has not explained how the coefficients applied take account of those essential elements.

---

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/60

---

Action brought on 5 October 2020 — Les Mousquetaires and ITM Entreprises v Commission

(Case T-625/20)

(2020/C 433/75)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Les Mousquetaires (Paris, France), ITM Entreprises (Paris) (represented by: N. Jalabert-Doury and K. Mebarek, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

| — | annul the decision dated 23 July 2020 relating to a proceeding under Article 18(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (Case AT.40466 — Alliance Casino and Intermarché); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision dated 23 July 2020 relating to a proceeding under Article 18(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (Case AT.40466 — Alliance Casino and Intermarché);

| — | Order the European Commission to pay the entirety of the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the European Commission to pay the entirety of the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of their action, the applicants rely on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to an effective remedy, of Article 18(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles [101 and 102 TFEU] (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1) and a lack of legal basis, in that the contested decision requires the applicants to identify meetings and to resubmit documents already dealt with by the Commission and since invalidated by the General Court of the European Union.

---

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/61

---

Action brought on 15 October 2020 — Delifruit v Commission

(Case T-629/20)

(2020/C 433/76)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Delifruit, SA (Guayaquil, Ecuador) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, P. Sellar and S. Saez Moreno, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the application admissible and well-founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the application admissible and well-founded;

| — | partially annul the Contested Act, as amended by Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EU) 2020/1085, in so far as it establishes the maximum residue levels for chlorpyrifos for bananas at 0,01 mg/kg; and, |
| --- | --- |

—

partially annul the Contested Act, as amended by Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EU) 2020/1085, in so far as it establishes the maximum residue levels for chlorpyrifos for bananas at 0,01 mg/kg; and,

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

—

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks the partial annulment of the Commission Regulation (EU) 2020/1085 of 23 July 2020 amending Annexes II and V to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for chlorpyrifos and chlorpyrifos-methyl in or on certain products (1), as amended by Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EU) 2020/1085 (2).

In support of the action, the applicant alleges the Commission has committed a manifest error of assessment by not taking into account a relevant factor (a substantive study disproving one of the alleged reasons for the adoption of the maximum residue limit) in its assessment leading to the adoption of the contested act, and, in so doing, has also infringed Article 14(2) (a) and (f) of Regulation 396/2005 which require that all relevant and available data be taken into account by it.

---

(1)  OJ 2020 L 239, p. 7

(2)  OJ 2020 L 245, p. 31

---

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/62

---

Action brought on 15 October 2020 — JP v Commission

(Case T-638/20)

(2020/C 433/77)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of 17 July 2019 not placing the applicant on the reserve list of successful candidates of Competition EPSO/AD/363/18 — Administrators (AD7), along with the decision of 10 December 2019 rejecting the Applicant’s request for review; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 17 July 2019 not placing the applicant on the reserve list of successful candidates of Competition EPSO/AD/363/18 — Administrators (AD7), along with the decision of 10 December 2019 rejecting the Applicant’s request for review;

| — | annul the decision of 7 July 2020 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 5 March 2020; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 7 July 2020 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 5 March 2020;

| — | order the defendant to compensate the damages suffered by the applicant; and, |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to compensate the damages suffered by the applicant; and,

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

—

order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging, firstly, an infringement of the principle according to which the members of the Selection Board shall have the necessary abilities to make an objective assessment of the performance and professional qualifications of the candidate during the field-related interview, secondly, a breach of the principle of equal treatment, and finally, a breach of the principle of legitimate expectations. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging, firstly, an infringement of the principle according to which the members of the Selection Board shall have the necessary abilities to make an objective assessment of the performance and professional qualifications of the candidate during the field-related interview, secondly, a breach of the principle of equal treatment, and finally, a breach of the principle of legitimate expectations.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle according to which the composition of the selection board must be sufficiently stable. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle according to which the composition of the selection board must be sufficiently stable.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging several manifest errors of assessment. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging several manifest errors of assessment.

---

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/62

---

Action brought on 22 October 2020 — TIB Chemicals v Commission

(Case T-639/20)

(2020/C 433/78)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: TIB Chemicals AG (Mannheim, Germany) (represented by: K. Fischer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | order the partial annulment of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/1182 (1) of 19 May 2020 insofar as it concerns the substance dioctyltin dilaurate; [1] stannane, dioctyl-, bis(coco acyloxy) derivs [2]; and, as it amends Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 (2) by inclusion of that substance together with the relevant classification and labelling elements in Table 3 of Part 3 of Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008; and, |
| --- | --- |

—

order the partial annulment of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/1182 (1) of 19 May 2020 insofar as it concerns the substance dioctyltin dilaurate; [1] stannane, dioctyl-, bis(coco acyloxy) derivs [2]; and, as it amends Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 (2) by inclusion of that substance together with the relevant classification and labelling elements in Table 3 of Part 3 of Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008; and,

| — | order the defendant to pay all costs and expenses incurred in these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay all costs and expenses incurred in these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the contested Regulation breaches Article 37(1) and (5) in connection with Part 2 of Annex VI of the Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008, because available information on the substance contained in the REACH registration dossier was not considered. This constitutes a manifest error of assessment. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested Regulation breaches Article 37(1) and (5) in connection with Part 2 of Annex VI of the Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008, because available information on the substance contained in the REACH registration dossier was not considered. This constitutes a manifest error of assessment.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the contested Regulation violates Articles 5, 9, 36 and 37 in connection with Part 1 (Section 1.1.1.3) and Part 3 (Sections 3.7.2.2 and 3.7.2.3) of Annex I of the Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008, because the relevant available information was not properly investigated, assessed and considered according to sound scientific principles. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested Regulation violates Articles 5, 9, 36 and 37 in connection with Part 1 (Section 1.1.1.3) and Part 3 (Sections 3.7.2.2 and 3.7.2.3) of Annex I of the Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008, because the relevant available information was not properly investigated, assessed and considered according to sound scientific principles.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the contested Regulation violates Articles 5, 36 and 37 in connection with Part 1 (Section 1.1.1.3) and Part 3 (Sections 3.7.2.2 and 3.7.2.3) of Annex I of the Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008, because the applied read-across was not performed on the grounds of a sound scientific basis and the Commission misjudged the weight of the available evidence. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the contested Regulation violates Articles 5, 36 and 37 in connection with Part 1 (Section 1.1.1.3) and Part 3 (Sections 3.7.2.2 and 3.7.2.3) of Annex I of the Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008, because the applied read-across was not performed on the grounds of a sound scientific basis and the Commission misjudged the weight of the available evidence.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested Regulation was adopted in breach of Article 36(1)(d) and Article 37(5) in connection with Section 3.7 of Part 3 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008, because the Commission could not provide clear scientific evidence that the substance concerned fulfills the respective classification for reproductive toxicity (category 1B) and STOT RE1. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested Regulation was adopted in breach of Article 36(1)(d) and Article 37(5) in connection with Section 3.7 of Part 3 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008, because the Commission could not provide clear scientific evidence that the substance concerned fulfills the respective classification for reproductive toxicity (category 1B) and STOT RE1.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested Regulation was adopted in breach of the principle of proportionality, since the classification of the substance concerned is neither appropriate nor necessary. In particular, the applicant was denied the opportunity of exoneration. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested Regulation was adopted in breach of the principle of proportionality, since the classification of the substance concerned is neither appropriate nor necessary. In particular, the applicant was denied the opportunity of exoneration.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging that, in adopting the contested Regulation, the Commission breached Article 37(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 and violated the applicants’ right to good administration and the right of the applicant to be heard. In particular, the applicant has been denied an adequate opportunity to comment meaningfully on the RAC Opinion itself and to prove that the Opinion is incorrect from a scientific standpoint. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that, in adopting the contested Regulation, the Commission breached Article 37(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 and violated the applicants’ right to good administration and the right of the applicant to be heard. In particular, the applicant has been denied an adequate opportunity to comment meaningfully on the RAC Opinion itself and to prove that the Opinion is incorrect from a scientific standpoint.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging that, in adopting the contested Regulation without the prior conduct and documentation of an Impact Assessment, the Commission breached its commitments under the Interinstitutional Agreement on better-law-making. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging that, in adopting the contested Regulation without the prior conduct and documentation of an Impact Assessment, the Commission breached its commitments under the Interinstitutional Agreement on better-law-making.

---

(1)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/1182 of 19 May 2020 amending, for the purposes of its adaptation to technical and scientific progress, Part 3 of Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (OJ 2020, L 261, p. 2)

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures, amending and repealing Directives 67/548/EEC and 1999/45/EC, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (OJ 2008, L 353, p. 1)

---

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/64 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/64

---

Action brought on 23 October 2020 — NG and Others v Parliament and Council

(Case T-646/20)

(2020/C 433/79)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: NG and 17 other applicants (represented by: R. Martens, lawyer)

Defendants: Council of the European Union, European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul, in its entirety, Article 1 (6) (c)(d) of Regulation (EU) 2020/1054 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2020 amending Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 as regards minimum requirements on maximum daily and weekly driving times, minimum breaks and daily and weekly rest periods and Regulation (EU) No 165/2014 as regards positioning by means of tachographs; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, in its entirety, Article 1 (6) (c)(d) of Regulation (EU) 2020/1054 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2020 amending Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 as regards minimum requirements on maximum daily and weekly driving times, minimum breaks and daily and weekly rest periods and Regulation (EU) No 165/2014 as regards positioning by means of tachographs;

| — | order the defendants to pay all costs, including all costs reserved in the suspension proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendants to pay all costs, including all costs reserved in the suspension proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging breach of Articles 2, 4(2) and 9 TEU, Articles 18 and 95 TFEU, Article 21 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the principles of equality and non-discrimination as general principles of Union law juncto Article 5(4) TEU and the principle of proportionality as a general principle of Union law as to substantive and indirect discrimination. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging breach of Articles 2, 4(2) and 9 TEU, Articles 18 and 95 TFEU, Article 21 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the principles of equality and non-discrimination as general principles of Union law juncto Article 5(4) TEU and the principle of proportionality as a general principle of Union law as to substantive and indirect discrimination.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging breach of Articles 26 and 56 TFEU, Articles 16 and 52(1) Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union juncto Article 5(4) TEU and the principle of proportionality as a general principle of Union law as to unlawful restriction of the freedom to provide services and the freedom to conduct a business. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging breach of Articles 26 and 56 TFEU, Articles 16 and 52(1) Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union juncto Article 5(4) TEU and the principle of proportionality as a general principle of Union law as to unlawful restriction of the freedom to provide services and the freedom to conduct a business.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging breach of Article 3(3) TEU, Articles 11 and 191 TFEU and Article 37 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union as to contravening the preservation, protection and improvement of the quality of environment. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging breach of Article 3(3) TEU, Articles 11 and 191 TFEU and Article 37 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union as to contravening the preservation, protection and improvement of the quality of environment.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of Article 296(2) TFEU, Article 5 Protocol 2 TFEU, the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making and the obligation to state reasons as to failure to provide for a detailed statement of reasons and failure to carry out impact assessments. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of Article 296(2) TFEU, Article 5 Protocol 2 TFEU, the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making and the obligation to state reasons as to failure to provide for a detailed statement of reasons and failure to carry out impact assessments.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging breach of Articles 91 and 94 TFEU and Article 7 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union juncto the fundamental right to respect for private and family life as guaranteed by Article 8 European Convention on Human Rights and as a general principle of Union law as to seriously affecting the standard of living and the level of employment and unlawful interference in private and family life. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging breach of Articles 91 and 94 TFEU and Article 7 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union juncto the fundamental right to respect for private and family life as guaranteed by Article 8 European Convention on Human Rights and as a general principle of Union law as to seriously affecting the standard of living and the level of employment and unlawful interference in private and family life.

---

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/65 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/65

---

Action brought on 27 October 2020 — Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking v NG

(Case T-649/20)

(2020/C 433/80)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer, and B. Mastantuono, acting as Agent)

Defendant: NG

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | order the defendant to pay Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking the sum of EUR 168 062,23 in relation to Grant Agreement No 632420 ‘FIMAC, FAST impact cross-analysis methodology for Composite leading edge Structures’ under the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Union, plus interest at the rate of 3,5 % applied by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations, as from 13 July 2019 until the date of actual payment; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking the sum of EUR 168 062,23 in relation to Grant Agreement No 632420 ‘FIMAC, FAST impact cross-analysis methodology for Composite leading edge Structures’ under the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Union, plus interest at the rate of 3,5 % applied by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations, as from 13 July 2019 until the date of actual payment;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following plea in law:

The defendant has failed to fulfil its contractual obligations by failing to reimburse the amount relating to staff costs, held not to be eligible for funding. As a result, the applicant issued, on 12 July 2019, a debit note for the amount of EUR 168 062,23 already paid to Alpha Consulting Service Srl, which has been removed from the commercial register. Pursuant to Italian law, the defendant is liable for Alpha Consulting Service Srl’s failure to fulfil its contractual obligations since it took over the role of shareholder, liquidator and representative of Alpha Consulting Service Srl, which has been removed from the commercial register. The objections made by the company after the debit note was issued are generic, incomplete and not supported by evidence and, therefore, appear to be entirely unfounded. As a result, the applicant is entitled to seek recovery and reimbursement of the amount paid, plus default interest.

---

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/65 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/65

---

Action brought on 28 October 2020 — Mylan Ireland v EMA

(Case T-653/20)

(2020/C 433/81)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Mylan Ireland Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: O. Swens, lawyer)

Defendant: European Medicines Agency

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that the plea of illegality raised by the applicant against the conclusion of the CHMP that Sanofi has a new active substance status, as quoted in the decision of 26 August 2013 granting marketing authorisation for ‘AubagioTM — Teriflunomide’ is admissible and well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the plea of illegality raised by the applicant against the conclusion of the CHMP that Sanofi has a new active substance status, as quoted in the decision of 26 August 2013 granting marketing authorisation for ‘AubagioTM — Teriflunomide’ is admissible and well founded;

| — | annul the decision of EMA of 18 August 2020 not to validate Mylan’s application for a generic version of the medicinal product AubagioTM.; and, |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of EMA of 18 August 2020 not to validate Mylan’s application for a generic version of the medicinal product AubagioTM.; and,

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

—

order the EMA to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the exception of illegality being well-founded, the challenged decision is not legally admissible because the EMA erred in fact and law and failed to fulfil its duty to state reasons and to perform a careful and thorough assessment, as provided under Article 296 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the exception of illegality being well-founded, the challenged decision is not legally admissible because the EMA erred in fact and law and failed to fulfil its duty to state reasons and to perform a careful and thorough assessment, as provided under Article 296 TFEU.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the legality of the challenged decision is also contested, given that the ‘new active substance’ status should have been examined again upon the filing of Mylan’s objections which were submitted during the application phase. Thus, the EMA has allegedly failed to perform its duties appropriately, in particular its duty to perform an effective and careful assessment and to state reasons, pursuant to Article 296 TFEU, which in turn renders the challenged decision illegal. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the legality of the challenged decision is also contested, given that the ‘new active substance’ status should have been examined again upon the filing of Mylan’s objections which were submitted during the application phase. Thus, the EMA has allegedly failed to perform its duties appropriately, in particular its duty to perform an effective and careful assessment and to state reasons, pursuant to Article 296 TFEU, which in turn renders the challenged decision illegal.

---

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/66 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/66

---

Action brought on 30 October 2020 — Ryanair v Commission

(Case T-657/20)

(2020/C 433/82)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the European Commission’s decision (EU) of 9 June 2020 on State aid SA.57410 COVID — Recapitalisation of Finnair (1); and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the European Commission’s decision (EU) of 9 June 2020 on State aid SA.57410 COVID — Recapitalisation of Finnair (1); and

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

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

The applicant has also requested that its action be determined under the expedited procedure as referred to in Article 23a of the Statute of the Court of Justice.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission misapplied Article 107(3)(b) TFEU and incompletely applied the Temporary Framework and committed a manifest error of assessment by finding that the aid addresses a serious disturbance in the Finnish economy, by violating its obligation to weigh the beneficial effects of the aid against its adverse effects on trading conditions and the maintenance of undistorted competition (i.e., the ‘balancing test’) and by finding that Finnair had no significant market power. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission misapplied Article 107(3)(b) TFEU and incompletely applied the Temporary Framework and committed a manifest error of assessment by finding that the aid addresses a serious disturbance in the Finnish economy, by violating its obligation to weigh the beneficial effects of the aid against its adverse effects on trading conditions and the maintenance of undistorted competition (i.e., the ‘balancing test’) and by finding that Finnair had no significant market power.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated specific provisions of the TFEU and the general principles of European law regarding the prohibition of discrimination, free provision of services and free establishment that have underpinned the liberalisation of air transport in the EU since the late 1980s. The liberalization of the air transport market in the EU has allowed the growth of truly pan-European low-fares airlines. The European Commission ignored the damage caused by the COVID-19 crisis to such pan-European airlines and their role in the air connectivity of Finland by authorising Finland to reserve aid to Finnair. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated specific provisions of the TFEU and the general principles of European law regarding the prohibition of discrimination, free provision of services and free establishment that have underpinned the liberalisation of air transport in the EU since the late 1980s. The liberalization of the air transport market in the EU has allowed the growth of truly pan-European low-fares airlines. The European Commission ignored the damage caused by the COVID-19 crisis to such pan-European airlines and their role in the air connectivity of Finland by authorising Finland to reserve aid to Finnair.

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

3.

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

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated its duty to state reasons. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated its duty to state reasons.

---

(1)  European Commission’s decision (EU) of 9 June 2020 on State aid SA.57410 COVID — Recapitalisation of Finnair, OJ 2020 C 310, p. 6

---

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/67 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/67

---

Action brought on 2 November 2020 — Jakober v EUIPO (Shape of a cup)

(Case T-658/20)

(2020/C 433/83)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Philip Jakober (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: J. Klink, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Tridimensional EU trade mark (Shape of a cup) — Application for registration No 15 963 994

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 August 2020 in Case R 554/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | alter the contested decision so that his appeal is well-founded and, consequently, EU trade mark application No 15 963 994 be allowed to proceed to entry in the register of EUIPO; |
| --- | --- |

—

alter the contested decision so that his appeal is well-founded and, consequently, EU trade mark application No 15 963 994 be allowed to proceed to entry in the register of EUIPO;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

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

—

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

| — | Infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/67 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/67

---

Order of the General Court of 30 September 2020 — Banco Comercial Português and Others v Commission

(Case T-298/18) (1)

(2020/C 433/84)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 249, 16.7.2018.

---

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/68 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/68

---

Order of the General Court of 30 September 2020 — DEI v Commission

(Case T-694/18) (1)

(2020/C 433/85)

Language of the case: Greek

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

---

(1)  OJ C 35, 28.1.2019.

---