# Official Journal C 217/7 Ju

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 217 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 647 June 2021 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 217

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 647 June 2021

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2021/C 217/01 | Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union | 1 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

2021/C 217/01

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

Official Journal of the European Union

1

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2021/C 217/02 | Joined Cases C-798/18 and C-799/18: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 April 2021 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Federazione nazionale delle imprese elettrotecniche ed elettroniche (Anie) and Others (C-798/18), Athesia Energy Srl and Others (C-799/18) v Ministero dello Sviluppo economico and Gestore dei servizi energetici (GSE) SpA (References for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Principles of legal certainty and of the protection of legitimate expectations — Energy Charter Treaty — Article 10 — Applicability — Directive 2009/28/EC — Article 3(3)(a) — Promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources — Production of electricity from solar photovoltaic installations — Alteration of a support scheme) | 2 |
| 2021/C 217/03 | Case C-30/19: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen — Sweden) — Diskrimineringsombudsmannen v Braathens Regional Aviation AB (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin — Directive 2000/43/EC — Article 7 — Protection of rights — Article 15 — Sanctions — Action for compensation based on an allegation of discrimination — Defendant acquiescing to claim for compensation without recognition on its part of the discrimination alleged — Connection between the compensation paid and the discrimination alleged — Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Right to effective judicial protection — National procedural rules preventing the court seised from ruling on whether there was discrimination as alleged, despite the express request of the claimant) | 3 |
| 2021/C 217/04 | Case C-194/19: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — Belgium) — H. A. v État belge (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 — Determination of the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection — Article 27 — Remedy — Whether account should be taken of circumstances subsequent to the transfer decision — Effective judicial protection) | 3 |
| 2021/C 217/05 | Case C-221/19: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Gdańsku — Poland) — AV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA — Article 8(2) and (4): — Article 17(1) and (2) — Article 19 — Taking into account, for the purposes of an aggregate sentence, of a conviction delivered in another Member State, which must be enforced in the Member State in which that judgment is delivered — Conditions — Framework Decision 2008/675/JHA — Article 3(3) — Concept of interference with a sentence or its execution which must be taken into account in the event of new criminal proceedings initiated in a Member State other than that in which the ruling was delivered) | 4 |
| 2021/C 217/06 | Case C-470/19: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) — Ireland) — Friends of the Irish Environment Ltd v Commissioner for Environmental Information (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Aarhus Convention — Directive 2003/4/EC — Right of access to environmental information held by public authorities — Article 2, point 2 — Notion of public authority — Bodies or institutions when acting in a judicial or legislative capacity — Information in the file of closed court proceedings) | 5 |
| 2021/C 217/07 | Case C-511/19: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Areios Pagos — Greece) — AB v Olympiako Athlitiko Kentro Athinon — Spyros Louis (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2000/78/EC — Principle of equal treatment in employment and occupation — Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age — Workers placed under a labour reserve system until termination of their contract of employment — Wage reduction and reduction or loss of severance pay — System applicable to public-sector workers close to full-time retirement — Reduction of public-sector wage costs — Article 6(1) — Legitimate social policy objective — Economic crisis) | 6 |
| 2021/C 217/08 | Case C-515/19: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Eutelsat SA v Autorité de régulation des communications électroniques et des postes, Inmarsat Ventures SE, formerly Inmarsat Ventures Ltd (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Telecommunications sector — Harmonised use of radio spectrum in the 2 GHz frequency bands for bringing into operation systems providing mobile satellite services — Decision No 626/2008/EC — Article 2(2)(a) and (b) — Article 4(1)(c)(ii) — Article 7(1) and (2) — Article 8(1) and (3) — Mobile satellite systems — Concept of mobile earth station — Concept of complementary ground components — Concept of required quality — Respective role of satellite and ground components — Requirement for a selected operator of mobile satellite systems to provide service for a certain percentage of the population and territory — Non-compliance — Effect) | 6 |
| 2021/C 217/09 | Case C-593/19: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzgericht (Außenstelle Graz) — Austria) — SK Telecom Co. Ltd v Finanzamt Graz-Stadt (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Determination of the place of supply of telecommunications services — Roaming of third-country nationals on mobile communications networks within the European Union — Point (b) of the first paragraph of Article 59a — Option for Member States to transfer the place of supply of telecommunications services to their territory) | 7 |
| 2021/C 217/10 | Case C-694/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 15 April 2021 — Italmobiliare SpA, Sirap-Gema SpA, Sirap France SAS, Petruzalek GmbH, Petruzalek s.r.o., Petruzalek s.r.o. and Petruzalek kft v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Retail food packaging market — Attributability of unlawful conduct — Conditions for the granting of immunity — 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Sales value — Upper limit of the fine — Duration of the administrative procedure — Reasonable time — Ability to pay) | 8 |
| 2021/C 217/11 | Case C-729/19: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland — United Kingdom) — TKF v Department of Justice for Northern Ireland (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters relating to maintenance obligations — Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 — Temporal scope — Article 75 — Decisions given by a court of a Member State prior to accession to the European Union) | 9 |
| 2021/C 217/12 | Case C-733/19: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 April 2021 — Kingdom of the Netherlands v Council of the European Union, European Parliament (Action for annulment — Common fisheries policy — Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 — Conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources — Protection of marine ecosystems — Regulation (EU) 2019/1241 — Technical measures — Annex V, Part D — Ban on fishing by vessels using electric pulse trawls — Principle of proportionality — Precautionary principle) | 9 |
| 2021/C 217/13 | Case C-736/19: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) — Latvia) — ZS Plaukti (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Agriculture — European agricultural fund for rural development (EAFRD) — Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 — Regulation (EU) No 65/2011 — Third subparagraph of Article 16(5) — Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 — Articles 4 and 6 — Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 — Support for rural development — Agri-environmental payments — Aid for the maintenance of grassland biodiversity — Non-compliance with the conditions for granting those payments — Early mowing — Reduction and exclusion of those payments — Mandatory standards — Statutory management requirements — Minimum requirements for good agricultural and environmental conditions — Commitments that exceed mandatory standards, minimum requirements and other appropriate mandatory requirements established by national legislation) | 10 |
| 2021/C 217/14 | Case C-786/19: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln — Germany) — The North of England P & I Association Ltd, as successor in law to Marine Shipping Mutual Insurance Company v Bundeszentralamt für Steuern (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Direct insurance other than life assurance — Second Directive 88/357/EEC — Second indent of Article 2(d) — Directive 92/49/EEC — First subparagraph of Article 46(2) — Taxation of insurance premiums — Concept of Member State where the risk is situated — Vehicles of any type — Concept of Member State of registration — Insurance of sea-going vessels — Ships entered in the shipping register maintained by one Member State but flying the flag of another Member State or of a third State under a temporary flagging-out authorisation) | 11 |
| 2021/C 217/15 | Case C-846/19: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’arrondissement — Luxembourg) — EQ v Administration de l’Enregistrement, des Domaines et de la TVA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Economic activity — Supply of services for consideration — Article 2(1)(c) and Article 9(1) — Exemptions — Article 132(1)(g) — Supply of services closely linked to welfare and social security work — Services performed by a lawyer under powers of representation for the protection of adults lacking legal capacity — Body recognised as being devoted to social wellbeing) | 11 |
| 2021/C 217/16 | Case C-868/19: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 15 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Berlin-Brandenburg — Germany) — M-GmbH v Finanzamt für Körperschaften (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value-added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 9 — Taxable persons — Article 11 — Option for the Member States to treat as a single taxable person persons who are independent from a legal point of view but are closely linked to one another financially, economically and organisationally (VAT group) — Concept of close financial links — National legislation according to which partnerships, whose partners, alongside the controlling company, are not solely financially integrated persons in the undertaking of the controlling company, are prevented from being a member of a VAT group — Legal certainty — Preventative measures against fraud and tax evasion — Proportionality — VAT neutrality) | 12 |
| 2021/C 217/17 | Case C-875/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 April 2021 — FV v Council of the European Union (Appeal — Application for annulment — Civil service — Staff report — Assessment criteria — Consistency of output — Delays — Submission of a medical certificate — Duty of care) | 13 |
| 2021/C 217/18 | Case C-877/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 April 2021 — FV v Council of the European Union (Appeal — Application for annulment — Civil service — Staff report — Assessment criteria — Consistency of output — Delays — Submission of a medical certificate — Duty of care) | 13 |
| 2021/C 217/19 | Case C-935/19: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 15 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu — Poland) — Grupa Warzywna sp. z o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej we Wrocławiu (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 273 — Overstatement in the tax return of the amount of the refund of VAT — Error of assessment by the taxable person concerning the taxable nature of a transaction — Correction of the tax return following an audit — Penalty of an amount equal to 20 % of the overstated VAT reimbursement — Principle of proportionality) | 14 |
| 2021/C 217/20 | Case C-53/20: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Hengstenberg GmbH & Co. KG v Spreewaldverein eV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs — Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 — Article 49(3), first subparagraph, and (4), second subparagraph — Article 53(2), first subparagraph — Amendment to a product specification — Spreewald gherkins (Germany) Spreewälder Gurken (PGI) — Amendments which are not minor — Opposition procedure — Statement of opposition to the application for amendment — Appeal against the decision granting that application — Concept of legitimate interest) | 15 |
| 2021/C 217/21 | Case C-62/20: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 15 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel — Belgium) — Vogel Import Export NV v Belgische Staat (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 — Customs union — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Tariff headings — Headings 4407 and 4409 — Planed wooden boards the four corners of which have been slightly rounded over the entire length of the board) | 15 |
| 2021/C 217/22 | Case C-399/20 P: Appeal brought on 22 August 2020 by XH against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 25 June 2020 in Case T-511/18, XH v Commission | 16 |
| 2021/C 217/23 | Case C-504/20 P: Appeal brought on 28 September 2020 by Lukáš Wagenknecht against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 17 July 2020 in Case T-715/19, Wagenknecht v European Council | 16 |
| 2021/C 217/24 | Case C-535/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Okrazhen sad Razgrad (Bulgaria) lodged on 20 October 2020 — BNP Paribas Personal Finance S.A., Bulgaria Branch v T.G.M. | 17 |
| 2021/C 217/25 | Case C-622/20 P: Appeal brought on 12 November 2020 by Validity Foundation — Mental Disability Advocacy Centre and Center for Independent Living Association against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 2 September 2020 in Case T-613/19, ENIL Brussels Office e.a. v Commission | 17 |
| 2021/C 217/26 | Case C-667/20 P: Appeal brought on 7 December 2020 by Laboratorios Ern, S.A. against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 5 October 2020 in Case T-51/19 Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — SBS Bilimsel Bio Çözümler (apiheal) | 17 |
| 2021/C 217/27 | Case C-678/20 P: Appeal brought on 7 December 2020 by Laboratorios Ern, S.A. against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 5 October 2020 in Case T-53/19, SBS Bilimsel Bio Çözümler Sanayi Ve Ticaret AŞ v EUIPO — Laboratorios Ern (apiheal) | 18 |
| 2021/C 217/28 | Case C-100/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Ravensburg (Germany) lodged on 17 February 2021 — QB v Daimler AG | 18 |
| 2021/C 217/29 | Case C-102/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrative Court, Autonomous Section for the Province of Bolzano (Italy) lodged on 18 February 2021 — KW v Autonomous Province of Bolzano | 19 |
| 2021/C 217/30 | Case C-103/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrative Court, Autonomous Section for the Province of Bolzano (Italy) lodged on 18 February 2021 — SG v Autonomous Province of Bolzano | 20 |
| 2021/C 217/31 | Case C-134/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 4 March 2021 — EV v Agence fédérale pour l’Accueil des demandeurs d’asile (FEDASIL) | 20 |
| 2021/C 217/32 | Case C-154/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 9 March 2021 — RW v Österreichische Post AG | 21 |
| 2021/C 217/33 | Case C-158/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 11 March 2021 — Ministerio Fiscal, Abogacía del Estado, Partido político VOX v Lluís Puig Gordi, Carles Puigdemont Casamajó, Antoni Comín Oliveres, Clara Ponsatí Obiols, Meritxell Serret Aleu, Marta Rovira Vergés, Anna Gabriel Sabaté | 21 |
| 2021/C 217/34 | Case C-161/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte dei conti — Sezione regionale di controllo per la Campania (Italy) lodged on 10 March 2021 — Comune di Camerota | 23 |
| 2021/C 217/35 | Case C-178/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Ravensburg (Germany) lodged on 22 March 2021 — GL and Others v Volkswagen AG and Audi AG | 24 |
| 2021/C 217/36 | Case C-184/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de l’entreprise francophone de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 24 March 2021 — Christian Louboutin v Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon Services LLC | 25 |
| 2021/C 217/37 | Case C-198/21 P: Appeal brought on 29 March 2021 by Giacomo Santini and Others against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 10 February 2021 in Joined Cases T-345/19, T-346/19, T-364/19 to T-366/19, T-372/19 to T-375/19, and T-385/19, Santini and Others v Parliament | 26 |
| 2021/C 217/38 | Case C-202/21 P: Appeal brought on 30 March 2021 by ABLV Bank AS, in liquidation, against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 20 January 2021 in Case T-758/18, ABLV Bank v SRB | 27 |
| 2021/C 217/39 | Case C-212/21 P: Appeal brought on 2 April 2021 by European Investment Bank against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 27 January 2021 in Case T-9/19, ClientEarth v EIB | 29 |
| 2021/C 217/40 | Case C-223/21 P: Appeal brought on 6 April 2021 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 27 January 2021 in Case T-9/19, ClientEarth v EIB | 30 |
| 2021/C 217/41 | Case C-228/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 8 April 2021 — Ministero dell’Interno, Dipartimento per le Libertà civili e l’Immigrazione — Unità Dublino v CZA | 31 |
| 2021/C 217/42 | Case C-229/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 9 April 2021 — Le Port de Bruxelles v Infrabel SA and Région de Bruxelles-Capitale v Infrabel SA | 31 |
| 2021/C 217/43 | Case C-235/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije (Slovenia) lodged on 12 April 2021 — RAIFFEISEN LEASING, trgovina in leasing d. o. o. v Republika Slovenija | 32 |
| 2021/C 217/44 | Case C-239/21 P: Appeal brought on 14 April 2021 by Petr Fryč against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 11 February 2021 in Case T-92/20 Fryč v Commission | 33 |
| 2021/C 217/45 | Case C-242/21 P: Appeal brought on 13 April 2021 by Évariste Boshab against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 3 February 2021 in Case T-111/19, Évariste Boshab v Council of the European Union | 34 |
| 2021/C 217/46 | Case C-259/21: Action brought on 22 April 2021 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union | 35 |
| | General Court |
| 2021/C 217/47 | Case T-193/18: Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2021 — Andreas Stihl v EUIPO — Giro Travel Company (Combination of the colours grey and orange) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU mark consisting of a combination of the colours grey and orange — Absolute ground for refusal — Article 4 and Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Sufficiently clear and precise graphic representation — Requirement for a systematic arrangement associating the colours in a predetermined and uniform way) | 37 |
| 2021/C 217/48 | Case T-277/19: Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2021 — BK v EASO (Civil service — Temporary agents — Temporary reassignment — Action for annulment — Purely confirmatory measure — Inadmissibility — Explicit decision rejecting the complaint — Autonomous scope — Suspension of the effects of the decision subject to the complaint — Interest in bringing proceedings — Action for damages — Close link to the claim for annulment — No pre-litigation procedure — Inadmissibility) | 37 |
| 2021/C 217/49 | Case T-282/19: Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2021 — Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v EUIPO — Filotas Bellas & Yios (Halloumi) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark Halloumi χαλλούμι Vermion grill cheese/grill est/grill kase M BELAS PREMIUM GREEK DAIRY SINCE 1927 — Earlier EU collective word mark HALLOUMI — Relative ground for refusal — Bad faith — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Article 53(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now article 60(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation 2017/1001)) | 38 |
| 2021/C 217/50 | Case T-515/19: Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2021 — Lego v EUIPO — Delta Sport Handelskontor (Building block from a toy building set) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered community design representing a building block from a toy building set — Ground for invalidity — Non-compliance with requirements for protection — Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Features of appearance of a product solely dictated by its technical function — Features of appearance of a product to be necessarily reproduced in their exact form and dimensions in order to permit the interconnection with other products — Designs whose purpose is to allow multiple assembly or connection of mutually interchangeable products within a modular system — Article 8(1) to (3) of Regulation No 6/2002) | 39 |
| 2021/C 217/51 | Case T-588/19: Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2021 — Novomatic v EUIPO — adp Gauselmann (Power Stars) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU figurative mark Power Stars — Partial revocation declaration — Partial lack of genuine use — Proof of genuine use — Article 51(1)(a) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75(1), first sentence, of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94(1), first sentence, of Regulation 2017/1001) — Right to be heard — Article 75(1), second sentence, of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94(1), second sentence, of Regulation 2017/1001) | 40 |
| 2021/C 217/52 | Case T-798/19: Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2021 — Bennahmias v Parliament (Institutional law — Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament — Parliamentary assistance allowance — Recovery of sums unduly paid — Burden of proof — Obligation to state reasons — Error of law — Error of fact — Proportionality) | 40 |
| 2021/C 217/53 | Case T-799/19: Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2021 — Bennahmias v Parliament (Institutional law — Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament — Parliamentary assistance allowance — Recovery of sums unduly paid — Burden of proof — Obligation to state reasons — Error of law — Error of fact — Proportionality) | 41 |
| 2021/C 217/54 | Case T-93/20: Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2021 — Albert Darboven Holding v EUIPO (WINDSOR-CASTLE) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark WINDSOR-CASTLE — Absolute ground for refusal — Distinctiveness — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Laudatory character) | 41 |
| 2021/C 217/55 | Case T-168/20: Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2021 — Creaton South-East Europe v EUIPO — Henkel (CREATHERM) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark CREATHERM — Earlier international word mark CERETHERM — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 42 |
| 2021/C 217/56 | Case T-175/20: Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2021 — Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — Sanolie (SANOLIE) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark SANOLIE — Earlier national word mark SANODIN — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 43 |
| 2021/C 217/57 | Case T-354/20: Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2021 –Kfz-Gewerbes v EUIPO — The Blink Fish (Representation of a fish) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark representing a fish — Earlier national word mark BLINKA — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — No similarity between the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Obligation to state reasons — First sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001) | 43 |
| 2021/C 217/58 | Case T-374/20: Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2021 — KM v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — Surviving spouse — Survivor’s pension — Articles 18 and 20 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Conditions for eligibility — Duration of the marriage — Plea of illegality — Equal treatment — Principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age — Proportionality) | 44 |
| 2021/C 217/59 | Case T-11/20: Order of the General Court of 26 March 2021 — Paravan v EUIPO — paragon (Paragon) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — Withdrawal of the application for revocation — No need to adjudicate) | 45 |
| 2021/C 217/60 | Case T-158/21: Action brought on 24 March 2021 — Minority SafePack — one million signatures for diversity in Europe v Commission | 45 |
| 2021/C 217/61 | Case T-168/21: Action brought on 30 March 2021 — Magnetec v EUIPO (Light blue) | 46 |
| 2021/C 217/62 | Case T-169/21: Action brought on 26 March 2021 — The Smiley Company v EUIPO — SC Ha Ha Ha Production (SMILEY) | 46 |
| 2021/C 217/63 | Case T-170/21: Action brought on 25 March 2021 — Ben Ali v Council | 47 |
| 2021/C 217/64 | Case T-173/21: Action brought on 31 March 2021 — Novelis Deutschland v EUIPO — Cuki Cofresco (grill dish) | 49 |
| 2021/C 217/65 | Case T-181/21: Action brought on 7 April 2021 — LG Electronics v EUIPO — Anferlux-Electrodomésticos (SmartThinQ) | 49 |
| 2021/C 217/66 | Case T-182/21: Action brought on 7 April 2021 — PKK v Council | 50 |
| 2021/C 217/67 | Case T-183/21: Action brought on 7 April 2021 — QP and Others v Council and Others | 51 |
| 2021/C 217/68 | Case T-187/21: Action brought on 9 April 2021 — Firearms United Network and Others v European Commission | 53 |
| 2021/C 217/69 | Case T-188/21: Action brought on 9 April 2021 — Lück v EUIPO — R.H. Investment (MALLE) | 54 |
| 2021/C 217/70 | Case T-190/21: Action brought on 7 April 2021 — RI and Others v Council and Others | 55 |
| 2021/C 217/71 | Case T-192/21: Action brought on 12 April 2021 — Laboratories Ern v EUIPO — Beta Sports (META) | 56 |
| 2021/C 217/72 | Case T-194/21: Action brought on 12 April 2021 — Fidia farmaceutici v EUIPO — Stelis Biopharma (HYALOSTEL ONE) | 57 |
| 2021/C 217/73 | Case T-196/21: Action brought on 12 April 2021 — Lea Nature Services v EUIPO — Debonair Trading Internacional (SO...?) | 58 |
| 2021/C 217/74 | Case T-197/21: Action brought on 12 April 2021 — Lea Nature Services v EUIPO — Debonair Trading Internacional (SO...?) | 59 |
| 2021/C 217/75 | Case T-198/21: Action brought on 12 April 2021 — Ancor Group v EUIPO — Cody’s Drinks International (CODE-X) | 59 |
| 2021/C 217/76 | Case T-199/21: Action brought on 30 March 2021 — EurO3zon v ECHA | 60 |
| 2021/C 217/77 | Case T-200/21: Action brought on 29 March 2021 — JS v EDPS | 61 |
| 2021/C 217/78 | Case T-201/21: Action brought on 6 April 2021 — Covington & Burling and Van Vooren v Commission | 62 |
| 2021/C 217/79 | Case T-202/21: Action brought on 13 April 2021 — Vita Zahnfabrik v EUIPO — VIPI Produtos Odontológicos (VITABLOCS TriLuxe forte) | 63 |
| 2021/C 217/80 | Case T-203/21: Action brought on 12 April 2021 — IN.PRO.DI v EUIPO — Aiello (CAPRI) | 64 |
| 2021/C 217/81 | Case T-204/21: Action brought on 14 April 2021 — Stryker v EUIPO (RUGGED) | 64 |
| 2021/C 217/82 | Case T-205/21: Action brought on 15 April 2021 — Kewazo v EUIPO (Liftbot) | 65 |
| 2021/C 217/83 | Case T-206/21: Action brought on 16 April 2021 — Kalita and Haas v EUIPO — Kitzbühel Tourismus (Representation of two animals) | 66 |
| 2021/C 217/84 | Case T-209/21: Action brought on 17 April 2021 — Ignacio Carrasco v EUIPO — Santos Carrasco Manzano (La Hoja del Carrasco) | 67 |
| 2021/C 217/85 | Case T-212/21: Action brought on 19 April 2021 — Groschopp v EUIPO (Sustainability through Quality) | 67 |
| 2021/C 217/86 | Case T-216/21: Action brought on 20 April 2021 — Ryanair and Malta Air v Commission | 68 |
| 2021/C 217/87 | Case T-220/21: Action brought on 23 April 2021 — Thomas Henry v EUIPO (Spicy Ginger) | 69 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2021/C 217/02

Joined Cases C-798/18 and C-799/18: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 April 2021 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Federazione nazionale delle imprese elettrotecniche ed elettroniche (Anie) and Others (C-798/18), Athesia Energy Srl and Others (C-799/18) v Ministero dello Sviluppo economico and Gestore dei servizi energetici (GSE) SpA (References for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Principles of legal certainty and of the protection of legitimate expectations — Energy Charter Treaty — Article 10 — Applicability — Directive 2009/28/EC — Article 3(3)(a) — Promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources — Production of electricity from solar photovoltaic installations — Alteration of a support scheme)

2

2021/C 217/03

Case C-30/19: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen — Sweden) — Diskrimineringsombudsmannen v Braathens Regional Aviation AB (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin — Directive 2000/43/EC — Article 7 — Protection of rights — Article 15 — Sanctions — Action for compensation based on an allegation of discrimination — Defendant acquiescing to claim for compensation without recognition on its part of the discrimination alleged — Connection between the compensation paid and the discrimination alleged — Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Right to effective judicial protection — National procedural rules preventing the court seised from ruling on whether there was discrimination as alleged, despite the express request of the claimant)

3

2021/C 217/04

Case C-194/19: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — Belgium) — H. A. v État belge (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 — Determination of the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection — Article 27 — Remedy — Whether account should be taken of circumstances subsequent to the transfer decision — Effective judicial protection)

3

2021/C 217/05

Case C-221/19: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Gdańsku — Poland) — AV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA — Article 8(2) and (4): — Article 17(1) and (2) — Article 19 — Taking into account, for the purposes of an aggregate sentence, of a conviction delivered in another Member State, which must be enforced in the Member State in which that judgment is delivered — Conditions — Framework Decision 2008/675/JHA — Article 3(3) — Concept of interference with a sentence or its execution which must be taken into account in the event of new criminal proceedings initiated in a Member State other than that in which the ruling was delivered)

4

2021/C 217/06

Case C-470/19: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) — Ireland) — Friends of the Irish Environment Ltd v Commissioner for Environmental Information (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Aarhus Convention — Directive 2003/4/EC — Right of access to environmental information held by public authorities — Article 2, point 2 — Notion of public authority — Bodies or institutions when acting in a judicial or legislative capacity — Information in the file of closed court proceedings)

5

2021/C 217/07

Case C-511/19: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Areios Pagos — Greece) — AB v Olympiako Athlitiko Kentro Athinon — Spyros Louis (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2000/78/EC — Principle of equal treatment in employment and occupation — Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age — Workers placed under a labour reserve system until termination of their contract of employment — Wage reduction and reduction or loss of severance pay — System applicable to public-sector workers close to full-time retirement — Reduction of public-sector wage costs — Article 6(1) — Legitimate social policy objective — Economic crisis)

6

2021/C 217/08

Case C-515/19: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Eutelsat SA v Autorité de régulation des communications électroniques et des postes, Inmarsat Ventures SE, formerly Inmarsat Ventures Ltd (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Telecommunications sector — Harmonised use of radio spectrum in the 2 GHz frequency bands for bringing into operation systems providing mobile satellite services — Decision No 626/2008/EC — Article 2(2)(a) and (b) — Article 4(1)(c)(ii) — Article 7(1) and (2) — Article 8(1) and (3) — Mobile satellite systems — Concept of mobile earth station — Concept of complementary ground components — Concept of required quality — Respective role of satellite and ground components — Requirement for a selected operator of mobile satellite systems to provide service for a certain percentage of the population and territory — Non-compliance — Effect)

6

2021/C 217/09

Case C-593/19: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzgericht (Außenstelle Graz) — Austria) — SK Telecom Co. Ltd v Finanzamt Graz-Stadt (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Determination of the place of supply of telecommunications services — Roaming of third-country nationals on mobile communications networks within the European Union — Point (b) of the first paragraph of Article 59a — Option for Member States to transfer the place of supply of telecommunications services to their territory)

7

2021/C 217/10

Case C-694/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 15 April 2021 — Italmobiliare SpA, Sirap-Gema SpA, Sirap France SAS, Petruzalek GmbH, Petruzalek s.r.o., Petruzalek s.r.o. and Petruzalek kft v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Retail food packaging market — Attributability of unlawful conduct — Conditions for the granting of immunity — 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Sales value — Upper limit of the fine — Duration of the administrative procedure — Reasonable time — Ability to pay)

8

2021/C 217/11

Case C-729/19: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland — United Kingdom) — TKF v Department of Justice for Northern Ireland (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters relating to maintenance obligations — Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 — Temporal scope — Article 75 — Decisions given by a court of a Member State prior to accession to the European Union)

9

2021/C 217/12

Case C-733/19: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 April 2021 — Kingdom of the Netherlands v Council of the European Union, European Parliament (Action for annulment — Common fisheries policy — Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 — Conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources — Protection of marine ecosystems — Regulation (EU) 2019/1241 — Technical measures — Annex V, Part D — Ban on fishing by vessels using electric pulse trawls — Principle of proportionality — Precautionary principle)

9

2021/C 217/13

Case C-736/19: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) — Latvia) — ZS Plaukti (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Agriculture — European agricultural fund for rural development (EAFRD) — Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 — Regulation (EU) No 65/2011 — Third subparagraph of Article 16(5) — Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 — Articles 4 and 6 — Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 — Support for rural development — Agri-environmental payments — Aid for the maintenance of grassland biodiversity — Non-compliance with the conditions for granting those payments — Early mowing — Reduction and exclusion of those payments — Mandatory standards — Statutory management requirements — Minimum requirements for good agricultural and environmental conditions — Commitments that exceed mandatory standards, minimum requirements and other appropriate mandatory requirements established by national legislation)

10

2021/C 217/14

Case C-786/19: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln — Germany) — The North of England P & I Association Ltd, as successor in law to Marine Shipping Mutual Insurance Company v Bundeszentralamt für Steuern (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Direct insurance other than life assurance — Second Directive 88/357/EEC — Second indent of Article 2(d) — Directive 92/49/EEC — First subparagraph of Article 46(2) — Taxation of insurance premiums — Concept of Member State where the risk is situated — Vehicles of any type — Concept of Member State of registration — Insurance of sea-going vessels — Ships entered in the shipping register maintained by one Member State but flying the flag of another Member State or of a third State under a temporary flagging-out authorisation)

11

2021/C 217/15

Case C-846/19: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’arrondissement — Luxembourg) — EQ v Administration de l’Enregistrement, des Domaines et de la TVA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Economic activity — Supply of services for consideration — Article 2(1)(c) and Article 9(1) — Exemptions — Article 132(1)(g) — Supply of services closely linked to welfare and social security work — Services performed by a lawyer under powers of representation for the protection of adults lacking legal capacity — Body recognised as being devoted to social wellbeing)

11

2021/C 217/16

Case C-868/19: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 15 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Berlin-Brandenburg — Germany) — M-GmbH v Finanzamt für Körperschaften (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value-added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 9 — Taxable persons — Article 11 — Option for the Member States to treat as a single taxable person persons who are independent from a legal point of view but are closely linked to one another financially, economically and organisationally (VAT group) — Concept of close financial links — National legislation according to which partnerships, whose partners, alongside the controlling company, are not solely financially integrated persons in the undertaking of the controlling company, are prevented from being a member of a VAT group — Legal certainty — Preventative measures against fraud and tax evasion — Proportionality — VAT neutrality)

12

2021/C 217/17

Case C-875/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 April 2021 — FV v Council of the European Union (Appeal — Application for annulment — Civil service — Staff report — Assessment criteria — Consistency of output — Delays — Submission of a medical certificate — Duty of care)

13

2021/C 217/18

Case C-877/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 April 2021 — FV v Council of the European Union (Appeal — Application for annulment — Civil service — Staff report — Assessment criteria — Consistency of output — Delays — Submission of a medical certificate — Duty of care)

13

2021/C 217/19

Case C-935/19: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 15 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu — Poland) — Grupa Warzywna sp. z o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej we Wrocławiu (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 273 — Overstatement in the tax return of the amount of the refund of VAT — Error of assessment by the taxable person concerning the taxable nature of a transaction — Correction of the tax return following an audit — Penalty of an amount equal to 20 % of the overstated VAT reimbursement — Principle of proportionality)

14

2021/C 217/20

Case C-53/20: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Hengstenberg GmbH & Co. KG v Spreewaldverein eV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs — Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 — Article 49(3), first subparagraph, and (4), second subparagraph — Article 53(2), first subparagraph — Amendment to a product specification — Spreewald gherkins (Germany) Spreewälder Gurken (PGI) — Amendments which are not minor — Opposition procedure — Statement of opposition to the application for amendment — Appeal against the decision granting that application — Concept of legitimate interest)

15

2021/C 217/21

Case C-62/20: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 15 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel — Belgium) — Vogel Import Export NV v Belgische Staat (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 — Customs union — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Tariff headings — Headings 4407 and 4409 — Planed wooden boards the four corners of which have been slightly rounded over the entire length of the board)

15

2021/C 217/22

Case C-399/20 P: Appeal brought on 22 August 2020 by XH against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 25 June 2020 in Case T-511/18, XH v Commission

16

2021/C 217/23

Case C-504/20 P: Appeal brought on 28 September 2020 by Lukáš Wagenknecht against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 17 July 2020 in Case T-715/19, Wagenknecht v European Council

16

2021/C 217/24

Case C-535/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Okrazhen sad Razgrad (Bulgaria) lodged on 20 October 2020 — BNP Paribas Personal Finance S.A., Bulgaria Branch v T.G.M.

17

2021/C 217/25

Case C-622/20 P: Appeal brought on 12 November 2020 by Validity Foundation — Mental Disability Advocacy Centre and Center for Independent Living Association against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 2 September 2020 in Case T-613/19, ENIL Brussels Office e.a. v Commission

17

2021/C 217/26

Case C-667/20 P: Appeal brought on 7 December 2020 by Laboratorios Ern, S.A. against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 5 October 2020 in Case T-51/19 Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — SBS Bilimsel Bio Çözümler (apiheal)

17

2021/C 217/27

Case C-678/20 P: Appeal brought on 7 December 2020 by Laboratorios Ern, S.A. against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 5 October 2020 in Case T-53/19, SBS Bilimsel Bio Çözümler Sanayi Ve Ticaret AŞ v EUIPO — Laboratorios Ern (apiheal)

18

2021/C 217/28

Case C-100/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Ravensburg (Germany) lodged on 17 February 2021 — QB v Daimler AG

18

2021/C 217/29

Case C-102/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrative Court, Autonomous Section for the Province of Bolzano (Italy) lodged on 18 February 2021 — KW v Autonomous Province of Bolzano

19

2021/C 217/30

Case C-103/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrative Court, Autonomous Section for the Province of Bolzano (Italy) lodged on 18 February 2021 — SG v Autonomous Province of Bolzano

20

2021/C 217/31

Case C-134/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 4 March 2021 — EV v Agence fédérale pour l’Accueil des demandeurs d’asile (FEDASIL)

20

2021/C 217/32

Case C-154/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 9 March 2021 — RW v Österreichische Post AG

21

2021/C 217/33

Case C-158/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 11 March 2021 — Ministerio Fiscal, Abogacía del Estado, Partido político VOX v Lluís Puig Gordi, Carles Puigdemont Casamajó, Antoni Comín Oliveres, Clara Ponsatí Obiols, Meritxell Serret Aleu, Marta Rovira Vergés, Anna Gabriel Sabaté

21

2021/C 217/34

Case C-161/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte dei conti — Sezione regionale di controllo per la Campania (Italy) lodged on 10 March 2021 — Comune di Camerota

23

2021/C 217/35

Case C-178/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Ravensburg (Germany) lodged on 22 March 2021 — GL and Others v Volkswagen AG and Audi AG

24

2021/C 217/36

Case C-184/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de l’entreprise francophone de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 24 March 2021 — Christian Louboutin v Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon Services LLC

25

2021/C 217/37

Case C-198/21 P: Appeal brought on 29 March 2021 by Giacomo Santini and Others against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 10 February 2021 in Joined Cases T-345/19, T-346/19, T-364/19 to T-366/19, T-372/19 to T-375/19, and T-385/19, Santini and Others v Parliament

26

2021/C 217/38

Case C-202/21 P: Appeal brought on 30 March 2021 by ABLV Bank AS, in liquidation, against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 20 January 2021 in Case T-758/18, ABLV Bank v SRB

27

2021/C 217/39

Case C-212/21 P: Appeal brought on 2 April 2021 by European Investment Bank against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 27 January 2021 in Case T-9/19, ClientEarth v EIB

29

2021/C 217/40

Case C-223/21 P: Appeal brought on 6 April 2021 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 27 January 2021 in Case T-9/19, ClientEarth v EIB

30

2021/C 217/41

Case C-228/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 8 April 2021 — Ministero dell’Interno, Dipartimento per le Libertà civili e l’Immigrazione — Unità Dublino v CZA

31

2021/C 217/42

Case C-229/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 9 April 2021 — Le Port de Bruxelles v Infrabel SA and Région de Bruxelles-Capitale v Infrabel SA

31

2021/C 217/43

Case C-235/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije (Slovenia) lodged on 12 April 2021 — RAIFFEISEN LEASING, trgovina in leasing d. o. o. v Republika Slovenija

32

2021/C 217/44

Case C-239/21 P: Appeal brought on 14 April 2021 by Petr Fryč against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 11 February 2021 in Case T-92/20 Fryč v Commission

33

2021/C 217/45

Case C-242/21 P: Appeal brought on 13 April 2021 by Évariste Boshab against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 3 February 2021 in Case T-111/19, Évariste Boshab v Council of the European Union

34

2021/C 217/46

Case C-259/21: Action brought on 22 April 2021 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union

35

General Court

2021/C 217/47

Case T-193/18: Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2021 — Andreas Stihl v EUIPO — Giro Travel Company (Combination of the colours grey and orange) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU mark consisting of a combination of the colours grey and orange — Absolute ground for refusal — Article 4 and Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Sufficiently clear and precise graphic representation — Requirement for a systematic arrangement associating the colours in a predetermined and uniform way)

37

2021/C 217/48

Case T-277/19: Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2021 — BK v EASO (Civil service — Temporary agents — Temporary reassignment — Action for annulment — Purely confirmatory measure — Inadmissibility — Explicit decision rejecting the complaint — Autonomous scope — Suspension of the effects of the decision subject to the complaint — Interest in bringing proceedings — Action for damages — Close link to the claim for annulment — No pre-litigation procedure — Inadmissibility)

37

2021/C 217/49

Case T-282/19: Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2021 — Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v EUIPO — Filotas Bellas & Yios (Halloumi) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark Halloumi χαλλούμι Vermion grill cheese/grill est/grill kase M BELAS PREMIUM GREEK DAIRY SINCE 1927 — Earlier EU collective word mark HALLOUMI — Relative ground for refusal — Bad faith — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Article 53(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now article 60(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation 2017/1001))

38

2021/C 217/50

Case T-515/19: Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2021 — Lego v EUIPO — Delta Sport Handelskontor (Building block from a toy building set) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered community design representing a building block from a toy building set — Ground for invalidity — Non-compliance with requirements for protection — Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Features of appearance of a product solely dictated by its technical function — Features of appearance of a product to be necessarily reproduced in their exact form and dimensions in order to permit the interconnection with other products — Designs whose purpose is to allow multiple assembly or connection of mutually interchangeable products within a modular system — Article 8(1) to (3) of Regulation No 6/2002)

39

2021/C 217/51

Case T-588/19: Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2021 — Novomatic v EUIPO — adp Gauselmann (Power Stars) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU figurative mark Power Stars — Partial revocation declaration — Partial lack of genuine use — Proof of genuine use — Article 51(1)(a) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75(1), first sentence, of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94(1), first sentence, of Regulation 2017/1001) — Right to be heard — Article 75(1), second sentence, of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94(1), second sentence, of Regulation 2017/1001)

40

2021/C 217/52

Case T-798/19: Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2021 — Bennahmias v Parliament (Institutional law — Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament — Parliamentary assistance allowance — Recovery of sums unduly paid — Burden of proof — Obligation to state reasons — Error of law — Error of fact — Proportionality)

40

2021/C 217/53

Case T-799/19: Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2021 — Bennahmias v Parliament (Institutional law — Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament — Parliamentary assistance allowance — Recovery of sums unduly paid — Burden of proof — Obligation to state reasons — Error of law — Error of fact — Proportionality)

41

2021/C 217/54

Case T-93/20: Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2021 — Albert Darboven Holding v EUIPO (WINDSOR-CASTLE) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark WINDSOR-CASTLE — Absolute ground for refusal — Distinctiveness — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Laudatory character)

41

2021/C 217/55

Case T-168/20: Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2021 — Creaton South-East Europe v EUIPO — Henkel (CREATHERM) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark CREATHERM — Earlier international word mark CERETHERM — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

42

2021/C 217/56

Case T-175/20: Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2021 — Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — Sanolie (SANOLIE) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark SANOLIE — Earlier national word mark SANODIN — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

43

2021/C 217/57

Case T-354/20: Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2021 –Kfz-Gewerbes v EUIPO — The Blink Fish (Representation of a fish) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark representing a fish — Earlier national word mark BLINKA — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — No similarity between the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Obligation to state reasons — First sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)

43

2021/C 217/58

Case T-374/20: Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2021 — KM v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — Surviving spouse — Survivor’s pension — Articles 18 and 20 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Conditions for eligibility — Duration of the marriage — Plea of illegality — Equal treatment — Principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age — Proportionality)

44

2021/C 217/59

Case T-11/20: Order of the General Court of 26 March 2021 — Paravan v EUIPO — paragon (Paragon) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — Withdrawal of the application for revocation — No need to adjudicate)

45

2021/C 217/60

Case T-158/21: Action brought on 24 March 2021 — Minority SafePack — one million signatures for diversity in Europe v Commission

45

2021/C 217/61

Case T-168/21: Action brought on 30 March 2021 — Magnetec v EUIPO (Light blue)

46

2021/C 217/62

Case T-169/21: Action brought on 26 March 2021 — The Smiley Company v EUIPO — SC Ha Ha Ha Production (SMILEY)

46

2021/C 217/63

Case T-170/21: Action brought on 25 March 2021 — Ben Ali v Council

47

2021/C 217/64

Case T-173/21: Action brought on 31 March 2021 — Novelis Deutschland v EUIPO — Cuki Cofresco (grill dish)

49

2021/C 217/65

Case T-181/21: Action brought on 7 April 2021 — LG Electronics v EUIPO — Anferlux-Electrodomésticos (SmartThinQ)

49

2021/C 217/66

Case T-182/21: Action brought on 7 April 2021 — PKK v Council

50

2021/C 217/67

Case T-183/21: Action brought on 7 April 2021 — QP and Others v Council and Others

51

2021/C 217/68

Case T-187/21: Action brought on 9 April 2021 — Firearms United Network and Others v European Commission

53

2021/C 217/69

Case T-188/21: Action brought on 9 April 2021 — Lück v EUIPO — R.H. Investment (MALLE)

54

2021/C 217/70

Case T-190/21: Action brought on 7 April 2021 — RI and Others v Council and Others

55

2021/C 217/71

Case T-192/21: Action brought on 12 April 2021 — Laboratories Ern v EUIPO — Beta Sports (META)

56

2021/C 217/72

Case T-194/21: Action brought on 12 April 2021 — Fidia farmaceutici v EUIPO — Stelis Biopharma (HYALOSTEL ONE)

57

2021/C 217/73

Case T-196/21: Action brought on 12 April 2021 — Lea Nature Services v EUIPO — Debonair Trading Internacional (SO...?)

58

2021/C 217/74

Case T-197/21: Action brought on 12 April 2021 — Lea Nature Services v EUIPO — Debonair Trading Internacional (SO...?)

59

2021/C 217/75

Case T-198/21: Action brought on 12 April 2021 — Ancor Group v EUIPO — Cody’s Drinks International (CODE-X)

59

2021/C 217/76

Case T-199/21: Action brought on 30 March 2021 — EurO3zon v ECHA

60

2021/C 217/77

Case T-200/21: Action brought on 29 March 2021 — JS v EDPS

61

2021/C 217/78

Case T-201/21: Action brought on 6 April 2021 — Covington & Burling and Van Vooren v Commission

62

2021/C 217/79

Case T-202/21: Action brought on 13 April 2021 — Vita Zahnfabrik v EUIPO — VIPI Produtos Odontológicos (VITABLOCS TriLuxe forte)

63

2021/C 217/80

Case T-203/21: Action brought on 12 April 2021 — IN.PRO.DI v EUIPO — Aiello (CAPRI)

64

2021/C 217/81

Case T-204/21: Action brought on 14 April 2021 — Stryker v EUIPO (RUGGED)

64

2021/C 217/82

Case T-205/21: Action brought on 15 April 2021 — Kewazo v EUIPO (Liftbot)

65

2021/C 217/83

Case T-206/21: Action brought on 16 April 2021 — Kalita and Haas v EUIPO — Kitzbühel Tourismus (Representation of two animals)

66

2021/C 217/84

Case T-209/21: Action brought on 17 April 2021 — Ignacio Carrasco v EUIPO — Santos Carrasco Manzano (La Hoja del Carrasco)

67

2021/C 217/85

Case T-212/21: Action brought on 19 April 2021 — Groschopp v EUIPO (Sustainability through Quality)

67

2021/C 217/86

Case T-216/21: Action brought on 20 April 2021 — Ryanair and Malta Air v Commission

68

2021/C 217/87

Case T-220/21: Action brought on 23 April 2021 — Thomas Henry v EUIPO (Spicy Ginger)

69

---

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/1

---

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

(2021/C 217/01)

Last publication

OJ C 206, 31.5.2021

Past publications

OJ C 189, 17.5.2021

OJ C 182, 10.5.2021

OJ C 180, 10.5.2021

OJ C 163, 3.5.2021

OJ C 148, 26.4.2021

OJ C 138, 19.4.2021

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 April 2021 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Federazione nazionale delle imprese elettrotecniche ed elettroniche (Anie) and Others (C-798/18), Athesia Energy Srl and Others (C-799/18) v Ministero dello Sviluppo economico and Gestore dei servizi energetici (GSE) SpA

(Joined Cases C-798/18 and C-799/18) (1)

(References for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Principles of legal certainty and of the protection of legitimate expectations - Energy Charter Treaty - Article 10 - Applicability - Directive 2009/28/EC - Article 3(3)(a) - Promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources - Production of electricity from solar photovoltaic installations - Alteration of a support scheme)

(2021/C 217/02)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Federazione nazionale delle imprese elettrotecniche ed elettroniche (Anie) and Others (C-798/18), Athesia Energy Srl and Others (C-799/18)

Defendants: Ministero dello Sviluppo economico and Gestore dei servizi energetici (GSE) SpA

Interveners: Elettricità Futura Unione delle imprese elettriche italiane and Confederazione generale dell’agricoltura italiana — Confagricoltura

Operative part of the judgment

Subject to verifications to be carried out by the referring court taking into account all the relevant factors, Article 3(3)(a) of Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC, and Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, read in the light of the principles of legal certainty and of the protection of legitimate expectations, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which provides for the reduction or delay of the payment of incentives for energy produced by solar photovoltaic installations which were previously granted by administrative decisions and confirmed by special agreements concluded between the operators of those installations and a public company, where that legislation concerns incentives for which provision has previously been made but which are not yet due.

---

(1)  OJ C 122, 1.4.2019.

---

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen — Sweden) — Diskrimineringsombudsmannen v Braathens Regional Aviation AB

(Case C-30/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin - Directive 2000/43/EC - Article 7 - Protection of rights - Article 15 - Sanctions - Action for compensation based on an allegation of discrimination - Defendant acquiescing to claim for compensation without recognition on its part of the discrimination alleged - Connection between the compensation paid and the discrimination alleged - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Right to effective judicial protection - National procedural rules preventing the court seised from ruling on whether there was discrimination as alleged, despite the express request of the claimant)

(2021/C 217/03)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta domstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Diskrimineringsombudsmannen

Defendant: Braathens Regional Aviation AB

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 7 and 15 of Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as precluding a national law which prevents a court that is seised of an action for compensation based on an allegation of discrimination prohibited by that directive from examining the claim seeking a declaration of the existence of that discrimination where the defendant agrees to pay the compensation claimed without however recognising the existence of that discrimination. It is for the national court hearing a dispute between private persons to ensure, within its jurisdiction, the judicial protection for litigants flowing from Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights by disapplying as necessary any contrary provision of national law.

---

(1)  OJ C 103, 18.3.2019.

---

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — Belgium) — H. A. v État belge

(Case C-194/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 - Determination of the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection - Article 27 - Remedy - Whether account should be taken of circumstances subsequent to the transfer decision - Effective judicial protection)

(2021/C 217/04)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: H. A.

Defendant: État belge

Operative part of the judgment

Article 27(1) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person, read in the light of recital 19 thereof, and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which provides that the court or tribunal seised of an action for annulment of a transfer decision may not, in the context of the examination of that action, take account of circumstances subsequent to the adoption of that decision which are decisive for the correct application of that regulation, unless that legislation provides for a specific remedy entailing an ex nunc examination of the situation of the person concerned, the results of which are binding on the competent authorities, a remedy which may be exercised after such circumstances have arisen and which, in particular, is not made conditional on the deprivation of that person’s liberty or on the fact that implementation of that decision is imminent.

---

(1)  OJ C 164, 13.5.2019.

---

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Gdańsku — Poland) — AV

(Case C-221/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA - Article 8(2) and (4): - Article 17(1) and (2) - Article 19 - Taking into account, for the purposes of an aggregate sentence, of a conviction delivered in another Member State, which must be enforced in the Member State in which that judgment is delivered - Conditions - Framework Decision 2008/675/JHA - Article 3(3) - Concept of ‘interference with a sentence or its execution’ which must be taken into account in the event of new criminal proceedings initiated in a Member State other than that in which the ruling was delivered)

(2021/C 217/05)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Gdańsku

Parties to the main proceedings

AV

Intervening parties: Pomorski Wydział Zamiejscowy Departamentu do Spraw Przestępczości Zorganizowanej i Korupcji Prokuratury Krajowej

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The combined provisions of Article 8(2) to (4), Article 17(1) and (2) and Article 19 of Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009 must be interpreted as permitting the issue of an aggregate sentence covering not only one or more previous sentences handed down against the person concerned in the Member State in which that aggregate sentence is delivered, but also one or more sentences handed down against him or her in another Member State, which are enforced under that framework decision in the first Member State. Such an aggregate sentence cannot, however, lead to an adaptation of the duration or nature of those sentences which goes beyond the strict limits laid down in Article 8(2) to (4) of that framework decision, a breach of the obligation, imposed by Article 17(2) of that framework decision, to deduct the full period of deprivation of liberty already served, where appropriate, by the sentenced person in the issuing State, from the total duration of the deprivation of liberty to be served in the executing Member State, or to a review of the sentences imposed in another Member State, in breach of Article 19(2) of that framework decision; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The combined provisions of Article 8(2) to (4), Article 17(1) and (2) and Article 19 of Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009 must be interpreted as permitting the issue of an aggregate sentence covering not only one or more previous sentences handed down against the person concerned in the Member State in which that aggregate sentence is delivered, but also one or more sentences handed down against him or her in another Member State, which are enforced under that framework decision in the first Member State. Such an aggregate sentence cannot, however, lead to an adaptation of the duration or nature of those sentences which goes beyond the strict limits laid down in Article 8(2) to (4) of that framework decision, a breach of the obligation, imposed by Article 17(2) of that framework decision, to deduct the full period of deprivation of liberty already served, where appropriate, by the sentenced person in the issuing State, from the total duration of the deprivation of liberty to be served in the executing Member State, or to a review of the sentences imposed in another Member State, in breach of Article 19(2) of that framework decision;

| 2. | Article 3(3) of Council Framework Decision 2008/675/JHA of 24 July 2008 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, read in the light of recital 14 thereof, must be interpreted as permitting the issue of an aggregate sentence covering not only one or more previous convictions handed down against the person concerned in the Member State in which that aggregate sentence is delivered, but also one or more convictions handed down against him in another Member State and which are enforced, under Framework Decision 2008/909, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, in the first Member State, on condition that that aggregate sentence observes, in so far as concerns the latter convictions, the conditions and limits arising from Article 8(2) to (4), Article 17(2) and Article 19(2) of that framework decision 2008/909, as amended. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 3(3) of Council Framework Decision 2008/675/JHA of 24 July 2008 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, read in the light of recital 14 thereof, must be interpreted as permitting the issue of an aggregate sentence covering not only one or more previous convictions handed down against the person concerned in the Member State in which that aggregate sentence is delivered, but also one or more convictions handed down against him in another Member State and which are enforced, under Framework Decision 2008/909, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, in the first Member State, on condition that that aggregate sentence observes, in so far as concerns the latter convictions, the conditions and limits arising from Article 8(2) to (4), Article 17(2) and Article 19(2) of that framework decision 2008/909, as amended.

---

(1)  OJ C 280, 19.8.2019.

---

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/5

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) — Ireland) — Friends of the Irish Environment Ltd v Commissioner for Environmental Information

(Case C-470/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Aarhus Convention - Directive 2003/4/EC - Right of access to environmental information held by public authorities - Article 2, point 2 - Notion of ‘public authority’ - Bodies or institutions when acting in a judicial or legislative capacity - Information in the file of closed court proceedings)

(2021/C 217/06)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court (Ireland)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Friends of the Irish Environment Ltd

Defendant: Commissioner for Environmental Information

Intervening party: Courts Service of Ireland

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2, point 2, of Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that it does not govern access to environmental information contained in court files, where neither the courts nor the bodies or institutions under their control, which thus have close links with those courts, constitute ‘public authorities’ within the meaning of that provision and therefore do not fall within the scope of that directive.

---

(1)  OJ C 280, 19.8.2019.

---

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Areios Pagos — Greece) — AB v Olympiako Athlitiko Kentro Athinon — Spyros Louis

(Case C-511/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2000/78/EC - Principle of equal treatment in employment and occupation - Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age - Workers placed under a labour reserve system until termination of their contract of employment - Wage reduction and reduction or loss of severance pay - System applicable to public-sector workers close to full-time retirement - Reduction of public-sector wage costs - Article 6(1) - Legitimate social policy objective - Economic crisis)

(2021/C 217/07)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Areios Pagos

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: AB

Defendant: Olympiako Athlitiko Kentro Athinon — Spyros Louis

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2 and Article 6(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation under which public-sector workers who, during a given period, fulfil the conditions for drawing a full pension are placed under a labour reserve system until the termination of their contract of employment, which entails a reduction in their pay, the loss of their possible advancement and the partial or even total cancellation of the severance pay to which they would have been entitled on termination of their employment relationship, where that legislation pursues a legitimate employment-policy objective and the means to achieve that objective are appropriate and necessary.

---

(1)  OJ C 319, 23.9.2019.

---

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Eutelsat SA v Autorité de régulation des communications électroniques et des postes, Inmarsat Ventures SE, formerly Inmarsat Ventures Ltd

(Case C-515/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Telecommunications sector - Harmonised use of radio spectrum in the 2 GHz frequency bands for bringing into operation systems providing mobile satellite services - Decision No 626/2008/EC - Article 2(2)(a) and (b) - Article 4(1)(c)(ii) - Article 7(1) and (2) - Article 8(1) and (3) - Mobile satellite systems - Concept of ‘mobile earth station’ - Concept of ‘complementary ground components’ - Concept of ‘required quality’ - Respective role of satellite and ground components - Requirement for a selected operator of mobile satellite systems to provide service for a certain percentage of the population and territory - Non-compliance - Effect)

(2021/C 217/08)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Eutelsat SA

Defendants: Autorité de régulation des communications électroniques et des postes, Inmarsat Ventures SE, formerly Inmarsat Ventures Ltd

Interveners: Viasat Inc., Viasat UK Ltd

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 2(2)(a) and (b) of Decision No 626/2008/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 2008 on the selection and authorisation of systems providing mobile satellite services (MSS), read in conjunction with Article 8(1) and (3) of that decision, must be interpreted as meaning that a mobile satellite system does not have to be principally based, in terms of capacity of transmitted data, on the satellite component of that system and that complementary ground components of mobile satellite systems may be installed so as to cover the entire territory of the European Union, on the basis that that satellite component cannot ensure communications at any point of that territory with the ‘required quality’, within the meaning of Article 2(2)(b) of that decision, understood as the level of quality necessary to provide the service offered by the operator of that system, provided that there is no distortion of competition and that that satellite component has real and specific usefulness, in that such a component must be necessary for the functioning of the mobile satellite system, save where there is independent operation of the complementary ground components, in the case of failure of the satellite component, which must not exceed 18 months; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 2(2)(a) and (b) of Decision No 626/2008/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 2008 on the selection and authorisation of systems providing mobile satellite services (MSS), read in conjunction with Article 8(1) and (3) of that decision, must be interpreted as meaning that a mobile satellite system does not have to be principally based, in terms of capacity of transmitted data, on the satellite component of that system and that complementary ground components of mobile satellite systems may be installed so as to cover the entire territory of the European Union, on the basis that that satellite component cannot ensure communications at any point of that territory with the ‘required quality’, within the meaning of Article 2(2)(b) of that decision, understood as the level of quality necessary to provide the service offered by the operator of that system, provided that there is no distortion of competition and that that satellite component has real and specific usefulness, in that such a component must be necessary for the functioning of the mobile satellite system, save where there is independent operation of the complementary ground components, in the case of failure of the satellite component, which must not exceed 18 months;

| 2. | The concept of ‘mobile earth station’, within the meaning of Article 2(2)(a) of Decision No 626/2008, must be interpreted as not requiring that, in order to fall within that concept, such a station is capable of communicating, without the use of separate equipment, with both a complementary ground component and a satellite; |
| --- | --- |

2.

The concept of ‘mobile earth station’, within the meaning of Article 2(2)(a) of Decision No 626/2008, must be interpreted as not requiring that, in order to fall within that concept, such a station is capable of communicating, without the use of separate equipment, with both a complementary ground component and a satellite;

| 3. | Article 8(1) of Decision No 626/2008, read in conjunction with Article 7(1) of that decision, must be interpreted as meaning that, where it is established that an operator selected in accordance with Title II of that decision and authorised to use the radio spectrum pursuant to Article 7 of that decision has failed to provide mobile satellite services by means of a mobile satellite system by the deadline set in Article 4(1)(c)(ii) of Decision No 626/2008, the competent authorities of the Member States are not entitled to refuse to grant the authorisations necessary for the provision of complementary ground components of mobile satellite systems to that operator on the ground that that operator has failed to honour the commitment given in its application. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 8(1) of Decision No 626/2008, read in conjunction with Article 7(1) of that decision, must be interpreted as meaning that, where it is established that an operator selected in accordance with Title II of that decision and authorised to use the radio spectrum pursuant to Article 7 of that decision has failed to provide mobile satellite services by means of a mobile satellite system by the deadline set in Article 4(1)(c)(ii) of Decision No 626/2008, the competent authorities of the Member States are not entitled to refuse to grant the authorisations necessary for the provision of complementary ground components of mobile satellite systems to that operator on the ground that that operator has failed to honour the commitment given in its application.

---

(1)  OJ C 295, 2.9.2019.

---

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzgericht (Außenstelle Graz) — Austria) — SK Telecom Co. Ltd v Finanzamt Graz-Stadt

(Case C-593/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Determination of the place of supply of telecommunications services - Roaming of third-country nationals on mobile communications networks within the European Union - Point (b) of the first paragraph of Article 59a - Option for Member States to transfer the place of supply of telecommunications services to their territory)

(2021/C 217/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzgericht (Außenstelle Graz)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SK Telecom Co. Ltd

Defendant: Finanzamt Graz-Stadt

Operative part of the judgment

Point (b) of the first paragraph of Article 59a of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended, from 1 January 2010, by Council Directive 2008/8/EC of 12 February 2008, must be interpreted as meaning that roaming services supplied by a mobile phone operator established in a third country to its customers who are also established, have their permanent address or usually reside in that third country, allowing them to use the national mobile communications network of the Member State in which they are temporarily staying, must be considered to be ‘effectively used and enjoyed’ within the territory of that Member State, for the purposes of that provision, so that that Member State may consider the place of supply of those roaming services to be situated within its territory where, regardless of the tax treatment to which those services are subject under the domestic tax law of that third country, the exercise of such an option has the effect of preventing the non-taxation of those services within the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 27, 27.1.2020.

---

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 15 April 2021 — Italmobiliare SpA, Sirap-Gema SpA, Sirap France SAS, Petruzalek GmbH, Petruzalek s.r.o., Petruzalek s.r.o. and Petruzalek kft v European Commission

(Case C-694/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Retail food packaging market - Attributability of unlawful conduct - Conditions for the granting of immunity - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Sales value - Upper limit of the fine - Duration of the administrative procedure - Reasonable time - Ability to pay)

(2021/C 217/10)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellants: Italmobiliare SpA, Sirap-Gema SpA, Sirap France SAS, Petruzalek GmbH, Petruzalek s.r.o., Petruzalek s.r.o. and Petruzalek kft (represented by: F. Moretti, avvocatessa)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: initially by P. Rossi and T. Vecchi, and subsequently by P. Rossi, G. Conte and C. Sjödin, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Italmobiliare SpA, Sirap-Gema SpA, Sirap France SAS, Petruzalek GmbH, Petruzalek s.r.o., Petruzalek s.r.o. and Petruzalek kft to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Italmobiliare SpA, Sirap-Gema SpA, Sirap France SAS, Petruzalek GmbH, Petruzalek s.r.o., Petruzalek s.r.o. and Petruzalek kft to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 372, 04.11.2019.

---

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland — United Kingdom) — TKF v Department of Justice for Northern Ireland

(Case C-729/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters relating to maintenance obligations - Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 - Temporal scope - Article 75 - Decisions given by a court of a Member State prior to accession to the European Union)

(2021/C 217/11)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: TKF

Respondent: Department of Justice for Northern Ireland

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 75(2)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations must be interpreted as applying only to decisions given by national courts in States which were already members of the European Union on the date of adoption of those decisions. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 75(2)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations must be interpreted as applying only to decisions given by national courts in States which were already members of the European Union on the date of adoption of those decisions.

| 2. | Regulation No 4/2009 must be interpreted as meaning that no provision of that regulation enables decisions in matters relating to maintenance obligations, given in a State before its accession to the European Union and before the date of application of that regulation, to be recognised and enforced, after that State’s accession to the European Union, in another Member State. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Regulation No 4/2009 must be interpreted as meaning that no provision of that regulation enables decisions in matters relating to maintenance obligations, given in a State before its accession to the European Union and before the date of application of that regulation, to be recognised and enforced, after that State’s accession to the European Union, in another Member State.

---

(1)  OJ C 423, 16.12.2019.

---

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/9

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 April 2021 — Kingdom of the Netherlands v Council of the European Union, European Parliament

(Case C-733/19) (1)

(Action for annulment - Common fisheries policy - Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 - Conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources - Protection of marine ecosystems - Regulation (EU) 2019/1241 - Technical measures - Annex V, Part D - Ban on fishing by vessels using electric pulse trawls - Principle of proportionality - Precautionary principle)

(2021/C 217/12)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M.K. Bulterman, M. Noort and P. Huurnink, acting as Agents)

Defendants: Council of the European Union (represented by: F. Naert and A. Maceroni, acting as Agents), European Parliament (represented by: R. van de Westelaken, I. Liukkonen and K. Zejdová, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendants: French Republic (represented by: A.-L. Desjonquères and M. J.-L. Carré, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament.

| 3. | Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 423, 16.12.2019.

---

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) — Latvia) — ZS ‘Plaukti’

(Case C-736/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - European agricultural fund for rural development (EAFRD) - Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 - Regulation (EU) No 65/2011 - Third subparagraph of Article 16(5) - Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 - Articles 4 and 6 - Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 - Support for rural development - Agri-environmental payments - Aid for the maintenance of grassland biodiversity - Non-compliance with the conditions for granting those payments - Early mowing - Reduction and exclusion of those payments - Mandatory standards - Statutory management requirements - Minimum requirements for good agricultural and environmental conditions - Commitments that exceed mandatory standards, minimum requirements and other appropriate mandatory requirements established by national legislation)

(2021/C 217/13)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa (Senāts)

Parties to the main proceedings

ZS ‘Plaukti’

Intervening party: Lauku atbalsta dienests

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The third subparagraph of Article 16(5) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 65/2011 of 27 January 2011 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, as regards the implementation of control procedures as well as cross-compliance in respect of rural development support measures must be interpreted as meaning that it is not applicable where an aid applicant has not complied with the agri-environmental commitments relating to mowing requirements, where no change in the crop group has been found; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The third subparagraph of Article 16(5) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 65/2011 of 27 January 2011 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, as regards the implementation of control procedures as well as cross-compliance in respect of rural development support measures must be interpreted as meaning that it is not applicable where an aid applicant has not complied with the agri-environmental commitments relating to mowing requirements, where no change in the crop group has been found;

| 2. | Articles 4 and 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003, read in conjunction with Article 39(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which the same requirement can be both a minimum requirement for good agricultural and environmental condition and a requirement going beyond those minimum requirements, namely a requirement for the grant of agri-environmental payments. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Articles 4 and 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003, read in conjunction with Article 39(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which the same requirement can be both a minimum requirement for good agricultural and environmental condition and a requirement going beyond those minimum requirements, namely a requirement for the grant of agri-environmental payments.

---

(1)  OJ C 413, 9.12.2019.

---

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln — Germany) — The North of England P & I Association Ltd, as successor in law to Marine Shipping Mutual Insurance Company v Bundeszentralamt für Steuern

(Case C-786/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Direct insurance other than life assurance - Second Directive 88/357/EEC - Second indent of Article 2(d) - Directive 92/49/EEC - First subparagraph of Article 46(2) - Taxation of insurance premiums - Concept of ‘Member State where the risk is situated’ - Vehicles of any type - Concept of ‘Member State of registration’ - Insurance of sea-going vessels - Ships entered in the shipping register maintained by one Member State but flying the flag of another Member State or of a third State under a temporary flagging-out authorisation)

(2021/C 217/14)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: The North of England P & I Association Ltd, as successor in law to Marine Shipping Mutual Insurance Company

Defendant: Bundeszentralamt für Steuern

Operative part of the judgment

The first subparagraph of Article 46(2) of Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct insurance other than life insurance and amending Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (‘third non-life insurance directive’), read together with the second indent of Article 2(d) of Second Council Directive 88/357/EEC of 22 June 1988 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct insurance other than life assurance and laying down provisions to facilitate the effective exercise of freedom to provide services and amending Directive 73/239/EEC, must be interpreted as meaning that, where insurance contracts concern the provision of cover for various risks linked to the operation of sea-going vessels which are entered in the shipping register maintained by a Member State but which fly the flag of another Member State or of a third State under a temporary flagging-out authorisation, the State that must be considered to be the ‘Member State of registration’ of the ship concerned and therefore, to be ‘the Member State where the risk is situated’, within the meaning of those provisions, holding the exclusive power to tax premiums paid with respect to those insurance contracts, is the Member State which maintains the shipping register in which the primary purpose of entering that ship is to prove ownership of that ship.

---

(1)  OJ C 45, 10.2.2020.

---

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’arrondissement — Luxembourg) — EQ v Administration de l’Enregistrement, des Domaines et de la TVA

(Case C-846/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Economic activity - Supply of services for consideration - Article 2(1)(c) and Article 9(1) - Exemptions - Article 132(1)(g) - Supply of services closely linked to welfare and social security work - Services performed by a lawyer under powers of representation for the protection of adults lacking legal capacity - Body recognised as being devoted to social wellbeing)

(2021/C 217/15)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal d’arrondissement

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: EQ

Defendant: Administration de l’Enregistrement, des Domaines et de la TVA

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 9(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the supply of services for the benefit of adults lacking legal capacity and intended to protect them in civil matters, the performance of which is entrusted to the person supplying services by a judicial authority in pursuance of the law and remuneration for which is fixed by the same authority as a fixed amount or is based on a case-by-case assessment by taking into account in particular the financial situation of the person lacking legal capacity — and such remuneration may moreover be borne by the State in the event that that person is indigent — where that supply is for consideration, the person supplying services obtains income therefrom on a continuing basis and the overall amount of the compensation for that activity is determined on the basis of criteria intended to ensure that the operating costs incurred by the person supplying services are covered, constitutes an economic activity within the meaning of that provision. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 9(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the supply of services for the benefit of adults lacking legal capacity and intended to protect them in civil matters, the performance of which is entrusted to the person supplying services by a judicial authority in pursuance of the law and remuneration for which is fixed by the same authority as a fixed amount or is based on a case-by-case assessment by taking into account in particular the financial situation of the person lacking legal capacity — and such remuneration may moreover be borne by the State in the event that that person is indigent — where that supply is for consideration, the person supplying services obtains income therefrom on a continuing basis and the overall amount of the compensation for that activity is determined on the basis of criteria intended to ensure that the operating costs incurred by the person supplying services are covered, constitutes an economic activity within the meaning of that provision.

| 2. | Article 132(1)(g) of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning, first, that the supply of services for the benefit of adults lacking legal capacity and intended to protect them in civil matters constitutes a ‘supply of services closely linked to welfare and social security work’, and, secondly, that it is not excluded that a lawyer supplying such services of a social nature may benefit, for the purposes of the business he or she operates and within the limits of those supplies, from recognition as a body devoted to social wellbeing, and such recognition must however necessarily be granted by a judicial authority only if the Member State concerned, by refusing that recognition, exceeded the limits of the discretion which it enjoys in that regard. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 132(1)(g) of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning, first, that the supply of services for the benefit of adults lacking legal capacity and intended to protect them in civil matters constitutes a ‘supply of services closely linked to welfare and social security work’, and, secondly, that it is not excluded that a lawyer supplying such services of a social nature may benefit, for the purposes of the business he or she operates and within the limits of those supplies, from recognition as a body devoted to social wellbeing, and such recognition must however necessarily be granted by a judicial authority only if the Member State concerned, by refusing that recognition, exceeded the limits of the discretion which it enjoys in that regard.

| 3. | The principle of the protection of legitimate expectations does not preclude the tax authority from imposing value added tax (VAT) on certain transactions relating to a previous period, in a situation where that authority has, over a number of years, accepted the taxable person’s VAT returns which do not include transactions of the same kind in its taxable transactions and where the taxable person is unable to recover the VAT due from those who have remunerated those transactions, with the remuneration already paid then deemed to include this VAT already. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The principle of the protection of legitimate expectations does not preclude the tax authority from imposing value added tax (VAT) on certain transactions relating to a previous period, in a situation where that authority has, over a number of years, accepted the taxable person’s VAT returns which do not include transactions of the same kind in its taxable transactions and where the taxable person is unable to recover the VAT due from those who have remunerated those transactions, with the remuneration already paid then deemed to include this VAT already.

---

(1)  OJ C 54, 17.2.2020.

---

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 15 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Berlin-Brandenburg — Germany) — M-GmbH v Finanzamt für Körperschaften

(Case C-868/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value-added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 9 - Taxable persons - Article 11 - Option for the Member States to treat as a single taxable person persons who are independent from a legal point of view but are closely linked to one another financially, economically and organisationally (‘VAT group’) - Concept of ‘close financial links’ - National legislation according to which partnerships, whose partners, alongside the controlling company, are not solely financially integrated persons in the undertaking of the controlling company, are prevented from being a member of a VAT group - Legal certainty - Preventative measures against fraud and tax evasion - Proportionality - VAT neutrality)

(2021/C 217/16)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Berlin-Brandenburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: M-GmbH

Defendant: Finanzamt für Körperschaften

Operative part of the judgment

Article 11 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in light of the principles of legal certainty, proportionality and fiscal neutrality, must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes a national law which makes the option for a partnership to create, alongside the undertaking of the controlling company, a group of persons which may be considered to be a single taxable person for value added tax, on the condition that the partners in the partnership, alongside the controlling company, are solely persons who are financially integrated in that undertaking.

---

(1)  OJ C 77, 9.3.2020.

---

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 April 2021 — FV v Council of the European Union

(Case C-875/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Application for annulment - Civil service - Staff report - Assessment criteria - Consistency of output - Delays - Submission of a medical certificate - Duty of care)

(2021/C 217/17)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: FV (represented by: É. Boigelot, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and R. Meyer, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders FV to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders FV to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 77, 9.3.2020.

---

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 April 2021 — FV v Council of the European Union

(Case C-877/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Application for annulment - Civil service - Staff report - Assessment criteria - Consistency of output - Delays - Submission of a medical certificate - Duty of care)

(2021/C 217/18)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: FV (represented by: É. Boigelot, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and R. Meyer, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders FV to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders FV to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 77, 09.03.2020.

---

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 15 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu — Poland) — Grupa Warzywna sp. z o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej we Wrocławiu

(Case C-935/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 273 - Overstatement in the tax return of the amount of the refund of VAT - Error of assessment by the taxable person concerning the taxable nature of a transaction - Correction of the tax return following an audit - Penalty of an amount equal to 20 % of the overstated VAT reimbursement - Principle of proportionality)

(2021/C 217/19)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Grupa Warzywna sp. z o.o.

Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej we Wrocławiu

Operative part of the judgment

Article 273 of the Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, and the principle of proportionality must be interpreted as meaning that they preclude a national law which imposes on a taxable person, who wrongly classified a transaction that is exempt from VAT as a transaction which is subject to that tax, an additional tax liability equal to 20 % of the amount of the overstated VAT reimbursement that was wrongly claimed, where that sanction applies without distinction to a situation where the irregularity is the result of an error of assessment made by the parties to the transaction regarding the taxable nature of that transaction, which is characterised by the lack of evidence of evasion and of losses of revenues for the State Treasury, and to a situation where such specific circumstances do not exist.

---

(1)  OJ C 191, 8.6.2020.

---

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/15

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Hengstenberg GmbH & Co. KG v Spreewaldverein eV

(Case C-53/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs - Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 - Article 49(3), first subparagraph, and (4), second subparagraph - Article 53(2), first subparagraph - Amendment to a product specification - Spreewald gherkins (Germany) ‘Spreewälder Gurken (PGI)’ - Amendments which are not minor - Opposition procedure - Statement of opposition to the application for amendment - Appeal against the decision granting that application - Concept of ‘legitimate interest’)

(2021/C 217/20)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hengstenberg GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: Spreewaldverein eV

Operative part of the judgment

Article 49(3), first subparagraph, and (4), second subparagraph, of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs, in conjunction with Article 53(2), first subparagraph, thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the procedure applicable to applications for non-minor amendments to the specification of a product covered by a protected geographical indication, any natural or legal person actually or potentially affected economically — without such effect being entirely implausible — by the amendments applied for may be sufficient to establish the ‘legitimate interest’ required to declare an opposition to the application for amendment submitted or to lodge an appeal against the decision granting that application, provided that the risk of harm to the interests of such a person is not purely improbable or hypothetical, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.

---

(1)  OJ C 161, 11.5.2020.

---

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/15

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 15 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel — Belgium) — Vogel Import Export NV v Belgische Staat

(Case C-62/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 - Customs union - Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Tariff headings - Headings 4407 and 4409 - Planed wooden boards the four corners of which have been slightly rounded over the entire length of the board)

(2021/C 217/21)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vogel Import Export NV

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Operative part of the judgment

The Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2016/1821 of 6 October 2016, must be interpreted as meaning that planed wooden boards the four corners of which have been slightly rounded over the entire length of the board, must not be regarded as continuously shaped and are capable of falling within heading 4407 of the Combined Nomenclature.

---

(1)  OJ C 201, 15.6.2020.

---

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/16

---

Appeal brought on 22 August 2020 by XH against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 25 June 2020 in Case T-511/18, XH v Commission

(Case C-399/20 P)

(2021/C 217/22)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: XH (represented by: E. Auleytner, radca prawny)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

By order of 16 March 2021, the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) held that the appeal is dismissed as being, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded and that XH shall bear her own costs.

---

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/16

---

Appeal brought on 28 September 2020 by Lukáš Wagenknecht against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 17 July 2020 in Case T-715/19, Wagenknecht v European Council

(Case C-504/20 P)

(2021/C 217/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Lukáš Wagenknecht (represented by: A. Koller, advokátka)

Other party to the proceedings: European Council

By order of 14 April 2021, the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) held that the appeal is dismissed as being, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded and that Mr Lukáš Wagenknecht shall bear his own costs.

---

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/17

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Okrazhen sad Razgrad (Bulgaria) lodged on 20 October 2020 — BNP Paribas Personal Finance S.A., Bulgaria Branch v T.G.M.

(Case C-535/20)

(2021/C 217/24)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Okrazhen sad Razgrad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant and appellant: BNP Paribas Personal Finance S.A., Bulgaria Branch

Defendant and respondent: T.G.M.

By order of 14 April 2021, the Court (Sixth Chamber) ruled as follows:

Article 10(2) and Article 22(1) of Directive 2008/48/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which requires all components of a consumer credit agreement to be presented using the same font type, the same font format and the same font size, that is, no smaller than 12 point.

---

(1)  OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66.

---

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/17

---

Appeal brought on 12 November 2020 by Validity Foundation — Mental Disability Advocacy Centre and Center for Independent Living Association against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 2 September 2020 in Case T-613/19, ENIL Brussels Office e.a. v Commission

(Case C-622/20 P)

(2021/C 217/25)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Validity Foundation — Mental Disability Advocacy Centre and Center for Independent Living Association (represented by: B. Van Vooren, advocaat, P. Bogaert, advocaat, L. Gorywoda, adwokat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission and European Network on Independent Living Brussels Office (ENIL Brussels Office)

By order of 15 April 2021, the Court of Justice (Ninth Chamber) decided that the appeal is dismissed as manifestly unfounded and ordered appellants to bear their own costs.

---

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/17

---

Appeal brought on 7 December 2020 by Laboratorios Ern, S.A. against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 5 October 2020 in Case T-51/19 Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — SBS Bilimsel Bio Çözümler (apiheal)

(Case C-667/20 P)

(2021/C 217/26)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Laboratorios Ern, S.A. (represented by: T. González Martínez and R. Guerras Mazón, abogados)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office and SBS Bilimsel Bio Çözümler Sanayi Ve Ticaret AŞ

By order of 18 March 2021, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) ruled that the appeal should not be allowed to proceed and ordered Laboratorios Ern bear its own costs.

---

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/18

---

Appeal brought on 7 December 2020 by Laboratorios Ern, S.A. against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 5 October 2020 in Case T-53/19, SBS Bilimsel Bio Çözümler Sanayi Ve Ticaret AŞ v EUIPO — Laboratorios Ern (apiheal)

(Case C-678/20 P)

(2021/C 217/27)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Laboratorios Ern, S.A. (represented by: T. González Martínez and R. Guerras Mazón, abogados)

Other parties to the proceedings: SBS Bilimsel Bio Çözümler Sanayi Ve Ticaret AŞ and the European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 18 March 2021, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) ruled that the appeal should not be allowed to proceed and ordered Laboratorios Ern bear its own costs.

---

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/18

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Ravensburg (Germany) lodged on 17 February 2021 — QB v Daimler AG

(Case C-100/21)

(2021/C 217/28)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Ravensburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: QB

Defendant: Daimler AG

Questions referred

| 1. | Are Articles 18(1), 26(1) and 46 of Directive 2007/46/EC, (1) read in conjunction with Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007, (2) also intended to protect the interests of individual purchasers of motor vehicles?
  If so: |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are Articles 18(1), 26(1) and 46 of Directive 2007/46/EC, (1) read in conjunction with Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007, (2) also intended to protect the interests of individual purchasers of motor vehicles?

If so:

| 2. | Does this also include the interest of an individual purchaser of a vehicle in not purchasing a vehicle which does not comply with the requirements of EU law, and in particular in not purchasing a vehicle equipped with a prohibited defeat device within the meaning of Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007?
  If Question 1 is answered in the negative: |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does this also include the interest of an individual purchaser of a vehicle in not purchasing a vehicle which does not comply with the requirements of EU law, and in particular in not purchasing a vehicle equipped with a prohibited defeat device within the meaning of Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007?

If Question 1 is answered in the negative:

| 3. | Is it incompatible with EU law if a purchaser who has unintentionally purchased a vehicle placed on the market by the manufacturer with a prohibited defeat device within the meaning of Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 is able to assert civil claims for damages against the vehicle manufacturer on the basis of tortious liability — including, in particular, a claim for reimbursement of the purchase price paid for the vehicle against return and transfer of ownership of the vehicle — only in exceptional cases where the vehicle manufacturer has acted with intent and in a manner contrary to accepted principles of morality?
  If so: |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is it incompatible with EU law if a purchaser who has unintentionally purchased a vehicle placed on the market by the manufacturer with a prohibited defeat device within the meaning of Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 is able to assert civil claims for damages against the vehicle manufacturer on the basis of tortious liability — including, in particular, a claim for reimbursement of the purchase price paid for the vehicle against return and transfer of ownership of the vehicle — only in exceptional cases where the vehicle manufacturer has acted with intent and in a manner contrary to accepted principles of morality?

If so:

| 4. | Does EU law require that the purchaser of a vehicle has a civil claim for damages against the vehicle manufacturer on the basis of tortious liability in the event of any culpable (negligent or intentional) act on the part of the vehicle manufacturer in relation to the placing on the market of a vehicle equipped with a prohibited defeat device within the meaning of Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007?
  Irrespective of the answers to Questions 1 to 4: |
| --- | --- |

4.

Does EU law require that the purchaser of a vehicle has a civil claim for damages against the vehicle manufacturer on the basis of tortious liability in the event of any culpable (negligent or intentional) act on the part of the vehicle manufacturer in relation to the placing on the market of a vehicle equipped with a prohibited defeat device within the meaning of Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007?

Irrespective of the answers to Questions 1 to 4:

| 5. | Is it incompatible with EU law if, under national law, the purchaser of a vehicle must accept offsetting the benefit of the actual use made of the motor vehicle where he or she seeks, by way of compensation based on tortious liability, reimbursement from the manufacturer of the purchase price of a vehicle placed on the market by the manufacturer with a prohibited defeat device within the meaning of Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 against return and transfer of ownership of the vehicle?
  If not: |
| --- | --- |

5.

Is it incompatible with EU law if, under national law, the purchaser of a vehicle must accept offsetting the benefit of the actual use made of the motor vehicle where he or she seeks, by way of compensation based on tortious liability, reimbursement from the manufacturer of the purchase price of a vehicle placed on the market by the manufacturer with a prohibited defeat device within the meaning of Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 against return and transfer of ownership of the vehicle?

If not:

| 6. | Is it incompatible with EU law for that benefit of use to be calculated on the basis of the full purchase price without any deduction being made for the reduction in value of the vehicle resulting from its being equipped with a prohibited defeat device and/or in view of the purchaser’s inadvertent use of a vehicle which does not comply with EU law?
  Irrespective of the answers to Questions 1 to 6: |
| --- | --- |

6.

Is it incompatible with EU law for that benefit of use to be calculated on the basis of the full purchase price without any deduction being made for the reduction in value of the vehicle resulting from its being equipped with a prohibited defeat device and/or in view of the purchaser’s inadvertent use of a vehicle which does not comply with EU law?

Irrespective of the answers to Questions 1 to 6:

| 7. | Inasmuch as it also refers to orders for reference in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 267 TFEU, is Paragraph 348(3) of the Zivilprozessordnung (‘the ZPO’, German Code of Civil Procedure) incompatible with the right conferred on the national courts to request a preliminary ruling pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 267 TFEU and must it therefore be disapplied to orders for reference? |
| --- | --- |

7.

Inasmuch as it also refers to orders for reference in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 267 TFEU, is Paragraph 348(3) of the Zivilprozessordnung (‘the ZPO’, German Code of Civil Procedure) incompatible with the right conferred on the national courts to request a preliminary ruling pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 267 TFEU and must it therefore be disapplied to orders for reference?

---

(1)  Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles (Framework Directive) (OJ 2007 L 263, p. 1).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2007 on type approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information (OJ 2007 L 171, p. 1).

---

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/19

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrative Court, Autonomous Section for the Province of Bolzano (Italy) lodged on 18 February 2021 — KW v Autonomous Province of Bolzano

(Case C-102/21)

(2021/C 217/29)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Administrative Court, Autonomous Section for the Province of Bolzano

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: KW

Defendant: Autonomous Province of Bolzano

Questions referred

| 1. | Did the aid authorised by Commission Decision SA.32113 (2010/N) of 25 July 2012 to cover 80 % of the costs of the construction of mini-hydroelectric power plants for the generation of electrical energy for own consumption from renewable energy sources for the benefit of mountain huts and hostels in high alpine areas, for which connection to the electricity grid is not feasible without disproportionate effort in technical and financial terms, expire on 31 December 2016? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Did the aid authorised by Commission Decision SA.32113 (2010/N) of 25 July 2012 to cover 80 % of the costs of the construction of mini-hydroelectric power plants for the generation of electrical energy for own consumption from renewable energy sources for the benefit of mountain huts and hostels in high alpine areas, for which connection to the electricity grid is not feasible without disproportionate effort in technical and financial terms, expire on 31 December 2016?

| 2. | If that question is answered in the affirmative: |
| --- | --- |

2.

If that question is answered in the affirmative:

| 2.1 | Is Article 20 of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that, in the case where aid is misused, the Commission must issue a recovery decision before the public authorities intervene? |
| --- | --- |

2.1

Is Article 20 of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that, in the case where aid is misused, the Commission must issue a recovery decision before the public authorities intervene?

| 2.2 | Is the abovementioned aid compatible with the internal market within the meaning of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, since it serves to facilitate the development of certain economic areas, or is it liable to distort competition and affect trade between Member States? |
| --- | --- |

2.2

Is the abovementioned aid compatible with the internal market within the meaning of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, since it serves to facilitate the development of certain economic areas, or is it liable to distort competition and affect trade between Member States?

---

(1)  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).

---

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/20

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrative Court, Autonomous Section for the Province of Bolzano (Italy) lodged on 18 February 2021 — SG v Autonomous Province of Bolzano

(Case C-103/21)

(2021/C 217/30)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Administrative Court, Autonomous Section for the Province of Bolzano

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: SG

Defendant: Autonomous Province of Bolzano

Questions referred

| 1. | Did the aid authorised by Commission Decision SA.32113 (2010/N) of 25 July 2012 to cover 80 % of the costs of the construction of mini-hydroelectric power plants for the generation of electrical energy for own consumption from renewable energy sources for the benefit of mountain huts and hostels in high alpine areas, for which connection to the electricity grid is not feasible without disproportionate effort in technical and financial terms, expire on 31 December 2016? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Did the aid authorised by Commission Decision SA.32113 (2010/N) of 25 July 2012 to cover 80 % of the costs of the construction of mini-hydroelectric power plants for the generation of electrical energy for own consumption from renewable energy sources for the benefit of mountain huts and hostels in high alpine areas, for which connection to the electricity grid is not feasible without disproportionate effort in technical and financial terms, expire on 31 December 2016?

| 2. | If that question is answered in the affirmative: |
| --- | --- |

2.

If that question is answered in the affirmative:

| 2.1 | Is it then necessary to assess whether Article 20 of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 (1) is to be interpreted as meaning that, in the case where aid is misused, the Commission must issue a recovery decision before the public authorities intervene? |
| --- | --- |

2.1

Is it then necessary to assess whether Article 20 of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 (1) is to be interpreted as meaning that, in the case where aid is misused, the Commission must issue a recovery decision before the public authorities intervene?

| 2.2 | Is it necessary to assess whether the abovementioned aid is compatible with the internal market within the meaning of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, since it serves to facilitate the development of certain economic areas, or whether it is liable to distort competition and affect trade between Member States? |
| --- | --- |

2.2

Is it necessary to assess whether the abovementioned aid is compatible with the internal market within the meaning of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, since it serves to facilitate the development of certain economic areas, or whether it is liable to distort competition and affect trade between Member States?

---

(1)  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).

---

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/20

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 4 March 2021 — EV v Agence fédérale pour l’Accueil des demandeurs d’asile (FEDASIL)

(Case C-134/21)

(2021/C 217/31)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal du travail de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: EV

Defendant: Agence fédérale pour l’Accueil des demandeurs d’asile (FEDASIL)

By order of 26 March 2021, the Court (Fifth Chamber) ruled:

Article 27 of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person, is to be interpreted as not precluding a Member State from adopting, in relation to an applicant who has brought an appeal against a decision to transfer him to another Member State as referred to in Article 26(1) of that regulation, measures preparatory to such a transfer, such as the allocation of a place in a specific reception facility where those accommodated receive support in preparing for their transfer.

---

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/21

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 9 March 2021 — RW v Österreichische Post AG

(Case C-154/21)

(2021/C 217/32)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: RW

Defendant: Österreichische Post AG

Question referred

Is Article 15(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the right of access is limited to information concerning categories of recipient where specific recipients have not yet been determined in the case of planned disclosures, but that right must necessarily also cover recipients of those disclosures in cases where data has already been disclosed?

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ 2016 L 119, p. 1).

---

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/21

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 11 March 2021 — Ministerio Fiscal, Abogacía del Estado, Partido político VOX v Lluís Puig Gordi, Carles Puigdemont Casamajó, Antoni Comín Oliveres, Clara Ponsatí Obiols, Meritxell Serret Aleu, Marta Rovira Vergés, Anna Gabriel Sabaté

(Case C-158/21)

(2021/C 217/33)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Prosecuting parties: Ministerio Fiscal, Abogacía del Estado, Partido político VOX

Defendants: Lluís Puig Gordi, Carles Puigdemont Casamajó, Antoni Comín Oliveres, Clara Ponsatí Obiols, Meritxell Serret Aleu, Marta Rovira Vergés, Anna Gabriel Sabaté

Questions referred

| 1. | Does Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA (1) enable the executing judicial authority to refuse surrender of the person sought via an EAW [European Arrest Warrant], based on grounds for refusal which are laid down in its national law but which are not provided for as such in the Framework Decision? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA (1) enable the executing judicial authority to refuse surrender of the person sought via an EAW [European Arrest Warrant], based on grounds for refusal which are laid down in its national law but which are not provided for as such in the Framework Decision?

| 2. | If the answer to the previous question is affirmative, and for the purpose of ensuring the viability of an EAW and relying properly on the source of assistance provided for in Article 15(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA:
  Must the issuing judicial authority investigate and examine the different laws of Member States in order to take into consideration any potential grounds for refusal of an EAW not provided for in Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the previous question is affirmative, and for the purpose of ensuring the viability of an EAW and relying properly on the source of assistance provided for in Article 15(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA:

Must the issuing judicial authority investigate and examine the different laws of Member States in order to take into consideration any potential grounds for refusal of an EAW not provided for in Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA?

| 3. | Must the issuing judicial authority investigate and examine the different laws of Member States in order to take into consideration any potential grounds for refusal of an EAW not provided for in Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA?
  Must that provision be interpreted as meaning that the executing judicial authority is entitled to call into question the issuing judicial authority’s jurisdiction to try the criminal case in point and to refuse surrender on the grounds that that judicial authority is not competent to issue the EAW? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Must the issuing judicial authority investigate and examine the different laws of Member States in order to take into consideration any potential grounds for refusal of an EAW not provided for in Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA?

Must that provision be interpreted as meaning that the executing judicial authority is entitled to call into question the issuing judicial authority’s jurisdiction to try the criminal case in point and to refuse surrender on the grounds that that judicial authority is not competent to issue the EAW?

| 4. | As regards whether the executing judicial authority has the right to conduct a review of respect for the fundamental rights of the person sought in the issuing State:






  4.1.- | Does Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA enable the executing judicial authority to refuse to surrender the person sought on the grounds that it has identified a serious risk of infringement of that person’s fundamental rights in the issuing Member State, based on the report of a Working Group submitted to the national executing authority by the person sought? |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

As regards whether the executing judicial authority has the right to conduct a review of respect for the fundamental rights of the person sought in the issuing State:

4.1.-

Does Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA enable the executing judicial authority to refuse to surrender the person sought on the grounds that it has identified a serious risk of infringement of that person’s fundamental rights in the issuing Member State, based on the report of a Working Group submitted to the national executing authority by the person sought?

| 4.2.- | For the purposes of the previous question, does such a report constitute information that is objective, reliable, specific and properly updated in order to justify, in the light of the case-law of the Court of Justice, the refusal to surrender the person sought based on a serious risk of infringement of his fundamental rights? |
| --- | --- |

4.2.-

For the purposes of the previous question, does such a report constitute information that is objective, reliable, specific and properly updated in order to justify, in the light of the case-law of the Court of Justice, the refusal to surrender the person sought based on a serious risk of infringement of his fundamental rights?

| 4.3.- | If the answer to the previous question is affirmative, what evidence does EU law require in order for a Member State to be able to conclude that the serious risk of infringement of fundamental rights which has been pleaded by the person sought and which constitutes grounds for refusal to execute the EAW exists in the issuing Member State? |
| --- | --- |

4.3.-

If the answer to the previous question is affirmative, what evidence does EU law require in order for a Member State to be able to conclude that the serious risk of infringement of fundamental rights which has been pleaded by the person sought and which constitutes grounds for refusal to execute the EAW exists in the issuing Member State?

| 5. | Are the answers to the previous questions affected if the person whose surrender is sought has been able to put forward before the courts of the issuing Member State, including at a second level of jurisdiction, arguments concerning the lack of competence of the issuing judicial authority, the arrest warrant issued against him and the guarantee of his fundamental rights? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Are the answers to the previous questions affected if the person whose surrender is sought has been able to put forward before the courts of the issuing Member State, including at a second level of jurisdiction, arguments concerning the lack of competence of the issuing judicial authority, the arrest warrant issued against him and the guarantee of his fundamental rights?

| 6. | Are the answers to the previous questions affected where the executing judicial authority refuses to execute an EAW on grounds not expressly laid down in Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, in particular because it has found that the issuing judicial authority lacks competence and that there is a serious risk of infringement of fundamental rights in the issuing State, and it does so without asking the issuing judicial authority for the specific additional information on which that decision depends? |
| --- | --- |

6.

Are the answers to the previous questions affected where the executing judicial authority refuses to execute an EAW on grounds not expressly laid down in Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, in particular because it has found that the issuing judicial authority lacks competence and that there is a serious risk of infringement of fundamental rights in the issuing State, and it does so without asking the issuing judicial authority for the specific additional information on which that decision depends?

| 7. | If it follows from the answers to the previous questions that, in the circumstances of the case, Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA precludes the surrender of a person based on those grounds for refusal:
  Does Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA preclude the referring court from issuing a new EAW against the same person and addressed to the same Member State? |
| --- | --- |

7.

If it follows from the answers to the previous questions that, in the circumstances of the case, Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA precludes the surrender of a person based on those grounds for refusal:

Does Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA preclude the referring court from issuing a new EAW against the same person and addressed to the same Member State?

---

(1)  Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States — Statements made by certain Member States on the adoption of the Framework Decision (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1).

---

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/23

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte dei conti — Sezione regionale di controllo per la Campania (Italy) lodged on 10 March 2021 — Comune di Camerota

(Case C-161/21)

(2021/C 217/34)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte dei conti — Sezione regionale di controllo per la Campania (Court of Auditors — Regional Audit Division for Campania, Italy)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Comune di Camerota (Municipality of Camerota, Italy)

Questions referred

| 1. | Do Articles 2 (with particular regard to the principle of the rule of law) and 19 TEU, Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Articles 120(1) and 126(1) TFEU, Articles 3(1), 6(1)(b) and 12 of Directive 2011/85/EU, (1) Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 473/2013, (2) the EU law principles of proportionality, sincere cooperation and effectiveness stemming from Articles 4 and 5 TEU preclude national emergency legislation, such as that laid down in Article 53(8) of Decree-Law No 104 of 14 August 2020, converted, with amendments, into Law No 126 of 13 October 2020, from being interpreted and applied as meaning that that national emergency legislation prevents, even on a temporary basis (from 15 August 2020 to 30 June 2021, and therefore well beyond the period of duration of the state of emergency), the effective and timely judicial review of compliance with fiscal rules which is conferred on, in accordance with the internal constitutional and legislative legal framework, an independent court specialised in accountancy, such as the Corte dei conti (Court of Auditors), by suspending, in particular, judicial review functions over local authorities which are in a situation of severe structural imbalance capable of causing their failure and have started a long term consolidation path and need — for that very reason, and because of the difficulties stemming from the health emergency — more than other entities, to be subject to an independent, effective and timely, monitoring, which prevents the financial crisis from worsening and the deviation from the consolidation path from becoming irreversible and leading to the failure of that authority? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do Articles 2 (with particular regard to the principle of the rule of law) and 19 TEU, Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Articles 120(1) and 126(1) TFEU, Articles 3(1), 6(1)(b) and 12 of Directive 2011/85/EU, (1) Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 473/2013, (2) the EU law principles of proportionality, sincere cooperation and effectiveness stemming from Articles 4 and 5 TEU preclude national emergency legislation, such as that laid down in Article 53(8) of Decree-Law No 104 of 14 August 2020, converted, with amendments, into Law No 126 of 13 October 2020, from being interpreted and applied as meaning that that national emergency legislation prevents, even on a temporary basis (from 15 August 2020 to 30 June 2021, and therefore well beyond the period of duration of the state of emergency), the effective and timely judicial review of compliance with fiscal rules which is conferred on, in accordance with the internal constitutional and legislative legal framework, an independent court specialised in accountancy, such as the Corte dei conti (Court of Auditors), by suspending, in particular, judicial review functions over local authorities which are in a situation of severe structural imbalance capable of causing their failure and have started a long term consolidation path and need — for that very reason, and because of the difficulties stemming from the health emergency — more than other entities, to be subject to an independent, effective and timely, monitoring, which prevents the financial crisis from worsening and the deviation from the consolidation path from becoming irreversible and leading to the failure of that authority?

| 2. | Do Article 3(3) TEU, Articles 3(1)(b), 119(1) and (2) and 120 TFEU, Articles 1 and 4 of Directive 2011/7/EU, (3) and Protocol (No 27) on the internal market and competition preclude national emergency legislation, such as that laid down in Article 53(9) of Decree-Law No 104 of 14 August 2020, converted, with amendments, into Law No 126 of 13 October 2020, from being interpreted and applied as meaning that that national emergency legislation allows a further suspension from 15 August 2020 to 30 June 2021 of creditors’ enforcement procedures against entities whose rebalancing plan has been approved and which is based solely on the health emergency and is additional to the suspension that those entities obtained under the combined provisions of Articles 243-bis(4) and 243-quarter(5) of Consolidated Law on local authorities (TUEL), without that suspension giving rise to a collective procedure offering creditors an alternative procedure, and with the consequences entailed by that additional and long suspension of enforcement procedures in terms of further worsening of delays in payments by public authorities and, therefore, in terms of protection of competition as well as of competitiveness of creditor undertakings? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Do Article 3(3) TEU, Articles 3(1)(b), 119(1) and (2) and 120 TFEU, Articles 1 and 4 of Directive 2011/7/EU, (3) and Protocol (No 27) on the internal market and competition preclude national emergency legislation, such as that laid down in Article 53(9) of Decree-Law No 104 of 14 August 2020, converted, with amendments, into Law No 126 of 13 October 2020, from being interpreted and applied as meaning that that national emergency legislation allows a further suspension from 15 August 2020 to 30 June 2021 of creditors’ enforcement procedures against entities whose rebalancing plan has been approved and which is based solely on the health emergency and is additional to the suspension that those entities obtained under the combined provisions of Articles 243-bis(4) and 243-quarter(5) of Consolidated Law on local authorities (TUEL), without that suspension giving rise to a collective procedure offering creditors an alternative procedure, and with the consequences entailed by that additional and long suspension of enforcement procedures in terms of further worsening of delays in payments by public authorities and, therefore, in terms of protection of competition as well as of competitiveness of creditor undertakings?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2011/85/EU of 8 November 2011 on requirements for budgetary frameworks of the Member States (OJ 2011 L 306, p. 41).

(2)  Regulation (EU) No 473/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on common provisions for monitoring and assessing draft budgetary plans and ensuring the correction of excessive deficit of the Member States in the euro area (OJ 2013 L 140, p. 11).

(3)  Directive 2011/7/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on combating late payment in commercial transactions (OJ 2011 L 48, p. 1)

---

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/24

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Ravensburg (Germany) lodged on 22 March 2021 — GL and Others v Volkswagen AG and Audi AG

(Case C-178/21)

(2021/C 217/35)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Ravensburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: GL, DV, UK

Defendants: Volkswagen AG, Audi AG

Questions referred

| 1. | Are Articles 18(1), 26(1) and 46 of Directive 2007/46/EC, (1) read in conjunction with Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007, (2) also intended to protect the interests of individual purchasers of motor vehicles?
  If so: |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are Articles 18(1), 26(1) and 46 of Directive 2007/46/EC, (1) read in conjunction with Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007, (2) also intended to protect the interests of individual purchasers of motor vehicles?

If so:

| 2. | Does this also include the interest of an individual purchaser of a vehicle in not purchasing a vehicle which does not comply with the requirements of EU law, and in particular in not purchasing a vehicle equipped with a prohibited defeat device within the meaning of Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007?
  Irrespective of the answers to Questions 1 and 2: |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does this also include the interest of an individual purchaser of a vehicle in not purchasing a vehicle which does not comply with the requirements of EU law, and in particular in not purchasing a vehicle equipped with a prohibited defeat device within the meaning of Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007?

Irrespective of the answers to Questions 1 and 2:

| 3. | Is it incompatible with EU law if a purchaser who has unintentionally purchased a vehicle placed on the market by the manufacturer with a prohibited defeat device within the meaning of Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 is able to assert civil claims for damages against the vehicle manufacturer on the basis of tortious liability — including, in particular, a claim for reimbursement of the purchase price paid for the vehicle against return and transfer of ownership of the vehicle — only in exceptional cases where the vehicle manufacturer has acted intentionally and in a manner contrary to accepted principles of morality?
  If so: |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is it incompatible with EU law if a purchaser who has unintentionally purchased a vehicle placed on the market by the manufacturer with a prohibited defeat device within the meaning of Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 is able to assert civil claims for damages against the vehicle manufacturer on the basis of tortious liability — including, in particular, a claim for reimbursement of the purchase price paid for the vehicle against return and transfer of ownership of the vehicle — only in exceptional cases where the vehicle manufacturer has acted intentionally and in a manner contrary to accepted principles of morality?

If so:

| 4. | Does EU law require that the purchaser of a vehicle has a civil claim for damages against the vehicle manufacturer on the basis of tortious liability in the event of any culpable (negligent or intentional) act on the part of the vehicle manufacturer in relation to the placing on the market of a vehicle equipped with a prohibited defeat device within the meaning of Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007?
  Irrespective of the answers to Questions 1 to 4: |
| --- | --- |

4.

Does EU law require that the purchaser of a vehicle has a civil claim for damages against the vehicle manufacturer on the basis of tortious liability in the event of any culpable (negligent or intentional) act on the part of the vehicle manufacturer in relation to the placing on the market of a vehicle equipped with a prohibited defeat device within the meaning of Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007?

Irrespective of the answers to Questions 1 to 4:

| 5. | Is it incompatible with EU law if, under national law, the purchaser of a vehicle must accept offsetting the benefit of the actual use made of the motor vehicle where he or she seeks, by way of compensation based on tortious liability, reimbursement from the manufacturer of the purchase price of a vehicle placed on the market by the manufacturer with a prohibited defeat device within the meaning of Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 against return and transfer of ownership of the vehicle?
  If not: |
| --- | --- |

5.

Is it incompatible with EU law if, under national law, the purchaser of a vehicle must accept offsetting the benefit of the actual use made of the motor vehicle where he or she seeks, by way of compensation based on tortious liability, reimbursement from the manufacturer of the purchase price of a vehicle placed on the market by the manufacturer with a prohibited defeat device within the meaning of Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 against return and transfer of ownership of the vehicle?

If not:

| 6. | Is it incompatible with EU law for that benefit of use to be calculated on the basis of the full purchase price without any deduction being made for the reduction in value of the vehicle resulting from its being equipped with a prohibited defeat device and/or in view of the purchaser’s unintentional use of a vehicle which does not comply with EU law?
  Irrespective of the answers to Questions 1 to 6: |
| --- | --- |

6.

Is it incompatible with EU law for that benefit of use to be calculated on the basis of the full purchase price without any deduction being made for the reduction in value of the vehicle resulting from its being equipped with a prohibited defeat device and/or in view of the purchaser’s unintentional use of a vehicle which does not comply with EU law?

Irrespective of the answers to Questions 1 to 6:

| 7. | Inasmuch as it also refers to orders for reference in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 267 TFEU, is Paragraph 348(3), point 2, of the Zivilprozessordnung incompatible with the right conferred on the national courts to request a preliminary ruling pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 267 TFEU and must it therefore not be applied to orders for reference? |
| --- | --- |

7.

Inasmuch as it also refers to orders for reference in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 267 TFEU, is Paragraph 348(3), point 2, of the Zivilprozessordnung incompatible with the right conferred on the national courts to request a preliminary ruling pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 267 TFEU and must it therefore not be applied to orders for reference?

---

(1)  Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles (Framework Directive) (OJ 2007 L 263, p. 1).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2007 on type approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information (OJ 2007 L 171, p. 1).

---

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/25

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de l’entreprise francophone de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 24 March 2021 — Christian Louboutin v Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon Services LLC

(Case C-184/21)

(2021/C 217/36)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de l’entreprise francophone de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Christian Louboutin

Defendant: Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon Services LLC

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 9(2) of Regulation 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark (1) be interpreted as meaning that the use of a sign identical with a trade mark in an advertisement displayed on a website is, in principle, attributable to its operator if, in the perception of a reasonably well informed and reasonably observant internet user, that operator has played an active part in the preparation of that advertisement or if that advertisement may be perceived by such an internet user as forming part of that operator’s own commercial communication?
  Will such perception be influenced:






  — | by the fact that that operator is a well-known distributor of a wide range of goods, including goods in the category of those featured in the advertisement; or |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 9(2) of Regulation 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark (1) be interpreted as meaning that the use of a sign identical with a trade mark in an advertisement displayed on a website is, in principle, attributable to its operator if, in the perception of a reasonably well informed and reasonably observant internet user, that operator has played an active part in the preparation of that advertisement or if that advertisement may be perceived by such an internet user as forming part of that operator’s own commercial communication?

Will such perception be influenced:

—

by the fact that that operator is a well-known distributor of a wide range of goods, including goods in the category of those featured in the advertisement; or

| — | by the fact that the advertisement thus displayed presents a heading in which the service mark of that operator is reproduced, that mark being well known as a distributor’s trade mark; or |
| --- | --- |

—

by the fact that the advertisement thus displayed presents a heading in which the service mark of that operator is reproduced, that mark being well known as a distributor’s trade mark; or

| — | furthermore, by the fact that, as well as displaying that advertisement, that operator offers services traditionally offered by distributors of goods in the same category as that to which the goods featured in the advertisement belong? |
| --- | --- |

—

furthermore, by the fact that, as well as displaying that advertisement, that operator offers services traditionally offered by distributors of goods in the same category as that to which the goods featured in the advertisement belong?

| 2. | Must Article 9(2) of Regulation 2017/1001 on the European Union trade mark be interpreted as meaning that the shipment, in the course of trade and without the consent of the proprietor of a trade mark, to the final consumer of goods bearing a sign identical with the mark constitutes a use attributable to the shipper only if the shipper has actual knowledge that that sign has been affixed to those goods?
  Is such a shipper the user of the sign concerned if the shipper itself or an economically linked entity has informed the final consumer that it will undertake that shipment after it or an economically linked entity has stocked the goods for that purpose?
  Is such a shipper the user of the sign concerned if the shipper itself or an economically linked entity has previously made an active contribution to the display, in the course of trade, of an advertisement for the goods bearing that sign or has taken the final consumer’s order on the basis of that advertisement? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must Article 9(2) of Regulation 2017/1001 on the European Union trade mark be interpreted as meaning that the shipment, in the course of trade and without the consent of the proprietor of a trade mark, to the final consumer of goods bearing a sign identical with the mark constitutes a use attributable to the shipper only if the shipper has actual knowledge that that sign has been affixed to those goods?

Is such a shipper the user of the sign concerned if the shipper itself or an economically linked entity has informed the final consumer that it will undertake that shipment after it or an economically linked entity has stocked the goods for that purpose?

Is such a shipper the user of the sign concerned if the shipper itself or an economically linked entity has previously made an active contribution to the display, in the course of trade, of an advertisement for the goods bearing that sign or has taken the final consumer’s order on the basis of that advertisement?

---

(1)  OJ 2017 L 154, p. 1.

---

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/26

---

Appeal brought on 29 March 2021 by Giacomo Santini and Others against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 10 February 2021 in Joined Cases T-345/19, T-346/19, T-364/19 to T-366/19, T-372/19 to T-375/19, and T-385/19, Santini and Others v Parliament

(Case C-198/21 P)

(2021/C 217/37)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellants: Giacomo Santini, Marco Cellai, Domenico Ceravolo, Natalino Gatti, Antonio Mazzone, Luigi Moretti, Gabriele Sboarina, Lina Wuhrer, Patrizia Capraro, and Luciana Meneghini (represented by: M. Paniz, avvocato)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment under appeal on account of (i) the incorrect application of the general principles of legal certainty, legitimate expectations and proportionality, as well as the rights guaranteed under the Charter in respect of the unjustified and disproportionate infringement of the right to property, (ii) the incorrect finding that the decisions at issue could be legitimately based on Annex III to [the Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament (‘the PEAM Rules’)], (iii) the incorrect categorisation of those decisions as acts of ordinary administration that are or can be delegated to the Head of Unit, and (iv) the seriously imprecise, incomplete and incorrect nature of the reasoning relating to the breach of the duty to state reasons; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment under appeal on account of (i) the incorrect application of the general principles of legal certainty, legitimate expectations and proportionality, as well as the rights guaranteed under the Charter in respect of the unjustified and disproportionate infringement of the right to property, (ii) the incorrect finding that the decisions at issue could be legitimately based on Annex III to [the Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament (‘the PEAM Rules’)], (iii) the incorrect categorisation of those decisions as acts of ordinary administration that are or can be delegated to the Head of Unit, and (iv) the seriously imprecise, incomplete and incorrect nature of the reasoning relating to the breach of the duty to state reasons;

| — | annul all the acts, communications and/or decisions at issue; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul all the acts, communications and/or decisions at issue;

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

—

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

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellants rely on six grounds in support of the appeal.

| 1. | First ground of appeal: the General Court erred in law and/or fact by finding that the decision at issue had an effect on the amount of the pension alone, not on the right to a pension and the stage at which it arose, incorrectly finding that that decision was in line with the general principles of the European Union and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The appellants claim that the judgment under appeal is unlawful because (i) it confused the right to a pension with the right to the amount of the pension, excluding the application of the principle that the right to a pension cannot be changed, although that principle was in fact applicable, (ii) it incorrectly failed to find that the action taken relating to the appellants’ life annuities resulted, not in a mere reduction of the amount, but in a total reform of the system which affected retroactively and permanently the stage at which the right to the life annuities — which had already been distributed and acquired for years and had definitively become part of the assets of the persons concerned — arose, and (iii) it incorrectly failed to find that the Parliament did not carry out any review of the conformity of the acts at issue with EU law and that no reasoning whatsoever was provided in that respect. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First ground of appeal: the General Court erred in law and/or fact by finding that the decision at issue had an effect on the amount of the pension alone, not on the right to a pension and the stage at which it arose, incorrectly finding that that decision was in line with the general principles of the European Union and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The appellants claim that the judgment under appeal is unlawful because (i) it confused the right to a pension with the right to the amount of the pension, excluding the application of the principle that the right to a pension cannot be changed, although that principle was in fact applicable, (ii) it incorrectly failed to find that the action taken relating to the appellants’ life annuities resulted, not in a mere reduction of the amount, but in a total reform of the system which affected retroactively and permanently the stage at which the right to the life annuities — which had already been distributed and acquired for years and had definitively become part of the assets of the persons concerned — arose, and (iii) it incorrectly failed to find that the Parliament did not carry out any review of the conformity of the acts at issue with EU law and that no reasoning whatsoever was provided in that respect.

| 2. | Second ground of appeal: the General Court erred in law in its interpretation of Article 75 of the [Implementing measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament (‘the IMS’)], Article 28 of the Statute for Members of the European Parliament, and of Annexes I, II and III to the PEAM Rules, and also infringed the right to a pension, general principles, and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The appellants claim that the judgment under appeal is unlawful in so far as that judgment (i) incorrectly interpreted the reference standards, attributing an ongoing validity and effectiveness to Annex III to the PEAM Rules despite the express repeal thereof and notwithstanding the lack of any express provision regarding continued validity, and (ii) unlawfully failed to find that, in the present case, the requirements for the right to a pension were amended beyond the scope of Article 2 of Annex III [to those rules], in breach of the general principles of the European Union and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second ground of appeal: the General Court erred in law in its interpretation of Article 75 of the [Implementing measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament (‘the IMS’)], Article 28 of the Statute for Members of the European Parliament, and of Annexes I, II and III to the PEAM Rules, and also infringed the right to a pension, general principles, and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The appellants claim that the judgment under appeal is unlawful in so far as that judgment (i) incorrectly interpreted the reference standards, attributing an ongoing validity and effectiveness to Annex III to the PEAM Rules despite the express repeal thereof and notwithstanding the lack of any express provision regarding continued validity, and (ii) unlawfully failed to find that, in the present case, the requirements for the right to a pension were amended beyond the scope of Article 2 of Annex III [to those rules], in breach of the general principles of the European Union and the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

| 3. | Third ground of appeal: the General Court erred in law and/or fact by finding that the decision at issue was in line with the general principles of the European Union and the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the principles of legitimate expectations, proportionality and equality, and the right to property. The appellants claim that the judgment under appeal is unlawful in so far as (i) that judgment, failing to assess the specific circumstances of the present case and incorrectly interpreting the reference standards, held that the decisions at issue were in line with EU law and the principles of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, (ii) it failed to consider the evidence, including documentary evidence, demonstrating the many assurances given to the appellants regarding the maintenance of the acquired right and the immutable nature of that right, and (iii) it did not find that the decisions at issue lacked any reasoning or reason and that those decisions resulted in manifestly disproportionate and completely unjustified action being taken. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third ground of appeal: the General Court erred in law and/or fact by finding that the decision at issue was in line with the general principles of the European Union and the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the principles of legitimate expectations, proportionality and equality, and the right to property. The appellants claim that the judgment under appeal is unlawful in so far as (i) that judgment, failing to assess the specific circumstances of the present case and incorrectly interpreting the reference standards, held that the decisions at issue were in line with EU law and the principles of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, (ii) it failed to consider the evidence, including documentary evidence, demonstrating the many assurances given to the appellants regarding the maintenance of the acquired right and the immutable nature of that right, and (iii) it did not find that the decisions at issue lacked any reasoning or reason and that those decisions resulted in manifestly disproportionate and completely unjustified action being taken.

| 4. | Fourth ground of appeal: the General Court erred in law in its interpretation of Articles 74 and 75 of the IMS and Annex III to the PEAM Rules. The appellants claim that the judgment under appeal is unlawful because it incorrectly found that the decisions at issue could be legitimately based on Annex III to the PEAM Rules when that annex was no longer in force, as it had been repealed in the meantime. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth ground of appeal: the General Court erred in law in its interpretation of Articles 74 and 75 of the IMS and Annex III to the PEAM Rules. The appellants claim that the judgment under appeal is unlawful because it incorrectly found that the decisions at issue could be legitimately based on Annex III to the PEAM Rules when that annex was no longer in force, as it had been repealed in the meantime.

| 5. | Fifth ground of appeal: the General Court erred in law in its assessment of procedural infringements: competence. The appellants claim that the judgment [under appeal] is unlawful because it incorrectly held that the Head of the Members’ Salaries and Social Entitlements Unit was competent to adopt the decisions at issue, which were, however, acts that could not be delegated as they were acts of extraordinary administration falling within the competence of the Bureau of the European Parliament. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth ground of appeal: the General Court erred in law in its assessment of procedural infringements: competence. The appellants claim that the judgment [under appeal] is unlawful because it incorrectly held that the Head of the Members’ Salaries and Social Entitlements Unit was competent to adopt the decisions at issue, which were, however, acts that could not be delegated as they were acts of extraordinary administration falling within the competence of the Bureau of the European Parliament.

| 6. | Sixth ground of appeal: the General Court erred in law in its assessment of procedural infringements: reasoning. The appellants claim that the judgment under appeal is unlawful because (i) it incorrectly held that there was adequate reasoning, whereas in actual fact no reasoning was provided, (ii) it failed to find that the European Parliament was required to carry out a review of conformity, providing an account of that review supported by adequate reasoning, and that the Parliament had failed to conduct such a review and to provide such reasoning, and (iii) it referred to Article 1(7) of Resolution No 14/2018 — a rule that no longer exists since it was annulled by the Chamber of Deputies itself by Decision No 2/2020, which is already in effect — as an element of protection. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth ground of appeal: the General Court erred in law in its assessment of procedural infringements: reasoning. The appellants claim that the judgment under appeal is unlawful because (i) it incorrectly held that there was adequate reasoning, whereas in actual fact no reasoning was provided, (ii) it failed to find that the European Parliament was required to carry out a review of conformity, providing an account of that review supported by adequate reasoning, and that the Parliament had failed to conduct such a review and to provide such reasoning, and (iii) it referred to Article 1(7) of Resolution No 14/2018 — a rule that no longer exists since it was annulled by the Chamber of Deputies itself by Decision No 2/2020, which is already in effect — as an element of protection.

---

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/27

---

Appeal brought on 30 March 2021 by ABLV Bank AS, in liquidation, against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 20 January 2021 in Case T-758/18, ABLV Bank v SRB

(Case C-202/21 P)

(2021/C 217/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: ABLV Bank AS, in liquidation (represented by: O. Behrends, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: Single Resolution Board (SRB), European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgement under appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgement under appeal;

| — | declare void the decision of the SRB with respect to ABLV Bank AS dated 17 October 2018; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare void the decision of the SRB with respect to ABLV Bank AS dated 17 October 2018;

| — | order the SRB to pay the appellant's costs and the costs of this appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the SRB to pay the appellant's costs and the costs of this appeal;

| — | to the extent that the Court of Justice is not in a position to rule on the substance refer the case back to the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

to the extent that the Court of Justice is not in a position to rule on the substance refer the case back to the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on thirteen pleas in law.

First plea in law, alleging that the General Court incorrectly interpreted Article 70(4) SRMR (1).

Second plea in law, alleging that the judgement under appeal based on an erroneous interpretation and application of Article 12 Delegated Regulation 2015/63 (2).

Third plea in law, alleging that the General Court erred with respect to the relevance of Article 7 of Delegated Regulation 2017/2361 (3) for the interpretation of Article 12(2) of Delegated Regulation 2015/63.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the General Court erred with respect to the proper interpretation and application of the principle of unjust enrichment.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the General Court failed to address the appellant’s plea of illegality as regards the applicable provision in the present case.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the General Court erred in law by regarding irrelevant as a mere practice the reimbursement by the SRB of ex ante contributions SRB’s Decision SRB/ES/SRF/2018/03 which pursuant to that same provisions are owed as a matter of law.

Seventh plea in law, alleging that the General Court erred as to the interpretation and relevance of Article 17 of Delegated Regulation 2015/63.

Eighth plea in law, alleging that the General Court erred as to the legal relevance of the existence of irrevocable payment commitments.

Ninth plea in law, alleging that the General Court erred in law by failing to address the appellant’s pleas in connection with the request for reimbursement of the balance of the 2015 contributions.

Tenth plea in law, alleging that the General Court erred as regards the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations.

Eleventh plea in law, alleging that the General Court erred as regards the application of the principle of proportionality.

Twelfth plea in law, alleging that the judgement under appeal is based on an incorrect application of the nemo auditur principle.

Thirteenth plea in law, alleging that the judgement under appeal is based on erroneous application of the requirement as to a statement of reason (Article 296 TFEU).

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ 2014, L 225, p. 1).

(2)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 of 21 October 2014 supplementing Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ex ante contributions to resolution financing arrangements (OJ 2015, L 11, p. 44).

(3)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/2361 of 14 September 2017 on the final system of contributions to the administrative expenditures of the Single Resolution Board (OJ 2017, L 337, p. 6).

---

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/29

---

Appeal brought on 2 April 2021 by European Investment Bank against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 27 January 2021 in Case T-9/19, ClientEarth v EIB

(Case C-212/21 P)

(2021/C 217/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Investment Bank (EIB) (represented by: T. Gilliams, G. Faedo and K. Carr, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: ClientEarth, European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the appeal admissible and well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the appeal admissible and well founded;

| — | set aside in its entirety the judgment under appeal as set out in its operative part; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside in its entirety the judgment under appeal as set out in its operative part;

| — | if the Court considers that the state of the proceedings so permits, dismiss the action at first instance; |
| --- | --- |

—

if the Court considers that the state of the proceedings so permits, dismiss the action at first instance;

| — | order ClientEarth to pay the costs of both parties incurred as a result of both the appeal proceedings and those of the proceedings at first instance. |
| --- | --- |

—

order ClientEarth to pay the costs of both parties incurred as a result of both the appeal proceedings and those of the proceedings at first instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant relies on three grounds of appeal.

First, the judgment under appeal erroneously declares as inadmissible the EIB’s defence concerning its independence in the sphere of its financial operations. The General Court failed to consider EU primary law provisions underpinning the EIB’s defence, misapplied the duty to state reasons, and distorted the EIB’s reply to ClientEarth’s request for internal review based on Article 10 of the Aarhus Regulation (1). As a result, the General Court erroneously interpreted the definition of ‘administrative act’ in accordance with Article 2(1)(g) of the Aarhus Regulation.

Second, the judgment under appeal erroneously held that the resolution adopted by the Board of Directors of the EIB on 12 April 2018, which approved a proposal to finance a project for the construction of a biomass power generation plant in Curtis (Spain), constitutes an administrative act having ‘legally binding and external effect’ within the meaning of Article 2(1)(g) of the Aarhus Regulation. The General Court infringed the principle of the primacy of EU primary law over EU secondary law and over international agreements, disregarded Articles 271(c) and 263(4) TFEU, and wrongly applied Article 263 TFEU.

Third, the judgment under appeal erroneously held that the resolution of 12 April 2018 of the EIB Board of Directors constituted an administrative act ‘adopted under environmental law’ within the meaning of Article 2(1)(g) of the Aarhus Regulation. The General Court erroneously interpreted the definition in Article 2(1)(f) of the Aarhus Regulation, failed to identify the correct legal basis for the resolution at issue, and inconsistently interpreted the Aarhus Regulation in light of the Aarhus Convention.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ 2006, L 264, p. 13).

---

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/30

---

Appeal brought on 6 April 2021 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 27 January 2021 in Case T-9/19, ClientEarth v EIB

(Case C-223/21 P)

(2021/C 217/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: F. Blanc and G. Gattinara, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: ClientEarth, European Investment Bank (EIB)

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment under appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment under appeal;

| — | order ClientEarth to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order ClientEarth to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission raises three grounds of appeal.

Errors in law in applying the principle of consistent interpretation as regards the Aarhus convention and in interpreting Articles 2 and 9 of the Aarhus convention (this first ground concerns paragraphs 107 and 125-126 of the judgment under appeal).

Error in law in interpreting Article 2(1)(g) of the Aarhus Regulation (1) on the notion of ‘administrative act’; this ground is divided in three parts:

| — | error in law in interpreting the notion of ‘legislation’ provided for in Article 2(1)(f) of the Aarhus Regulation (this part of the second ground concerns paragraphs 121-124 of the judgment under appeal); |
| --- | --- |

—

error in law in interpreting the notion of ‘legislation’ provided for in Article 2(1)(f) of the Aarhus Regulation (this part of the second ground concerns paragraphs 121-124 of the judgment under appeal);

| — | error in law in interpreting the notion of ‘measure of individual scope’ under Article 2(1)(g) of the Aarhus Regulation (this part of the second ground concerns paragraphs 126-142 of the judgment under appeal); |
| --- | --- |

—

error in law in interpreting the notion of ‘measure of individual scope’ under Article 2(1)(g) of the Aarhus Regulation (this part of the second ground concerns paragraphs 126-142 of the judgment under appeal);

| — | error in law in the interpretation of the words ‘legally binding and external effect’, laid down in the same provision (this part of the second ground concerns paragraphs 149-173 of the judgment under appeal). |
| --- | --- |

—

error in law in the interpretation of the words ‘legally binding and external effect’, laid down in the same provision (this part of the second ground concerns paragraphs 149-173 of the judgment under appeal).

Breach of Article 271, letter c), TFEU (this ground of appeal concerns paragraphs 89-92, 150-152 and 169-171 of the judgment under appeal).

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ 2006, L 264, p. 13).

---

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/31

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 8 April 2021 — Ministero dell’Interno, Dipartimento per le Libertà civili e l’Immigrazione — Unità Dublino v CZA

(Case C-228/21)

(2021/C 217/41)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Ministero dell’Interno, Dipartimento per le Libertà civili e l’Immigrazione — Unità Dublino

Respondent: CZA

Questions referred

| 1. | Should Article 4 of [Regulation (EU) No 604/2013] (1) be interpreted as meaning that an action may be brought under Article 27 of [that regulation] against a transfer decision adopted by a Member State, using the mechanism provided for in Article 26 of [that regulation] and on the basis of the obligation to take back laid down in Article 18(1)(b) thereof, solely because of a failure to deliver the information leaflet required under Article 4(2) of [that] regulation by the Member State which adopted the transfer decision? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Should Article 4 of [Regulation (EU) No 604/2013] (1) be interpreted as meaning that an action may be brought under Article 27 of [that regulation] against a transfer decision adopted by a Member State, using the mechanism provided for in Article 26 of [that regulation] and on the basis of the obligation to take back laid down in Article 18(1)(b) thereof, solely because of a failure to deliver the information leaflet required under Article 4(2) of [that] regulation by the Member State which adopted the transfer decision?

| 2. | Should Article 27 of [that regulation], read in conjunction with recitals 18 and 19 and Article 4 thereof, be interpreted as meaning that, where it has been determined that there has been a failure to fulfil the obligations laid down in Article 4 [of that regulation], an effective remedy requires that the court adopt a decision annulling the transfer decision? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Should Article 27 of [that regulation], read in conjunction with recitals 18 and 19 and Article 4 thereof, be interpreted as meaning that, where it has been determined that there has been a failure to fulfil the obligations laid down in Article 4 [of that regulation], an effective remedy requires that the court adopt a decision annulling the transfer decision?

| 3. | If the answer to Question 2 above is in the negative, should Article 27 of [that regulation], read in conjunction with recitals 18 and 19 and Article 4 thereof, be interpreted as meaning that, where it has been determined that there has been a failure to fulfil the obligations laid down in Article 4 [of that regulation], an effective remedy requires that the court verify the significance of that failure to fulfil obligations in the light of the circumstances alleged by the applicant and permits confirmation of the transfer decision in all cases where there are no grounds for adopting a transfer decision with different content? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the answer to Question 2 above is in the negative, should Article 27 of [that regulation], read in conjunction with recitals 18 and 19 and Article 4 thereof, be interpreted as meaning that, where it has been determined that there has been a failure to fulfil the obligations laid down in Article 4 [of that regulation], an effective remedy requires that the court verify the significance of that failure to fulfil obligations in the light of the circumstances alleged by the applicant and permits confirmation of the transfer decision in all cases where there are no grounds for adopting a transfer decision with different content?

---

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

---

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/31

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 9 April 2021 — Le Port de Bruxelles v Infrabel SA and Région de Bruxelles-Capitale v Infrabel SA

(Case C-229/21)

(2021/C 217/42)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Le Port de Bruxelles, Région de Bruxelles-Capitale

Respondent: Infrabel SA

Interested parties: Région de Bruxelles-Capitale, Le Port de Bruxelles, Lineas SA

Question referred

Where an inland port — which forms part of the core network — is already connected to the road and to the rail network, does Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1315/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on Union guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network and repealing Decision No 661/2010/EU, (1) construed in isolation or in conjunction with other provisions of that regulation, lay down an obligation to keep and to maintain both those links or an obligation to refrain from removing one of them, even merely by failing to maintain it?

---

(1)  OJ 2013 L 348, p. 1.

---

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/32

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije (Slovenia) lodged on 12 April 2021 — RAIFFEISEN LEASING, trgovina in leasing d. o. o. v Republika Slovenija

(Case C-235/21)

(2021/C 217/43)

Language of the case: Slovenian

Referring court

Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: RAIFFEISEN LEASING, trgovina in leasing d. o. o.

Respondent: Republika Slovenija

Questions referred

| 1. | May a written agreement be regarded as an invoice, for the purposes of Article 203 of the VAT Directive, (1) only if it contains all of the information that is required to be set out in an invoice in accordance with Chapter 3 (‘Invoicing’) [of Title XI] of the VAT Directive?
  In the event that that question is answered in the negative: |
| --- | --- |

1.

May a written agreement be regarded as an invoice, for the purposes of Article 203 of the VAT Directive, (1) only if it contains all of the information that is required to be set out in an invoice in accordance with Chapter 3 (‘Invoicing’) [of Title XI] of the VAT Directive?

In the event that that question is answered in the negative:

| 2. | On the basis of what information and circumstances may a written agreement in any event be regarded (also) as an invoice giving rise to an obligation to pay VAT within the meaning of Article 203 of the VAT Directive?
  More specifically: |
| --- | --- |

2.

On the basis of what information and circumstances may a written agreement in any event be regarded (also) as an invoice giving rise to an obligation to pay VAT within the meaning of Article 203 of the VAT Directive?

More specifically:

| 3. | May a written agreement, concluded by two taxable persons subject to VAT and concerning the supply of goods or services, be regarded as an invoice within the meaning of Article 203 of the VAT Directive if it evidences an express and objectively identifiable intention on the part of the seller or the provider of services, as a contracting party, to issue an invoice for a specific transaction, such that the purchaser could reasonably assume that it had, on the basis thereof, a right to deduct the input VAT paid? |
| --- | --- |

3.

May a written agreement, concluded by two taxable persons subject to VAT and concerning the supply of goods or services, be regarded as an invoice within the meaning of Article 203 of the VAT Directive if it evidences an express and objectively identifiable intention on the part of the seller or the provider of services, as a contracting party, to issue an invoice for a specific transaction, such that the purchaser could reasonably assume that it had, on the basis thereof, a right to deduct the input VAT paid?

---

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

---

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/33

---

Appeal brought on 14 April 2021 by Petr Fryč against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 11 February 2021 in Case T-92/20 Fryč v Commission

(Case C-239/21 P)

(2021/C 217/44)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Appellant: Petr Fryč (represented by: Š. Oharková, advokátka)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should decide that the case is to be referred back to the General Court to be adjudicated on again and that the General Court should be required also to consider the arguments contained in the reply of 2 October 2020, since those arguments were ignored in the decision of the General Court appealed against; |
| --- | --- |

—

The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should decide that the case is to be referred back to the General Court to be adjudicated on again and that the General Court should be required also to consider the arguments contained in the reply of 2 October 2020, since those arguments were ignored in the decision of the General Court appealed against;

| — | In the event that the case is not referred back to the General Court to be adjudicated on again, the appellant claims that the Court of Justice should rule that the EU institutions have gravely breached their obligations and caused the appellant harm, in so far as:






  (a) | the European Commission adopted the GBER in a form in which, inter alia, it exceeds the limits of the Commission’s legal authority under the Treaties, in which it does not ensure observance of the constitutional principles that interference in competition affecting the common market must take place only exceptionally and must be justified and in which it unlawfully allowed state aid to be implemented in the context of the OPEI, which damaged the business of the appellant’s firm; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

In the event that the case is not referred back to the General Court to be adjudicated on again, the appellant claims that the Court of Justice should rule that the EU institutions have gravely breached their obligations and caused the appellant harm, in so far as:

(a)

the European Commission adopted the GBER in a form in which, inter alia, it exceeds the limits of the Commission’s legal authority under the Treaties, in which it does not ensure observance of the constitutional principles that interference in competition affecting the common market must take place only exceptionally and must be justified and in which it unlawfully allowed state aid to be implemented in the context of the OPEI, which damaged the business of the appellant’s firm;

| (b) | by its decision of 3 December 2007, the European Commission adopted the Operational Programme infringing the Treaties and the Charter and did not publish that decision; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

by its decision of 3 December 2007, the European Commission adopted the Operational Programme infringing the Treaties and the Charter and did not publish that decision;

| (c) | the European Commission did not proceed properly in dealing with the appellant’s complaint as to the unlawfulness of the OPEI inasmuch as it, first, failed to check the circumstances of the creation and implementation of the OPEI and, secondly, failed to properly justify its rejection of the applicant’s complaint; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

the European Commission did not proceed properly in dealing with the appellant’s complaint as to the unlawfulness of the OPEI inasmuch as it, first, failed to check the circumstances of the creation and implementation of the OPEI and, secondly, failed to properly justify its rejection of the applicant’s complaint;

| (d) | the General Court refused to address the merits of the case in the application for annulment of the GBER and dismissed the application as manifestly unfounded, thereby breaching its constitutional obligation to apply the principle of proportionality, and by its excessively formalistic, unilateral approach infringed the applicant’s constitutional right to effective legal protection and a fair trial; |
| --- | --- |

(d)

the General Court refused to address the merits of the case in the application for annulment of the GBER and dismissed the application as manifestly unfounded, thereby breaching its constitutional obligation to apply the principle of proportionality, and by its excessively formalistic, unilateral approach infringed the applicant’s constitutional right to effective legal protection and a fair trial;

| — | The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should determine that the Commission is required to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 4 800 000 by way of compensation for the harm caused by the above, within three days of the date on which the judgment becomes final; |
| --- | --- |

—

The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should determine that the Commission is required to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 4 800 000 by way of compensation for the harm caused by the above, within three days of the date on which the judgment becomes final;

| — | The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should determine that the Commission is required to pay to the appellant’s legal representative the costs incurred by the appellant in the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should determine that the Commission is required to pay to the appellant’s legal representative the costs incurred by the appellant in the proceedings.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant relies on the following grounds in support of its appeal:

| 1. | The first ground of appeal is based on the consequences of the currently applied system of state aid, which results in an unnatural and damaging change to the entire economic structure. The functioning of the whole market is thereby distorted and economic rules are infringed, where success on the market is determined above all by the possibility to obtain state aid, which was decided upon on a political, not a legal, basis. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The first ground of appeal is based on the consequences of the currently applied system of state aid, which results in an unnatural and damaging change to the entire economic structure. The functioning of the whole market is thereby distorted and economic rules are infringed, where success on the market is determined above all by the possibility to obtain state aid, which was decided upon on a political, not a legal, basis.

| 2. | The second ground of appeal is based on the absence of any checks on the Commission’s activity. The system of public aid therefore becomes a carte blanche for the institutions of the executive to specify any of the named areas or areas otherwise additionally determined by them as compatible with the common market. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The second ground of appeal is based on the absence of any checks on the Commission’s activity. The system of public aid therefore becomes a carte blanche for the institutions of the executive to specify any of the named areas or areas otherwise additionally determined by them as compatible with the common market.

| 3. | The third ground of appeal is based on an error of assessment regarding the point at which the limitation period for submitting the application started to run. The appellant took the view that in the EU there is a mechanism which ensures that the Commission continuously monitors whether the public aid provided under Article 107 TFEU (Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) affects the common market or not, as provided for in Article 108(1) TFEU. The appellant therefore addressed to the Commission his request that the situation with regard to public aid provided in the Czech Republic in the framework of the OPEI programme should be verified. The Commission rejected that request, from which the applicant has determined that the monitoring system envisaged in Article 108 TFEU does not function. The appellant considered an action before the European Court of Justice to be only a last resort, and hoped that he would not need to use this option. The appellant took exceptional pains to warn the Commission of the deficiencies in the proposal for and implementation of the OPEI and it therefore categorically cannot be stated that the appellant was inactive during the limitation period. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The third ground of appeal is based on an error of assessment regarding the point at which the limitation period for submitting the application started to run. The appellant took the view that in the EU there is a mechanism which ensures that the Commission continuously monitors whether the public aid provided under Article 107 TFEU (Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) affects the common market or not, as provided for in Article 108(1) TFEU. The appellant therefore addressed to the Commission his request that the situation with regard to public aid provided in the Czech Republic in the framework of the OPEI programme should be verified. The Commission rejected that request, from which the applicant has determined that the monitoring system envisaged in Article 108 TFEU does not function. The appellant considered an action before the European Court of Justice to be only a last resort, and hoped that he would not need to use this option. The appellant took exceptional pains to warn the Commission of the deficiencies in the proposal for and implementation of the OPEI and it therefore categorically cannot be stated that the appellant was inactive during the limitation period.

| 4. | The fourth ground of appeal is based on an overriding legal interest. Irrespective of the court’s decision on whether the appellant’s claim is time-barred or not, the appellant takes the view that, having regard to the impact of the issue addressed not only at national level, but also throughout Europe, it is essential that the Court of Justice express its view on the issue of who bears liability for an incorrect subvention policy: the European Union or a Member State. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The fourth ground of appeal is based on an overriding legal interest. Irrespective of the court’s decision on whether the appellant’s claim is time-barred or not, the appellant takes the view that, having regard to the impact of the issue addressed not only at national level, but also throughout Europe, it is essential that the Court of Justice express its view on the issue of who bears liability for an incorrect subvention policy: the European Union or a Member State.

---

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/34

---

Appeal brought on 13 April 2021 by Évariste Boshab against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 3 February 2021 in Case T-111/19, Évariste Boshab v Council of the European Union

(Case C-242/21 P)

(2021/C 217/45)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Évariste Boshab (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, T. Payan, A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union notified on 3 February 2021, Évariste Boshab v Council of the European Union (T-111/19); |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union notified on 3 February 2021, Évariste Boshab v Council of the European Union (T-111/19);

| — | dispose of the case in the main proceedings and annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1940 of 10 December 2018 in so far as it retains the appellant at number 8 of the Annex to Decision 2010/788/CFSP and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1931 of 10 September 2018 in so far as it retains the appellant at number 8 of Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005; (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

dispose of the case in the main proceedings and annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1940 of 10 December 2018 in so far as it retains the appellant at number 8 of the Annex to Decision 2010/788/CFSP and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1931 of 10 September 2018 in so far as it retains the appellant at number 8 of Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005; (1)

| — | order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of both sets of proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of both sets of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By his appeal, the appellant seeks to have the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 3 February 2021, Évariste Boshab v Council of the European Union in case T-111/19 set aside, in support of which he relies on two grounds of appeal alleging infringement of the rights of the defence and a manifest error of assessment.

As regards the first ground of appeal, the appellant alleges that the General Court infringed the rights of the defence and in particular his right to a fair hearing, in that:

| — | it held that the late notification by the Council of the European Union, without the appellant being able to submit his observations before the decision at issue renewing the restrictive measures, was not an infringement of the right to a fair hearing since it was not new evidence; and |
| --- | --- |

—

it held that the late notification by the Council of the European Union, without the appellant being able to submit his observations before the decision at issue renewing the restrictive measures, was not an infringement of the right to a fair hearing since it was not new evidence; and

| — | it did not draw the appropriate conclusions from the fact that the Council did not, in the present case, undertake any investigation. |
| --- | --- |

—

it did not draw the appropriate conclusions from the fact that the Council did not, in the present case, undertake any investigation.

Concerning the second ground of appeal, the appellant maintains that the General Court committed a manifest error of assessment, in that:

| — | it did not take into account that restrictive measures are precautionary and, by definition, provisional, their validity always depending on whether the factual and legal circumstances which led to their adoption continue to apply and on the need to continue them in order to achieve their objective; |
| --- | --- |

—

it did not take into account that restrictive measures are precautionary and, by definition, provisional, their validity always depending on whether the factual and legal circumstances which led to their adoption continue to apply and on the need to continue them in order to achieve their objective;

| — | it did not find that the evidence adduced by the Council was in any way capable of substantiating any conduct falling within the test for inclusion in the disputed lists, namely acts constituting serious human rights violations; and |
| --- | --- |

—

it did not find that the evidence adduced by the Council was in any way capable of substantiating any conduct falling within the test for inclusion in the disputed lists, namely acts constituting serious human rights violations; and

| — | it did not criticise the fact that the Council did not examine the evidence submitted by the appellant in the review procedure and did not undertake, on that basis, its own investigations. |
| --- | --- |

—

it did not criticise the fact that the Council did not examine the evidence submitted by the appellant in the review procedure and did not undertake, on that basis, its own investigations.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 of 18 July 2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, OJ 2005 L 193, p. 1 (ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV), OJ 2008 L 352 M, p. 231 (MT).

---

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/35

---

Action brought on 22 April 2021 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union

(Case C-259/21)

(2021/C 217/46)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: I. Liukkonen, I. Terwinghe, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Articles 15 to 17, 20 and 59(2) of Council Regulation (EU) 2021/92 of 28 January 2021 fixing for 2021 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, for Union fishing vessels, in certain non-Union waters; (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Articles 15 to 17, 20 and 59(2) of Council Regulation (EU) 2021/92 of 28 January 2021 fixing for 2021 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, for Union fishing vessels, in certain non-Union waters; (1)

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

—

order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

According to the Parliament, the legislative acts governing the matter, namely Articles 10(4) and 15 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1241 (2) and Article 9 of Regulation (EU) 2019/472 (3) provide that measures such as those referred to in the present action are to be adopted by delegated acts referred to in Article 290 TFEU.

In support of its action, the Parliament therefore raises four pleas in law. The first alleges that there was a breach and misuse of procedure in that the contested measures should have been introduced by means of the delegated acts referred to in Article 290 TFEU and not by the procedure laid down in Article 43(3) TFEU. The second alleges a breach of sincere cooperation in contravention of Article 13(2) TEU. By adopting the contested provisions by a procedure other than that provided for for that purpose in acts which it co-drafted, the Council denied the Parliament the right of examination to which it would have been entitled had the proper procedure been used.

---

(1)  OJ 2021, L 31, p. 31.

(2)  Regulation (EU) 2019/1241 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on the conservation of fisheries resources and the protection of marine ecosystems through technical measures, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1967/2006, (EC) No 1224/2009 and Regulations (EU) No 1380/2013, (EU) 2016/1139, (EU) 2018/973, (EU) 2019/472 and (EU) 2019/1022 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 894/97, (EC) No 850/98, (EC) No 2549/2000, (EC) No 254/2002, (EC) No 812/2004 and (EC) No 2187/2005 (OJ 2019 L 198, p. 105).

(3)  Regulation (EU) 2019/472 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2019 establishing a multiannual plan for stocks fished in the Western Waters and adjacent waters, and for fisheries exploiting those stocks, amending Regulations (EU) 2016/1139 and (EU) 2018/973, and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 811/2004, (EC) No 2166/2005, (EC) No 388/2006, (EC) No 509/2007 and (EC) No 1300/2008 (OJ 2019, L 83, p. 1).

---

General Court

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/37

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2021 — Andreas Stihl v EUIPO — Giro Travel Company (Combination of the colours grey and orange)

(Case T-193/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU mark consisting of a combination of the colours grey and orange - Absolute ground for refusal - Article 4 and Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Sufficiently clear and precise graphic representation - Requirement for a systematic arrangement associating the colours in a predetermined and uniform way)

(2021/C 217/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Andreas Stihl AG & Co. KG (Waiblingen, Germany) (represented by: S. Völker, M. Pemsel and C. Eulenpesch, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Giro Travel Company SRL (Roman, Romania) (represented by: C. Frisch, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 January 2018 (Case R 200/2017-2) relating to invalidity proceedings between Giro Travel Company and Andreas Stihl.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 23 January 2018 (Case R 200/2017-2); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 23 January 2018 (Case R 200/2017-2);

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Andreas Stihl AG & Co. KG; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Andreas Stihl AG & Co. KG;

| 3. | Orders Giro Travel Company SRL to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Giro Travel Company SRL to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 166, 14.5.2018.

---

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/37

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2021 — BK v EASO

(Case T-277/19) (1)

(Civil service - Temporary agents - Temporary reassignment - Action for annulment - Purely confirmatory measure - Inadmissibility - Explicit decision rejecting the complaint - Autonomous scope - Suspension of the effects of the decision subject to the complaint - Interest in bringing proceedings - Action for damages - Close link to the claim for annulment - No pre-litigation procedure - Inadmissibility)

(2021/C 217/48)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: BK (represented by: V. Christianos, A. Skoulikis and D. Karagkounis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Asylum Support Office (represented by: P. Eyckmans and A. Stamatopoulou, acting as Agents, assisted by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of EASO of 20 September 2018 to assign the applicant to Malta from 1 November 2018, of the implied decision rejecting the complaint directed against that decision and of the decision of EASO of 6 June 2019 explicitly rejecting that complaint and, second, compensation for the material and non-material damage allegedly suffered by the applicant following that latter decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders BK to bear half of her own costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders BK to bear half of her own costs;

| 3. | Orders the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by BK. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by BK.

---

(1)  OJ C 213, 24.6.2019.

---

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/38

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2021 — Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v EUIPO — Filotas Bellas & Yios (Halloumi)

(Case T-282/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark Halloumi χαλλούμι Vermion grill cheese/grill est/grill kase M BELAS PREMIUM GREEK DAIRY SINCE 1927 - Earlier EU collective word mark HALLOUMI - Relative ground for refusal - Bad faith - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Article 53(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now article 60(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation 2017/1001))

(2021/C 217/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: S. Malynicz QC, S. Baran, Barrister, and V. Marsland, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Filotas Bellas & Yios AE (Alexandreia Imathias, Greece)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Chamber of the Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 February 2019 (Case R 2295/2017-4), relating to opposition proceedings between the Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi and Filotas Bellas & Yios.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 213, 24.6.2019.

---

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/39

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2021 — Lego v EUIPO — Delta Sport Handelskontor (Building block from a toy building set)

(Case T-515/19) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered community design representing a building block from a toy building set - Ground for invalidity - Non-compliance with requirements for protection - Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Features of appearance of a product solely dictated by its technical function - Features of appearance of a product to be necessarily reproduced in their exact form and dimensions in order to permit the interconnection with other products - Designs whose purpose is to allow multiple assembly or connection of mutually interchangeable products within a modular system - Article 8(1) to (3) of Regulation No 6/2002)

(2021/C 217/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Lego A/S (Billund, Denmark) (represented by: V. von Bomhard and J. Fuhrmann, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Delta Sport Handelskontor GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: C. Klawitter and L. E. Appel, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 April 2019 (Case R 31/2018-3) relating to invalidity proceedings between Delta Sport Handelskontor and Lego.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 10 April 2019 (Case R 31/2018-3); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 10 April 2019 (Case R 31/2018-3);

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders EUIPO and Delta Sport Handelskontor GmbH to bear their own costs and each to pay half of the costs incurred by Lego A/S. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders EUIPO and Delta Sport Handelskontor GmbH to bear their own costs and each to pay half of the costs incurred by Lego A/S.

---

(1)  OJ C 305, 9.9.2019.

---

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/40

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2021 — Novomatic v EUIPO — adp Gauselmann (Power Stars)

(Case T-588/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU figurative mark Power Stars - Partial revocation declaration - Partial lack of genuine use - Proof of genuine use - Article 51(1)(a) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75(1), first sentence, of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94(1), first sentence, of Regulation 2017/1001) - Right to be heard - Article 75(1), second sentence, of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94(1), second sentence, of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2021/C 217/51)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Novomatic AG (Gumpoldskirchen, Austria) (represented by: M. Ringer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Walicka and S. Hanne, acting as Agents)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 June 2019 (Case R 2038/2018-2), relating to revocation proceedings between adp Gauselmann and Novomatic.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

Orders Novomatic AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 337, 7.10.2019.

---

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/40

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2021 — Bennahmias v Parliament

(Case T-798/19) (1)

(Institutional law - Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament - Parliamentary assistance allowance - Recovery of sums unduly paid - Burden of proof - Obligation to state reasons - Error of law - Error of fact - Proportionality)

(2021/C 217/52)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Jean-Luc Bennahmias (Marseille, France) (represented by: J.-M. Rikkers, J.-L. Teheux, M. Ganilsy and C. De Kuyper, lawyers)

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

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the Secretary-General of the Parliament of 16 September 2019 concerning the recovery from the applicant of a sum of EUR 29 806 unduly paid as parliamentary assistance allowance and the debit note of 19 September 2019 relating thereto.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Jean-Luc Bennahmias to bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Parliament. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Jean-Luc Bennahmias to bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Parliament.

---

(1)  OJ C 45, 10.2.2020.

---

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/41

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2021 — Bennahmias v Parliament

(Case T-799/19) (1)

(Institutional law - Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament - Parliamentary assistance allowance - Recovery of sums unduly paid - Burden of proof - Obligation to state reasons - Error of law - Error of fact - Proportionality)

(2021/C 217/53)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Jean-Luc Bennahmias (Marseille, France) (represented by: J.-M. Rikkers, J.-L. Teheux, M. Ganilsy and C. De Kuyper, lawyers)

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

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the Secretary-General of the Parliament of 16 September 2019 concerning the recovery from the applicant of a sum of EUR 15 105 unduly paid as parliamentary assistance allowance and the debit note of 19 September 2019 relating thereto.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Jean-Luc Bennahmias to bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Parliament. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Jean-Luc Bennahmias to bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Parliament.

---

(1)  OJ C 45, 10.2.2020.

---

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/41

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2021 — Albert Darboven Holding v EUIPO (WINDSOR-CASTLE)

(Case T-93/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark WINDSOR-CASTLE - Absolute ground for refusal - Distinctiveness - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Laudatory character)

(2021/C 217/54)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Albert Darboven Holding GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: A. Thünken, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 December 2019 (Case R 2448/2018-1) relating to an application for registration of the word mark WINDSOR-CASTLE as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 19 December 2019 (Case R 2448/2018-1); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 19 December 2019 (Case R 2448/2018-1);

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

2.

Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 114, 6.4.2020.

---

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/42

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2021 — Creaton South-East Europe v EUIPO — Henkel (CREATHERM)

(Case T-168/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark CREATHERM - Earlier international word mark CERETHERM - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2021/C 217/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Creaton South-East Europe Kft. (Lenti, Hungary) (represented by: J. Muyldermans and P. Maeyaert, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Henkel AG & Co. KGaA (Düsseldorf, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 January 2020 (Case R 1090/2019-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Henkel and Creaton South-East Europe.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Creaton South-East Europe Kft. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Creaton South-East Europe Kft. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 191, 8.6.2020.

---

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/43

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2021 — Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — Sanolie (SANOLIE)

(Case T-175/20) (1)

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

(2021/C 217/56)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

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

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

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 January 2020 (Case R 2405/2018-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Laboratorios Ern and Sanolie.

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 175, 25.5.2020.

---

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/43

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2021 –Kfz-Gewerbes v EUIPO — The Blink Fish (Representation of a fish)

(Case T-354/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark representing a fish - Earlier national word mark BLINKA - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - No similarity between the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Obligation to state reasons - First sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2021/C 217/57)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Wirtschaftsgesellschaft des Kfz-Gewerbes mbH (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: N. Hebeis, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: The Blink Fish Srl (Milan, Italy)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 April 2020 (Case R 2333/2019-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Wirtschaftsgesellschaft des Kfz-Gewerbes and The Blink Fish.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Wirtschaftsgesellschaft des Kfz-Gewerbes mbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Wirtschaftsgesellschaft des Kfz-Gewerbes mbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 262, 10.8.2020.

---

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/44

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2021 — KM v Commission

(Case T-374/20) (1)

(Civil Service - Officials - Surviving spouse - Survivor’s pension - Articles 18 and 20 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Conditions for eligibility - Duration of the marriage - Plea of illegality - Equal treatment - Principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age - Proportionality)

(2021/C 217/58)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: KM (represented by: M. Müller-Trawinski, lawyer)

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

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Parliament (represented by: M. Windisch and U. Rösslein, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and M. Alver, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the Commission’s decision of 7 October 2019, refusing the request to grant a survivor’s pension to the applicant and, second, an order that the Commission adopt a new decision and grant a survivor’s pension to the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 7 October 2019, refusing the request to grant a survivor’s pension to KM; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 7 October 2019, refusing the request to grant a survivor’s pension to KM;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by KM; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by KM;

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

4.

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

---

(1)  OJ C 255, 3.8.2020.

---

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/45

---

Order of the General Court of 26 March 2021 — Paravan v EUIPO — paragon (Paragon)

(Case T-11/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - Withdrawal of the application for revocation - No need to adjudicate)

(2021/C 217/59)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Paravan GmbH (Pfronstetten-Aichelau, Germany) (represented by: I. Jung and L. Delpy, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: paragon GmbH & Co. KGaA (Delbrück, Germany) (represented by: A. Wulff, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 October 2019 (Case R 28/2019-4), relating to revocation proceedings between Paravan GmbH and paragon GmbH & Co. KGaA.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | Paravan GmbH and paragon GmbH & Co. KGaA shall bear their own respective costs and each pay half of the costs of the European Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Paravan GmbH and paragon GmbH & Co. KGaA shall bear their own respective costs and each pay half of the costs of the European Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 68, 2.3.2020.

---

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/45

---

Action brought on 24 March 2021 — Minority SafePack — one million signatures for diversity in Europe v Commission

(Case T-158/21)

(2021/C 217/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Citizens’ Committee of the European Citizens’ Initiative ‘Minority SafePack — one million signatures for diversity in Europe’ (Cîrţa, Romania) (represented by: T. Hieber, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Communication from the Commission of 14 January 2021 on the European Citizens’ Initiative ‘Minority SafePack — one million signatures for diversity in Europe’, C(2021)171 final; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Communication from the Commission of 14 January 2021 on the European Citizens’ Initiative ‘Minority SafePack — one million signatures for diversity in Europe’, C(2021)171 final;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the European Commission violated its obligation to state reasons pursuant Article 296(2) TFEU; |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the European Commission violated its obligation to state reasons pursuant Article 296(2) TFEU;

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the European Commission committed a manifest error of assessment in refusing to adopt a legislative proposal following the submission of the successful European citizens’ initiative ‘Minority SafePack — one million signatures for diversity in Europe’. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the European Commission committed a manifest error of assessment in refusing to adopt a legislative proposal following the submission of the successful European citizens’ initiative ‘Minority SafePack — one million signatures for diversity in Europe’.

---

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/46

---

Action brought on 30 March 2021 — Magnetec v EUIPO (Light blue)

(Case T-168/21)

(2021/C 217/61)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Magnetec GmbH (Langenselbold, Germany) (represented by: M. Kloth, R. Briske and D. Habel, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for registration of EU colour mark (Light blue) — Application for registration No 18 022 608

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 January 2021 in Case R 217/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs, including the costs incurred in the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs, including the costs incurred in the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 49(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in conjunction with Article 33 thereof; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 49(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in conjunction with Article 33 thereof;

| — | 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.

---

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/46

---

Action brought on 26 March 2021 — The Smiley Company v EUIPO — SC Ha Ha Ha Production (SMILEY)

(Case T-169/21)

(2021/C 217/62)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: The Smiley Company SPRL (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: B. Fontaine, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: SC Ha Ha Ha Production SRL (Calinesti, Romania)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark SMILEY — Application for registration No 17 569 641

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 January 2021 in Case R 2936/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

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

—

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

| — | Infringement of Article 47(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 47(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 10(3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 10(3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;

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

—

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

---

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/47

---

Action brought on 25 March 2021 — Ben Ali v Council

(Case T-170/21)

(2021/C 217/63)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Mehdi Ben Tijani Ben Haj Hamda Ben Haj Hassen Ben Ali (Saint-Étienne-du-Rouvray, France) (represented by: A. de Saint Remy, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | hear Mr. Mehdi Ben Ali’s application and declare it well-founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

hear Mr. Mehdi Ben Ali’s application and declare it well-founded;

| — | rule as a matter of urgency, in accordance with the applicable procedural rules; |
| --- | --- |

—

rule as a matter of urgency, in accordance with the applicable procedural rules;

| — | adopt, for all purposes, a measure of organisation of procedure under Article 64 of its Rules of Procedure requiring the Commission to disclose ‘all of the documents relating to the adoption’ of the contested regulation; |
| --- | --- |

—

adopt, for all purposes, a measure of organisation of procedure under Article 64 of its Rules of Procedure requiring the Commission to disclose ‘all of the documents relating to the adoption’ of the contested regulation;

| — | annul, with immediate effect, Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/55 concerning him, notified by letter reference SGS 21/0041 dated 25 January 2021, sent by registered post with acknowledgment of receipt on 26 January 2021 and received on 29 January 2021, seeking to maintain his name on the list of persons subject to the restrictive measures set out in the Annex to Council Decision 2011/72/CFSP, as amended by Council Decision 2021/55/CFSP, in Annex I to Council Regulation (EU) 101/2011 implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/49, concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia and, secondly, annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/49 implementing Regulation (EU) No 101/2011 on restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Tunisia; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, with immediate effect, Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/55 concerning him, notified by letter reference SGS 21/0041 dated 25 January 2021, sent by registered post with acknowledgment of receipt on 26 January 2021 and received on 29 January 2021, seeking to maintain his name on the list of persons subject to the restrictive measures set out in the Annex to Council Decision 2011/72/CFSP, as amended by Council Decision 2021/55/CFSP, in Annex I to Council Regulation (EU) 101/2011 implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/49, concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia and, secondly, annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/49 implementing Regulation (EU) No 101/2011 on restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Tunisia;

| — | order the Council of the European Union to pay Mr. Mehdi Ben Ali a total sum of EUR 150 000 by way of compensation for damages from all causes; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council of the European Union to pay Mr. Mehdi Ben Ali a total sum of EUR 150 000 by way of compensation for damages from all causes;

| — | order the Council of the European Union to pay Mr. Mehdi Ben Ali a sum of EUR 30 000 in respect of his defence costs in support of the present application, in addition to the recoverable defence costs pursuant to Article 91 of the Rules of Procedure; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council of the European Union to pay Mr. Mehdi Ben Ali a sum of EUR 30 000 in respect of his defence costs in support of the present application, in addition to the recoverable defence costs pursuant to Article 91 of the Rules of Procedure;

| — | order the Council of the European Union to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council of the European Union to pay all the costs.

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 a lack of a sufficient legal basis. The applicant submits that a sanction is only justified in so far as it can achieve the objectives for which it is adopted and that the mere finding of a threat to peace is not sufficient. In the present case, the Council of the European Union used the objective of sustainable development of the Tunisian economy and society as justification for the measures adversely affecting the applicant. Thus, the sanction applied by the Council is not aimed at maintaining or restoring peace but at the economic and democratic development of Tunisian society. That sanction must therefore be lifted or amended. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a lack of a sufficient legal basis. The applicant submits that a sanction is only justified in so far as it can achieve the objectives for which it is adopted and that the mere finding of a threat to peace is not sufficient. In the present case, the Council of the European Union used the objective of sustainable development of the Tunisian economy and society as justification for the measures adversely affecting the applicant. Thus, the sanction applied by the Council is not aimed at maintaining or restoring peace but at the economic and democratic development of Tunisian society. That sanction must therefore be lifted or amended.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial protection. The applicant takes the view, first, that at the time the decisions were adopted, the procedures applied infringed his fundamental rights because of the imbalance between the reasons given and respect for individual rights. Secondly, at the designation stage, the applicant claims that his rights were infringed by inadequate procedures as they did not allow him recourse to an effective remedy. Finally, the applicant submits that at the execution stage, the procedure for derogations does not comply with the right to an effective remedy. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial protection. The applicant takes the view, first, that at the time the decisions were adopted, the procedures applied infringed his fundamental rights because of the imbalance between the reasons given and respect for individual rights. Secondly, at the designation stage, the applicant claims that his rights were infringed by inadequate procedures as they did not allow him recourse to an effective remedy. Finally, the applicant submits that at the execution stage, the procedure for derogations does not comply with the right to an effective remedy.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a breach of the obligation to state reasons. The applicant submits in that respect that there was no decision, and more specifically no statement of the relevant facts, by the Tunisian State, which could be used as a basis for including him on the contested list. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a breach of the obligation to state reasons. The applicant submits in that respect that there was no decision, and more specifically no statement of the relevant facts, by the Tunisian State, which could be used as a basis for including him on the contested list.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment. According to the applicant, the lack of evidence of his participation in any unlawful act consisting of misuse of Tunisian public funds or money laundering operations amounts to a manifest error. Furthermore, the charge that he was complicit in misuse of office by a public office-holder was not supported by any evidence either. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment. According to the applicant, the lack of evidence of his participation in any unlawful act consisting of misuse of Tunisian public funds or money laundering operations amounts to a manifest error. Furthermore, the charge that he was complicit in misuse of office by a public office-holder was not supported by any evidence either.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging an infringement of Articles 31, 46 and 55 of the United Nations Convention Against Corruption. The applicant claims in that regard that, in accordance with those provisions, a protective freezing and confiscation measure must be based on either a decision of the requesting State or a statement of relevant facts made by that same State with a description of the measures requested. In his view, the restrictive measures were ordered against him without meeting these criteria. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging an infringement of Articles 31, 46 and 55 of the United Nations Convention Against Corruption. The applicant claims in that regard that, in accordance with those provisions, a protective freezing and confiscation measure must be based on either a decision of the requesting State or a statement of relevant facts made by that same State with a description of the measures requested. In his view, the restrictive measures were ordered against him without meeting these criteria.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Council made an error of assessment with regard to the proportionality of the measures adopted against the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Council made an error of assessment with regard to the proportionality of the measures adopted against the applicant.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging a misuse of power. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging a misuse of power.

---

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/49

---

Action brought on 31 March 2021 — Novelis Deutschland v EUIPO — Cuki Cofresco (grill dish)

(Case T-173/21)

(2021/C 217/64)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Novelis Deutschland GmbH (Göttingen, Germany) (represented by: U. Herberth, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cuki Cofresco Srl (Volpiano, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant

Design at issue: Community design No 516836-0007 (grill dish)

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 February 2021 in Case R 1856/2019-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | dismiss the application for a declaration that the contested Community design is invalid; |
| --- | --- |

—

dismiss the application for a declaration that the contested Community design is invalid;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred in the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred in the appeal proceedings.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002.

---

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/49

---

Action brought on 7 April 2021 — LG Electronics v EUIPO — Anferlux-Electrodomésticos (SmartThinQ)

(Case T-181/21)

(2021/C 217/65)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: LG Electronics, Inc. (Seoul, Republic of Korea) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Anferlux-Electrodomésticos, Lda (Vila Nova de Monsarros, Portugal)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative SmartThinQ mark — European Union trade mark No 14 983 861

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 February 2021 in Case R 1657/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of the principle of neutrality, in particular of Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and the principle of equality of arms by disregarding Articles 16(2) in conjunction with Articles 2(2)(g) and 12(2)(c) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 which are based on Article 146(7) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and linked to Article 25(2)(a) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/626; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the principle of neutrality, in particular of Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and the principle of equality of arms by disregarding Articles 16(2) in conjunction with Articles 2(2)(g) and 12(2)(c) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 which are based on Article 146(7) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and linked to Article 25(2)(a) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/626;

| — | Infringement of Article 17(3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 17(3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;

| — | Infringement of Article 64(2)(3) in conjunction with Article 47(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by erroneously finding that the earlier trademark has been genuinely used for some goods; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 64(2)(3) in conjunction with Article 47(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by erroneously finding that the earlier trademark has been genuinely used for some goods;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/50

---

Action brought on 7 April 2021 — PKK v Council

(Case T-182/21)

(2021/C 217/66)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) (represented by: A. van Eik and T. Buruma, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Decision (CFSP) No 2021/142 and Council Implementing Regulation 2021/138 insofar as they concern the PKK (a.k.a. KADEK a.k.a. KONGRA-GEL); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Decision (CFSP) No 2021/142 and Council Implementing Regulation 2021/138 insofar as they concern the PKK (a.k.a. KADEK a.k.a. KONGRA-GEL);

| — | the Applicant additionally seeks an award of costs of litigation with interest, which will be specified at a later stage. |
| --- | --- |

—

the Applicant additionally seeks an award of costs of litigation with interest, which will be specified at a later stage.

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 Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/142 (1) and Council Implementing Regulation 2021/138 (2) are void insofar as they concern the applicant because they are in violation of the principle of legal certainty and/or of Article 1(2) of Council Common Position 2001/931/CFSP (3) and/or of Article 2(3) of Council Regulation No 2580/2001. (4) The applicant claims that the Council has failed to provide a clear and precise identification of the conceptualization of the PKK. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/142 (1) and Council Implementing Regulation 2021/138 (2) are void insofar as they concern the applicant because they are in violation of the principle of legal certainty and/or of Article 1(2) of Council Common Position 2001/931/CFSP (3) and/or of Article 2(3) of Council Regulation No 2580/2001. (4) The applicant claims that the Council has failed to provide a clear and precise identification of the conceptualization of the PKK.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/142 and Council Implementing Regulation 2021/138 are void insofar as they concern the applicant because the applicant cannot be qualified as a group or entity involved in terrorist acts as defined in Article 1(3) of Council Common Position 2001/931/CFSP. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/142 and Council Implementing Regulation 2021/138 are void insofar as they concern the applicant because the applicant cannot be qualified as a group or entity involved in terrorist acts as defined in Article 1(3) of Council Common Position 2001/931/CFSP.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/142 and Council Implementing Regulation 2021/138 are void insofar as they concern the applicant because no decision by a competent authority has been taken in the meaning of Article 1(4) of Council Common Position 2001/931/CFSP. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/142 and Council Implementing Regulation 2021/138 are void insofar as they concern the applicant because no decision by a competent authority has been taken in the meaning of Article 1(4) of Council Common Position 2001/931/CFSP.

| 4. | Forth plea in law alleging that Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/142 and Council Implementing Regulation 2021/138 are void insofar as they concern the applicant because the Council has not conducted any proper review as required by Article 1(6) of Council Common Position 2001/931/CFSP. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Forth plea in law alleging that Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/142 and Council Implementing Regulation 2021/138 are void insofar as they concern the applicant because the Council has not conducted any proper review as required by Article 1(6) of Council Common Position 2001/931/CFSP.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/142 and Council Implementing Regulation 2021/138 are void insofar as they concern the applicant because the decision and implementing regulation do not comply with the requirements of proportionality and subsidiarity. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/142 and Council Implementing Regulation 2021/138 are void insofar as they concern the applicant because the decision and implementing regulation do not comply with the requirements of proportionality and subsidiarity.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging that Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/142 and Council Implementing Regulation 2021/138 are void insofar as they concern the applicant because they do not comply with the obligation to state reasons in conformity with Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/142 and Council Implementing Regulation 2021/138 are void insofar as they concern the applicant because they do not comply with the obligation to state reasons in conformity with Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging that Decision (CFSP) 2021/142 and Council Implementing Regulation 2021/138 are void insofar as they concern the applicant because they infringe upon the applicant’s rights of defense and the applicant’s right to effective judicial protection and remedy. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging that Decision (CFSP) 2021/142 and Council Implementing Regulation 2021/138 are void insofar as they concern the applicant because they infringe upon the applicant’s rights of defense and the applicant’s right to effective judicial protection and remedy.

---

(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/142 of 5 February 2021 updating the list of persons, groups and entities subject to Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism, and repealing Decision (CFSP) 2020/1132 (OJ 2021 L 43, p. 14).

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/138 of 5 February 2021 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism, and repealing Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1128 (OJ 2021 L 43, p. 1).

(3)  Council Common Position 2001/931/CFSP of 27 December 2001 on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism (OJ 2001 L 344, p. 93).

(4)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 of 27 December 2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism (OJ 2001 L 344, p. 70).

---

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/51

---

Action brought on 7 April 2021 — QP and Others v Council and Others

(Case T-183/21)

(2021/C 217/67)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: QP and 15 other applicants (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendants: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European External Action Service (EEAS), and Eulex Kosovo

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

principally:

| — | with regard to the employment relationship:






  — | in respect of all of the applicants:






  — | reclassify the contractual relationship of the applicants as a permanent contract of employment; |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

—

with regard to the employment relationship:

—

in respect of all of the applicants:

—

reclassify the contractual relationship of the applicants as a permanent contract of employment;

| — | order the defendants to compensate the applicants for the lack of affiliation to a national social security scheme, to be determined on the basis of the applicable legislation; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendants to compensate the applicants for the lack of affiliation to a national social security scheme, to be determined on the basis of the applicable legislation;

| — | order them to pay interest on those sums; |
| --- | --- |

—

order them to pay interest on those sums;

| — | set a time limit for the parties to assess that compensation to be established on the basis of the relevant applicable legislation, in accordance with the principles laid down by the General Court in the decision to be issued; |
| --- | --- |

—

set a time limit for the parties to assess that compensation to be established on the basis of the relevant applicable legislation, in accordance with the principles laid down by the General Court in the decision to be issued;

| — | in respect of the applicants, whose contractual relationship was terminated by a unilateral decision of the defendants:






  — | order the defendants to pay compensation in lieu of notice:






  — | to the applicant QP: EUR 42 092,50. |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

—

in respect of the applicants, whose contractual relationship was terminated by a unilateral decision of the defendants:

—

order the defendants to pay compensation in lieu of notice:

—

to the applicant QP: EUR 42 092,50.

| — | to the applicant QT: EUR 69 880,54. |
| --- | --- |

—

to the applicant QT: EUR 69 880,54.

| — | to the applicant QU: EUR 53 749,17. |
| --- | --- |

—

to the applicant QU: EUR 53 749,17.

| — | to the applicant QV: EUR 57 159,69. |
| --- | --- |

—

to the applicant QV: EUR 57 159,69.

| — | to the applicant QY: EUR 63 298,15. |
| --- | --- |

—

to the applicant QY: EUR 63 298,15.

| — | to the applicant RB: EUR 55 303,02. |
| --- | --- |

—

to the applicant RB: EUR 55 303,02.

| — | to the applicant RD: EUR 55 373,64. |
| --- | --- |

—

to the applicant RD: EUR 55 373,64.

| — | to the applicant RF: EUR 40 201,21. |
| --- | --- |

—

to the applicant RF: EUR 40 201,21.

| — | order the defendants to pay each of the applicants compensation for unlawful dismissal assessed ex aequo et bono at EUR 12 500 per year of seniority; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendants to pay each of the applicants compensation for unlawful dismissal assessed ex aequo et bono at EUR 12 500 per year of seniority;

| — | order the defendants to pay to each of the applicants QP, QR, QS, QT, QU, QV, QW, QY, QZ, RA, RB, RC, RD and RE the difference in unpaid remuneration from the date of the salary reclassification, namely 1 September 2012; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendants to pay to each of the applicants QP, QR, QS, QT, QU, QV, QW, QY, QZ, RA, RB, RC, RD and RE the difference in unpaid remuneration from the date of the salary reclassification, namely 1 September 2012;

| — | order them to pay interest on those sums; |
| --- | --- |

—

order them to pay interest on those sums;

| — | with regard to other rights:






  — | declare that the applicants should have been recruited as temporary agents by one of the first three defendants and declare that the first three defendants treated the applicants unlawfully and in a discriminatory manner, without objective justification, as regards their remuneration, pension rights and related benefits, and the guarantee of future employment; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

with regard to other rights:

—

declare that the applicants should have been recruited as temporary agents by one of the first three defendants and declare that the first three defendants treated the applicants unlawfully and in a discriminatory manner, without objective justification, as regards their remuneration, pension rights and related benefits, and the guarantee of future employment;

| — | order the first three defendants to compensate each of the applicants for the damage suffered as a result of the non-application of the remuneration, pension rights, allowances and benefits arising from the application of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union, caused by the unlawful unequal treatment; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the first three defendants to compensate each of the applicants for the damage suffered as a result of the non-application of the remuneration, pension rights, allowances and benefits arising from the application of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union, caused by the unlawful unequal treatment;

| — | order them to pay interest on those sums; |
| --- | --- |

—

order them to pay interest on those sums;

| — | set a time limit for the parties to assess that compensation, taking account of the grade and step in which the applicants should have been recruited respectively, the average increase in their remuneration, the development of their respective careers, the allowances which they should then have received under those temporary agent contracts, and compare the results obtained with the remuneration actually received by the applicants; |
| --- | --- |

—

set a time limit for the parties to assess that compensation, taking account of the grade and step in which the applicants should have been recruited respectively, the average increase in their remuneration, the development of their respective careers, the allowances which they should then have received under those temporary agent contracts, and compare the results obtained with the remuneration actually received by the applicants;

alternatively:

| — | order the first three defendants to compensate the applicants in respect of their non-contractual liability resulting from the failure to respect their fundamental rights, assessed ex aequo et bono at EUR 20 000 per year of seniority; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the first three defendants to compensate the applicants in respect of their non-contractual liability resulting from the failure to respect their fundamental rights, assessed ex aequo et bono at EUR 20 000 per year of seniority;

| — | order them to pay interest on those sums;
  hear the defendants ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order them to pay interest on those sums;

hear the defendants ordered to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea, alleging the abuse of rights in the successive use of fixed-term contracts and infringement of the principle of proportionality. The applicants rely on the application of the substantive law applicable to their contracts and request reclassification of their contracts of employment with the institutions as permanent contracts of employment and retroactive payment of their social security rights and, in the case of some of them, payment of compensation in lieu of notice |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea, alleging the abuse of rights in the successive use of fixed-term contracts and infringement of the principle of proportionality. The applicants rely on the application of the substantive law applicable to their contracts and request reclassification of their contracts of employment with the institutions as permanent contracts of employment and retroactive payment of their social security rights and, in the case of some of them, payment of compensation in lieu of notice

| 2. | Second plea, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment and of non-discrimination. The applicants take the view that the legal framework which the defendants established for the conclusion of international individual contracts of employment is (i) discriminatory in relation to the conditions of employment of other EU staff, (ii) unclear and (iii) lastly, in breach of the rules of European public policy, including the values and principles enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment and of non-discrimination. The applicants take the view that the legal framework which the defendants established for the conclusion of international individual contracts of employment is (i) discriminatory in relation to the conditions of employment of other EU staff, (ii) unclear and (iii) lastly, in breach of the rules of European public policy, including the values and principles enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| 3. | Third plea, alleging infringement of the right to be heard. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea, alleging infringement of the right to be heard.

| 4. | Fourth plea, alleging lack of legal certainty and infringement of the right to sound administration. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea, alleging lack of legal certainty and infringement of the right to sound administration.

| 5. | Fifth plea, alleging infringement of the principle of consultation of staff representatives. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea, alleging infringement of the principle of consultation of staff representatives.

| 6. | Sixth plea, alleging infringement of the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea, alleging infringement of the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour.

| 7. | Seventh plea, alleging infringement of the right to free movement of workers. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea, alleging infringement of the right to free movement of workers.

---

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/53

---

Action brought on 9 April 2021 — Firearms United Network and Others v European Commission

(Case T-187/21)

(2021/C 217/68)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicants: Firearms United Network (Warsaw, Poland), Tomasz Walter Stępień (Żelechów, Poland), Michał Budzyński (Cegłów, Poland), and Andrzej Marcjanik (Złotokłos, Poland) (represented by: E. Woźniak, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | order the annulment and repeal of Commission Regulation (EU) 2021/57 of 25 January 2021 amending Annex XVII to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) as regards lead in gunshot in or around wetlands. (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

order the annulment and repeal of Commission Regulation (EU) 2021/57 of 25 January 2021 amending Annex XVII to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) as regards lead in gunshot in or around wetlands. (1)

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2) (Article 16, Article 17(1), Article 21(1), Article 45(1) and Article 48(1)) through limitation of the freedom to take up and pursue a business connected with shooting; limitation of the right to property as well as the use and disposal of firearms, ammunition containing lead, and facilities constituting shooting ranges; discrimination against target shooters and hunters; limitation of the possibility of movement with ammunition containing lead; and introduction of a presumption that persons who move in ‘wetlands’ with ammunition containing lead are guilty of being persons who shoot in ‘wetlands’ using ammunition containing lead and, therefore, persons acting in breach of the prohibition. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2) (Article 16, Article 17(1), Article 21(1), Article 45(1) and Article 48(1)) through limitation of the freedom to take up and pursue a business connected with shooting; limitation of the right to property as well as the use and disposal of firearms, ammunition containing lead, and facilities constituting shooting ranges; discrimination against target shooters and hunters; limitation of the possibility of movement with ammunition containing lead; and introduction of a presumption that persons who move in ‘wetlands’ with ammunition containing lead are guilty of being persons who shoot in ‘wetlands’ using ammunition containing lead and, therefore, persons acting in breach of the prohibition.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the provisions of the Treaty on European Union (3) (Article 2 and Article 3(2) and (3)) through disregard for the freedom and right to hunt and target shoot; failure to observe the rule of law through introduction of a presumption that persons who move in ‘wetlands’ with ammunition containing lead are guilty of being persons who shoot in ‘wetlands’ using ammunition containing lead; and infringement of the sense of security through introduction of provisions which make it impossible for a person to identify ‘wetlands’ and, therefore, the territorial scope of the prohibition and, accordingly, to tailor his or her conduct to the provisions in force. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the provisions of the Treaty on European Union (3) (Article 2 and Article 3(2) and (3)) through disregard for the freedom and right to hunt and target shoot; failure to observe the rule of law through introduction of a presumption that persons who move in ‘wetlands’ with ammunition containing lead are guilty of being persons who shoot in ‘wetlands’ using ammunition containing lead; and infringement of the sense of security through introduction of provisions which make it impossible for a person to identify ‘wetlands’ and, therefore, the territorial scope of the prohibition and, accordingly, to tailor his or her conduct to the provisions in force.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the provisions of the Treaty on European Union (Article 5(2), (3) and (4)) through infringement of the principle of conferral, consisting of the undertaking of actions which could have been satisfactorily undertaken by the Member States, and through extension of the form and content of those actions beyond what is necessary to achieve the objectives of the Treaties. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the provisions of the Treaty on European Union (Article 5(2), (3) and (4)) through infringement of the principle of conferral, consisting of the undertaking of actions which could have been satisfactorily undertaken by the Member States, and through extension of the form and content of those actions beyond what is necessary to achieve the objectives of the Treaties.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging abuse of power through the adoption of a regulation whose purpose was to significantly limit the practice of marksmanship by civilians in the territory of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging abuse of power through the adoption of a regulation whose purpose was to significantly limit the practice of marksmanship by civilians in the territory of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ 2021 L 24, p. 19.

(2)  OJ 2012 C 326, p. 391.

(3)  OJ 2016 C 202, p. 13.

---

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/54

---

Action brought on 9 April 2021 — Lück v EUIPO — R.H. Investment (MALLE)

(Case T-188/21)

(2021/C 217/69)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Jörg Lück (Hilden, Germany) (represented by: L. Becker, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: R.H. Investment UG (limited liability company) (Erlangen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark MALLE — EU trade mark No 2 631 166

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 December 2020 in Case R 1393/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision, in conjunction with the decision of the Cancellation Division of 18 May 2020; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision, in conjunction with the decision of the Cancellation Division of 18 May 2020;

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

—

order the intervener to pay all the costs.

Plea in law

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

---

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/55

---

Action brought on 7 April 2021 — RI and Others v Council and Others

(Case T-190/21)

(2021/C 217/70)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: RI and 15 other applicants (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendants: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European External Action Service (EEAS), and Eulex Kosovo

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

principally:

| — | with regard to the employment relationship:






  — | reclassify the contractual relationship of the applicants as a permanent contract of employment; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

with regard to the employment relationship:

—

reclassify the contractual relationship of the applicants as a permanent contract of employment;

| — | order the defendants to pay compensation in lieu of notice:






  — | to the applicant RW: EUR 65 726,17. |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

order the defendants to pay compensation in lieu of notice:

—

to the applicant RW: EUR 65 726,17.

| — | to the applicant RZ: EUR 84 748,27. |
| --- | --- |

—

to the applicant RZ: EUR 84 748,27.

| — | order the defendants to compensate the applicants for the lack of affiliation to a national social security scheme, to be determined on the basis of the applicable legislation; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendants to compensate the applicants for the lack of affiliation to a national social security scheme, to be determined on the basis of the applicable legislation;

| — | order them to pay interest on those sums; |
| --- | --- |

—

order them to pay interest on those sums;

| — | set a time limit for the parties to assess that compensation to be established; |
| --- | --- |

—

set a time limit for the parties to assess that compensation to be established;

| — | with regard to other rights:






  — | declare that the applicants should have been recruited as temporary agents by one of the first three defendants and declare that the first three defendants treated the applicants unlawfully and in a discriminatory manner, without objective justification, as regards their remuneration, pension rights and related benefits, and the guarantee of future employment; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

with regard to other rights:

—

declare that the applicants should have been recruited as temporary agents by one of the first three defendants and declare that the first three defendants treated the applicants unlawfully and in a discriminatory manner, without objective justification, as regards their remuneration, pension rights and related benefits, and the guarantee of future employment;

| — | order the first three defendants to compensate each of the applicants for the damage suffered as a result of the non-application of the remuneration, pension rights, allowances and benefits arising from the application of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union, caused by the unlawful unequal treatment; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the first three defendants to compensate each of the applicants for the damage suffered as a result of the non-application of the remuneration, pension rights, allowances and benefits arising from the application of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union, caused by the unlawful unequal treatment;

| — | order them to pay interest on those sums; |
| --- | --- |

—

order them to pay interest on those sums;

| — | set a time limit for the parties to assess that compensation, taking account of the grade and step in which the applicants should have been respectively recruited, the average increase in their remuneration, the development of their respective careers, the allowances which they should then have received under those contracts of temporary agents, and compare the results obtained with the remuneration actually received by the applicants; |
| --- | --- |

—

set a time limit for the parties to assess that compensation, taking account of the grade and step in which the applicants should have been respectively recruited, the average increase in their remuneration, the development of their respective careers, the allowances which they should then have received under those contracts of temporary agents, and compare the results obtained with the remuneration actually received by the applicants;

alternatively:

| — | order the first three defendants to compensate the applicants in respect of their non-contractual liability resulting from the failure to respect their fundamental rights, assessed ex aequo et bono at EUR 20 000 per year of seniority; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the first three defendants to compensate the applicants in respect of their non-contractual liability resulting from the failure to respect their fundamental rights, assessed ex aequo et bono at EUR 20 000 per year of seniority;

| — | order them to pay interest on those sums; |
| --- | --- |

—

order them to pay interest on those sums;

order the defendants to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of their action, the applicants rely on seven pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-183/21, QP and Others v Council and Others.

---

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/56

---

Action brought on 12 April 2021 — Laboratories Ern v EUIPO — Beta Sports (META)

(Case T-192/21)

(2021/C 217/71)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Laboratorios Ern, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: T. González Martínez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Beta Sports LLC (Coconut Creek, Florida, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for the EU word mark META — Application for registration No 17 973 308

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 January 2021 in Case R 1152/2020-2

Forms of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | reject the application for European Union trade mark No 17 973 308 META in Class 5; |
| --- | --- |

—

reject the application for European Union trade mark No 17 973 308 META in Class 5;

| — | order the defendant, or if applicable, the intervener, to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant, or if applicable, the intervener, to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

---

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/57

---

Action brought on 12 April 2021 — Fidia farmaceutici v EUIPO — Stelis Biopharma (HYALOSTEL ONE)

(Case T-194/21)

(2021/C 217/72)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Fidia farmaceutici SpA (Abano Terme, Italy) (represented by: R. Kunz-Hallstein and H. Kunz-Hallstein, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Stelis Biopharma ltd. (Karnataka, India)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative HYALOSTEL ONE mark — International registration designating the European Union No 1 399 649

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 January 2021 in Case R 831/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs, in the alternative, if the other party before the Board of Appeal intervenes, order EUIPO and the intervener jointly and severally to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs, in the alternative, if the other party before the Board of Appeal intervenes, order EUIPO and the intervener jointly and severally to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 165(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Articles 32(f) and 39(5) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 165(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Articles 32(f) and 39(5) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;

| — | Infringement of the right to be heard and the obligation to state reasons pursuant Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the right to be heard and the obligation to state reasons pursuant Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

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

—

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

---

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/58

---

Action brought on 12 April 2021 — Lea Nature Services v EUIPO — Debonair Trading Internacional (SO...?)

(Case T-196/21)

(2021/C 217/73)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Lea Nature Services (Périgny, France) (represented by: F. Drageon, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Debonair Trading Internacional Lda (Funchal, Portugal)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark SO...? — European Union trade mark No 17 473 513

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 February 2021 in Case R 1235/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear the costs which they have incurred in the course of the proceedings before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear the costs which they have incurred in the course of the proceedings before the General Court.

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(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

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

---

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/59

---

Action brought on 12 April 2021 — Lea Nature Services v EUIPO — Debonair Trading Internacional (SO...?)

(Case T-197/21)

(2021/C 217/74)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Lea Nature Services (Périgny, France) (represented by: F. Drageon, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Debonair Trading Internacional Lda (Funchal, Portugal)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark SO...? — European Union trade mark No 485 078

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 February 2021 in Case R 1234/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear the costs, which they have incurred in the course of the proceedings before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear the costs, which they have incurred in the course of the proceedings before the General Court.

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(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

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

---

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/59

---

Action brought on 12 April 2021 — Ancor Group v EUIPO — Cody’s Drinks International (CODE-X)

(Case T-198/21)

(2021/C 217/75)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Ancor Group GmbH (Igersheim, Germany) (represented by: J. Wachsmuth and W. Berlit, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cody’s Drinks International GmbH (Bremen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU work mark CODE-X — Application for registration No 17 893 826

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 February 2021 in Case R 208/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | confirm the decision of the Opposition Division of 28 November 2018 rejecting the opposition brought against EU trade mark application No 17 893 826; |
| --- | --- |

—

confirm the decision of the Opposition Division of 28 November 2018 rejecting the opposition brought against EU trade mark application No 17 893 826;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/60

---

Action brought on 30 March 2021 — EurO3zon v ECHA

(Case T-199/21)

(2021/C 217/76)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: EurO3zon (Zemst, Belgium) (represented by: I. de Seze, F. Puel, and L. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the defendant’s act to suspend the evaluation of the applicant’s active substance dossier on Ozone (O3), under the Biocidal products Regulation (1), and to combine this evaluation procedure with another applicant’s dossier; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the defendant’s act to suspend the evaluation of the applicant’s active substance dossier on Ozone (O3), under the Biocidal products Regulation (1), and to combine this evaluation procedure with another applicant’s dossier; and

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the defendant acted ultra vires and lacked the competence to adopt the contested act as the defendant enjoys no express or implicit power to act in the field of evaluations of biocidal active substances under EU law or mandatory data sharing in the absence of a legal provision.






  — | Furthermore, it is argued that the justification alleged by the defendant for the contested act is a document that minutes the consensus of the European Commission and the Member States sitting at the Biocides Committee; it is neither adequate as its subject matter, nor binding in nature on the defendant. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant acted ultra vires and lacked the competence to adopt the contested act as the defendant enjoys no express or implicit power to act in the field of evaluations of biocidal active substances under EU law or mandatory data sharing in the absence of a legal provision.

—

Furthermore, it is argued that the justification alleged by the defendant for the contested act is a document that minutes the consensus of the European Commission and the Member States sitting at the Biocides Committee; it is neither adequate as its subject matter, nor binding in nature on the defendant.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached the principle of legal certainty and the applicant’s legitimate expectations.






  — | The contested act contains no reference or citation of any provision of law, which would empower the defendant to act in the way it did. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached the principle of legal certainty and the applicant’s legitimate expectations.

—

The contested act contains no reference or citation of any provision of law, which would empower the defendant to act in the way it did.

| — | It is also argued that the contested act frustrates the applicant’s legitimate expectations as it seeks to derogate from the express legal and procedural steps foreseen by the Biocidal products Regulation, in particular with regard to the mandatory timelines foreseen therein. |
| --- | --- |

—

It is also argued that the contested act frustrates the applicant’s legitimate expectations as it seeks to derogate from the express legal and procedural steps foreseen by the Biocidal products Regulation, in particular with regard to the mandatory timelines foreseen therein.

| — | The legitimate expectations of the applicant are also frustrated by the contested act on the ground that the document referred to by the defendant, as a justification for the act, in fact concerns procedures and situations, which are irrelevant to the applicant’s situation. The applicant also complains that the contested act creates legal uncertainty for operators. |
| --- | --- |

—

The legitimate expectations of the applicant are also frustrated by the contested act on the ground that the document referred to by the defendant, as a justification for the act, in fact concerns procedures and situations, which are irrelevant to the applicant’s situation. The applicant also complains that the contested act creates legal uncertainty for operators.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant operated a discriminatory treatment towards the applicant.






  — | It is argued that the contested act will result in the applicant being subjected to procedural requirements and delays, which have not been imposed on third parties in similar situations. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant operated a discriminatory treatment towards the applicant.

—

It is argued that the contested act will result in the applicant being subjected to procedural requirements and delays, which have not been imposed on third parties in similar situations.

| — | The contested act will result in the exclusive rights of the applicant’s over proprietary information being infringed and being used for the benefit of third parties without financial compensation, a consequence that has not been imposed on third parties in similar situations. |
| --- | --- |

—

The contested act will result in the exclusive rights of the applicant’s over proprietary information being infringed and being used for the benefit of third parties without financial compensation, a consequence that has not been imposed on third parties in similar situations.

| — | Furthermore, the applicant complains that the confidential business information contained in its active substance dossier has been shared with third parties without permission and outside of a confidentiality commitment, a consequence that has not been imposed on third parties in similar situations. |
| --- | --- |

—

Furthermore, the applicant complains that the confidential business information contained in its active substance dossier has been shared with third parties without permission and outside of a confidentiality commitment, a consequence that has not been imposed on third parties in similar situations.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested act failed to state reasons because it did not disclose, in a clear and unequivocal fashion, the reasoning followed by the Agency, in such a way as to enable the applicant to ascertain the reasons for the measure and to enable the competent court to carry out its review. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested act failed to state reasons because it did not disclose, in a clear and unequivocal fashion, the reasoning followed by the Agency, in such a way as to enable the applicant to ascertain the reasons for the measure and to enable the competent court to carry out its review.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that by adopting the contested act the defendant infringed the principle of proportionality because it does not bring about the appropriate steps for attaining the legitimate objectives pursued by it and it goes beyond what is necessary to achieve them.






  — | Furthermore, it is argued that the measures entailed by the contested act do not constitute the least onerous measure to attain the objectives pursued by it. |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that by adopting the contested act the defendant infringed the principle of proportionality because it does not bring about the appropriate steps for attaining the legitimate objectives pursued by it and it goes beyond what is necessary to achieve them.

—

Furthermore, it is argued that the measures entailed by the contested act do not constitute the least onerous measure to attain the objectives pursued by it.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products (OJ 2012 L 167, p. 1).

---

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/61

---

Action brought on 29 March 2021 — JS v EDPS

(Case T-200/21)

(2021/C 217/77)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: European Data Protection Supervisor

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the EDPS dated 18 January 2021 rejecting the complaint of the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the EDPS dated 18 January 2021 rejecting the complaint of the applicant;

| — | annul also, and so far as necessary, the decision of the EDPS dated 9 March 2021 rejecting the request for review of that initial decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul also, and so far as necessary, the decision of the EDPS dated 9 March 2021 rejecting the request for review of that initial decision;

| — | order compensation for the prejudice suffered; |
| --- | --- |

—

order compensation for the prejudice suffered;

| — | 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 a single plea, alleging breaches of Articles 4(1), 5, 19, 20 and 23 of Regulation No 2018/1725, (1) of the principles of necessity and proportionality, and of Articles 8 and 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.

---

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

---

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/62

---

Action brought on 6 April 2021 — Covington & Burling and Van Vooren v Commission

(Case T-201/21)

(2021/C 217/78)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Covington & Burling (Saint-Josse-ten-Noode, Belgium) and Bart Van Vooren (Meise, Belgium) (represented by: P. Diaz Gavier, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Commission of 12 March 2021 refusing to grant access to the requested documents (1) under the Transparency Regulation; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Commission of 12 March 2021 refusing to grant access to the requested documents (1) under the Transparency Regulation;

| — | order the Commission to grant access to the requested documents immediately; and |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to grant access to the requested documents immediately; and

| — | order the Commission to pay Covington’s legal and other costs and expenses in relation to this matter. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay Covington’s legal and other costs and expenses in relation to this matter.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in relying on Article 4(3), second indent, of the Transparency Regulation (2) to justify its refusal to grant access to the requested documents. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in relying on Article 4(3), second indent, of the Transparency Regulation (2) to justify its refusal to grant access to the requested documents.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that, even if Article 4(3), second indent, of the Transparency Regulation applied, or any other ground of Article 4 thereof, the Commission has failed to demonstrate how the requested documents met the requirements. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that, even if Article 4(3), second indent, of the Transparency Regulation applied, or any other ground of Article 4 thereof, the Commission has failed to demonstrate how the requested documents met the requirements.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in relying on the Comitology Regulation (3) to support its refusal to grant access to the requested documents. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in relying on the Comitology Regulation (3) to support its refusal to grant access to the requested documents.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in relying on Standard Rules of Procedure for Committees to support its refusal; and |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in relying on Standard Rules of Procedure for Committees to support its refusal; and

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates general principles of transparency and undermines the democratic legitimacy of implementing acts. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates general principles of transparency and undermines the democratic legitimacy of implementing acts.

---

(1)  Editorial note: The requested documents concern a comitology procedure and, in particular, documents relating to the voting record of certain Member States with regard to the draft Commission Regulation amending Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards botanical species containing hydroxyanthracene derivatives.

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

(3)  Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers (OJ 2011 L 55, p. 13).

---

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/63 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/63

---

Action brought on 13 April 2021 — Vita Zahnfabrik v EUIPO — VIPI Produtos Odontológicos (VITABLOCS TriLuxe forte)

(Case T-202/21)

(2021/C 217/79)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Vita Zahnfabrik H. Rauter GmbH & Co. KG (Bad Säckingen, Germany) (represented by: A. Theis and F. Hauck, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: VIPI Indústria, Comércio, Exportação E Importação De Produtos Odontológicos LTDA (Pirassununga, Brazil)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark VITABLOCS TriLuxe forte — International registration designating the European Union No 1 346 271

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 February 2021 in Case R 818/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | alter the contested decision in the way that the opposition against the European Union part of the international registration No 1 346 271 is dismissed in its entirety and that the costs of the proceedings before the EUIPO are imposed on the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

alter the contested decision in the way that the opposition against the European Union part of the international registration No 1 346 271 is dismissed in its entirety and that the costs of the proceedings before the EUIPO are imposed on the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal;

| — | annul the contested decision as an auxiliary request; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision as an auxiliary request;

| — | impose the costs of these proceedings before the General Court on EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

impose the costs of these proceedings before the General Court on EUIPO.

Plea in law

| — | Misapplication of Articles 47(5) and 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Misapplication of Articles 47(5) and 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/64 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/64

---

Action brought on 12 April 2021 — IN.PRO.DI v EUIPO — Aiello (CAPRI)

(Case T-203/21)

(2021/C 217/80)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: IN.PRO.DI — Inghirami produzione distribuzione SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: V. Piccarreta, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Antonino Aiello (Naples, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark CAPRI — Application for registration No 13 768 197

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 February 2021 in Case R 49/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and, consequently, as a correction of the decision of the Opposition Division of 12 November 2019, declare that the opposition against the application for registration of European trade mark No 13 768 197 is rejected in its entirety, and thus the application for registration granted in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and, consequently, as a correction of the decision of the Opposition Division of 12 November 2019, declare that the opposition against the application for registration of European trade mark No 13 768 197 is rejected in its entirety, and thus the application for registration granted in its entirety;

| — | order A. Aiello to pay the costs in relation to all of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order A. Aiello to pay the costs in relation to all of the proceedings.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/64 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/64

---

Action brought on 14 April 2021 — Stryker v EUIPO (RUGGED)

(Case T-204/21)

(2021/C 217/81)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Stryker Corp. (Kalamazoo, Michigan, United States) (represented by: I. Fowler, I. Junkar, and B. Worbes, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark RUGGED

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 January 2021 in Case R 370/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 71(1) read in conjunction with Article 67 Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and lack of competence by exceeding the limits of its power; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 71(1) read in conjunction with Article 67 Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and lack of competence by exceeding the limits of its power;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(3) Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and incorrect statement that the evidence filed in relation to acquired distinctiveness is insufficient; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(3) Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and incorrect statement that the evidence filed in relation to acquired distinctiveness is insufficient;

| — | Infringement of Article 94(1) Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council for failing to state reasons for its decision. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 94(1) Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council for failing to state reasons for its decision.

---

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/65 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/65

---

Action brought on 15 April 2021 — Kewazo v EUIPO (Liftbot)

(Case T-205/21)

(2021/C 217/82)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Kewazo GmbH (Garching, Germany) (represented by: P. Baronikians, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark Liftbot — Application for registration No 18 191 963

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 February 2021 in Case R 1160/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | annul the refusal decision of EUIPO of 15 September 2020; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the refusal decision of EUIPO of 15 September 2020;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

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

—

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

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

—

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

---

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/66 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/66

---

Action brought on 16 April 2021 — Kalita and Haas v EUIPO — Kitzbühel Tourismus (Representation of two animals)

(Case T-206/21)

(2021/C 217/83)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicants: Oliver Kalita (Jochberg, Austria) and Christian Haas (Kitzbühel, Austria) (represented by: G. Donath, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Kitzbühel Tourismus, Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts (Kitzbühel, Austria)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicants

Trade mark at issue: Application for registration of EU figurative mark (Representation of two animals) — Application for registration No 17 997 789

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 February 2021 in Case R 863/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

in the alternative,

| — | alter the contested decision to the effect that the appeal is dismissed in its entirety and, consequently, reinstate the decision of the Opposition Division of EUIPO of 6 April 2020; |
| --- | --- |

—

alter the contested decision to the effect that the appeal is dismissed in its entirety and, consequently, reinstate the decision of the Opposition Division of EUIPO of 6 April 2020;

| — | in any event, order the defendant and/or the other party as a qualified intervener to pay all the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

in any event, order the defendant and/or the other party as a qualified intervener to pay all the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

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

—

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

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

—

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

---

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/67 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/67

---

Action brought on 17 April 2021 — Ignacio Carrasco v EUIPO — Santos Carrasco Manzano (La Hoja del Carrasco)

(Case T-209/21)

(2021/C 217/84)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Ignacio Carrasco SL (Guijuelo, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Donoso Romero, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Santos Carrasco Manzano SA (Guijuelo, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Figurative mark La Hoja del Carrasco — EU trade mark application No 15 670 813

Procedure before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 February 2021 in Case R 175/2020-1

Forms of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | Annul the contested decision in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the contested decision in its entirety;

| — | Consequently, dismiss the application for a declaration of invalidity in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

Consequently, dismiss the application for a declaration of invalidity in its entirety;

| — | Order EUIPO and Santos Carrasco Manzano SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order EUIPO and Santos Carrasco Manzano SA to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 60(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/67 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/67

---

Action brought on 19 April 2021 — Groschopp v EUIPO (Sustainability through Quality)

(Case T-212/21)

(2021/C 217/85)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Groschopp AG Drives & More (Viersen, Germany) (represented by: R. Schiffer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark Sustainability through Quality — Application for registration No 18 158 368

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 February 2021 in Case R 1076/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

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

—

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

---

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/68 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/68

---

Action brought on 20 April 2021 — Ryanair and Malta Air v Commission

(Case T-216/21)

(2021/C 217/86)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Ryanair DAC (Swords, Ireland) and Malta Air ltd. (Pietà, Malta) (represented by: F-C. Laprévote, E. Vahida, V. Blanc, S. Rating and I. Metaxas-Maranghidis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul the defendant’s decision of 4 May 2020 on State aid SA.57082 (2020/N) — France — COVID-19 — Cadre temporaire 107(3)(b) TFEU — Garantie et prêt d’actionnaire au bénéfice d’Air France (1); and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the defendant’s decision of 4 May 2020 on State aid SA.57082 (2020/N) — France — COVID-19 — Cadre temporaire 107(3)(b) TFEU — Garantie et prêt d’actionnaire au bénéfice d’Air France (1); and

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

| — | The applicants have also requested that their action be determined under the expedited procedure as referred to in Article 23a of the Statute of the Court of Justice. |
| --- | --- |

—

The applicants have also requested that their 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 applicants rely on five pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the defendant wrongly excluded KLM and Air France-KLM from the scope of the contested decision. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant wrongly excluded KLM and Air France-KLM from the scope of the contested decision.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant misused its powers and misapplied Article 107(3) (b) TFEU and its Temporary Framework, by (i) finding that the aid addresses a serious disturbance in the French economy; (ii) failing to properly assess whether the beneficiary was in financial difficulties; (iii) finding that the Shareholder Loan was compatible with the then applicable Temporary Framework and reviewing it as a debt measure instead of equity; and (iv) 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’). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant misused its powers and misapplied Article 107(3) (b) TFEU and its Temporary Framework, by (i) finding that the aid addresses a serious disturbance in the French economy; (ii) failing to properly assess whether the beneficiary was in financial difficulties; (iii) finding that the Shareholder Loan was compatible with the then applicable Temporary Framework and reviewing it as a debt measure instead of equity; and (iv) 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’).

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant 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 the air transport market in the EU since the late 1980s (2). The liberalisation of the air transport market in the EU has allowed the growth of truly pan-European low-fares airlines. Nevertheless, it is argued that the defendant ignored the damage caused by the COVID-19 crisis to such pan-European airlines and their role in the air connectivity of France by authorising France to reserve aid to Air France. The applicants also argue that Article 107(3) (b) TFEU provides for an exception to the prohibition of State aid under Article 107(1) TFEU, but it does not provide for an exception to the other rules and principles of the TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant 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 the air transport market in the EU since the late 1980s (2). The liberalisation of the air transport market in the EU has allowed the growth of truly pan-European low-fares airlines. Nevertheless, it is argued that the defendant ignored the damage caused by the COVID-19 crisis to such pan-European airlines and their role in the air connectivity of France by authorising France to reserve aid to Air France. The applicants also argue that Article 107(3) (b) TFEU provides for an exception to the prohibition of State aid under Article 107(1) TFEU, but it does not provide for an exception to the other rules and principles of the TFEU.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to initiate a formal investigation procedure despite serious difficulties and violated the applicants’ procedural rights. |
| --- | --- |

4.

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

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated its duty to state reasons. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated its duty to state reasons.

---

(1)  OJ 2021 C 50, p. 3.

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

---

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/69 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/69

---

Action brought on 23 April 2021 — Thomas Henry v EUIPO (Spicy Ginger)

(Case T-220/21)

(2021/C 217/87)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Thomas Henry GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch and N. Willich, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for registration of EU word mark Spicy Ginger — Application for registration No 18 093 014

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 February 2021 in Case R 435/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

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

—

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

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

—

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

---