# Official Journal C 54/13 F

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 54 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6613 February 2023 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 54

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6613 February 2023

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2023/C 54/01 | Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union | 1 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

2023/C 54/01

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

Official Journal of the European Union

1

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2023/C 54/02 | Joined Cases C-40/20 and C-173/20: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 December 2022 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — AQ, BO and CP (C-40/20), as well as AZ, BY, CX, DW, EV, FU and GJ (C-173/20) v Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca — MIUR, and Università degli studi di Perugia (References for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Fixed-term work — Directive 1999/70/EC — Framework agreement — Principle of non-discrimination — Measures to prevent abuse of successive fixed-term employment contracts — Public-law fixed-term employment relationship — University researchers) | 2 |
| 2023/C 54/03 | Case C-125/20: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 December 2022 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environment — Directive 2008/50/EC — Ambiant air quality — Article 13(1) — Annex XI — Systematic and persistent exceedance of the limit values for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) in certain Spanish zones and agglomerations — Article 23(1) — Annex XV — Exceedance period to be as short as possible — Appropriate measures) | 3 |
| 2023/C 54/04 | Case C-470/20: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 December 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus — Estonia) — AS Veejaam, OÜ Espo v AS Elering (Reference for a preliminary ruling — State aid — Renewable energy subsidy — Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020 — Incentive effect of aid applied for after work has started on the project concerned — Article 108(3) TFEU — Obligation to notify — Consequences of breach of the obligation to notify) | 4 |
| 2023/C 54/05 | Case C-530/20: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 22 December 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Satversmes tiesa — Latvia) — EUROAPTIEKA SIA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Medicinal products for human use — Directive 2001/83/EC — Article 86(1) — Concept of advertising of medicinal products — Article 87(3) — Rational use of medicinal products — Article 90 — Prohibited advertising methods — Advertising of medicinal products not subject to medical prescription and not reimbursed — Advertising by price — Advertising of promotional offers — Advertising of bundled sales — Prohibition) | 5 |
| 2023/C 54/06 | Case C-61/21: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 22 December 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel, Versailles — France) — JP v Ministre de la Transition écologique, Premier ministre (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Directives 80/779/EEC, 85/203/EEC, 96/62/EC, 1999/30/EC and 2008/50/EC — Air quality — Limit values for microparticles (PM10) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) — Exceeded — Air quality plans — Damage caused to an individual on account of deterioration of the air resulting from the exceedance of those limit values — Liability of the Member State concerned — Conditions for establishing that liability — Requirement that the rule of EU law infringed be intended to confer rights on the individuals who have been harmed — No such intention) | 6 |
| 2023/C 54/07 | Case C-83/21: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 December 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Airbnb Ireland UC plc, Airbnb Payments UK Ltd v Agenzia delle Entrate (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Internal market — Article 114(2) TFEU — Exclusion of fiscal provisions — Directive 2000/31/EC — Information society services — Electronic commerce — Online property intermediation platform — Article 1(5)(a) — Exclusion of the field of taxation — Directive 2006/123/EC — Services in the internal market — Article 2(3) — Exclusion of the field of taxation — Directive (EU) 2015/1535 — Article 1(1)(e) and (f) — Concepts of rule on services and technical regulation — Obligation on providers of property intermediation services to collect and transmit to the tax authorities data on rental contracts and to withhold tax at source on the payments made — Obligation on service providers that do not have a permanent establishment in Italy to appoint a tax representative — Article 56 TFEU — Restrictive nature — Legitimate objective — Disproportionate nature of the obligation to appoint a tax representative — Third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU — Prerogatives of a national court or tribunal against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law) | 7 |
| 2023/C 54/08 | Case C-88/21: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 December 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — Regionų apygardos administracinio teismo Kauno rūmai (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) — Decision 2007/533/JHA — Alert on an object sought — Article 38 — Objectives of the alert — Seizure or use as evidence in criminal proceedings — Article 39 — Execution of the action based on an alert — Measures taken in accordance with the national law of the Member States — National legislation laying down an obligation to prohibit the registration of vehicles which are the subject of alerts in SIS II) | 8 |
| 2023/C 54/09 | Case C-115/21 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 December 2022 — Oriol Junqueras i Vies v European Parliament (Appeal — Institutional law — Members of the European Parliament — Loss of eligibility following a criminal conviction — Declaration that the seat of a Member of the European Parliament is vacant — Request to take an initiative as a matter of urgency to assert the immunity of a Member of the European Parliament — Action for annulment — Inadmissibility) | 8 |
| 2023/C 54/10 | Joined Cases C-148/21 and C-184/21: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 22 December 2022 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’arrondissement de Luxembourg — Luxembourg — and from the Tribunal de l’entreprise francophone de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Christian Louboutin v Amazon Europe Core Sàrl (C-148/21), Amazon EU Sàrl (C-148/21), Amazon Services Europe Sàrl (C-148/21), Amazon.com Inc. (C-184/21), Amazon Services LLC (C-184/21) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — EU trade mark — Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Article 9(2)(a) — Rights conferred by an EU trade mark — Concept of use — Operator of an online sales website incorporating an online marketplace — Advertisements published on that marketplace by third-party sellers using, in those advertisements, a sign which is identical with a trade mark of another person for goods which are identical with those for which that trade mark is registered — Perception of that sign as forming an integral part of the commercial communication of that operator — Method of presenting the advertisements which does not make it possible to distinguish clearly the offerings of that operator from those of the third-party sellers) | 9 |
| 2023/C 54/11 | Case C-237/21: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 22 December 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München — Germany) — Proceedings relating to the extradition of S.M. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Citizenship of the European Union — Articles 18 and 21 TFEU — Request sent to a Member State by a third State for the extradition of a Union citizen who is a national of another Member State and who has exercised his right to free movement in the first of those Member States — Request made for the purpose of enforcing a custodial sentence — Prohibition on extradition applied solely to own nationals — Restriction of freedom of movement — Justification based on the prevention of impunity — Proportionality) | 10 |
| 2023/C 54/12 | Case C-311/21: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 December 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — CM v TimePartner Personalmanagement GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Employment and social policy — Temporary agency work — Directive 2008/104/EC — Article 5 — Principle of equal treatment — Need to respect, in the event of derogation from that principle, the overall protection of temporary agency workers — Collective agreement providing for lower pay than that of staff recruited directly by the user undertaking — Effective judicial protection — Judicial review) | 11 |
| 2023/C 54/13 | Case C-366/21 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 December 2022 — Maxime Picard v European Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Members of the contract staff — Pension — Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union — 2014 reform — Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1023/2013 — Annex XIII to those regulations — Second paragraph of Article 21 and second subparagraph of Article 22(1) — Transitional measures relating to the annual rate of accrual of pension rights and retirement age — Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union — Annex — Article 1(1) — Application of those transitional measures by analogy to other staff employed on 31 December 2013 — Signature of new contract as a member of the contract staff — Act adversely affecting an official — Effective judicial protection) | 12 |
| 2023/C 54/14 | Case C-577/21: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 15 December 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad — Bulgaria) — LM, NO v HUK-COBURG-Allgemeine Versicherung AG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles — Directive 2009/103/EC — Article 3, fourth paragraph — Concept of personal injury — Cover by compulsory insurance — Road traffic accident — Death of a passenger — Right to compensation for minor children — Non-material damage — Suffering of a child resulting from the death of his or her parent as a result of that accident — Compensation only in the event of pathological damage) | 13 |
| 2023/C 54/15 | Joined Cases C-753/21 and C-754/21: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 December 2022 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Instrubel NV v Montana Management Inc., BNP Paribas Securities Services (C-753/21) and Montana Management Inc. v Heerema Zwijndrecht BV, BNP Paribas Securities Services (C-754/21) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common foreign and security policy — Regulation (EC) No 1210/2003 — Specific restrictions applicable to economic and financial relations with Iraq — Article 4 — Freezing of funds and economic resources belonging to the persons, bodies and entities associated with the regime of the former President Saddam Hussein — Article 6 — Transfer to the successor arrangements of the Iraq Development Fund — Ownership of frozen funds and economic resources) | 13 |
| 2023/C 54/16 | Case C-23/22: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 15 December 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) — Portugal) — Caxamar — Comércio e Indústria de Bacalhau SA v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira (Reference for a preliminary ruling — State aid — Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 — Exemption of certain categories of aid compatible with the internal market — Guidelines on regional State aid — Scope — Exclusions — Fishery and aquaculture sector — Sector for the processing and marketing of agricultural products — Concept of agricultural products — Regulation (EU) No 1379/2013 — Common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products — Annex I — Activity of processing of fishery and aquaculture products — Salted, frozen and desalted cod) | 14 |
| 2023/C 54/17 | Case C-559/22 P: Appeal brought on 19 August 2022 by Vtesse Harlow Ltd against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 14 June 2022 in Case T-64/22, Vtesse Harlow v Commission | 15 |
| 2023/C 54/18 | Case C-762/22: Action brought on 15 December 2022 — European Commission v Republic of Latvia | 15 |
| 2023/C 54/19 | Case C-769/22: Action brought on 19 December 2022 — European Commission v Hungary | 16 |
| 2023/C 54/20 | Case C-773/22: Action brought on 20 December 2022 — European Commission v Slovak Republic | 17 |
| | General Court |
| 2023/C 54/21 | Case T-720/21: Order of the General Court of 6 December 2022 — G.J. Riedel v EUIPO — BrewDog (Punk) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate) | 19 |
| 2023/C 54/22 | Case T-775/22: Action brought on 12 December 2022 — TJ and Others v Council | 19 |
| 2023/C 54/23 | Case T-795/22: Action brought on 20 December 2022 — TV and TW v Council | 20 |
| 2023/C 54/24 | Case T-796/22: Action brought on 21 December 2022 — Drinks Prod/EUIPO — Coolike-Regnery (VIVIASEPT) | 21 |
| 2023/C 54/25 | Case T-800/22: Action brought on 22 December 2022 — Palírna U Zeleného stromu v EUIPO — Bacardi (B42V) | 21 |
| 2023/C 54/26 | Case T-801/22: Action brought on 23 December 2022 — 3M v EUIPO (Representation of two luminous yellow bands with a silver grey band between) | 22 |
| 2023/C 54/27 | Case T-802/22: Action brought on 28 December 2022 — ExxonMobil Producing Netherlands and Mobil Erdgas-Erdöl v Council | 23 |
| 2023/C 54/28 | Case T-1/23: Action brought on 4 January 2023 — Enmacc v Commission | 24 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2023/C 54/02

Joined Cases C-40/20 and C-173/20: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 December 2022 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — AQ, BO and CP (C-40/20), as well as AZ, BY, CX, DW, EV, FU and GJ (C-173/20) v Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca — MIUR, and Università degli studi di Perugia (References for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Fixed-term work — Directive 1999/70/EC — Framework agreement — Principle of non-discrimination — Measures to prevent abuse of successive fixed-term employment contracts — Public-law fixed-term employment relationship — University researchers)

2

2023/C 54/03

Case C-125/20: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 December 2022 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environment — Directive 2008/50/EC — Ambiant air quality — Article 13(1) — Annex XI — Systematic and persistent exceedance of the limit values for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) in certain Spanish zones and agglomerations — Article 23(1) — Annex XV — Exceedance period to be as short as possible — Appropriate measures)

2

3

2023/C 54/04

Case C-470/20: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 December 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus — Estonia) — AS Veejaam, OÜ Espo v AS Elering (Reference for a preliminary ruling — State aid — Renewable energy subsidy — Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020 — Incentive effect of aid applied for after work has started on the project concerned — Article 108(3) TFEU — Obligation to notify — Consequences of breach of the obligation to notify)

4

2023/C 54/05

Case C-530/20: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 22 December 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Satversmes tiesa — Latvia) — EUROAPTIEKA SIA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Medicinal products for human use — Directive 2001/83/EC — Article 86(1) — Concept of advertising of medicinal products — Article 87(3) — Rational use of medicinal products — Article 90 — Prohibited advertising methods — Advertising of medicinal products not subject to medical prescription and not reimbursed — Advertising by price — Advertising of promotional offers — Advertising of bundled sales — Prohibition)

5

2023/C 54/06

Case C-61/21: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 22 December 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel, Versailles — France) — JP v Ministre de la Transition écologique, Premier ministre (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Directives 80/779/EEC, 85/203/EEC, 96/62/EC, 1999/30/EC and 2008/50/EC — Air quality — Limit values for microparticles (PM10) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) — Exceeded — Air quality plans — Damage caused to an individual on account of deterioration of the air resulting from the exceedance of those limit values — Liability of the Member State concerned — Conditions for establishing that liability — Requirement that the rule of EU law infringed be intended to confer rights on the individuals who have been harmed — No such intention)

10

2

6

2023/C 54/07

Case C-83/21: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 December 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Airbnb Ireland UC plc, Airbnb Payments UK Ltd v Agenzia delle Entrate (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Internal market — Article 114(2) TFEU — Exclusion of fiscal provisions — Directive 2000/31/EC — Information society services — Electronic commerce — Online property intermediation platform — Article 1(5)(a) — Exclusion of the field of taxation — Directive 2006/123/EC — Services in the internal market — Article 2(3) — Exclusion of the field of taxation — Directive (EU) 2015/1535 — Article 1(1)(e) and (f) — Concepts of rule on services and technical regulation — Obligation on providers of property intermediation services to collect and transmit to the tax authorities data on rental contracts and to withhold tax at source on the payments made — Obligation on service providers that do not have a permanent establishment in Italy to appoint a tax representative — Article 56 TFEU — Restrictive nature — Legitimate objective — Disproportionate nature of the obligation to appoint a tax representative — Third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU — Prerogatives of a national court or tribunal against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law)

7

2023/C 54/08

Case C-88/21: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 December 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — Regionų apygardos administracinio teismo Kauno rūmai (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) — Decision 2007/533/JHA — Alert on an object sought — Article 38 — Objectives of the alert — Seizure or use as evidence in criminal proceedings — Article 39 — Execution of the action based on an alert — Measures taken in accordance with the national law of the Member States — National legislation laying down an obligation to prohibit the registration of vehicles which are the subject of alerts in SIS II)

8

2023/C 54/09

Case C-115/21 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 December 2022 — Oriol Junqueras i Vies v European Parliament (Appeal — Institutional law — Members of the European Parliament — Loss of eligibility following a criminal conviction — Declaration that the seat of a Member of the European Parliament is vacant — Request to take an initiative as a matter of urgency to assert the immunity of a Member of the European Parliament — Action for annulment — Inadmissibility)

8

2023/C 54/10

Joined Cases C-148/21 and C-184/21: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 22 December 2022 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’arrondissement de Luxembourg — Luxembourg — and from the Tribunal de l’entreprise francophone de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Christian Louboutin v Amazon Europe Core Sàrl (C-148/21), Amazon EU Sàrl (C-148/21), Amazon Services Europe Sàrl (C-148/21), Amazon.com Inc. (C-184/21), Amazon Services LLC (C-184/21) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — EU trade mark — Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Article 9(2)(a) — Rights conferred by an EU trade mark — Concept of use — Operator of an online sales website incorporating an online marketplace — Advertisements published on that marketplace by third-party sellers using, in those advertisements, a sign which is identical with a trade mark of another person for goods which are identical with those for which that trade mark is registered — Perception of that sign as forming an integral part of the commercial communication of that operator — Method of presenting the advertisements which does not make it possible to distinguish clearly the offerings of that operator from those of the third-party sellers)

9

2023/C 54/11

Case C-237/21: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 22 December 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München — Germany) — Proceedings relating to the extradition of S.M. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Citizenship of the European Union — Articles 18 and 21 TFEU — Request sent to a Member State by a third State for the extradition of a Union citizen who is a national of another Member State and who has exercised his right to free movement in the first of those Member States — Request made for the purpose of enforcing a custodial sentence — Prohibition on extradition applied solely to own nationals — Restriction of freedom of movement — Justification based on the prevention of impunity — Proportionality)

10

2023/C 54/12

Case C-311/21: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 December 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — CM v TimePartner Personalmanagement GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Employment and social policy — Temporary agency work — Directive 2008/104/EC — Article 5 — Principle of equal treatment — Need to respect, in the event of derogation from that principle, the overall protection of temporary agency workers — Collective agreement providing for lower pay than that of staff recruited directly by the user undertaking — Effective judicial protection — Judicial review)

11

2023/C 54/13

Case C-366/21 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 December 2022 — Maxime Picard v European Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Members of the contract staff — Pension — Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union — 2014 reform — Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1023/2013 — Annex XIII to those regulations — Second paragraph of Article 21 and second subparagraph of Article 22(1) — Transitional measures relating to the annual rate of accrual of pension rights and retirement age — Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union — Annex — Article 1(1) — Application of those transitional measures by analogy to other staff employed on 31 December 2013 — Signature of new contract as a member of the contract staff — Act adversely affecting an official — Effective judicial protection)

12

2023/C 54/14

Case C-577/21: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 15 December 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad — Bulgaria) — LM, NO v HUK-COBURG-Allgemeine Versicherung AG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles — Directive 2009/103/EC — Article 3, fourth paragraph — Concept of personal injury — Cover by compulsory insurance — Road traffic accident — Death of a passenger — Right to compensation for minor children — Non-material damage — Suffering of a child resulting from the death of his or her parent as a result of that accident — Compensation only in the event of pathological damage)

13

2023/C 54/15

Joined Cases C-753/21 and C-754/21: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 December 2022 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Instrubel NV v Montana Management Inc., BNP Paribas Securities Services (C-753/21) and Montana Management Inc. v Heerema Zwijndrecht BV, BNP Paribas Securities Services (C-754/21) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common foreign and security policy — Regulation (EC) No 1210/2003 — Specific restrictions applicable to economic and financial relations with Iraq — Article 4 — Freezing of funds and economic resources belonging to the persons, bodies and entities associated with the regime of the former President Saddam Hussein — Article 6 — Transfer to the successor arrangements of the Iraq Development Fund — Ownership of frozen funds and economic resources)

13

2023/C 54/16

Case C-23/22: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 15 December 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) — Portugal) — Caxamar — Comércio e Indústria de Bacalhau SA v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira (Reference for a preliminary ruling — State aid — Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 — Exemption of certain categories of aid compatible with the internal market — Guidelines on regional State aid — Scope — Exclusions — Fishery and aquaculture sector — Sector for the processing and marketing of agricultural products — Concept of agricultural products — Regulation (EU) No 1379/2013 — Common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products — Annex I — Activity of processing of fishery and aquaculture products — Salted, frozen and desalted cod)

14

2023/C 54/17

Case C-559/22 P: Appeal brought on 19 August 2022 by Vtesse Harlow Ltd against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 14 June 2022 in Case T-64/22, Vtesse Harlow v Commission

15

2023/C 54/18

Case C-762/22: Action brought on 15 December 2022 — European Commission v Republic of Latvia

15

2023/C 54/19

Case C-769/22: Action brought on 19 December 2022 — European Commission v Hungary

16

2023/C 54/20

Case C-773/22: Action brought on 20 December 2022 — European Commission v Slovak Republic

17

General Court

2023/C 54/21

Case T-720/21: Order of the General Court of 6 December 2022 — G.J. Riedel v EUIPO — BrewDog (Punk) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)

19

2023/C 54/22

Case T-775/22: Action brought on 12 December 2022 — TJ and Others v Council

19

2023/C 54/23

Case T-795/22: Action brought on 20 December 2022 — TV and TW v Council

20

2023/C 54/24

Case T-796/22: Action brought on 21 December 2022 — Drinks Prod/EUIPO — Coolike-Regnery (VIVIASEPT)

21

2023/C 54/25

Case T-800/22: Action brought on 22 December 2022 — Palírna U Zeleného stromu v EUIPO — Bacardi (B42V)

21

2023/C 54/26

Case T-801/22: Action brought on 23 December 2022 — 3M v EUIPO (Representation of two luminous yellow bands with a silver grey band between)

22

2023/C 54/27

Case T-802/22: Action brought on 28 December 2022 — ExxonMobil Producing Netherlands and Mobil Erdgas-Erdöl v Council

23

2023/C 54/28

Case T-1/23: Action brought on 4 January 2023 — Enmacc v Commission

24

---

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 13.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 54/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 54/1

---

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

(2023/C 54/01)

Last publication

OJ C 45, 6.2.2023

Past publications

OJ C 35, 30.1.2023

OJ C 24, 23.1.2023

OJ C 15, 16.1.2023

OJ C 7, 9.1.2023

OJ C 482, 19.12.2022

OJ C 472, 12.12.2022

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 13.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 54/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 54/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 December 2022 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — AQ, BO and CP (C-40/20), as well as AZ, BY, CX, DW, EV, FU and GJ (C-173/20) v Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca — MIUR, and Università degli studi di Perugia

(Joined Cases C-40/20 and C-173/20) (1)

(References for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Fixed-term work - Directive 1999/70/EC - Framework agreement - Principle of non-discrimination - Measures to prevent abuse of successive fixed-term employment contracts - Public-law fixed-term employment relationship - University researchers)

(2023/C 54/02)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: AQ, BO and CP (C-40/20), as well as AZ, BY, CX, DW, EV, FU and GJ (C-173/20)

Respondents: Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca — MIUR, and Università degli studi di Perugia

Intervening parties: Federazione Lavoratori della Conoscenza Cgil, Confederazione Generale Italiana del Lavoro (CGIL), Cipur — Coordinamento Intersedi Professori Universitari di Ruolo, and Anief — Associazione Professionale e Sindacale (C-40/20), as well as HS, IR, JQ, KP, LO, MN, NM, OZ, PK, QJ, RI, SH, TG, UF, WE, XC and YD (C-173/20)

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Clause 5 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999, which is annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as not precluding a piece of national legislation which permits universities to conclude three-year fixed-term contracts with researchers, which can be extended for a maximum of two years, without making the conclusion or extension of those contracts conditional upon there being objective reasons connected with temporary or exceptional requirements, in order to cover the everyday permanent needs of the university concerned. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Clause 5 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999, which is annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as not precluding a piece of national legislation which permits universities to conclude three-year fixed-term contracts with researchers, which can be extended for a maximum of two years, without making the conclusion or extension of those contracts conditional upon there being objective reasons connected with temporary or exceptional requirements, in order to cover the everyday permanent needs of the university concerned.

| 2. | Clause 5 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999, which is annexed to Directive 1999/70, must be interpreted as not precluding a piece of national legislation which sets the total duration of the employment contracts that may be concluded by a single researcher, including with different universities and institutes, whether continuous or otherwise, at 12 years. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Clause 5 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999, which is annexed to Directive 1999/70, must be interpreted as not precluding a piece of national legislation which sets the total duration of the employment contracts that may be concluded by a single researcher, including with different universities and institutes, whether continuous or otherwise, at 12 years.

| 3. | Clause 4 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999, which is annexed to Directive 1999/70, must be interpreted as not precluding a piece of national legislation which provides for the possibility, under certain conditions, of stabilising the employment of researchers for public research bodies who have concluded a fixed-term contract but which denies that possibility to university researchers who have concluded a fixed-term contract. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Clause 4 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999, which is annexed to Directive 1999/70, must be interpreted as not precluding a piece of national legislation which provides for the possibility, under certain conditions, of stabilising the employment of researchers for public research bodies who have concluded a fixed-term contract but which denies that possibility to university researchers who have concluded a fixed-term contract.

| 4. | Clause 4 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999, which is annexed to Directive 1999/70, must be interpreted as not precluding a piece of national legislation which, by derogating, first, from the general rule applicable to all workers in the public and private sectors according to which, as from 2018, the maximum duration of a fixed-term relationship is set at 24 months, including extensions and renewals, and, second, from the rule applicable to public authority employees according to which the use of that type of relationship is conditional upon the existence of temporary and exceptional requirements, permits universities to conclude with researchers three-year fixed-term contracts, which may be extended for a maximum of two years, without making the conclusion or extension of those contracts conditional upon the existence of temporary or exceptional requirements on the part of the university in question, and which also permits, at the end of the five-year period, the conclusion, with the same person or with other persons, of another fixed-term contract of the same type in order to meet the same teaching and research needs as those connected with the previous contract. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Clause 4 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999, which is annexed to Directive 1999/70, must be interpreted as not precluding a piece of national legislation which, by derogating, first, from the general rule applicable to all workers in the public and private sectors according to which, as from 2018, the maximum duration of a fixed-term relationship is set at 24 months, including extensions and renewals, and, second, from the rule applicable to public authority employees according to which the use of that type of relationship is conditional upon the existence of temporary and exceptional requirements, permits universities to conclude with researchers three-year fixed-term contracts, which may be extended for a maximum of two years, without making the conclusion or extension of those contracts conditional upon the existence of temporary or exceptional requirements on the part of the university in question, and which also permits, at the end of the five-year period, the conclusion, with the same person or with other persons, of another fixed-term contract of the same type in order to meet the same teaching and research needs as those connected with the previous contract.

| 5. | Clause 4(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999, which is annexed to Directive 1999/70, must be interpreted as precluding a piece of national legislation pursuant to which researchers who have concluded a contract of indefinite duration have the possibility, once they have obtained the national academic qualification, of undergoing a specific appraisal procedure in order that they may be added to the list of associate professors, whereas that possibility is denied to researchers who have concluded a fixed-term contract, even once they have also obtained the national academic qualification, in a situation where those researchers carry out the same professional activities and provide the same teaching services to students as researchers who have concluded a contract of indefinite duration. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Clause 4(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999, which is annexed to Directive 1999/70, must be interpreted as precluding a piece of national legislation pursuant to which researchers who have concluded a contract of indefinite duration have the possibility, once they have obtained the national academic qualification, of undergoing a specific appraisal procedure in order that they may be added to the list of associate professors, whereas that possibility is denied to researchers who have concluded a fixed-term contract, even once they have also obtained the national academic qualification, in a situation where those researchers carry out the same professional activities and provide the same teaching services to students as researchers who have concluded a contract of indefinite duration.

---

(1)  OJ C 161, 11.5.2020.

OJ C 19, 18.1.2021.

---

| 13.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 54/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 54/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 December 2022 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-125/20) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Directive 2008/50/EC - Ambiant air quality - Article 13(1) - Annex XI - Systematic and persistent exceedance of the limit values for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) in certain Spanish zones and agglomerations - Article 23(1) - Annex XV - Exceedance period to be ‘as short as possible’ - Appropriate measures)

(2023/C 54/03)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented: initially by A. C. Becker, M. Jauregui Gómez and M. Noll-Ehlers, subsequently by M. Jauregui Gómez and M. Noll-Ehlers, and finally by M. Noll-Ehlers and E. Sanfrutos Cano, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented: initially by S. Jiménez García and M. J. Ruiz Sánchez, and subsequently by M. J. Ruiz Sánchez, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that the Kingdom of Spain,






  — | by having failed to ensure (i) that the annual limit value for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) was not systematically and persistently exceeded, from 2010 to 2018 inclusive, in the zones ES 0901 Àrea de Barcelona and ES 1301 Madrid and, from 2010 to 2017 inclusive, in the zone ES 0902 Vallès — Baix Llobregat and (ii) that the hourly limit value for NO2 was not systematically and persistently exceeded from 2010 to 2018 inclusive, in the zone ES 1301 Madrid, has failed to fulfil its obligations under the combined provisions of Article 13(1) and of Annex XI to Directive No 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe,
  and |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Declares that the Kingdom of Spain,

—

by having failed to ensure (i) that the annual limit value for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) was not systematically and persistently exceeded, from 2010 to 2018 inclusive, in the zones ES 0901 Àrea de Barcelona and ES 1301 Madrid and, from 2010 to 2017 inclusive, in the zone ES 0902 Vallès — Baix Llobregat and (ii) that the hourly limit value for NO2 was not systematically and persistently exceeded from 2010 to 2018 inclusive, in the zone ES 1301 Madrid, has failed to fulfil its obligations under the combined provisions of Article 13(1) and of Annex XI to Directive No 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe,

and

| — | by failing to adopt, as from 11 June 2010, appropriate measures to ensure compliance with the limit values for NO2 in zones ES 0901 Àrea de Barcelona, ES 0902 Vallès — Baix Llobregat and ES 1301 Madrid, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 23(1) of that directive, read in conjunction with Annex XV thereto, and in particular the obligation to ensure that the air quality plans set out appropriate measures, so that the exceedance period of that limit value could be kept as short as possible; |
| --- | --- |

—

by failing to adopt, as from 11 June 2010, appropriate measures to ensure compliance with the limit values for NO2 in zones ES 0901 Àrea de Barcelona, ES 0902 Vallès — Baix Llobregat and ES 1301 Madrid, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 23(1) of that directive, read in conjunction with Annex XV thereto, and in particular the obligation to ensure that the air quality plans set out appropriate measures, so that the exceedance period of that limit value could be kept as short as possible;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs and to pay nine tenths of the costs incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs and to pay nine tenths of the costs incurred by the European Commission;

| 4. | Orders the European Commission to bear one tenth of its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the European Commission to bear one tenth of its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 175, 25.5.2020.

---

| 13.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 54/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 54/4

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 December 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus — Estonia) — AS Veejaam, OÜ Espo v AS Elering

(Case C-470/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - State aid - Renewable energy subsidy - Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020 - Incentive effect of aid applied for after work has started on the project concerned - Article 108(3) TFEU - Obligation to notify - Consequences of breach of the obligation to notify)

(2023/C 54/04)

Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Riigikohus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: AS Veejaam, OÜ Espo

Defendant: AS Elering

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Paragraphs 49 and 50 of the Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020
  must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation establishing a renewable energy support scheme allowing an applicant for aid to obtain payment of that aid even if the application was submitted after work had started on the project concerned. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Paragraphs 49 and 50 of the Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020

must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation establishing a renewable energy support scheme allowing an applicant for aid to obtain payment of that aid even if the application was submitted after work had started on the project concerned.

| 2. | The Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020
  must be interpreted as meaning that State aid may have an incentive effect where the investment made by an economic operator in order to comply with a change to the terms of environmental approval, that approval being necessary for the operator’s activity, would probably not have been made without payment of the aid concerned. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020

must be interpreted as meaning that State aid may have an incentive effect where the investment made by an economic operator in order to comply with a change to the terms of environmental approval, that approval being necessary for the operator’s activity, would probably not have been made without payment of the aid concerned.

| 3. | Article 1(b) and (c) of 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
  must be interpreted as meaning that an existing aid scheme, the compatibility of which with the internal market has been established by a European Commission decision, must be classified as ‘new aid’, within the meaning of Article 1(c) of that regulation, where that scheme is applied beyond the date which the Member State concerned had indicated to the Commission, in the context of the procedure for the assessment of the aid closed by that decision, as the date on which the scheme would cease to be applied. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 1(b) and (c) of 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

must be interpreted as meaning that an existing aid scheme, the compatibility of which with the internal market has been established by a European Commission decision, must be classified as ‘new aid’, within the meaning of Article 1(c) of that regulation, where that scheme is applied beyond the date which the Member State concerned had indicated to the Commission, in the context of the procedure for the assessment of the aid closed by that decision, as the date on which the scheme would cease to be applied.

| 4. | Article 108(3) TFEU
  must be interpreted as not precluding the granting of an application made by an economic operator for payment of State aid, implemented in breach of the obligation to notify laid down in that provision, first, in relation to the period prior to the Commission decision establishing that that aid was compatible with the internal market and, secondly, when that operator applied for the aid at a time when that aid was unlawful, since the aid had not been notified to the Commission, whereas the investment to which the aid was linked was made at a time when that scheme was lawful, since it had been found to be compatible with the internal market by a Commission decision, provided that, in both situations, the beneficiary of the aid pays the interest on any sums received, in respect of the period in which the aid is considered unlawful. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Article 108(3) TFEU

must be interpreted as not precluding the granting of an application made by an economic operator for payment of State aid, implemented in breach of the obligation to notify laid down in that provision, first, in relation to the period prior to the Commission decision establishing that that aid was compatible with the internal market and, secondly, when that operator applied for the aid at a time when that aid was unlawful, since the aid had not been notified to the Commission, whereas the investment to which the aid was linked was made at a time when that scheme was lawful, since it had been found to be compatible with the internal market by a Commission decision, provided that, in both situations, the beneficiary of the aid pays the interest on any sums received, in respect of the period in which the aid is considered unlawful.

---

(1)  OJ C 433, 14.12.2020.

---

| 13.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 54/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 54/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 22 December 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Satversmes tiesa — Latvia) — ‘EUROAPTIEKA’ SIA

(Case C-530/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Medicinal products for human use - Directive 2001/83/EC - Article 86(1) - Concept of ‘advertising of medicinal products’ - Article 87(3) - Rational use of medicinal products - Article 90 - Prohibited advertising methods - Advertising of medicinal products not subject to medical prescription and not reimbursed - Advertising by price - Advertising of promotional offers - Advertising of bundled sales - Prohibition)

(2023/C 54/05)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Satversmes tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘EUROAPTIEKA’ SIA

Intervening parties: Ministru kabinets

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 86(1) of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as amended by Directive 2004/27/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004,
  must be interpreted as meaning that the dissemination of information that encourages the purchase of medicinal products by justifying the need for that purchase on the basis of the price of those medicinal products, by announcing a special sale or by indicating that those medicinal products are sold together with other medicinal products, including at a reduced price, or with other products, falls within the concept of ‘advertising of medicinal products’, within the meaning of that provision, even where that information does not refer to a specific medicinal product, but to unspecified medicinal products. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 86(1) of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as amended by Directive 2004/27/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004,

must be interpreted as meaning that the dissemination of information that encourages the purchase of medicinal products by justifying the need for that purchase on the basis of the price of those medicinal products, by announcing a special sale or by indicating that those medicinal products are sold together with other medicinal products, including at a reduced price, or with other products, falls within the concept of ‘advertising of medicinal products’, within the meaning of that provision, even where that information does not refer to a specific medicinal product, but to unspecified medicinal products.

| 2. | Article 87(3) and Article 90 of Directive 2001/83, as amended by Directive 2004/27,
  must be interpreted as not precluding a national provision that prohibits the inclusion, in advertising to the general public of medicinal products that are neither subject to medical prescription nor reimbursed, of information which encourages the purchase of medicinal products by justifying the need for that purchase on the basis of the price of those medicinal products, by announcing a special sale, or by indicating that those medicinal products are sold together with other medicinal products, including at a reduced price, or with other types of products. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 87(3) and Article 90 of Directive 2001/83, as amended by Directive 2004/27,

must be interpreted as not precluding a national provision that prohibits the inclusion, in advertising to the general public of medicinal products that are neither subject to medical prescription nor reimbursed, of information which encourages the purchase of medicinal products by justifying the need for that purchase on the basis of the price of those medicinal products, by announcing a special sale, or by indicating that those medicinal products are sold together with other medicinal products, including at a reduced price, or with other types of products.

---

(1)  OJ C 443, 21.12.2020.

---

| 13.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 54/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 54/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 22 December 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel, Versailles — France) — JP v Ministre de la Transition écologique, Premier ministre

(Case C-61/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Directives 80/779/EEC, 85/203/EEC, 96/62/EC, 1999/30/EC and 2008/50/EC - Air quality - Limit values for microparticles (PM10) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) - Exceeded - Air quality plans - Damage caused to an individual on account of deterioration of the air resulting from the exceedance of those limit values - Liability of the Member State concerned - Conditions for establishing that liability - Requirement that the rule of EU law infringed be intended to confer rights on the individuals who have been harmed - No such intention)

(2023/C 54/06)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour administrative d’appel, Versailles, (France)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: JP

Defendants: Ministre de la Transition écologique, Premier ministre

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 3 and 7 of Council Directive 80/779/EEC of 15 July 1980 on air quality limit values and guide values for sulphur dioxide and suspended particulates, Articles 3 and 7 of Council Directive 85/203/EEC of 7 March 1985 on air quality standards for nitrogen dioxide, Articles 7 and 8 of Council Directive 96/62/EC of 27 September 1996 on ambient air quality assessment and management, Article 4(1) and Article 5(1) of Council Directive 1999/30/EC of 22 April 1999 relating to limit values for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter and lead in ambient air, and Article 13(1) and Article 23(1) of Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe,

must be interpreted as meaning that they are not intended to confer rights on individuals capable of entitling them to compensation from a Member State under the principle of State liability for loss and damage caused to individuals as a result of breaches of EU law attributable to that Member State.

---

(1)  OJ C 128, 12.4.2021.

---

| 13.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 54/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 54/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 December 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Airbnb Ireland UC plc, Airbnb Payments UK Ltd v Agenzia delle Entrate

(Case C-83/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Internal market - Article 114(2) TFEU - Exclusion of fiscal provisions - Directive 2000/31/EC - Information society services - Electronic commerce - Online property intermediation platform - Article 1(5)(a) - Exclusion of the ‘field of taxation’ - Directive 2006/123/EC - Services in the internal market - Article 2(3) - Exclusion of the ‘field of taxation’ - Directive (EU) 2015/1535 - Article 1(1)(e) and (f) - Concepts of ‘rule on services’ and ‘technical regulation’ - Obligation on providers of property intermediation services to collect and transmit to the tax authorities data on rental contracts and to withhold tax at source on the payments made - Obligation on service providers that do not have a permanent establishment in Italy to appoint a tax representative - Article 56 TFEU - Restrictive nature - Legitimate objective - Disproportionate nature of the obligation to appoint a tax representative - Third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU - Prerogatives of a national court or tribunal against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law)

(2023/C 54/07)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Airbnb Ireland UC plc, Airbnb Payments UK Ltd

Defendant: Agenzia delle Entrate

Intervening parties: Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Federazione delle Associazioni Italiane Alberghi e Turismo (Federalberghi), Renting Services Group Srls, Coordinamento delle Associazioni e dei Comitati di tutela dell’ambiente e dei diritti degli utenti e dei consumatori (Codacons)

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that:






  — | first, as regards rentals of a maximum duration of 30 days in respect of immovable property situated in the territory of a Member State, it does not preclude legislation of that Member State requiring providers of property intermediation services — irrespective of their place of establishment and the manner in which they intervene — to collect and then transmit to the national tax authority the data relating to the rental contracts concluded following their intermediation, and, where those service providers have received the corresponding rents or consideration or intervened in their collection, to withhold at source the amount of tax due on the sums paid by the lessees to the lessors and to pay it to the Treasury of that Member State; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that:

—

first, as regards rentals of a maximum duration of 30 days in respect of immovable property situated in the territory of a Member State, it does not preclude legislation of that Member State requiring providers of property intermediation services — irrespective of their place of establishment and the manner in which they intervene — to collect and then transmit to the national tax authority the data relating to the rental contracts concluded following their intermediation, and, where those service providers have received the corresponding rents or consideration or intervened in their collection, to withhold at source the amount of tax due on the sums paid by the lessees to the lessors and to pay it to the Treasury of that Member State;

| — | second, as regards rentals of a maximum duration of 30 days in respect of immovable property situated in the territory of a Member State, it precludes legislation of that Member State requiring providers of property intermediation services, where those providers have received the corresponding rents or consideration or have intervened in their collection and where they reside or are established in the territory of a Member State other than the State of taxation, to appoint a tax representative which resides or is established in the territory of the Member State of taxation. |
| --- | --- |

—

second, as regards rentals of a maximum duration of 30 days in respect of immovable property situated in the territory of a Member State, it precludes legislation of that Member State requiring providers of property intermediation services, where those providers have received the corresponding rents or consideration or have intervened in their collection and where they reside or are established in the territory of a Member State other than the State of taxation, to appoint a tax representative which resides or is established in the territory of the Member State of taxation.

| 2. | Article 267 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that, where a question concerning the interpretation of EU law is raised by one of the parties to the main proceedings, the determination and formulation of the questions to be referred to the Court is a matter for the national court alone and those parties may not impose or alter their wording. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 267 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that, where a question concerning the interpretation of EU law is raised by one of the parties to the main proceedings, the determination and formulation of the questions to be referred to the Court is a matter for the national court alone and those parties may not impose or alter their wording.

---

(1)  OJ C 182, 10.5.2021.

---

| 13.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 54/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 54/8

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 December 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — Regionų apygardos administracinio teismo Kauno rūmai

(Case C-88/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) - Decision 2007/533/JHA - Alert on an object sought - Article 38 - Objectives of the alert - Seizure or use as evidence in criminal proceedings - Article 39 - Execution of the action based on an alert - Measures taken in accordance with the national law of the Member States - National legislation laying down an obligation to prohibit the registration of vehicles which are the subject of alerts in SIS II)

(2023/C 54/08)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Regionų apygardos administracinio teismo Kauno rūmai

Intervener: Lietuvos Respublikos vidaus reikalų ministerija

Operative part of the judgment

Article 39 of Council Decision 2007/533/JHA of 12 June 2007 on the establishment, operation and use of the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II), read in conjunction with Article 38(1) of that decision,

must be interpreted as meaning that:

| — | it does not lay down any general obligation to prohibit the registration of a motor vehicle which is the subject of an ongoing alert in the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II); |
| --- | --- |

—

it does not lay down any general obligation to prohibit the registration of a motor vehicle which is the subject of an ongoing alert in the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II);

| — | it does not require the executing Member State to provide for general rules prohibiting actions relating to the object which has been located, other than those which enable the objectives of Article 38(1) of that decision to be achieved; |
| --- | --- |

—

it does not require the executing Member State to provide for general rules prohibiting actions relating to the object which has been located, other than those which enable the objectives of Article 38(1) of that decision to be achieved;

| — | it does not preclude that Member State from providing for derogations from a general prohibition on registering such a vehicle. |
| --- | --- |

—

it does not preclude that Member State from providing for derogations from a general prohibition on registering such a vehicle.

---

(1)  OJ C 163, 3.5.2021.

---

| 13.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 54/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 54/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 December 2022 — Oriol Junqueras i Vies v European Parliament

(Case C-115/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - Institutional law - Members of the European Parliament - Loss of eligibility following a criminal conviction - Declaration that the seat of a Member of the European Parliament is vacant - Request to take an initiative as a matter of urgency to assert the immunity of a Member of the European Parliament - Action for annulment - Inadmissibility)

(2023/C 54/09)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Oriol Junqueras i Vies (represented by: M. Marsal i Ferret and A. Van den Eynde Adroer, abogados)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: N. Görlitz and J.-C. Puffer, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Mr Oriol Junqueras i Vies to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Parliament; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Oriol Junqueras i Vies to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Parliament;

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

3.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 163, 3.5.2021.

---

| 13.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 54/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 54/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 22 December 2022 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’arrondissement de Luxembourg — Luxembourg — and from the Tribunal de l’entreprise francophone de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Christian Louboutin v Amazon Europe Core Sàrl (C-148/21), Amazon EU Sàrl (C-148/21), Amazon Services Europe Sàrl (C-148/21), Amazon.com Inc. (C-184/21), Amazon Services LLC (C-184/21)

(Joined Cases C-148/21 and C-184/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - EU trade mark - Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Article 9(2)(a) - Rights conferred by an EU trade mark - Concept of ‘use’ - Operator of an online sales website incorporating an online marketplace - Advertisements published on that marketplace by third-party sellers using, in those advertisements, a sign which is identical with a trade mark of another person for goods which are identical with those for which that trade mark is registered - Perception of that sign as forming an integral part of the commercial communication of that operator - Method of presenting the advertisements which does not make it possible to distinguish clearly the offerings of that operator from those of the third-party sellers)

(2023/C 54/10)

Language of the case: French

Referring courts

Tribunal d’arrondissement de Luxembourg, Tribunal de l’entreprise francophone de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Christian Louboutin

Defendants: Amazon Europe Core Sàrl (C-148/21), Amazon EU Sàrl (C-148/21), Amazon Services Europe Sàrl (C-148/21), Amazon.com Inc. (C-184/21), Amazon Services LLC (C-184/21)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 9(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark

must be interpreted as meaning that the operator of an online sales website incorporating, as well as that operator’s own sales offerings, an online marketplace may be regarded as itself using a sign which is identical with an EU trade mark of another person for goods which are identical with those for which that trade mark is registered, where third-party sellers offer for sale, on that marketplace, without the consent of the proprietor of that trade mark, such goods bearing that sign, if a well-informed and reasonably observant user of that site establishes a link between the services of that operator and the sign at issue, which is in particular the case where, in view of all the circumstances of the situation in question, such a user may have the impression that that operator itself is marketing, in its own name and on its own account, the goods bearing that sign. In that regard, the following are relevant: the fact that that operator uses a uniform method of presenting the offers published on its website, displaying both the advertisements relating to the goods which it sells in its own name and on its own behalf and those relating to goods offered by third-party sellers on that marketplace; the fact that it places its own logo as a renowned distributor on all those advertisements; and the fact that it offers third-party sellers, in connection with the marketing of goods bearing the sign at issue, additional services consisting inter alia in the storing and shipping of those goods.

---

(1)  OJ C 189, 17.5.2021.

OJ C 217, 7.6.2021.

---

| 13.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 54/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 54/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 22 December 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München — Germany) — Proceedings relating to the extradition of S.M.

(Case C-237/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Citizenship of the European Union - Articles 18 and 21 TFEU - Request sent to a Member State by a third State for the extradition of a Union citizen who is a national of another Member State and who has exercised his right to free movement in the first of those Member States - Request made for the purpose of enforcing a custodial sentence - Prohibition on extradition applied solely to own nationals - Restriction of freedom of movement - Justification based on the prevention of impunity - Proportionality)

(2023/C 54/11)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: S.M.

Other party: Generalstaatsanwaltschaft München

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 18 and 21 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that:

| — | a Member State to which a request for extradition has been made by a third State for the purpose of enforcing a custodial sentence imposed on a national of another Member State residing permanently in the first Member State, the national law of which prohibits only the extradition of its own nationals out of the European Union and makes provision for the possibility that that sentence may be enforced in its territory provided that the third State consents to it, is required by those provisions actively to seek such consent from the third State which made the extradition request, by using all the mechanisms for cooperation and assistance in criminal matters which are available to it in the context of its relations with that third State; |
| --- | --- |

—

a Member State to which a request for extradition has been made by a third State for the purpose of enforcing a custodial sentence imposed on a national of another Member State residing permanently in the first Member State, the national law of which prohibits only the extradition of its own nationals out of the European Union and makes provision for the possibility that that sentence may be enforced in its territory provided that the third State consents to it, is required by those provisions actively to seek such consent from the third State which made the extradition request, by using all the mechanisms for cooperation and assistance in criminal matters which are available to it in the context of its relations with that third State;

| — | if such consent is not obtained, that first Member State is not precluded by those provisions, in such circumstances, from extraditing that Union citizen, in accordance with its obligations under an international convention, in so far as that extradition does not infringe the rights guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

—

if such consent is not obtained, that first Member State is not precluded by those provisions, in such circumstances, from extraditing that Union citizen, in accordance with its obligations under an international convention, in so far as that extradition does not infringe the rights guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 297, 26.7.2021.

---

| 13.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 54/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 54/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 December 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — CM v TimePartner Personalmanagement GmbH

(Case C-311/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Employment and social policy - Temporary agency work - Directive 2008/104/EC - Article 5 - Principle of equal treatment - Need to respect, in the event of derogation from that principle, the overall protection of temporary agency workers - Collective agreement providing for lower pay than that of staff recruited directly by the user undertaking - Effective judicial protection - Judicial review)

(2023/C 54/12)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: CM

Defendant: TimePartner Personalmanagement GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 5(3) of Directive 2008/104/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on temporary agency work
  must be interpreted as meaning that that provision, by its reference to the concept of ‘overall protection of temporary agency workers’, does not require any account to be taken of a level of protection specific to temporary agency workers that is greater than that laid down for workers in general by provisions on basic working and employment conditions under national and EU law. However, where the social partners, by means of a collective agreement, authorise differences in treatment with regard to basic working and employment conditions to the detriment of temporary agency workers, that collective agreement must, in order to respect the overall protection of the temporary agency workers concerned, afford them advantages in terms of basic working and employment conditions which are such as to compensate for the difference in treatment they suffer. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 5(3) of Directive 2008/104/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on temporary agency work

must be interpreted as meaning that that provision, by its reference to the concept of ‘overall protection of temporary agency workers’, does not require any account to be taken of a level of protection specific to temporary agency workers that is greater than that laid down for workers in general by provisions on basic working and employment conditions under national and EU law. However, where the social partners, by means of a collective agreement, authorise differences in treatment with regard to basic working and employment conditions to the detriment of temporary agency workers, that collective agreement must, in order to respect the overall protection of the temporary agency workers concerned, afford them advantages in terms of basic working and employment conditions which are such as to compensate for the difference in treatment they suffer.

| 2. | Article 5(3) of Directive 2008/104
  must be interpreted as meaning that compliance with the obligation to respect the overall protection of temporary agency workers must be assessed, in concrete terms, by comparing, for a given job, the basic working and employment conditions applicable to workers recruited directly by the user undertaking with those applicable to temporary agency workers, in order to be able to determine whether the countervailing benefits afforded in respect of those basic conditions can counterbalance the effects of the difference in treatment suffered. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 5(3) of Directive 2008/104

must be interpreted as meaning that compliance with the obligation to respect the overall protection of temporary agency workers must be assessed, in concrete terms, by comparing, for a given job, the basic working and employment conditions applicable to workers recruited directly by the user undertaking with those applicable to temporary agency workers, in order to be able to determine whether the countervailing benefits afforded in respect of those basic conditions can counterbalance the effects of the difference in treatment suffered.

| 3. | Article 5(3) of Directive 2008/104
  must be interpreted as meaning that the obligation to respect the overall protection of temporary agency workers does not require the temporary agency worker concerned to have a permanent contract of employment with a temporary-work agency. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 5(3) of Directive 2008/104

must be interpreted as meaning that the obligation to respect the overall protection of temporary agency workers does not require the temporary agency worker concerned to have a permanent contract of employment with a temporary-work agency.

| 4. | Article 5(3) of Directive 2008/104
  must be interpreted as meaning that the national legislature is not required to lay down the conditions and criteria designed to respect the overall protection of temporary agency workers, within the meaning of that provision, where the Member State concerned gives the social partners the option of upholding or concluding collective agreements which authorise differences in treatment with regard to basic working and employment conditions to the detriment of those workers. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Article 5(3) of Directive 2008/104

must be interpreted as meaning that the national legislature is not required to lay down the conditions and criteria designed to respect the overall protection of temporary agency workers, within the meaning of that provision, where the Member State concerned gives the social partners the option of upholding or concluding collective agreements which authorise differences in treatment with regard to basic working and employment conditions to the detriment of those workers.

| 5. | Article 5(3) of Directive 2008/104
  must be interpreted as meaning that collective agreements which authorise, under that provision, differences in treatment with regard to basic working and employment conditions to the detriment of temporary agency workers must be amenable to effective judicial review in order to determine whether the social partners have complied with their obligation to respect the overall protection of those workers. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Article 5(3) of Directive 2008/104

must be interpreted as meaning that collective agreements which authorise, under that provision, differences in treatment with regard to basic working and employment conditions to the detriment of temporary agency workers must be amenable to effective judicial review in order to determine whether the social partners have complied with their obligation to respect the overall protection of those workers.

---

(1)  OJ C 320, 9.8.2021.

---

| 13.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 54/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 54/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 December 2022 — Maxime Picard v European Commission

(Case C-366/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Members of the contract staff - Pension - Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union - 2014 reform - Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1023/2013 - Annex XIII to those regulations - Second paragraph of Article 21 and second subparagraph of Article 22(1) - Transitional measures relating to the annual rate of accrual of pension rights and retirement age - Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union - Annex - Article 1(1) - Application of those transitional measures by analogy to other staff employed on 31 December 2013 - Signature of new contract as a member of the contract staff - Act adversely affecting an official - Effective judicial protection)

(2023/C 54/13)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara and B. Mongin, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2021, Picard v Commission (T-769/16, EU:T:2021:153), as rectified by the order of 16 April 2021, Picard v Commission (T-769/16, EU:T:2021:200). |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2021, Picard v Commission (T-769/16, EU:T:2021:153), as rectified by the order of 16 April 2021, Picard v Commission (T-769/16, EU:T:2021:200).

| 2. | Annuls the reply of 4 January 2016 of the manager of the Pensions Sector of the European Commission’s Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (PMO) and the decision of 25 July 2016 of the Director of Directorate E of the Commission’s Directorate-General for Human Resources and Security dismissing the complaint of 4 April 2016 lodged by Mr Maxime Picard against that reply. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Annuls the reply of 4 January 2016 of the manager of the Pensions Sector of the European Commission’s Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (PMO) and the decision of 25 July 2016 of the Director of Directorate E of the Commission’s Directorate-General for Human Resources and Security dismissing the complaint of 4 April 2016 lodged by Mr Maxime Picard against that reply.

| 3. | Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr Maxime Picard in the present appeal and at first instance. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr Maxime Picard in the present appeal and at first instance.

---

(1)  OJ C 357, 6.9.2021.

---

| 13.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 54/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 54/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 15 December 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad — Bulgaria) — LM, NO v HUK-COBURG-Allgemeine Versicherung AG

(Case C-577/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles - Directive 2009/103/EC - Article 3, fourth paragraph - Concept of ‘personal injury’ - Cover by compulsory insurance - Road traffic accident - Death of a passenger - Right to compensation for minor children - Non-material damage - Suffering of a child resulting from the death of his or her parent as a result of that accident - Compensation only in the event of pathological damage)

(2023/C 54/14)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski gradski sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: LM, NO

Defendant: HUK-COBURG-Allgemeine Versicherung AG

Operative part of the judgment

The fourth paragraph of Article 3 of Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which makes compensation, by an insurer against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, for non-material damage suffered by close family members of victims of road traffic accidents subject to the condition that that harm entailed pathological damage to the health of such close family members.

---

(1)  OJ C 513, 20.12.2021.

---

| 13.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 54/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 54/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 December 2022 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Instrubel NV v Montana Management Inc., BNP Paribas Securities Services (C-753/21) and Montana Management Inc. v Heerema Zwijndrecht BV, BNP Paribas Securities Services (C-754/21)

(Joined Cases C-753/21 and C-754/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common foreign and security policy - Regulation (EC) No 1210/2003 - Specific restrictions applicable to economic and financial relations with Iraq - Article 4 - Freezing of funds and economic resources belonging to the persons, bodies and entities associated with the regime of the former President Saddam Hussein - Article 6 - Transfer to the successor arrangements of the Iraq Development Fund - Ownership of frozen funds and economic resources)

(2023/C 54/15)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Instrubel NV (C-753/21), Montana Management Inc. (C-754/21)

Defendants: Montana Management Inc., BNP Paribas Securities Services (C-753/21), Heerema Zwijndrecht BV, BNP Paribas Securities Services (C-754/21)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(2) to (4) and Article 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1210/2003 of 7 July 2003 concerning certain specific restrictions on economic and financial relations with Iraq and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2465/96, as last amended by Council Regulation (EU) No 85/2013 of 31 January 2013,

must be interpreted as meaning that the frozen funds and economic resources remain, pending the decision to transfer them to the successor arrangements to the Development Fund for Iraq, the property of the natural and legal persons, bodies and entities associated with the regime of former President Saddam Hussein covered by the freezing.

---

(1)  OJ C 95, 28.2.2022.

---

| 13.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 54/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 54/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 15 December 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) — Portugal) — Caxamar — Comércio e Indústria de Bacalhau SA v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

(Case C-23/22) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - State aid - Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 - Exemption of certain categories of aid compatible with the internal market - Guidelines on regional State aid - Scope - Exclusions - Fishery and aquaculture sector - Sector for the processing and marketing of agricultural products - Concept of ‘agricultural products’ - Regulation (EU) No 1379/2013 - Common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products - Annex I - Activity of processing of fishery and aquaculture products - Salted, frozen and desalted cod)

(2023/C 54/16)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Caxamar — Comércio e Indústria de Bacalhau SA

Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1 and Article 2(10) and (11) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 of 17 June 2014 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the internal market in application of Articles 107 and 108 [TFEU] as well as the Guidelines on regional State aid for 2014-2020, read in conjunction with Article 2 and Article 5(a) and (d) of, and Annex I to, Regulation (EU) No 1379/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1184/2006 and (EC) No 1224/2009 and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000,

must be interpreted as meaning that an activity of processing of fishery and aquaculture products, such as the production of salted cod, frozen cod and desalted cod, does not constitute an activity of processing of agricultural products, which is excluded from the scope of Regulation No 651/2014 by reason of Article 1(3)(c) of that regulation, but rather an activity falling within the fishery and aquaculture sector, which is excluded from the scope of that regulation by reason of Article 1(3)(a) thereof.

---

(1)  OJ C 165, 19.4.2022.

---

| 13.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 54/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 54/15

---

Appeal brought on 19 August 2022 by Vtesse Harlow Ltd against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 14 June 2022 in Case T-64/22, Vtesse Harlow v Commission

(Case C-559/22 P)

(2023/C 54/17)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Vtesse Harlow Ltd (represented by: H. Mercer KC)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

By order of 19 December 2022, The Court of Justice (Eight Chamber) held that the appeal is dismissed as manifestly unfounded and that Vtesse Harlow Ltd shall bear its own costs.

---

| 13.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 54/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 54/15

---

Action brought on 15 December 2022 — European Commission v Republic of Latvia

(Case C-762/22)

(2023/C 54/18)

Language of the case: Latvian

Parties

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

Defendant: Republic of Latvia

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by failing to adopt, by 6 February 2018 at the latest, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply fully with Council Directive 2013/59/Euratom of 5 December 2013 laying down basic safety standards for protection against the dangers arising from exposure to ionising radiation, and repealing Directives 89/618/Euratom, 90/641/Euratom, 96/29/Euratom, 97/43/Euratom and 2003/122/Euratom, (1) or, in any event, by failing to notify those provisions to the Commission, the Republic of Latvia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 106 of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to adopt, by 6 February 2018 at the latest, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply fully with Council Directive 2013/59/Euratom of 5 December 2013 laying down basic safety standards for protection against the dangers arising from exposure to ionising radiation, and repealing Directives 89/618/Euratom, 90/641/Euratom, 96/29/Euratom, 97/43/Euratom and 2003/122/Euratom, (1) or, in any event, by failing to notify those provisions to the Commission, the Republic of Latvia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 106 of that directive;

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

—

order the Republic of Latvia to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In accordance with Article 106 of Directive 2013/59/Euratom, Member States were required to adopt and publish the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with that directive by 6 February 2018. The Member States were also required to inform the Commission of the text of the provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by that directive.

Since the Republic of Latvia has not adopted or, in any event, has not communicated to the Commission all the transposing measures necessary to comply with the directive, the Commission decided on 29 September to bring an action before the Court in order to obtain a declaration, in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 258 TFEU, that the Republic of Latvia has not fulfilled its obligations under Article 106 of that directive.

---

(1)  OJ 2014 L 13, p. 1.

---

| 13.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 54/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 54/16

---

Action brought on 19 December 2022 — European Commission v Hungary

(Case C-769/22)

(2023/C 54/19)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, K. Talabér-Ritz, L. Malferrari and J. Tomkin, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Hungary

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court should:

declare that, by adopting the a pedofil bűnelkövetőkkel szembeni szigorúbb fellépésről, valamint a gyermekek védelme érdekében egyes törvények módosításáról szóló 2021. évi LXXIX. törvény (Law LXXIX of 2021 adopting stricter measures against persons convicted of paedophilia and amending certain laws for the protection of children), Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under EU law in the following ways:

| (1) | — | by prohibiting children from accessing content which promotes or portrays gender identities that do not correspond to the sex assigned at birth, sex reassignment or homosexuality, Hungary has infringed Article 3(2) of Directive 2000/31/EC on electronic commerce, (1) Articles 16 and 19 of Directive 2006/123/EC on services in the internal market, (2) Article 56 TFEU and Articles 1, 7, 11 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- | --- |

(1)

—

by prohibiting children from accessing content which promotes or portrays gender identities that do not correspond to the sex assigned at birth, sex reassignment or homosexuality, Hungary has infringed Article 3(2) of Directive 2000/31/EC on electronic commerce, (1) Articles 16 and 19 of Directive 2006/123/EC on services in the internal market, (2) Article 56 TFEU and Articles 1, 7, 11 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| — | by prohibiting children from accessing advertising which promotes or portrays gender identities that do not correspond to the sex assigned at birth, sex reassignment or homosexuality, Hungary has infringed Article 9(1)(c)(ii) of Directive 2010/13/EU on audiovisual media services, (3) Article 3(2) of Directive 2000/31/EC on electronic commerce, Articles 16 and 19 of Directive 2006/123/EC on services in the internal market, Article 56 TFEU and Articles 1, 7, 11 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

—

by prohibiting children from accessing advertising which promotes or portrays gender identities that do not correspond to the sex assigned at birth, sex reassignment or homosexuality, Hungary has infringed Article 9(1)(c)(ii) of Directive 2010/13/EU on audiovisual media services, (3) Article 3(2) of Directive 2000/31/EC on electronic commerce, Articles 16 and 19 of Directive 2006/123/EC on services in the internal market, Article 56 TFEU and Articles 1, 7, 11 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| — | by imposing on media service providers which offer linear media services an obligation to classify under Category V all programmes the essential element of which is the promotion or portrayal of gender identities that do not correspond to the sex assigned at birth, sex reassignment or homosexuality, and thus to broadcast those programmes between 22.00 and 05.00, and by excluding such programmes from classification as public interest media or as socially beneficial advertising, Hungary has infringed Article 6a(1) of Directive 2010/13/EU on audiovisual media services and Articles 1, 7, 11 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

—

by imposing on media service providers which offer linear media services an obligation to classify under Category V all programmes the essential element of which is the promotion or portrayal of gender identities that do not correspond to the sex assigned at birth, sex reassignment or homosexuality, and thus to broadcast those programmes between 22.00 and 05.00, and by excluding such programmes from classification as public interest media or as socially beneficial advertising, Hungary has infringed Article 6a(1) of Directive 2010/13/EU on audiovisual media services and Articles 1, 7, 11 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| — | by imposing on the Media Council an obligation to request that the Member State having jurisdiction over the media service provider take effective measures and take action to put an end to infringements detected by the Media Council, Hungary has infringed Articles 2 and 3(1) of Directive 2010/13/EU on audiovisual media services. |
| --- | --- |

—

by imposing on the Media Council an obligation to request that the Member State having jurisdiction over the media service provider take effective measures and take action to put an end to infringements detected by the Media Council, Hungary has infringed Articles 2 and 3(1) of Directive 2010/13/EU on audiovisual media services.

| — | by prohibiting professions related to sexual culture, sexual life, sexual orientation and sexual development from being aimed at the promotion of gender identities that do not correspond to the sex assigned at birth, sex reassignment or homosexuality, Hungary has infringed Articles 16 and 19 of Directive 2006/123/EU on services in the internal market, Article 56 TFEU and Articles 1, 7, 11 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

—

by prohibiting professions related to sexual culture, sexual life, sexual orientation and sexual development from being aimed at the promotion of gender identities that do not correspond to the sex assigned at birth, sex reassignment or homosexuality, Hungary has infringed Articles 16 and 19 of Directive 2006/123/EU on services in the internal market, Article 56 TFEU and Articles 1, 7, 11 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| (2) | by adopting the legislation cited in the first paragraph, Hungary has infringed Article 2 TEU. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

by adopting the legislation cited in the first paragraph, Hungary has infringed Article 2 TEU.

| (3) | by imposing on the body with direct access to the registered data an obligation to make available, to persons entitled to access them, the registered data of persons who have committed, against children, offences against sexual freedom and sexual morality, Hungary has infringed Article 10 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 on general data protection, as well as Article 8(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

by imposing on the body with direct access to the registered data an obligation to make available, to persons entitled to access them, the registered data of persons who have committed, against children, offences against sexual freedom and sexual morality, Hungary has infringed Article 10 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 on general data protection, as well as Article 8(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| (4) | order Hungary to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

order Hungary to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

On 15 June 2021, the Hungarian Parliament adopted the a pedofil bűnelkövetőkkel szembeni szigorúbb fellépésről, valamint a gyermekek védelme érdekében egyes törvények módosításáról szóló 2021. évi LXXIX. törvény (Law LXXIX of 2021 adopting stricter measures against persons convicted of paedophilia and amending certain laws for the protection of children), which entered into force on 8 July 2021. The Law contains amendments to a number of different legal provisions covering, inter alia, media services, advertising, electronic commerce and education. The amendments impose a number of prohibitions and restrictions in relation to the promotion or portrayal of gender identities that do not correspond to the sex assigned at birth, sex reassignment or homosexuality.

On 15 July 2021, the Commission initiated infringement proceedings against Hungary in relation to Law LXXIX of 2021.

Finding that the response provided by Hungary was unsatisfactory, the Commission moved to the next phase of the infringement proceedings and, on 2 December 2021, sent Hungary a reasoned opinion.

Finding that the response to the reasoned opinion was also unsatisfactory, the Commission decided to refer the case to the Court of Justice for a declaration that Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 3(1), 6a(1), and 9(1)(c)(ii) of Directive 2010/13/EU on audiovisual media services, Article 3(2) of Directive 2000/31/EC on electronic commerce, Articles 16 and 19 of Directive 2006/123/EC on services in the internal market, Article 10 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 on general data protection, Article 56 TFEU, Articles 1, 7, 8(2), 11 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and Article 2 TEU.

---

(1)  Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (OJ 2000 L 178, p. 1).

(2)  OJ 2006 L 376, p. 36.

(3)  Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2010 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (OJ 2010 L 95, p. 1).

---

| 13.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 54/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 54/17

---

Action brought on 20 December 2022 — European Commission v Slovak Republic

(Case C-773/22)

(2023/C 54/20)

Language of the case: Slovak

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Armati, R. Lindenthal and M. Mataija, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Slovak Republic

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by failing to transpose correctly into its legal order Article 2(3), the first subparagraph of Article 6(b), Articles7(4), 14(1) and (4), 35(3), 41(1)(c), 42(2)(a), (c), (f) and (j), 50(1), read in conjunction with Annex VII, point 1(d), and Article 55a(2) of Directive 2005/36/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, the Slovak Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions of the directive, |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to transpose correctly into its legal order Article 2(3), the first subparagraph of Article 6(b), Articles7(4), 14(1) and (4), 35(3), 41(1)(c), 42(2)(a), (c), (f) and (j), 50(1), read in conjunction with Annex VII, point 1(d), and Article 55a(2) of Directive 2005/36/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, the Slovak Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions of the directive,

| — | order the Slovak Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Slovak Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The deadline for transposition of Directive 2005/36/EC expired on 20 October 2007 and the deadline for transposition of Directive 2013/55/EU (2) amending Directive 2005/36/EC expired on 18 January 2016. The Slovak Republic has incorrectly transposed or failed to transpose Article 2(3); the first subparagraph of Article 6(b); Article 7(4); Article 14(1) and (4); Article 35(3); Article 41(1)(c); Article 42(2); Article 50(1), read in conjunction with Annex VII, point 1(d) and Article 55a(2) of Directive 2005/36/EC.

---

(1)  OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22.

(2)  Directive 2013/55/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2013 amending Directive 2005/36/EC on the recognition of professional qualifications and Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 on administrative cooperation through the Internal Market Information System (OJ 2013 L 354, p. 132).

---

General Court

| 13.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 54/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 54/19

---

Order of the General Court of 6 December 2022 — G.J. Riedel v EUIPO — BrewDog (Punk)

(Case T-720/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate)

(2023/C 54/21)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: G.J. Riedel GmbH (Kufstein, Austria) (represented by: D. Terheggen, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: BrewDog plc (Ellon, United Kingdom)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 12 July 2021 (Case R 291/2020-1).

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. | G.J. Riedel GmbH shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

G.J. Riedel GmbH shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 11, 10.1.2022.

---

| 13.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 54/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 54/19

---

Action brought on 12 December 2022 — TJ and Others v Council

(Case T-775/22)

(2023/C 54/22)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: TJ and the 7 other applicants (represented by: J. Janssen, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | admit and uphold the pleas for annulment raised in the present application; |
| --- | --- |

—

admit and uphold the pleas for annulment raised in the present application;

| — | annul Chapter III of Council Regulation (EU) 2022/1854 of 6 October 2022 on an emergency intervention to address high energy prices (1) (‘contested Regulation’); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Chapter III of Council Regulation (EU) 2022/1854 of 6 October 2022 on an emergency intervention to address high energy prices (1) (‘contested Regulation’);

| — | in the alternative, annul Article 15 of the contested Regulation insofar as it allows the retroactive levy of a solidarity contribution over the year 2022; and |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Article 15 of the contested Regulation insofar as it allows the retroactive levy of a solidarity contribution over the year 2022; and

| — | order the Council to pay the costs of this procedure. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay the costs of this procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the contested Regulation was incorrectly adopted on the basis of article 122(1) TFEU and should have been adopted by the Council, acting unanimously after consulting the European Parliament and in accordance with a special legislative procedure, as the contested Regulation contains fiscal measures. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested Regulation was incorrectly adopted on the basis of article 122(1) TFEU and should have been adopted by the Council, acting unanimously after consulting the European Parliament and in accordance with a special legislative procedure, as the contested Regulation contains fiscal measures.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the contested Regulation constitutes a violation of the right to property as enshrined in Article 1 First Protocol to the ECHR and Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, as well as the EU principles of legality and legal certainty, insofar the contested Regulation allows for retroactive application. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested Regulation constitutes a violation of the right to property as enshrined in Article 1 First Protocol to the ECHR and Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, as well as the EU principles of legality and legal certainty, insofar the contested Regulation allows for retroactive application.

---

(1)  OJ 2022, L 261 I, p. 1.

---

| 13.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 54/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 54/20

---

Action brought on 20 December 2022 — TV and TW v Council

(Case T-795/22)

(2023/C 54/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: TV and TW (represented by: J. Janssen, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | admit and uphold the plea for annulment raised in the present application; |
| --- | --- |

—

admit and uphold the plea for annulment raised in the present application;

| — | annul Article 15 of Council Regulation (EU) 2022/1854 of 6 October 2022 on an emergency intervention to address high energy prices (1) (‘contested Regulation’), insofar as it allows the retroactive levy of a solidarity contribution over the year 2022; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Article 15 of Council Regulation (EU) 2022/1854 of 6 October 2022 on an emergency intervention to address high energy prices (1) (‘contested Regulation’), insofar as it allows the retroactive levy of a solidarity contribution over the year 2022; and

| — | order the Council to pay the costs of this procedure. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay the costs of this procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law alleging that the contested Regulation constitutes a violation of the right to property as enshrined in Article 1 of First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, as well as the EU principles of legality and legal certainty, insofar the contested Regulation allows for retroactive application.

---

(1)  OJ 2022, L 261 I, p. 1.

---

| 13.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 54/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 54/21

---

Action brought on 21 December 2022 — Drinks Prod/EUIPO — Coolike-Regnery (VIVIASEPT)

(Case T-796/22)

(2023/C 54/24)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Drinks Prod Srl (Păntășești, Romania) (represented by: I. Speciac and V. Stănese, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Coolike-Regnery GmbH (Bensheim, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark VIVIASEPT — Application for registration No 18 329 344

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 September 2022 in Case R 488/2022-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | oblige EUIPO to continue the registration proceedings for EUTM No. 18 329 344 (‘VIVIASEPT’) for all the requested goods and services from Classes 3 and 5. |
| --- | --- |

—

oblige EUIPO to continue the registration proceedings for EUTM No. 18 329 344 (‘VIVIASEPT’) for all the requested goods and services from Classes 3 and 5.

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.

---

| 13.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 54/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 54/21

---

Action brought on 22 December 2022 — Palírna U Zeleného stromu v EUIPO — Bacardi (B42V)

(Case T-800/22)

(2023/C 54/25)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Palírna U Zeleného stromu a.s. (Ústí nad Labem, Czech Republic) (represented by: J. Kindl, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bacardi & Co. Ltd (Meyrin, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union trade mark B42V — Application for registration No 17 987 536

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 October 2022 in Case R 1240/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | change the contested decision so that






  a. | decision No B 3 077 353 of the Opposition Division of 20 May 2021 is annulled to the extent in which it upheld the opposition filed by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal against the application of the trade mark at issue; and |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

change the contested decision so that

a.

decision No B 3 077 353 of the Opposition Division of 20 May 2021 is annulled to the extent in which it upheld the opposition filed by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal against the application of the trade mark at issue; and

| b. | the opposition filed by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal against the application of the trade mark at issue is rejected in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

b.

the opposition filed by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal against the application of the trade mark at issue is rejected in its entirety;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | The Board of Appeal (and the Opposition Division) erred in applying Art. 47(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by inferring the existence of the genuine use of earlier trade mark No 999 938; the evidence submitted by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal did not allow the inference of genuine use for any of the earlier trade marks; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal (and the Opposition Division) erred in applying Art. 47(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by inferring the existence of the genuine use of earlier trade mark No 999 938; the evidence submitted by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal did not allow the inference of genuine use for any of the earlier trade marks;

| — | The Board of Appeal (and the Opposition Division) erred in applying Art. 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by finding similarity between the trade marks in question; the trade mark at issue and the earlier rights are dissimilar pursuant to Art. 8(1)(b), (4) and (5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal (and the Opposition Division) erred in applying Art. 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by finding similarity between the trade marks in question; the trade mark at issue and the earlier rights are dissimilar pursuant to Art. 8(1)(b), (4) and (5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 13.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 54/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 54/22

---

Action brought on 23 December 2022 — 3M v EUIPO (Representation of two luminous yellow bands with a silver grey band between)

(Case T-801/22)

(2023/C 54/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: 3M Company (St. Paul, Minnesota, United States) (represented by: T. de Haan, and S. Vandezande, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark (Representation of two luminous yellow bands with a silver grey band between) — Application for registration No 16 438 962

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 October 2022 in Case R 1151/2018-1

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, including those incurred by the applicant before the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

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

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 13.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 54/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 54/23

---

Action brought on 28 December 2022 — ExxonMobil Producing Netherlands and Mobil Erdgas-Erdöl v Council

(Case T-802/22)

(2023/C 54/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: ExxonMobil Producing Netherlands BV (Breda, Netherlands), Mobil Erdgas-Erdöl GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: O. Brouwer, W. Knibbeler and A. Pliego Selie, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul Articles 14, 15 and 16 of Council Regulation (EU) 2022/1854 of 6 October 2022 on an emergency intervention to address high energy prices (1), insofar as those provisions mandate a solidarity contribution on EMPN and MEEG, being Union companies and permanent establishments with activities in the crude petroleum, natural gas, coal and refinery sectors; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Articles 14, 15 and 16 of Council Regulation (EU) 2022/1854 of 6 October 2022 on an emergency intervention to address high energy prices (1), insofar as those provisions mandate a solidarity contribution on EMPN and MEEG, being Union companies and permanent establishments with activities in the crude petroleum, natural gas, coal and refinery sectors;

| — | order the Council of the European Union to pay the applicants’ costs, including the costs relating to any intervening parties. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council of the European Union to pay the applicants’ costs, including the costs relating to any intervening parties.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging lack of competence insofar as Articles 14, 15 and 16 of Regulation (EU) 2022/1854 infringe the principle of conferral laid down in Articles 4(1) and 5(1) of the Treaty of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging lack of competence insofar as Articles 14, 15 and 16 of Regulation (EU) 2022/1854 infringe the principle of conferral laid down in Articles 4(1) and 5(1) of the Treaty of the European Union.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging lack of competence insofar as Article 122(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union provides an invalid legal basis. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging lack of competence insofar as Article 122(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union provides an invalid legal basis.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the Treaties insofar as Articles 14, 15 and 16 of Regulation (EU) 2022/1854 infringe the general principle of equal treatment, also enshrined in Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the Treaties insofar as Articles 14, 15 and 16 of Regulation (EU) 2022/1854 infringe the general principle of equal treatment, also enshrined in Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the Treaties insofar as Articles 14, 15 and 16 of Regulation (EU) 2022/1854 infringe Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the Treaties insofar as Articles 14, 15 and 16 of Regulation (EU) 2022/1854 infringe Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the Treaties insofar as Articles 14, 15 and 16 of Regulation (EU) 2022/1854 infringe Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the Treaties insofar as Articles 14, 15 and 16 of Regulation (EU) 2022/1854 infringe Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of a rule of law relating to the application of the Treaties insofar as Articles 14, 15 and 16 of Regulation (EU) 2022/1854 infringe the general principle of proportionality enshrined in Article 5(4) of the Treaty of the European Union; and |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of a rule of law relating to the application of the Treaties insofar as Articles 14, 15 and 16 of Regulation (EU) 2022/1854 infringe the general principle of proportionality enshrined in Article 5(4) of the Treaty of the European Union; and

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging infringement of a rule of law relating to the application of the Treaties insofar as Articles 14, 15 and 16 of Regulation (EU) 2022/1854 infringe the general principle of legal certainty and the presumption against retroactivity. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging infringement of a rule of law relating to the application of the Treaties insofar as Articles 14, 15 and 16 of Regulation (EU) 2022/1854 infringe the general principle of legal certainty and the presumption against retroactivity.

---

(1)  OJ 2022, 261 I, p. 1.

---

| 13.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 54/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 54/24

---

Action brought on 4 January 2023 — Enmacc v Commission

(Case T-1/23)

(2023/C 54/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Enmacc GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: A. von Bonin, A. Pliego Selie and T. van Helfteren, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision of the Commission of 12 December 2022 to launch the call for tenders by way of a negotiated procedure without prior publication of a contract notice, not to invite the applicant to participate in the tendering procedure ENER/2022/NP/0041 and to explicitly reject the applicant’s request to be invited to that tender procedure; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision of the Commission of 12 December 2022 to launch the call for tenders by way of a negotiated procedure without prior publication of a contract notice, not to invite the applicant to participate in the tendering procedure ENER/2022/NP/0041 and to explicitly reject the applicant’s request to be invited to that tender procedure;

| — | in subsidiary order, insofar as the contested decision would not give expression to the Commission’s decision to launch a negotiated procedure without prior publication of a contract notice and not to invite the applicant to the tendering procedure ENER/2022/NP/0041, annul that decision; and |
| --- | --- |

—

in subsidiary order, insofar as the contested decision would not give expression to the Commission’s decision to launch a negotiated procedure without prior publication of a contract notice and not to invite the applicant to the tendering procedure ENER/2022/NP/0041, annul that decision; and

| — | order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes Article 164(5)(f) and Point 11.1(c) of Annex 1 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, amending Regulations (EU) No 1296/2013, (EU) No 1301/2013, (EU) No 1303/2013, (EU) No 1304/2013, (EU) No 1309/2013, (EU) No 1316/2013, (EU) No 223/2014, (EU) No 283/2014, and Decision No 541/2014/EU and repealing Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012. (1) |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes Article 164(5)(f) and Point 11.1(c) of Annex 1 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, amending Regulations (EU) No 1296/2013, (EU) No 1301/2013, (EU) No 1303/2013, (EU) No 1304/2013, (EU) No 1309/2013, (EU) No 1316/2013, (EU) No 223/2014, (EU) No 283/2014, and Decision No 541/2014/EU and repealing Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012. (1)

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes the principles of transparency and equal treatment. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes the principles of transparency and equal treatment.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision failed to state reasons, in breach of Article 41(2), third indent, of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and Article 296(2) TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision failed to state reasons, in breach of Article 41(2), third indent, of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and Article 296(2) TFEU.

---

(1)  OJ 2018 L 193, p. 1.

---