# Official Journal C 326/29 A

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 326 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6529 August 2022 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 326

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6529 August 2022

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2022/C 326/01 | 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

2022/C 326/01

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 |
| 2022/C 326/02 | Case C-2/21: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 24 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Krakowie — Poland) — Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Citizenship of the Union — Articles 20 and 21 TFEU — Right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States — Birth certificate issued by the Member State of birth of the child and designating two mothers in respect of that child — Refusal by the Member State of origin of one of those two mothers to transcribe that birth certificate into the national register of civil status — Transcription of that certificate being a prerequisite for the issuing of identity documents — National legislation of that Member State of origin not recognising the parenthood of persons of the same sex) | 2 |
| 2022/C 326/03 | Case C-692/21 P: Appeal brought on 23 March 2021 by OH against the order of the General Court delivered on 9 December 2020 in Case T-704/20 AJ, OH v European Court of Human Rights | 3 |
| 2022/C 326/04 | Case C-165/22 P: Appeal brought on 2 March 2022 by MO against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 21 December 2021 in Case T-587/20, MO v Council | 3 |
| 2022/C 326/05 | Case C-247/22 P: Appeal brought on 8 April 2022 by Ignacio Carrasco SL against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 23 February 2022 in Case T-209/21, Ignacio Carrasco SL v EUIPO, Santos Carrasco Manzano SA | 3 |
| 2022/C 326/06 | Case C-265/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 17 de Palma de Mallorca (Spain) lodged on 20 April 2022 — ZR, PI v Banco Santander, S.A. | 4 |
| 2022/C 326/07 | Case C-282/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 26 April 2022 — Dyrektor Krajowej Informacji Skarbowej v P. in W. | 5 |
| 2022/C 326/08 | Case C-288/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’arrondissement (Luxembourg) lodged on 29 April 2022 — TP v Administration de l’enregistrement, des domaines et de la TVA | 5 |
| 2022/C 326/09 | Case C-298/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Concorrência, Regulação e Supervisão (Portugal) lodged on 4 May 2022 — Banco BPN/BIC Português, SA, Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria SA, Portuguese branch, Banco Português de Investimento SA (BPI), Banco Espírito Santo SA (in liquidation), Banco Santander Totta SA, Barclays Bank Plc, Caixa Económica Montepio Geral — Caixa Económica Bancária, SA, Caixa Geral de Depósitos, SA, Unión de Creditos Imobiliarios, SA — Estabelecimento Financeiro de Crédito SOC, Caixa Central de Crédito Agrícola Mútuo CRL, Banco Comercial Português, SA v Autoridade da Concorrência | 6 |
| 2022/C 326/10 | Case C-318/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 12 May 2022 — GE Infrastructure Hungary Holding Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága | 7 |
| 2022/C 326/11 | Case C-333/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 20 May 2022 — Ligue des droits humains ASBL, BA v L’organe de contrôle de l’information policière | 7 |
| 2022/C 326/12 | Case C-335/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) (Portugal) lodged on 23 May 2022 — A, S.A. (Portugal) v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira | 8 |
| 2022/C 326/13 | Case C-366/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Pécsi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 7 June 2022 — Viterra Hungary Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága | 9 |
| 2022/C 326/14 | Case C-374/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 8 June 2022 — XXX v Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides | 10 |
| 2022/C 326/15 | Case C-391/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Pécsi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 14 June 2022 — Tüke Busz Közösségi Közlekedési Zrt. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága | 11 |
| 2022/C 326/16 | Case C-417/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 21 June 2022 — AB v Disziplinarrat der Österreichischen Apothekerkammer | 11 |
| 2022/C 326/17 | Case C-421/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) (Latvia) lodged on 22 June 2022 — SIA DOBELES AUTOBUSU PARKS, AS CATA, SIA VTU VALMIERA, SIA JELGAVAS AUTOBUSU PARKS, SIA Jēkabpils autobusu parks v Iepirkumu uzraudzības birojs, Valsts SIA Autotransporta direkcija | 12 |
| 2022/C 326/18 | Case C-425/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 28 June 2022 — MOL Magyar Olaj- és Gázipari Nyrt. v Mercedes-Benz Group AG | 12 |
| 2022/C 326/19 | Case C-435/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München (Germany) lodged on 1 July 2022 — Generalstaatsanwaltschaft München v HF | 13 |
| 2022/C 326/20 | Case C-439/22: Action brought on 5 July 2022 — European Commission v Ireland | 13 |
| 2022/C 326/21 | Case C-449/22: Action brought on 7 July 2022 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic | 14 |
| 2022/C 326/22 | Case C-452/22: Action brought on 8 July 2022 — European Commission v Republic of Poland | 15 |
| 2022/C 326/23 | Case C-454/22: Action brought on 7 July 2022 — European Commission v Republic of Latvia | 16 |
| 2022/C 326/24 | Case C-457/22: Action brought on 8 July 2022 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia | 16 |
| 2022/C 326/25 | Case C-467/22 P: Appeal brought on 12 July 2022 by Airoldi Metalli SpA against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 2 May 2022 in Case T-328/21, Airoldi Metalli v Commission | 17 |
| | General Court |
| 2022/C 326/26 | Case T-334/22: Action brought on 1 June 2022 — Danske Fragtmænd v Commission | 19 |
| 2022/C 326/27 | Case T-369/22: Action brought on 24 June 2022 — Heßler v Commission | 19 |
| 2022/C 326/28 | Case T-375/22: Action brought on 21 June 2022 — Izuzquiza and Others v Parliament | 21 |
| 2022/C 326/29 | Case T-377/22: Action brought on 29 June 2022 — Cayago Tec v EUIPO — iAqua (Personal watercraft, Motorboats) | 22 |
| 2022/C 326/30 | Case T-412/22: Action brought on 4 July 2022 — PAN Europe v Commission | 22 |
| 2022/C 326/31 | Case T-415/22: Action brought on 4 July 2022 — Cyprus v EUIPO — Fontana Food (GRILLOUMI) | 23 |
| 2022/C 326/32 | Case T-419/22: Action brought on 6 July 2022 — MEDEX v EUIPO — Gerrit Cornelis Johan Stein (medex) | 24 |
| 2022/C 326/33 | Case T-427/22: Action brought on 11 July 2022 — Coljnar v EUIPO — Barbarian Sports Wear (Barbarian Fashion) | 24 |
| 2022/C 326/34 | Case T-428/22: Action brought on 6 July 2022 — Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals (TRiM) | 25 |
| 2022/C 326/35 | Case T-429/22: Action brought on 8 July 2022 — Oatly v EUIPO — D’s Naturals (Wow no cow!) | 26 |
| 2022/C 326/36 | Case T-433/22: Action brought on 8 July 2022 — Spreewood Distillers v EUIPO — Radgonske gorice (STORK) | 26 |
| 2022/C 326/37 | Case T-434/22: Action brought on 11 July 2022 — Topas v EUIPO — Tarczyński (VEGE STORY) | 27 |
| 2022/C 326/38 | Case T-435/22: Action brought on 12 July 2022 — Pascoe pharmazeutische Präparate v EUIPO — Novartis Pharma (PASCELMO) | 28 |
| 2022/C 326/39 | Case T-437/22: Action brought on 12 July 2022 — Vanhove v EUIPO — Aldi Einkauf (bistro Régent) | 28 |
| 2022/C 326/40 | Case T-439/22: Action brought on 14 July 2022 — Rada Perfumery v EUIPO — Prada (RADA PERFUMES) | 29 |
| 2022/C 326/41 | Case T-445/22: Action brought on 18 July 2022 — Columbus Stainless v Commission | 30 |
| 2022/C 326/42 | Case T-446/22: Action brought on 19 July 2022 — Corver v EUIPO (CHR ME) | 30 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2022/C 326/02

Case C-2/21: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 24 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Krakowie — Poland) — Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Citizenship of the Union — Articles 20 and 21 TFEU — Right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States — Birth certificate issued by the Member State of birth of the child and designating two mothers in respect of that child — Refusal by the Member State of origin of one of those two mothers to transcribe that birth certificate into the national register of civil status — Transcription of that certificate being a prerequisite for the issuing of identity documents — National legislation of that Member State of origin not recognising the parenthood of persons of the same sex)

2

2022/C 326/03

Case C-692/21 P: Appeal brought on 23 March 2021 by OH against the order of the General Court delivered on 9 December 2020 in Case T-704/20 AJ, OH v European Court of Human Rights

3

2022/C 326/04

Case C-165/22 P: Appeal brought on 2 March 2022 by MO against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 21 December 2021 in Case T-587/20, MO v Council

3

2022/C 326/05

Case C-247/22 P: Appeal brought on 8 April 2022 by Ignacio Carrasco SL against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 23 February 2022 in Case T-209/21, Ignacio Carrasco SL v EUIPO, Santos Carrasco Manzano SA

3

2022/C 326/06

Case C-265/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 17 de Palma de Mallorca (Spain) lodged on 20 April 2022 — ZR, PI v Banco Santander, S.A.

4

2022/C 326/07

Case C-282/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 26 April 2022 — Dyrektor Krajowej Informacji Skarbowej v P. in W.

5

2022/C 326/08

Case C-288/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’arrondissement (Luxembourg) lodged on 29 April 2022 — TP v Administration de l’enregistrement, des domaines et de la TVA

5

2022/C 326/09

Case C-298/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Concorrência, Regulação e Supervisão (Portugal) lodged on 4 May 2022 — Banco BPN/BIC Português, SA, Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria SA, Portuguese branch, Banco Português de Investimento SA (BPI), Banco Espírito Santo SA (in liquidation), Banco Santander Totta SA, Barclays Bank Plc, Caixa Económica Montepio Geral — Caixa Económica Bancária, SA, Caixa Geral de Depósitos, SA, Unión de Creditos Imobiliarios, SA — Estabelecimento Financeiro de Crédito SOC, Caixa Central de Crédito Agrícola Mútuo CRL, Banco Comercial Português, SA v Autoridade da Concorrência

6

2022/C 326/10

Case C-318/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 12 May 2022 — GE Infrastructure Hungary Holding Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

7

2022/C 326/11

Case C-333/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 20 May 2022 — Ligue des droits humains ASBL, BA v L’organe de contrôle de l’information policière

7

2022/C 326/12

Case C-335/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) (Portugal) lodged on 23 May 2022 — A, S.A. (Portugal) v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

8

2022/C 326/13

Case C-366/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Pécsi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 7 June 2022 — Viterra Hungary Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

9

2022/C 326/14

Case C-374/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 8 June 2022 — XXX v Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides

10

2022/C 326/15

Case C-391/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Pécsi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 14 June 2022 — Tüke Busz Közösségi Közlekedési Zrt. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

11

2022/C 326/16

Case C-417/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 21 June 2022 — AB v Disziplinarrat der Österreichischen Apothekerkammer

11

2022/C 326/17

Case C-421/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) (Latvia) lodged on 22 June 2022 — SIA DOBELES AUTOBUSU PARKS, AS CATA, SIA VTU VALMIERA, SIA JELGAVAS AUTOBUSU PARKS, SIA Jēkabpils autobusu parks v Iepirkumu uzraudzības birojs, Valsts SIA Autotransporta direkcija

12

2022/C 326/18

Case C-425/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 28 June 2022 — MOL Magyar Olaj- és Gázipari Nyrt. v Mercedes-Benz Group AG

12

2022/C 326/19

Case C-435/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München (Germany) lodged on 1 July 2022 — Generalstaatsanwaltschaft München v HF

13

2022/C 326/20

Case C-439/22: Action brought on 5 July 2022 — European Commission v Ireland

13

2022/C 326/21

Case C-449/22: Action brought on 7 July 2022 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

14

2022/C 326/22

Case C-452/22: Action brought on 8 July 2022 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

15

2022/C 326/23

Case C-454/22: Action brought on 7 July 2022 — European Commission v Republic of Latvia

16

2022/C 326/24

Case C-457/22: Action brought on 8 July 2022 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia

16

2022/C 326/25

Case C-467/22 P: Appeal brought on 12 July 2022 by Airoldi Metalli SpA against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 2 May 2022 in Case T-328/21, Airoldi Metalli v Commission

17

General Court

2022/C 326/26

Case T-334/22: Action brought on 1 June 2022 — Danske Fragtmænd v Commission

19

2022/C 326/27

Case T-369/22: Action brought on 24 June 2022 — Heßler v Commission

19

2022/C 326/28

Case T-375/22: Action brought on 21 June 2022 — Izuzquiza and Others v Parliament

21

2022/C 326/29

Case T-377/22: Action brought on 29 June 2022 — Cayago Tec v EUIPO — iAqua (Personal watercraft, Motorboats)

22

2022/C 326/30

Case T-412/22: Action brought on 4 July 2022 — PAN Europe v Commission

22

2022/C 326/31

Case T-415/22: Action brought on 4 July 2022 — Cyprus v EUIPO — Fontana Food (GRILLOUMI)

23

2022/C 326/32

Case T-419/22: Action brought on 6 July 2022 — MEDEX v EUIPO — Gerrit Cornelis Johan Stein (medex)

24

2022/C 326/33

Case T-427/22: Action brought on 11 July 2022 — Coljnar v EUIPO — Barbarian Sports Wear (Barbarian Fashion)

24

2022/C 326/34

Case T-428/22: Action brought on 6 July 2022 — Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals (TRiM)

25

2022/C 326/35

Case T-429/22: Action brought on 8 July 2022 — Oatly v EUIPO — D’s Naturals (Wow no cow!)

26

2022/C 326/36

Case T-433/22: Action brought on 8 July 2022 — Spreewood Distillers v EUIPO — Radgonske gorice (STORK)

26

2022/C 326/37

Case T-434/22: Action brought on 11 July 2022 — Topas v EUIPO — Tarczyński (VEGE STORY)

27

2022/C 326/38

Case T-435/22: Action brought on 12 July 2022 — Pascoe pharmazeutische Präparate v EUIPO — Novartis Pharma (PASCELMO)

28

2022/C 326/39

Case T-437/22: Action brought on 12 July 2022 — Vanhove v EUIPO — Aldi Einkauf (bistro Régent)

28

2022/C 326/40

Case T-439/22: Action brought on 14 July 2022 — Rada Perfumery v EUIPO — Prada (RADA PERFUMES)

29

2022/C 326/41

Case T-445/22: Action brought on 18 July 2022 — Columbus Stainless v Commission

30

2022/C 326/42

Case T-446/22: Action brought on 19 July 2022 — Corver v EUIPO (CHR ME)

30

---

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 29.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/1

---

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

(2022/C 326/01)

Last publication

OJ C 318, 22.8.2022

Past publications

OJ C 311, 16.8.2022

OJ C 303, 8.8.2022

OJ C 294, 1.8.2022

OJ C 284, 25.7.2022

OJ C 276, 18.7.2022

OJ C 266, 11.7.2022

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 29.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/2

---

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 24 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Krakowie — Poland) — Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich

(Case C-2/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Citizenship of the Union - Articles 20 and 21 TFEU - Right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States - Birth certificate issued by the Member State of birth of the child and designating two mothers in respect of that child - Refusal by the Member State of origin of one of those two mothers to transcribe that birth certificate into the national register of civil status - Transcription of that certificate being a prerequisite for the issuing of identity documents - National legislation of that Member State of origin not recognising the parenthood of persons of the same sex)

(2022/C 326/02)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Krakowie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich

Other parties: K.S., S.V.D., Prokurator Prokuratury Okręgowej w Krakowie M.C., Prokuratura Krajowa, Kierownik Urzędu Stanu Cywilnego w Krakowie

Operative part of the order

Articles 20 and 21 TFEU, read in conjunction with Articles 7 and 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 4(3) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of a minor child who is a citizen of the Union and whose birth certificate, issued by the authorities of a Member State, designates as that child’s parents two persons of the same sex, the Member State of which that child is a national (i) is obliged to issue to that child an identity card or a passport without requiring the prior transcription of a birth certificate of that child into the national register of civil status, and (ii) is obliged to recognise, as is any other Member State, the document from another Member State that permits that same child to exercise without impediment, with each of those two persons, his or her right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States.

---

(1)  Date of filing: 4.1.2021.

---

| 29.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/3

---

Appeal brought on 23 March 2021 by OH against the order of the General Court delivered on 9 December 2020 in Case T-704/20 AJ, OH v European Court of Human Rights

(Case C-692/21 P)

(2022/C 326/03)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Appellant: OH

Other party to the proceedings: European Court of Human Rights

By order of 17 May 2022, the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) held that the appeal brought by OH is dismissed due to a manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court and that OH is to bear her own costs.

---

| 29.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/3

---

Appeal brought on 2 March 2022 by MO against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 21 December 2021 in Case T-587/20, MO v Council

(Case C-165/22 P)

(2022/C 326/04)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: MO (represented by: A. Guillerme, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

By order of 15 July 2022, the Court (Tenth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded and ordered the appellant to bear her own costs.

---

| 29.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/3

---

Appeal brought on 8 April 2022 by Ignacio Carrasco SL against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 23 February 2022 in Case T-209/21, Ignacio Carrasco SL v EUIPO, Santos Carrasco Manzano SA

(Case C-247/22 P)

(2022/C 326/05)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Ignacio Carrasco SL (represented by: J .L. Donoso Romero, abogado)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Santos Carrasco Manzano SA

By order of 14 July 2022, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) ruled that the appeal should not be allowed to proceed and ordered Ignacio Carrasco SL to bear its own costs.

---

| 29.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/4

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 17 de Palma de Mallorca (Spain) lodged on 20 April 2022 — ZR, PI v Banco Santander, S.A.

(Case C-265/22)

(2022/C 326/06)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 17 de Palma de Mallorca

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: ZR, PI

Defendant: Banco Santander, S.A.

Questions referred

| 1. | Given that the calculation of the variable interest index known as the ‘average rate for mortgage loans of a term greater than three years granted by all [financial] institutions’ includes any fees and margins applied, which are incorporated into the interest rate, thus making that rate more onerous for the consumer than the other annual percentage rates of charge on the market, and given that the rules laid down in Bank of Spain Notice 5/1994 — which represents the regulatory body’s policy rule in this sphere — require such margins to be negative, a requirement which financial institutions have widely failed to disclose and fulfil, is a complete departure from the regulatory body’s policy rule contrary to Articles 5 and 7 of Directive 2005/29/EC (1)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Given that the calculation of the variable interest index known as the ‘average rate for mortgage loans of a term greater than three years granted by all [financial] institutions’ includes any fees and margins applied, which are incorporated into the interest rate, thus making that rate more onerous for the consumer than the other annual percentage rates of charge on the market, and given that the rules laid down in Bank of Spain Notice 5/1994 — which represents the regulatory body’s policy rule in this sphere — require such margins to be negative, a requirement which financial institutions have widely failed to disclose and fulfil, is a complete departure from the regulatory body’s policy rule contrary to Articles 5 and 7 of Directive 2005/29/EC (1)?

| 2. | If it is shown that departing from the aforementioned policy rule is contrary to Articles 5 and 7 of Directive 2005/29/EC, in accordance with the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union [referred to] in Case C-689/20, (2) does that unfair practice constitute an element in the evaluation and assessment of the unfairness of the clause in question and is it contrary to Articles 3 and 4 of Directive 93/13 (3)? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If it is shown that departing from the aforementioned policy rule is contrary to Articles 5 and 7 of Directive 2005/29/EC, in accordance with the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union [referred to] in Case C-689/20, (2) does that unfair practice constitute an element in the evaluation and assessment of the unfairness of the clause in question and is it contrary to Articles 3 and 4 of Directive 93/13 (3)?

| 3. | If Bank of Spain Notice 5/1994, which is specific to the financial sector but not common knowledge to the general public, was not taken into account in any way, and if the fact of its not being taken into account is declared to be contrary to Article 7 of Directive 2005/29/EC, does this constitute an element in the assessment of unfairness under Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13 [and does this] warrant the application of a transparency check to the aforementioned index comprising a ‘reference rate plus margin’? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If Bank of Spain Notice 5/1994, which is specific to the financial sector but not common knowledge to the general public, was not taken into account in any way, and if the fact of its not being taken into account is declared to be contrary to Article 7 of Directive 2005/29/EC, does this constitute an element in the assessment of unfairness under Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13 [and does this] warrant the application of a transparency check to the aforementioned index comprising a ‘reference rate plus margin’?

| 4. | Do Articles 3(1), 4 and 5 of Directive 93/13/EEC preclude national case-law, in the light of the specific rules of the IRPH, [according to which] a failure to apply a negative margin [does not] constitute an unfair practice, despite the requirement to do so laid down in the preamble to the Bank of Spain notice, and the fact that the IRPH, which is less advantageous than all the existing annual percentage rates of charge, has been marketed as if it were a product as advantageous as the EURIBOR, even though it does not take into account the requirement to add a negative margin and, [consequently], contracts may cease to be concluded because the clauses providing for its application are considered to be void, banks may in future refrain from using those clauses because marketing this service to vulnerable consumers may affect [their] economic behaviour and it may be found that these clauses must be excluded from commercial contracts because they are unfair in view of the fact that they have been included in the price of the interest, contrary to Directive 2005/29/EC? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Do Articles 3(1), 4 and 5 of Directive 93/13/EEC preclude national case-law, in the light of the specific rules of the IRPH, [according to which] a failure to apply a negative margin [does not] constitute an unfair practice, despite the requirement to do so laid down in the preamble to the Bank of Spain notice, and the fact that the IRPH, which is less advantageous than all the existing annual percentage rates of charge, has been marketed as if it were a product as advantageous as the EURIBOR, even though it does not take into account the requirement to add a negative margin and, [consequently], contracts may cease to be concluded because the clauses providing for its application are considered to be void, banks may in future refrain from using those clauses because marketing this service to vulnerable consumers may affect [their] economic behaviour and it may be found that these clauses must be excluded from commercial contracts because they are unfair in view of the fact that they have been included in the price of the interest, contrary to Directive 2005/29/EC?

| 5. | Is it contrary to Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC for a disclosure and unfairness check not to be carried out in the case where a margin has been covertly imposed, given that, in an offer made by a bank, the margin must be negative, and for consumers not to have been made aware at the pre-contractual information stage of the economic behaviour of the interest applied to their loan, contrary to Directive 2005/29/EC? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Is it contrary to Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC for a disclosure and unfairness check not to be carried out in the case where a margin has been covertly imposed, given that, in an offer made by a bank, the margin must be negative, and for consumers not to have been made aware at the pre-contractual information stage of the economic behaviour of the interest applied to their loan, contrary to Directive 2005/29/EC?

---

(1)  Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22).

(2)  ECLI:EU:C:2021:791.

(3)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).

---

| 29.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/5

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 26 April 2022 — Dyrektor Krajowej Informacji Skarbowej v P. in W.

(Case C-282/22)

(2022/C 326/07)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant in cassation and defendant at first instance: Dyrektor Krajowej Informacji Skarbowej

Respondent in cassation and applicant at first instance: P. in W.

Questions referred

Does a complex supply made to electric vehicle users at recharging points which encompasses:

| (a) | the provision of recharging devices (including integration of the charger with the vehicle operating system), |
| --- | --- |

(a)

the provision of recharging devices (including integration of the charger with the vehicle operating system),

| (b) | the supply of electricity, within duly adjusted parameters, to the batteries of the electric vehicle, |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the supply of electricity, within duly adjusted parameters, to the batteries of the electric vehicle,

| (c) | the necessary technical support for vehicle users, and |
| --- | --- |

(c)

the necessary technical support for vehicle users, and

| (d) | the provision of a special platform, website or application whereby users may reserve a particular connector and view their transaction and payment history, and of the option to use an ‘e-wallet’ to pay the balance due for individual recharging sessions






  — | constitute a supply of goods within the meaning of Article 14(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, (1) or a supply of services within the meaning of Article 24(1) thereof? |
| --- | --- | --- |

(d)

the provision of a special platform, website or application whereby users may reserve a particular connector and view their transaction and payment history, and of the option to use an ‘e-wallet’ to pay the balance due for individual recharging sessions

—

constitute a supply of goods within the meaning of Article 14(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, (1) or a supply of services within the meaning of Article 24(1) thereof?

---

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

---

| 29.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/5

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’arrondissement (Luxembourg) lodged on 29 April 2022 — TP v Administration de l’enregistrement, des domaines et de la TVA

(Case C-288/22)

(2022/C 326/08)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal d’arrondissement

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: TP

Defendant: Administration de l’enregistrement, des domaines et de la TVA

Questions referred

| 1. | Is a natural person who is a member of the board of directors of a public limited company incorporated under Luxembourg law carrying out an ‘economic’ activity within the meaning of Article 9 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, (1) and more specifically, are percentage fees received by that person to be regarded as remuneration paid in return for services provided to that company? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is a natural person who is a member of the board of directors of a public limited company incorporated under Luxembourg law carrying out an ‘economic’ activity within the meaning of Article 9 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, (1) and more specifically, are percentage fees received by that person to be regarded as remuneration paid in return for services provided to that company?

| 2. | Is a natural person who is a member of the board of directors of a public limited company incorporated under Luxembourg law carrying out his or her activity ‘independently’, within the meaning of Articles 9 and 10 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is a natural person who is a member of the board of directors of a public limited company incorporated under Luxembourg law carrying out his or her activity ‘independently’, within the meaning of Articles 9 and 10 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax?

---

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

---

| 29.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/6

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Concorrência, Regulação e Supervisão (Portugal) lodged on 4 May 2022 — Banco BPN/BIC Português, SA, Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria SA, Portuguese branch, Banco Português de Investimento SA (BPI), Banco Espírito Santo SA (in liquidation), Banco Santander Totta SA, Barclays Bank Plc, Caixa Económica Montepio Geral — Caixa Económica Bancária, SA, Caixa Geral de Depósitos, SA, Unión de Creditos Imobiliarios, SA — Estabelecimento Financeiro de Crédito SOC, Caixa Central de Crédito Agrícola Mútuo CRL, Banco Comercial Português, SA v Autoridade da Concorrência

(Case C-298/22)

(2022/C 326/09)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal da Concorrência, Regulação e Supervisão

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Banco BPN/BIC Português, SA, Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria SA, Portuguese branch, Banco Português de Investimento SA (BPI), Banco Espírito Santo SA (in liquidation), Banco Santander Totta SA, Barclays Bank Plc, Caixa Económica Montepio Geral — Caixa Económica Bancária, SA, Caixa Geral de Depósitos, SA, Unión de Creditos Imobiliarios, SA — Estabelecimento Financeiro de Crédito SOC, Caixa Central de Crédito Agrícola Mútuo CRL, Banco Comercial Português, SA

Defendant: Autoridade da Concorrência

Other party: Ministério Público

Questions referred

| I. | Does Article 101 TFEU (formerly Article 81 TEC) preclude the classification as a restriction of competition by object of a comprehensive, monthly exchange between competitors of information concerning commercial conditions (in particular, current and future credit spreads and risk variables) along with (monthly, individualised and disaggregated) production figures on home loan offers, corporate lending offers and consumer credit offers, exchanged regularly and in reciprocal fashion, in the retail banking sector, in the context of a concentrated market with barriers to entry, which has artificially increased transparency and reduced uncertainty with regard to the strategic conduct of competitors? |
| --- | --- |

I.

Does Article 101 TFEU (formerly Article 81 TEC) preclude the classification as a restriction of competition by object of a comprehensive, monthly exchange between competitors of information concerning commercial conditions (in particular, current and future credit spreads and risk variables) along with (monthly, individualised and disaggregated) production figures on home loan offers, corporate lending offers and consumer credit offers, exchanged regularly and in reciprocal fashion, in the retail banking sector, in the context of a concentrated market with barriers to entry, which has artificially increased transparency and reduced uncertainty with regard to the strategic conduct of competitors?

| II. | If the answer is in the affirmative, does Article 101 TFEU preclude such classification where it has been impossible to identify or establish any gain in efficiency or any uncertain or positive effect on competition resulting from that exchange of information? |
| --- | --- |

II.

If the answer is in the affirmative, does Article 101 TFEU preclude such classification where it has been impossible to identify or establish any gain in efficiency or any uncertain or positive effect on competition resulting from that exchange of information?

---

| 29.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/7

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 12 May 2022 — GE Infrastructure Hungary Holding Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

(Case C-318/22)

(2022/C 326/10)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: GE Infrastructure Hungary Holding Kft.

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Council Directive 2009/133/EC (1) of 19 October 2009 on the common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, partial divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States and to the transfer of the registered office of an SE or SCE between Member States (‘the Directive’) be interpreted as meaning that compatibility with recital 2 and Article 1(a) thereof is maintained by national legislation (or a provision of national law), or the interpretation and application in practice of such national legislation (or such a provision of national law), pursuant to which the Directive is held not to apply to intra-State business conversions but only to international and cross-border business conversions, in circumstances in which the provisions of the Directive were transposed by the a társasági adóról és osztalékadóról szóló 1996. évi LXXXI. törvény (Law LXXXI of 1996 on corporation tax and tax on dividends; ‘the Law on corporation tax’) in such a way that, although [EU] law does not directly govern that matter, the national legislature provided in Article 31(1)(a) of that Law that the purpose of the latter was to align the legislation so enacted with acts of EU law, including the Directive? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Council Directive 2009/133/EC (1) of 19 October 2009 on the common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, partial divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States and to the transfer of the registered office of an SE or SCE between Member States (‘the Directive’) be interpreted as meaning that compatibility with recital 2 and Article 1(a) thereof is maintained by national legislation (or a provision of national law), or the interpretation and application in practice of such national legislation (or such a provision of national law), pursuant to which the Directive is held not to apply to intra-State business conversions but only to international and cross-border business conversions, in circumstances in which the provisions of the Directive were transposed by the a társasági adóról és osztalékadóról szóló 1996. évi LXXXI. törvény (Law LXXXI of 1996 on corporation tax and tax on dividends; ‘the Law on corporation tax’) in such a way that, although [EU] law does not directly govern that matter, the national legislature provided in Article 31(1)(a) of that Law that the purpose of the latter was to align the legislation so enacted with acts of EU law, including the Directive?

| 2. | Must Article 8(2) of the Directive be interpreted as meaning that compatibility with that provision is maintained by national legislation (or a provision of national law), or the interpretation and application in practice of such legislation (or such a provision), whereby, in the context of a partial division of undertakings resident in a single Member State, the shareholder of the transferring company is obliged to reduce the nominal value of his holding in the transferring company (the subscribed capital of the transferring company) in order to reduce the book value of his holding (his shares) in the transferring company, the tax administration requiring that reduction as a precondition of eligibility for the tax treatment provided for in Article 8(2) of the Directive, even in the case where the partial division entails losses for the shareholder of the transferring company? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must Article 8(2) of the Directive be interpreted as meaning that compatibility with that provision is maintained by national legislation (or a provision of national law), or the interpretation and application in practice of such legislation (or such a provision), whereby, in the context of a partial division of undertakings resident in a single Member State, the shareholder of the transferring company is obliged to reduce the nominal value of his holding in the transferring company (the subscribed capital of the transferring company) in order to reduce the book value of his holding (his shares) in the transferring company, the tax administration requiring that reduction as a precondition of eligibility for the tax treatment provided for in Article 8(2) of the Directive, even in the case where the partial division entails losses for the shareholder of the transferring company?

| 3. | Must Article 8(2) of the Directive be interpreted as meaning that compatibility with the rule set out therein is maintained by national legislation (or a provision of national law), or the interpretation and application in practice of such legislation (or such a provision of national law), whereby the treatment for corporation tax purposes envisaged in that rule is not applicable to a partial division if the transferring company concerned is a single-member commercial company, that is to say if, as a result of the partial division, the founder of the transferring company retains his 100 % holding in that company unchanged, or there is no change to the subscribed capital of the transferring commercial company? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Must Article 8(2) of the Directive be interpreted as meaning that compatibility with the rule set out therein is maintained by national legislation (or a provision of national law), or the interpretation and application in practice of such legislation (or such a provision of national law), whereby the treatment for corporation tax purposes envisaged in that rule is not applicable to a partial division if the transferring company concerned is a single-member commercial company, that is to say if, as a result of the partial division, the founder of the transferring company retains his 100 % holding in that company unchanged, or there is no change to the subscribed capital of the transferring commercial company?

---

(1)  OJ 2009 L 310, p. 34.

---

| 29.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/7

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 20 May 2022 — Ligue des droits humains ASBL, BA v L’organe de contrôle de l’information policière

(Case C-333/22)

(2022/C 326/11)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Ligue des droits humains ASBL, BA

Respondent: L’organe de contrôle de l’information policière

Questions referred

| 1. | Do Articles 47 and 8(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union require provision to be made for a judicial remedy against an independent supervisory authority such as the Supervisory Body for Police Information where it exercises the rights of the data subject vis-à-vis the controller? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do Articles 47 and 8(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union require provision to be made for a judicial remedy against an independent supervisory authority such as the Supervisory Body for Police Information where it exercises the rights of the data subject vis-à-vis the controller?

| 2. | Does Article 17 of Directive 2016/680 (1) comply with Articles 47 and 8(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as interpreted by the Court of Justice, in that it obliges the supervisory authority — which exercises the rights of the data subject vis-à-vis the controller — only to inform the data subject ‘that all necessary verifications or a review by the supervisory authority have taken place’ and ‘of his or her right to seek a judicial remedy’, when such information does not enable any a posteriori review to be conducted as regards the action taken and assessment made by the supervisory authority in the light of the data of the data subject and the obligations of the controller? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does Article 17 of Directive 2016/680 (1) comply with Articles 47 and 8(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as interpreted by the Court of Justice, in that it obliges the supervisory authority — which exercises the rights of the data subject vis-à-vis the controller — only to inform the data subject ‘that all necessary verifications or a review by the supervisory authority have taken place’ and ‘of his or her right to seek a judicial remedy’, when such information does not enable any a posteriori review to be conducted as regards the action taken and assessment made by the supervisory authority in the light of the data of the data subject and the obligations of the controller?

---

(1)  Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA (OJ 2016 L 119, p. 89).

---

| 29.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/8

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) (Portugal) lodged on 23 May 2022 — A, S.A. (Portugal) v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

(Case C-335/22)

(2022/C 326/12)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: A, S.A.

Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Questions referred

| 1. | Can Article 5(2)(b) of Council Directive 2008/7/EC (1) of 12 February 2008 be interpreted as precluding the application of stamp duty to fees for financial intermediation services provided by a bank in connection with the placement of securities — bonds and commercial papers — issued by various commercial companies, as part of which services the applicant is under an obligation to do all that it can, identifying and making contact with investors, to distribute the securities, obtain orders for subscription or acquisition and, in some cases, acquire the securities on offer? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can Article 5(2)(b) of Council Directive 2008/7/EC (1) of 12 February 2008 be interpreted as precluding the application of stamp duty to fees for financial intermediation services provided by a bank in connection with the placement of securities — bonds and commercial papers — issued by various commercial companies, as part of which services the applicant is under an obligation to do all that it can, identifying and making contact with investors, to distribute the securities, obtain orders for subscription or acquisition and, in some cases, acquire the securities on offer?

| 2. | Does the answer to the first question referred differ depending on whether the provision of the financial services is a legal requirement or merely optional? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the answer to the first question referred differ depending on whether the provision of the financial services is a legal requirement or merely optional?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2008/7/EC of 12 February 2008 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ 2008 L 46, p. 11).

---

| 29.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/9

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Pécsi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 7 June 2022 — Viterra Hungary Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

(Case C-366/22)

(2022/C 326/13)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Pécsi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Viterra Hungary Kft.

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

Questions referred

| 1. | Must EU law, in particular Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1821 (1) amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, be interpreted as precluding the practice of a Member State whereby a toasting process, which is required in order to remove hexane (used in oil extraction and harmful to animal and human health) from the residue that remains after soya-bean oil has been extracted using the solvent hexane, is deemed to constitute final processing which provides grounds for classifying the product under heading 2309 of the nomenclature and prevents it from being classified under heading 2304 of the nomenclature? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must EU law, in particular Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1821 (1) amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, be interpreted as precluding the practice of a Member State whereby a toasting process, which is required in order to remove hexane (used in oil extraction and harmful to animal and human health) from the residue that remains after soya-bean oil has been extracted using the solvent hexane, is deemed to constitute final processing which provides grounds for classifying the product under heading 2309 of the nomenclature and prevents it from being classified under heading 2304 of the nomenclature?

| 2. | Must EU law, in particular Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1821 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, be interpreted as meaning that a product is to be considered ‘unfit for human consumption’ when:






  (a) | the use of that product in the food industry is entirely ruled out or impossible, that is to say, that product cannot be used or processed in the food industry or serve as the basis for manufacturing a product which can be consumed by humans; or |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Must EU law, in particular Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1821 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, be interpreted as meaning that a product is to be considered ‘unfit for human consumption’ when:

(a)

the use of that product in the food industry is entirely ruled out or impossible, that is to say, that product cannot be used or processed in the food industry or serve as the basis for manufacturing a product which can be consumed by humans; or

| (b) | that product cannot be consumed by humans in its imported state but, once that product has been used or processed in the food industry, it may serve as the basis for manufacturing a product which can be consumed by humans? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

that product cannot be consumed by humans in its imported state but, once that product has been used or processed in the food industry, it may serve as the basis for manufacturing a product which can be consumed by humans?

| 3. | Must EU law, in particular Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1821 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, be interpreted as meaning that a product may also be considered a valuable animal food where the product imported in the form of pellets or granules must be physically ground and mixed with a compound feed before it can be consumed by animals? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Must EU law, in particular Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1821 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, be interpreted as meaning that a product may also be considered a valuable animal food where the product imported in the form of pellets or granules must be physically ground and mixed with a compound feed before it can be consumed by animals?

| 4. | Must EU law, in particular Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1821 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, be interpreted as precluding the practice of a Member State whereby the fact that the product has been genetically modified precludes it from being fit for human consumption, that is to say, that genetically modified soya meal cannot be used in the food industry? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Must EU law, in particular Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1821 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, be interpreted as precluding the practice of a Member State whereby the fact that the product has been genetically modified precludes it from being fit for human consumption, that is to say, that genetically modified soya meal cannot be used in the food industry?

| 5. | Must EU law, in particular Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1821 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, be interpreted as meaning that, when classifying a product under heading 2304 or heading 2309 of the nomenclature, regard must be had:






  (a) | to the actual use made of the product after it has been imported; or |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.

Must EU law, in particular Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1821 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, be interpreted as meaning that, when classifying a product under heading 2304 or heading 2309 of the nomenclature, regard must be had:

(a)

to the actual use made of the product after it has been imported; or

| (b) | to the objective characteristics of the product at the time of importation, that is to say, whether the product can, in its imported state, be used for human and/or animal consumption? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

to the objective characteristics of the product at the time of importation, that is to say, whether the product can, in its imported state, be used for human and/or animal consumption?

| 6. | Must EU law, in particular Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1821 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, be interpreted as meaning that the fact that soya meal is unfit for human consumption does not prevent it from being classified under heading 2304 of the nomenclature? |
| --- | --- |

6.

Must EU law, in particular Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1821 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, be interpreted as meaning that the fact that soya meal is unfit for human consumption does not prevent it from being classified under heading 2304 of the nomenclature?

| 7. | Must EU law, in particular Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1821 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, be interpreted as meaning that soya meal such as that at issue in the present proceedings, that is to say, soya meal which undergoes the toasting process required in order to remove the hexane used in oil extraction (which is harmful to animal and human health), is included under heading 2304 or under heading 2309 of the nomenclature? |
| --- | --- |

7.

Must EU law, in particular Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1821 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, be interpreted as meaning that soya meal such as that at issue in the present proceedings, that is to say, soya meal which undergoes the toasting process required in order to remove the hexane used in oil extraction (which is harmful to animal and human health), is included under heading 2304 or under heading 2309 of the nomenclature?

---

(1)  OJ 2016 L 294, p. 1.

---

| 29.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 8 June 2022 — XXX v Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides

(Case C-374/22)

(2022/C 326/14)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: XXX

Respondent: Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides

Questions referred

| 1. | ‘Are Article 2(j) and Article 23 of “Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted” (1) to be interpreted as applying to the father of two children who were born in Belgium and who have been recognised as refugees there, whereas Article 2(j) of Directive 2011/95/EU specifies that the family members of the beneficiary of international protection who are covered by Directive 2011/95/EU are such “in so far as the family already existed in the country of origin”?’ |
| --- | --- |

1.

‘Are Article 2(j) and Article 23 of “Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted” (1) to be interpreted as applying to the father of two children who were born in Belgium and who have been recognised as refugees there, whereas Article 2(j) of Directive 2011/95/EU specifies that the family members of the beneficiary of international protection who are covered by Directive 2011/95/EU are such “in so far as the family already existed in the country of origin”?’

| 2. | ‘Does the fact relied on by the appellant at the hearing, that his children are dependent on him and that, according to the appellant, the best interests of his children require that international protection be granted to him, mean, in the light of recitals 18, 19 and 38 of Directive 2011/95/EU, that the concept of family members of the beneficiary of international protection, covered by Directive 2011/95/EU, is extended to a family that did not exist in the country of origin?’ |
| --- | --- |

2.

‘Does the fact relied on by the appellant at the hearing, that his children are dependent on him and that, according to the appellant, the best interests of his children require that international protection be granted to him, mean, in the light of recitals 18, 19 and 38 of Directive 2011/95/EU, that the concept of family members of the beneficiary of international protection, covered by Directive 2011/95/EU, is extended to a family that did not exist in the country of origin?’

| 3. | ‘If the first two questions referred for a preliminary ruling are answered in the affirmative, can Article 23 of Directive 2011/95/EU, which has not been transposed into Belgian law to provide for the granting of a residence permit or international protection to the father of children who were recognised as refugees in Belgium and who were born there, have direct effect?’ |
| --- | --- |

3.

‘If the first two questions referred for a preliminary ruling are answered in the affirmative, can Article 23 of Directive 2011/95/EU, which has not been transposed into Belgian law to provide for the granting of a residence permit or international protection to the father of children who were recognised as refugees in Belgium and who were born there, have direct effect?’

| 4. | ‘If so, does Article 23 of Directive 2011/95/EU confer, in the absence of transposition, on the father of children recognised as refugees in Belgium and born there the right to claim the benefits referred to in Articles 24 to 35, including a residence permit allowing him to reside legally in Belgium with his family, or the right to obtain international protection even if the father does not individually qualify for such protection?’ |
| --- | --- |

4.

‘If so, does Article 23 of Directive 2011/95/EU confer, in the absence of transposition, on the father of children recognised as refugees in Belgium and born there the right to claim the benefits referred to in Articles 24 to 35, including a residence permit allowing him to reside legally in Belgium with his family, or the right to obtain international protection even if the father does not individually qualify for such protection?’

| 5. | ‘Does the effectiveness of Article 23 of the Qualification Directive, read in the light of Articles 7, 18 and 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and recitals 18, 19 and 38 of the Qualification Directive, require Member States that have not amended their national laws so that family members (within the meaning of Article 2(j) of that directive or in respect of whom there are particular circumstances of dependency) of the beneficiary of such status may, if they do not individually qualify for such status, claim certain benefits, to grant those family members the right to derivative refugee status so that they may claim those benefits in order to maintain family unity?’ |
| --- | --- |

5.

‘Does the effectiveness of Article 23 of the Qualification Directive, read in the light of Articles 7, 18 and 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and recitals 18, 19 and 38 of the Qualification Directive, require Member States that have not amended their national laws so that family members (within the meaning of Article 2(j) of that directive or in respect of whom there are particular circumstances of dependency) of the beneficiary of such status may, if they do not individually qualify for such status, claim certain benefits, to grant those family members the right to derivative refugee status so that they may claim those benefits in order to maintain family unity?’

| 6. | ‘Does the effectiveness of Article 23 of the Qualification Directive, read in the light of Articles 7, 18 and 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and recitals 18, 19 and 38 of the Qualification Directive, require Member States that have not amended their national laws so that family members (within the meaning of Article 2(j) of that directive or in respect of whom there are particular circumstances of dependency) of the beneficiary of such status may, if they do not individually qualify for such status, claim certain benefits, to grant those family members the right to derivative refugee status so that they may claim those benefits in order to maintain family unity?’ |
| --- | --- |

6.

‘Does the effectiveness of Article 23 of the Qualification Directive, read in the light of Articles 7, 18 and 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and recitals 18, 19 and 38 of the Qualification Directive, require Member States that have not amended their national laws so that family members (within the meaning of Article 2(j) of that directive or in respect of whom there are particular circumstances of dependency) of the beneficiary of such status may, if they do not individually qualify for such status, claim certain benefits, to grant those family members the right to derivative refugee status so that they may claim those benefits in order to maintain family unity?’

---

(1)  OJ 2011 L 337, p. 9.

---

| 29.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/11

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Pécsi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 14 June 2022 — Tüke Busz Közösségi Közlekedési Zrt. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

(Case C-391/22)

(2022/C 326/15)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Pécsi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Tüke Busz Közösségi Közlekedési Zrt.

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

Question referred

Are the decision adopted in this case by the Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal (National Tax and Customs Authority) and the practice followed by that authority, whereby ‘regular passenger transport does not include the mileage necessary for the maintenance of regular passenger transport vehicles or for refuelling’, compatible with the provisions of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity? (1)

---

(1)  OJ 2003 L 283, p. 51.

---

| 29.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/11

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 21 June 2022 — AB v Disziplinarrat der Österreichischen Apothekerkammer

(Case C-417/22)

(2022/C 326/16)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law: AB

Respondent authority: Disziplinarrat der Österreichischen Apothekerkammer

Question referred

Must Articles 87(3) and 90 of Directive 2001/83/EC, (1) as amended by Directive 2004/27/EC, (2) be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which prohibits price-based advertising of medicinal products?

---

(1)  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 (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67).

(2)  Directive 2004/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 amending Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 34).

---

| 29.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/12

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) (Latvia) lodged on 22 June 2022 — SIA DOBELES AUTOBUSU PARKS, AS CATA, SIA VTU VALMIERA, SIA JELGAVAS AUTOBUSU PARKS, SIA Jēkabpils autobusu parks v Iepirkumu uzraudzības birojs, Valsts SIA Autotransporta direkcija

(Case C-421/22)

(2022/C 326/17)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa (Senāts)

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants in cassation: SIA DOBELES AUTOBUSU PARKS, AS CATA, SIA VTU VALMIERA, SIA JELGAVAS AUTOBUSU PARKS, SIA Jēkabpils autobusu parks

Other parties to the proceedings: Iepirkumu uzraudzības birojs, Valsts SIA Autotransporta direkcija

Question referred

Do the second subparagraph of Article 1(1), Article 2a(2) and Article 3(2) of Regulation No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on public passenger transport services by rail and road and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 1191/69 and 1107/70, (1) as amended by Regulation (EU) No 2016/2338 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2016, permit a compensation scheme which does not impose on the competent authority an obligation to compensate a public transport service provider in full, by periodically index-linking the fare chargeable under the contract (the compensation sum), for any increase in the costs connected with providing the service which fall outside the service provider’s control, and which, therefore, does not entirely eliminate the risk that the service provider will incur non-compensable losses?

---

(1)  OJ 2007 L 315, p. 1.

(2)  Regulation (EU) 2016/2338 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2016 amending Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 concerning the opening of the market for domestic passenger transport services by rail (OJ 2016 L 354, p. 22).

---

| 29.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/12

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 28 June 2022 — MOL Magyar Olaj- és Gázipari Nyrt. v Mercedes-Benz Group AG

(Case C-425/22)

(2022/C 326/18)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Kúria

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: MOL Magyar Olaj- és Gázipari Nyrt.

Defendant: Mercedes-Benz Group AG

Questions referred

| 1. | Where a parent company brings an action for damages in respect of the anti-competitive conduct of another company in order to obtain compensation for the damage suffered as a result of that conduct solely by its subsidiaries, does the registered office of the parent company determine the forum of jurisdiction, as the place where the harmful event occurred for the purposes of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (‘the Brussels Ia Regulation’)? (1) |
| --- | --- |

1.

Where a parent company brings an action for damages in respect of the anti-competitive conduct of another company in order to obtain compensation for the damage suffered as a result of that conduct solely by its subsidiaries, does the registered office of the parent company determine the forum of jurisdiction, as the place where the harmful event occurred for the purposes of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (‘the Brussels Ia Regulation’)? (1)

| 2. | Is the fact that, at the time of the purchases at issue in the proceedings, not all the subsidiaries belonged to the parent company’s group of companies relevant for the purposes of the application of Article 7(2) of the Brussels Ia Regulation? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the fact that, at the time of the purchases at issue in the proceedings, not all the subsidiaries belonged to the parent company’s group of companies relevant for the purposes of the application of Article 7(2) of the Brussels Ia Regulation?

---

(1)  OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1.

---

| 29.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/13

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München (Germany) lodged on 1 July 2022 — Generalstaatsanwaltschaft München v HF

(Case C-435/22)

(2022/C 326/19)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Generalstaatsanwaltschaft München

Defendant: HF

Question referred

Must Article 54 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders, signed on 19 June 1990 in Schengen, read in conjunction with Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, (1) be interpreted as meaning that that those provisions preclude the extradition of a third-country national who is not an EU citizen in terms of Article 20 of the TFEU by the authorities of a contracting state to that Convention and an EU Member State to a third country if final judgment has been passed against the person concerned by another Member State of the European Union for the same offences to which the extradition request relates and that judgment has been enforced and where the decision to refuse to extradite that person to the third country would be possible only at the cost of breaching a bilateral extradition treaty that exists with that third country?

---

(1)  OJ 2000 C 364, p. 1.

---

| 29.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/13

---

Action brought on 5 July 2022 — European Commission v Ireland

(Case C-439/22)

(2022/C 326/20)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: U. Małecka, L. Malferrari, E. Manhaeve, J. Samnadda, Agents)

Defendant: Ireland

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive (EU) 2018/1972 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 establishing the European Electronic Communications Code or, in any event, by failing to notify those provisions to it, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 124 paragraph 1 of the Directive; or, in any event, by failing to communicate them to the Commission, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive (EU) 2018/1972 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 establishing the European Electronic Communications Code or, in any event, by failing to notify those provisions to it, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 124 paragraph 1 of the Directive; or, in any event, by failing to communicate them to the Commission, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive;

| — | order Ireland to pay to the Commission a lump sum based on a daily amount of EUR 5 544,9 per day with the minimum lump sum of EUR 1 376 000. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Ireland to pay to the Commission a lump sum based on a daily amount of EUR 5 544,9 per day with the minimum lump sum of EUR 1 376 000.

| — | if the failure to fulfil obligations found in paragraph 1 has continued until the date of delivery of the judgment in the present proceedings, order Ireland to pay to the Commission a penalty payment of EUR 24 942,9 per day from the date of the judgment in the present proceedings to the date of compliance with its obligations under the Directive; and |
| --- | --- |

—

if the failure to fulfil obligations found in paragraph 1 has continued until the date of delivery of the judgment in the present proceedings, order Ireland to pay to the Commission a penalty payment of EUR 24 942,9 per day from the date of the judgment in the present proceedings to the date of compliance with its obligations under the Directive; and

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

—

to order Ireland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Directive (EU) 2018/1972 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 establishing the European Electronic Communications Code lays down rules on telecommunications markets. Article 124 paragraph 1 of the Directive lays down the date of 21 December 2020 as the transposition deadline for the Member States.

By letter of 3 February 2021, the Commission addressed a letter of formal notice to Ireland in circumstances where the Commission had not received from Ireland any notification concerning the adoption of the necessary provisions to comply with the Directive. By letter of 23 September 2021, in the absence of any further notification regarding the transposition of the Directive, the Commission sent a reasoned opinion to Ireland. Nevertheless, the transposing measures have not yet been adopted by Ireland and, in any event, they have not been notified to the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ 2018, L 321, p. 36.

---

| 29.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/14

---

Action brought on 7 July 2022 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-449/22)

(2022/C 326/21)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Caro de Sousa, U. Małecka, L. Malferrari and E. Manhaeve, Agents)

Defendant: Portuguese Republic

Form of order sought

The European Commission claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that the Portuguese Republic has failed to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive (EU) 2018/1972 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 establishing the European Electronic Communications Code (EECC), by 21 December 2020, or, in any event, has failed to communicate those rules to the Commission, thereby failing to fulfil its obligations under Article 124(1) of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the Portuguese Republic has failed to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive (EU) 2018/1972 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 establishing the European Electronic Communications Code (EECC), by 21 December 2020, or, in any event, has failed to communicate those rules to the Commission, thereby failing to fulfil its obligations under Article 124(1) of that directive;

| — | order the Portuguese Republic to pay a fixed daily amount of EUR 5 181,3 from 22 December 2020 until the Portuguese Republic has fulfilled its obligation or the date of delivery of the judgment in terms of Article 260(3) TFEU, for an amount of at least EUR 1 286 000; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Portuguese Republic to pay a fixed daily amount of EUR 5 181,3 from 22 December 2020 until the Portuguese Republic has fulfilled its obligation or the date of delivery of the judgment in terms of Article 260(3) TFEU, for an amount of at least EUR 1 286 000;

| — | order the Portuguese Republic to pay a daily penalty payment of EUR 23 307,3 from the date of delivery of the judgment until the Portuguese Republic fulfils its obligation; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Portuguese Republic to pay a daily penalty payment of EUR 23 307,3 from the date of delivery of the judgment until the Portuguese Republic fulfils its obligation;

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

—

order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Directive (EU) 2018/1972 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 establishes the European Electronic Communications Code (‘the EECC’). That directive ought to have been transposed into the Portuguese legal order by 21 December 2020, and the Portuguese Republic ought to have communicated to the Commission the transposition measures adopted.

On 3 February 2021, the Commission sent a letter of formal notice to the Portuguese Republic and, subsequently, a reasoned opinion on 23 September 2021. The Portuguese Republic has still not adopted the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2018/1972 or, in any event, informed the Commission of the adoption of those rules.

---

(1)  OJ 2018 L 321, p. 36.

---

| 29.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/15

---

Action brought on 8 July 2022 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

(Case C-452/22)

(2022/C 326/22)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Malferrari, E. Manhaeve, U. Małecka, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Poland

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court should:

| (1) | declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive (EU) 2018/1972 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 establishing the European Electronic Communications Code, (1) or, in any event, by failing to communicate those measures to the Commission, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

(1)

declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive (EU) 2018/1972 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 establishing the European Electronic Communications Code, (1) or, in any event, by failing to communicate those measures to the Commission, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

| (2) | order the Republic of Poland to pay the Commission a lump sum based on a daily amount of EUR 13 180,5 per day, with a minimum lump sum of EUR 3 270 000; |
| --- | --- |

(2)

order the Republic of Poland to pay the Commission a lump sum based on a daily amount of EUR 13 180,5 per day, with a minimum lump sum of EUR 3 270 000;

| (3) | if the failure to fulfil obligations under (1) above persists until the date on which judgment is delivered in the present case, order the Republic of Poland to pay to the Commission a periodic penalty payment of EUR 59 290,5 for each day from the date of delivery of the judgment in the present case until it has complied with its obligations under the directive; and |
| --- | --- |

(3)

if the failure to fulfil obligations under (1) above persists until the date on which judgment is delivered in the present case, order the Republic of Poland to pay to the Commission a periodic penalty payment of EUR 59 290,5 for each day from the date of delivery of the judgment in the present case until it has complied with its obligations under the directive; and

| (4) | order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Directive (EU) 2018/1972 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishes a regulatory framework for the telecommunications sector. The time limit for transposition of the directive was 21 December 2020.

The Commission issued a letter of formal notice to the Republic of Poland on 3 February 2021. On 23 September 2021, the Commission issued the Republic of Poland with a reasoned opinion. Despite this, transposition measures have not yet been adopted by the Republic of Poland or, in any event, have not been communicated to the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ 2018 L 321, p. 36.

---

| 29.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/16

---

Action brought on 7 July 2022 — European Commission v Republic of Latvia

(Case C-454/22)

(2022/C 326/23)

Language of the case: Latvian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Malferrari, E. Manhaeve, U. Małecka and A. Sauka)

Defendant: Republic of Latvia

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Article 124(1) of Directive (EU) 2018/1972 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 establishing the European Electronic Communications Code (1) or, in any event, by failing to communicate those provisions to the Commission, the Republic of Latvia has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Article 124(1) of Directive (EU) 2018/1972 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 establishing the European Electronic Communications Code (1) or, in any event, by failing to communicate those provisions to the Commission, the Republic of Latvia has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

| — | order the Republic of Latvia to pay a lump sum of EUR 1 145,34 per day, with a minimum lump sum of EUR 316 000; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Republic of Latvia to pay a lump sum of EUR 1 145,34 per day, with a minimum lump sum of EUR 316 000;

| — | order the Republic of Latvia to pay to the Commission, in so far as the failure to fulfil the obligations set out in paragraph 1 persists pending delivery of the judgment in this case, a penalty payment of EUR 1 145,34 for each day’s delay from the date of delivery of the judgment in this case until the date on which the Republic of Latvia complies with its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Republic of Latvia to pay to the Commission, in so far as the failure to fulfil the obligations set out in paragraph 1 persists pending delivery of the judgment in this case, a penalty payment of EUR 1 145,34 for each day’s delay from the date of delivery of the judgment in this case until the date on which the Republic of Latvia complies with its obligations under that directive;

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

—

order Republic of Latvia to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Directive (EU) 2018/1972 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 establishing the European Electronic Communications Code sets out the regulatory framework for the telecommunications sector. The deadline for transposing that directive expired on 21 December 2020.

On 3 February 2021, the Commission sent a letter of formal notice to the Republic of Latvia. On 23 September 2021, the Commission sent a reasoned opinion to the Republic of Latvia. However, the Republic of Latvia has not yet adopted the transposition measures and, in any case, they have not been communicated to the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ 2018 L 321, p. 36.

---

| 29.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/16

---

Action brought on 8 July 2022 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia

(Case C-457/22)

(2022/C 326/24)

Language of the case: Slovenian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Kocjan, L. Malferrari, E. Manhaeve and U. Małecka)

Defendants: Republic of Slovenia

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Directive (EU) 2018/1972 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 establishing the European Electronic Communications Code, (1) or by having failed to notify the Commission thereof in each case, the Republic of Slovenia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 124(1) of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Directive (EU) 2018/1972 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 establishing the European Electronic Communications Code, (1) or by having failed to notify the Commission thereof in each case, the Republic of Slovenia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 124(1) of that directive;

| — | order the Republic of Slovenia to pay a penalty payment, under Article 260(3) TFEU, in the sum of EUR 6 256,17 per day, as from the day of delivery of the Court’s judgment in the present case since it has failed to fulfil its obligation to notify the Commission of the measures transposing Directive (EU) 2018/1972; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Republic of Slovenia to pay a penalty payment, under Article 260(3) TFEU, in the sum of EUR 6 256,17 per day, as from the day of delivery of the Court’s judgment in the present case since it has failed to fulfil its obligation to notify the Commission of the measures transposing Directive (EU) 2018/1972;

| — | order the Republic of Slovenia, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, to pay a lump sum of EUR 1 390,77 per day multiplied by the number of days for which the infringement continues, that lump sum being at least EUR 383 000; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Republic of Slovenia, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, to pay a lump sum of EUR 1 390,77 per day multiplied by the number of days for which the infringement continues, that lump sum being at least EUR 383 000;

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

—

order the Republic of Slovenia to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Directive (EU) 2018/1972 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 establishing the European Electronic Communications Code creates a legal framework to ensure the freedom to provide electronic communications networks and services at EU level. The deadline for transposing that directive was 21 December 2020.

At the time the deadline for transposing that directive was reached, the Republic of Slovenia had not notified the Commission of any measures transposing it. On 4 February 2021, the Commission sent a letter of formal notice to the Republic of Slovenia and, on 23 September 2021, sent a reasoned opinion to the latter. In spite of this, the Republic of Slovenia is still yet to adopt the measures necessary to transpose that directive into national law and therefore has not notified the Commission that it has done so.

---

(1)  Directive (EU) 2018/1972 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 establishing the European Electronic Communications Code (Recast) Text with EEA relevance (OJ 2018 L 321, p. 36).

---

| 29.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/17

---

Appeal brought on 12 July 2022 by Airoldi Metalli SpA against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 2 May 2022 in Case T-328/21, Airoldi Metalli v Commission

(Case C-467/22 P)

(2022/C 326/25)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Airoldi Metalli SpA (represented by: M. Campa, M. Pirovano, V. Villante, D. Rovetta, avvocati, and P. Gjørtler, advokat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the order under appeal and declare the action brought by Airoldi Metalli SpA admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the order under appeal and declare the action brought by Airoldi Metalli SpA admissible;

| — | refer the case back to the General Court for examining the substance of Airoldi Metalli SpA’s action; |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back to the General Court for examining the substance of Airoldi Metalli SpA’s action;

| — | order the Commission to bear the costs of the present appeal and of the proceedings before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to bear the costs of the present appeal and of the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant relies on two main grounds of appeal.

First ground of appeal. Error in law in interpreting the final limb of Article 263 (4) TFEU and the requisite and notion of regulatory act which does not entail implementing measures. Wrong qualification of facts and distortion of evidence.

Second ground of appeal. Error in law in interpreting the Article 263 (4) TFEU and in particular the requisite of ‘direct and individual concern’. Wrong qualification of facts.

---

General Court

| 29.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/19

---

Action brought on 1 June 2022 — Danske Fragtmænd v Commission

(Case T-334/22)

(2022/C 326/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Danske Fragtmænd A/S (Åbyhøj, Denmark) (represented by: L. Sandberg-Mørch, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

declare the application admissible and well founded;

| — | annul Commission Decision (EU) 2022/459 of 10 September 2021 (1); and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Decision (EU) 2022/459 of 10 September 2021 (1); and

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

—

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred by considering that the grant of approximately SEK 5,67 billion to Post Danmark foreseen by the October 2017 Agreement consists of several separate measures, namely (i) one measure covering the grant by Denmark to Post Danmark of SEK 1,683 billion for its redundancy costs; (ii) one measure covering the grant by Denmark of SEK 267 million to PostNord AB (to be transferred to Post Danmark); (iii) one measure covering the grant by Sweden of SEK 400 million to PostNord AB (to be transferred to Post Danmark); and (iv) one measure covering PostNord Group’s injection to Post Danmark of DKK 2,339 billion (SEK 3,3 billion). |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred by considering that the grant of approximately SEK 5,67 billion to Post Danmark foreseen by the October 2017 Agreement consists of several separate measures, namely (i) one measure covering the grant by Denmark to Post Danmark of SEK 1,683 billion for its redundancy costs; (ii) one measure covering the grant by Denmark of SEK 267 million to PostNord AB (to be transferred to Post Danmark); (iii) one measure covering the grant by Sweden of SEK 400 million to PostNord AB (to be transferred to Post Danmark); and (iv) one measure covering PostNord Group’s injection to Post Danmark of DKK 2,339 billion (SEK 3,3 billion).

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that, even if the capital injection by PostNord Group to Post Danmark of DKK 2,339 billion (SEK 3,3 billion) may be considered as a separate measure (quod non), the Commission erred by finding that the capital injection granted to Post Danmark by PostNord Group did not confer an advantage on Post Danmark. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that, even if the capital injection by PostNord Group to Post Danmark of DKK 2,339 billion (SEK 3,3 billion) may be considered as a separate measure (quod non), the Commission erred by finding that the capital injection granted to Post Danmark by PostNord Group did not confer an advantage on Post Danmark.

---

(1)  Commission Decision (EU) 2022/459 of 10 September 2021 on the State aid SA.49668 (2019/C) (ex 2017/FC) and SA.53403 (2019/C) (ex 2017/FC) implemented by Denmark and Sweden for PostNord AB and Post Danmark A/S (notified under document C(2021) 6568) (OJ 2022 L 93, p. 146).

---

| 29.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/19

---

Action brought on 24 June 2022 — Heßler v Commission

(Case T-369/22)

(2022/C 326/27)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Michael Heßler (Mannebach, Germany) (represented by: I. Steuer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the appointing authority’s decision on the complaint of 25 March 2022; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the appointing authority’s decision on the complaint of 25 March 2022;

| — | order the defendant to continue to grant the tax abatement pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 3(4) of Regulation (EEC, EURATOM, ECSC) No 260/68, as set out in Conclusions 222/04 of the Heads of Administration, as long as the conditions are met, with retroactive effect from 1 August 2021; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to continue to grant the tax abatement pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 3(4) of Regulation (EEC, EURATOM, ECSC) No 260/68, as set out in Conclusions 222/04 of the Heads of Administration, as long as the conditions are met, with retroactive effect from 1 August 2021;

| — | order interest to be paid on the payments not made, pursuant to the Financial Regulation; |
| --- | --- |

—

order interest to be paid on the payments not made, pursuant to the Financial Regulation;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

According to the decision on the complaint, the applicant — who, for the purposes of interpreting Regulation No 260/68, (1) relies on Conclusions 222/04 of the Heads of the Administration — fails to take account of the new case-law resulting from the judgment of 12 March 2020, XB v ECB (T-484/18, not published, EU:T:2020:90). Moreover, those conclusions do not have any binding effect in individual cases. Therefore, the administration does not have to apply them, since all decisions are ultimately decisions in individual cases. The fact that the applicant’s situation is not comparable to that of the applicant in Case T-484/18 is irrelevant; only the receipt of dependent child allowance gives rise to the entitlement to the tax abatement.

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging inaction on the part of the administration
  The applicant submitted, as previously, two requests for the continuation of the tax abatement in respect of his two children over the age of 26, pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 3(4) of Regulation No 260/68, as set out in more detail in Conclusions 222/04 of the Heads of Administration. The administration subsequently sent him two emails, which indicated that they were sent for information purposes, stating that, on the basis of the judgment in T-484/18, the tax abatement could be granted only if the applicant was in receipt of dependent child allowance. The applicant could not submit a complaint against that information under Article 90 of the Staff Regulations as there was no decision as such. Consequently, the administration failed to take a decision on his request. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging inaction on the part of the administration

The applicant submitted, as previously, two requests for the continuation of the tax abatement in respect of his two children over the age of 26, pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 3(4) of Regulation No 260/68, as set out in more detail in Conclusions 222/04 of the Heads of Administration. The administration subsequently sent him two emails, which indicated that they were sent for information purposes, stating that, on the basis of the judgment in T-484/18, the tax abatement could be granted only if the applicant was in receipt of dependent child allowance. The applicant could not submit a complaint against that information under Article 90 of the Staff Regulations as there was no decision as such. Consequently, the administration failed to take a decision on his request.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the subject matter of the decision on the complaint was wrong
  The subject matter of the complaint and the decision were unrelated. The applicant submitted a complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations for failure to respond. However, on 25 March 2022, the applicant’s alleged request for annulment of decisions which had not in fact been adopted was refused on the ground that they were correct. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the subject matter of the decision on the complaint was wrong

The subject matter of the complaint and the decision were unrelated. The applicant submitted a complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations for failure to respond. However, on 25 March 2022, the applicant’s alleged request for annulment of decisions which had not in fact been adopted was refused on the ground that they were correct.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a misinterpretation of ‘dependent child’
  The administration takes the view that only children who are entitled to dependent child allowance are dependent. Since the applicant’s children have exceeded the age limit of 26, the applicant no longer has any dependent children and, accordingly, no entitlement to the tax abatement. The administration thus confused the concept of a dependent child with the additional requirements relating to dependent child allowance. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a misinterpretation of ‘dependent child’

The administration takes the view that only children who are entitled to dependent child allowance are dependent. Since the applicant’s children have exceeded the age limit of 26, the applicant no longer has any dependent children and, accordingly, no entitlement to the tax abatement. The administration thus confused the concept of a dependent child with the additional requirements relating to dependent child allowance.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging a misinterpretation of the conditions for entitlement to the tax abatement






  — | The applicant submits that the current conclusions of the Heads of Administration are part of the 2004 reform of the Staff Regulations and therefore also had to be taken into account in that overall context. The administration cannot simply remove individual parts from the reform package according to what may be financially advantageous for it. |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a misinterpretation of the conditions for entitlement to the tax abatement

—

The applicant submits that the current conclusions of the Heads of Administration are part of the 2004 reform of the Staff Regulations and therefore also had to be taken into account in that overall context. The administration cannot simply remove individual parts from the reform package according to what may be financially advantageous for it.

| — | The judgment in question, T-484/18, refers to the judgment of 27 November 1980, Sorasio-Allo and Others v Commission (81/79, 82/79 and 146/79, EU:C:1980:270) as the basis for its reasoning and cannot therefore constitute a new line of case-law. In that judgment, the Court did not take all language versions into account. Its conclusion at the time that the tax abatement was a supplement to dependent child allowance cannot be confirmed in other language versions of Regulation No 260/68. However, that has not been relevant until now, since the granting of the tax abatement for older children has for decades been undisputed. |
| --- | --- |

—

The judgment in question, T-484/18, refers to the judgment of 27 November 1980, Sorasio-Allo and Others v Commission (81/79, 82/79 and 146/79, EU:C:1980:270) as the basis for its reasoning and cannot therefore constitute a new line of case-law. In that judgment, the Court did not take all language versions into account. Its conclusion at the time that the tax abatement was a supplement to dependent child allowance cannot be confirmed in other language versions of Regulation No 260/68. However, that has not been relevant until now, since the granting of the tax abatement for older children has for decades been undisputed.

| — | It also follow from a historical interpretation based on the almost identical wording of the previous Regulation 32 (EEC), 12 (EAEC) (2) that the tax abatement in respect of a dependent child does not constitute a supplement to dependent child allowance. The word ‘außerdem’, which is used as a connector, clearly refers to the abatement for occupational expenses in the previous subparagraph and not to dependent child allowance. |
| --- | --- |

—

It also follow from a historical interpretation based on the almost identical wording of the previous Regulation 32 (EEC), 12 (EAEC) (2) that the tax abatement in respect of a dependent child does not constitute a supplement to dependent child allowance. The word ‘außerdem’, which is used as a connector, clearly refers to the abatement for occupational expenses in the previous subparagraph and not to dependent child allowance.

| — | On a comparative law interpretation, the granting of a tax abatement for the maintenance of dependent persons as an exceptional burden is the standard, something which the Council may have taken as a model when adopting Regulation 260/68. |
| --- | --- |

—

On a comparative law interpretation, the granting of a tax abatement for the maintenance of dependent persons as an exceptional burden is the standard, something which the Council may have taken as a model when adopting Regulation 260/68.

| — | The dependent child allowance and the tax abatement both require there to be a dependent child, but it is not necessary to be in receipt of dependent child allowance in order to obtain the tax abatement. In this instance, an error in formal logic was made, which inverted antecedent and consequence in an impermissible way. |
| --- | --- |

—

The dependent child allowance and the tax abatement both require there to be a dependent child, but it is not necessary to be in receipt of dependent child allowance in order to obtain the tax abatement. In this instance, an error in formal logic was made, which inverted antecedent and consequence in an impermissible way.

---

(1)  Regulation (EEC, EURATOM, ECSC) No 260/68 of the Council of 29 February 1968 laying down the conditions and procedure for applying the tax for the benefit of the European Communities (OJ 1968 L 56, p. 8).

(2)  Regulation No 32 (EEC), No 12 (EAEC) laying down the conditions and procedure for applying the tax for the benefit of the Communities provided for in Article 12(1) of the Protocols on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Economic Community and of the European Atomic Energy Community (OJ 1962 45, p. 1461).

---

| 29.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/21

---

Action brought on 21 June 2022 — Izuzquiza and Others v Parliament

(Case T-375/22)

(2022/C 326/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Luisa Izuzquiza (Berlin, Germany), Arne Semsrott (Berlin), Stefan Wehrmeyer (Berlin) (represented by: J. Pobjoy, Barrister-at-Law)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, the final decision of the European Parliament, reference A(2021)10718C, dated 8 April 2022, insofar as the European Parliament concluded that it was entitled to rely upon (i) Article 4(1)(b) and/or (ii) Article 4(6) of Regulation No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1),to justify full and/or partial non-disclosure of the documents requested by the applicants in their confirmatory application dated 28 February 2022; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, the final decision of the European Parliament, reference A(2021)10718C, dated 8 April 2022, insofar as the European Parliament concluded that it was entitled to rely upon (i) Article 4(1)(b) and/or (ii) Article 4(6) of Regulation No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1),to justify full and/or partial non-disclosure of the documents requested by the applicants in their confirmatory application dated 28 February 2022; and

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the European Parliament has infringed Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation No 1049/2001. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the European Parliament has infringed Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation No 1049/2001.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the European Parliament has infringed Article 4(6) of Regulation No 1049/2001. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the European Parliament has infringed Article 4(6) of Regulation No 1049/2001.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

---

| 29.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/22

---

Action brought on 29 June 2022 — Cayago Tec v EUIPO — iAqua (Personal watercraft, Motorboats)

(Case T-377/22)

(2022/C 326/29)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Cayago Tec GmbH (Bad Salzuflen, Germany) (represented by: J. Güell Serra, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: iAqua (Shenzen) Ltd (Shenzen, China)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Design at issue: EU design (Personal watercraft, Motorboats) — EU design No 6 611 570-0001

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 April 2022 in Case R 951/2021-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in its entirety;

| — | order EUIPO and the intervener in the proceedings before EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the intervener in the proceedings before EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 25(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002, in conjunction with Articles 4 and 6 of that regulation.

---

| 29.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/22

---

Action brought on 4 July 2022 — PAN Europe v Commission

(Case T-412/22)

(2022/C 326/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A. Bailleux, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Commission’s decision, dated 27 April 2022, to reject the applicant’s request for internal review, regarding Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2068, (1) insofar as it postpones the expiry of the approval period of dimoxystrobin; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission’s decision, dated 27 April 2022, to reject the applicant’s request for internal review, regarding Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2068, (1) insofar as it postpones the expiry of the approval period of dimoxystrobin;

| — | order the Commission to bear the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, in principal order, alleging that the contested decision must be annulled because it is based on an unlawful interpretation of Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 (‘the PPP Regulation’). (2)







  — | It is argued that the contested decision is based on a reading of Article 17 of the PPP Regulation which is not compatible with: |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, in principal order, alleging that the contested decision must be annulled because it is based on an unlawful interpretation of Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 (‘the PPP Regulation’). (2)

—

It is argued that the contested decision is based on a reading of Article 17 of the PPP Regulation which is not compatible with:

| — | the substantial requirements laid down in Articles 4, 5 and 21 of and point 3.6.5. of Annex II to the PPP Regulation and contained in Articles 9, 11, 168 and 191 TFEU and in Articles 35 and 37 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU; |
| --- | --- |

—

the substantial requirements laid down in Articles 4, 5 and 21 of and point 3.6.5. of Annex II to the PPP Regulation and contained in Articles 9, 11, 168 and 191 TFEU and in Articles 35 and 37 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU;

| — | the expediency requirements contained in Articles 7, 9, 12, 14 and 15 of the PPP Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

—

the expediency requirements contained in Articles 7, 9, 12, 14 and 15 of the PPP Regulation.

| 2. | Second plea in law, in subsidiary order, alleging that Article 17 of the PPP Regulation must be disapplied, according to Article 277 TFEU, because it is contrary to the precautionary principle, Articles 9, 11, 168 and 191 TFEU, and Articles 35 and 37 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.






  — | It is argued that, if the Court were to take the view that the contested decision (and the Commission Implementing Regulation) is based on a sound reading of Article 17 of the PPP Regulation, this legislative provision should be set aside for the purpose of the present proceedings, pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, because it would be contrary to the precautionary principle, Articles 9, 11, 168 and 191 TFEU and Articles 35 and 37 of the Charter. Accordingly, Article 17 could not serve as a proper legal justification for the contested decision, which must therefore be annulled. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, in subsidiary order, alleging that Article 17 of the PPP Regulation must be disapplied, according to Article 277 TFEU, because it is contrary to the precautionary principle, Articles 9, 11, 168 and 191 TFEU, and Articles 35 and 37 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.

—

It is argued that, if the Court were to take the view that the contested decision (and the Commission Implementing Regulation) is based on a sound reading of Article 17 of the PPP Regulation, this legislative provision should be set aside for the purpose of the present proceedings, pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, because it would be contrary to the precautionary principle, Articles 9, 11, 168 and 191 TFEU and Articles 35 and 37 of the Charter. Accordingly, Article 17 could not serve as a proper legal justification for the contested decision, which must therefore be annulled.

---

(1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2068 of 25 November 2021 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 as regards the extension of the approval periods of the active substances benfluralin, dimoxystrobin, fluazinam, flutolanil, mecoprop-P, mepiquat, metiram, oxamyl and pyraclostrobin (OJ 2021 L 421, p. 25).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (OJ 2009 L 309, p. 1).

---

| 29.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/23

---

Action brought on 4 July 2022 — Cyprus v EUIPO — Fontana Food (GRILLOUMI)

(Case T-415/22)

(2022/C 326/31)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Cyprus (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister-at-Law, and C. Milbradt, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fontana Food AB (Tyresö, Sweden)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark GRILLOUMI — Application for registration No 15 963 291

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 April 2022 in Case R 1284/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant for annulment. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant for annulment.

Pleas in law

| — | The Board of Appeal infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by wrongly analysing the likelihood of confusion regarding certification marks; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by wrongly analysing the likelihood of confusion regarding certification marks;

| — | The Board of Appeal further infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 when it carried out an erroneous analysis of the similarity of goods versus services in this case; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal further infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 when it carried out an erroneous analysis of the similarity of goods versus services in this case;

| — | The Board of Appeal also erred under Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 when considering the role of distinctiveness as regards certification marks. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal also erred under Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 when considering the role of distinctiveness as regards certification marks.

---

| 29.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/24

---

Action brought on 6 July 2022 — MEDEX v EUIPO — Gerrit Cornelis Johan Stein (medex)

(Case T-419/22)

(2022/C 326/32)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: MEDEX, živilska industrija, d.o.o. (Ljubljana, Slovenia) (represented by: N. Čuden, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Gerrit Cornelis Johan Stein (Elp, Netherlands)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark medex in colours maroon, yellow and white — European Union trade mark No 10 307 494

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 May 2022 in Case R 1361/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

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

—

Infringement of the obligation to state reasons under Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 58, in particular Article 58(1)(a), and Article 58(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 58, in particular Article 58(1)(a), and Article 58(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 29.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/24

---

Action brought on 11 July 2022 — Coljnar v EUIPO — Barbarian Sports Wear (Barbarian Fashion)

(Case T-427/22)

(2022/C 326/33)

Language in which the application was lodged: Slovenian

Parties

Applicant: Nataly Coljnar (Maribor, Slovenia) (represented by: A. Pregelj, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Barbarian Sports Wear Inc. (Kitchener, Ontario, Canada)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Application for the EU figurative mark Barbarian fashion — Application for registration No 18 180 380

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 May 2022 in Case R 1953/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and the company Barbarian Sports Wear Inc. to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the company Barbarian Sports Wear Inc. to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant.

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.

---

| 29.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/25

---

Action brought on 6 July 2022 — Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals (TRiM)

(Case T-428/22)

(2022/C 326/34)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

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

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Pasadena, California, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark TRiM — International registration designating the European Union No 1 411 062

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 April 2022 in Case R 1158/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | revoke the contested decision and reject the European designation of the international trademark No 1 411 062 TRIM for all goods and services; |
| --- | --- |

—

revoke the contested decision and reject the European designation of the international trademark No 1 411 062 TRIM for all goods and services;

| — | impose the costs to the defendant and, in case Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc. decides to intervene in the present proceedings, to Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc. |
| --- | --- |

—

impose the costs to the defendant and, in case Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc. decides to intervene in the present proceedings, to Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

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.

---

| 29.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/26

---

Action brought on 8 July 2022 — Oatly v EUIPO — D’s Naturals (Wow no cow!)

(Case T-429/22)

(2022/C 326/35)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Oatly AB (Malmö, Sweden) (represented by: M. Johansson, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: D’s Naturals LLC (Cincinnati, Ohio, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark Wow no cow! — European Union trade mark No 12 862 331

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 May 2022 in Case R 1539/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | reject the intervener’s application for invalidity and consequently allow the European Union trade mark registration No 12 862 331 Wow no cow! to remain registered for all goods; |
| --- | --- |

—

reject the intervener’s application for invalidity and consequently allow the European Union trade mark registration No 12 862 331 Wow no cow! to remain registered for all goods;

| — | order EUIPO to reimburse the costs of the applicant in this appeal and account for its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to reimburse the costs of the applicant in this appeal and account for its own costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 95 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 95 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 59(1)(a) in conjunction with Articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 59(1)(a) in conjunction with Articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 29.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/26

---

Action brought on 8 July 2022 — Spreewood Distillers v EUIPO — Radgonske gorice (STORK)

(Case T-433/22)

(2022/C 326/36)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Spreewood Distillers GmbH (Schlepzig, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker and D. Mienert, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Radgonske gorice d.o.o. (Gornja Radgona, Slovenia)

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 word mark STORK — Application for registration No 18 170 885

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 May 2022 in Case R 1782/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to bear the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 29.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/27

---

Action brought on 11 July 2022 — Topas v EUIPO — Tarczyński (VEGE STORY)

(Case T-434/22)

(2022/C 326/37)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Topas GmbH (Mössingen, Germany) (represented by: S. Hofmann and W. Göpfert, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tarczyński S.A. (Trzebnica, Poland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark VEGE STORY — Application for registration No 18 213 582

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 May 2022 in Case R 1977/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision insofar as the opposition decision of 29 September 2021 has been annulled and the opposition has been rejected in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision insofar as the opposition decision of 29 September 2021 has been annulled and the opposition has been rejected in its entirety;

| — | order the opponent to bear the costs of the appeal and opposition proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the opponent to bear the costs of the appeal and opposition proceedings.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 29.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/28

---

Action brought on 12 July 2022 — Pascoe pharmazeutische Präparate v EUIPO — Novartis Pharma (PASCELMO)

(Case T-435/22)

(2022/C 326/38)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Pascoe pharmazeutische Präparate GmbH (Gießen, Germany) (represented by: M. Kinkeldey, S. Brandstätter and S. Clotten, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Novartis Pharma AG (Basel, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark PASCELMO — International registration designating the European Union No 1 516 387

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 May 2022 in Case R 1890/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant and by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal if it joins as intervener. |
| --- | --- |

—

order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant and by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal if it joins as intervener.

Pleas in law

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

—

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

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

—

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

---

| 29.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/28

---

Action brought on 12 July 2022 — Vanhove v EUIPO — Aldi Einkauf (bistro Régent)

(Case T-437/22)

(2022/C 326/39)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Vanhove (Bordeaux, France) (represented by: N. Castagnon, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Aldi Einkauf SE & Co. OHG (Essen, 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 bistro Régent — Application for registration No 18 136 358

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 May 2022 in Case R 1113/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | grant the European Union trade mark registration in respect of the designated ‘wines’ in Class 33; |
| --- | --- |

—

grant the European Union trade mark registration in respect of the designated ‘wines’ in Class 33;

| — | order EUIPO and, in case of an intervention, also the intervener to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and, in case of an intervention, also the intervener to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

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

—

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

---

| 29.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/29

---

Action brought on 14 July 2022 — Rada Perfumery v EUIPO — Prada (RADA PERFUMES)

(Case T-439/22)

(2022/C 326/40)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Rada Perfumery SRL (Cluj-Napoca, Romania) (represented by: E.-M. Dicu, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Prada SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

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 RADA PERFUMES — Application for registration No 18 186 386

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 April 2022 in Case R 1610/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and, as a consequence, reject the opposition and, consequently, admit the registration of the European Union trade mark No 18 186 386. |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and, as a consequence, reject the opposition and, consequently, admit the registration of the European Union trade mark No 18 186 386.

Pleas in law

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

—

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

| — | Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 29.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/30

---

Action brought on 18 July 2022 — Columbus Stainless v Commission

(Case T-445/22)

(2022/C 326/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Columbus Stainless (Pty) Ltd (Middleburg, South Africa) (represented by: L. Catrain González and F. Pili, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/664 of 21 April 2022 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/159 imposing definitive safeguard measures against imports of certain steel products (1), in its entirety or in so far as it affects the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/664 of 21 April 2022 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/159 imposing definitive safeguard measures against imports of certain steel products (1), in its entirety or in so far as it affects the applicant;

| — | Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, divided in two limbs, alleging the Commission’s failure to issue a Notice of initiation and carry out an investigation in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2015/478 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2015 on common rules for imports (2) ahead of adopting the Contested Regulation. The applicant claims that the Commission’s failure constitutes a serious breach of EU law, insofar it violates, first, the provisions and underlying principles of the basic Safeguard Regulation as interpreted in the light of the WTO rules (first limb of the first plea in law), and, second, the applicant’s fundamental rights of defence (second limb of the first plea in law). |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, divided in two limbs, alleging the Commission’s failure to issue a Notice of initiation and carry out an investigation in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2015/478 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2015 on common rules for imports (2) ahead of adopting the Contested Regulation. The applicant claims that the Commission’s failure constitutes a serious breach of EU law, insofar it violates, first, the provisions and underlying principles of the basic Safeguard Regulation as interpreted in the light of the WTO rules (first limb of the first plea in law), and, second, the applicant’s fundamental rights of defence (second limb of the first plea in law).

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s statement of reasons in the Contested Regulation falls short of the standards set out in Article 296 TFEU and settled case law, which requires the statement of reasons to be appropriate to the measure at issue and to disclose in a clear and unequivocal fashion the reasoning followed by the Institution concerned. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s statement of reasons in the Contested Regulation falls short of the standards set out in Article 296 TFEU and settled case law, which requires the statement of reasons to be appropriate to the measure at issue and to disclose in a clear and unequivocal fashion the reasoning followed by the Institution concerned.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s assessment of the conditions to impose safeguard measures against imports from South Africa is based on several manifest errors of assessment of the relevant facts that led to the adoption of the Contested Measures. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s assessment of the conditions to impose safeguard measures against imports from South Africa is based on several manifest errors of assessment of the relevant facts that led to the adoption of the Contested Measures.

---

(1)  OJ 2022, L 121, p. 12.

(2)  OJ 2015, L 83, p. 16.

---

| 29.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/30

---

Action brought on 19 July 2022 — Corver v EUIPO (CHR ME)

(Case T-446/22)

(2022/C 326/42)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Serge-Paul Corver (Lanaken, Belgium) (represented by: C. König, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark CHR ME — Application No 18 016 792

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 March 2022 in Case R 2082/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

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

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

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

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

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

—

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

---