# Official Journal C 422/18 O

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 422 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6418 October 2021 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 422

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6418 October 2021

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2021/C 422/01 | Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union | 1 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

2021/C 422/01

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

Official Journal of the European Union

1

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2021/C 422/02 | Case C-94/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 16 February 2021 — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v FT | 2 |
| 2021/C 422/03 | Case C-141/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 5 March 2021 — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v VR | 2 |
| 2021/C 422/04 | Case C-423/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 12 July 2021 — Grand Production d.o.o. v GO4YU GmbH and Others | 3 |
| 2021/C 422/05 | Case C-433/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 16 July 2021 — Agenzia delle Entrate v Contship Italia SpA | 4 |
| 2021/C 422/06 | Case C-434/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 16 July 2021 — Agenzia delle Entrate v Contship Italia SpA | 4 |
| 2021/C 422/07 | Case C-435/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 15 July 2021 — easyJet Airline Company Ltd. v HG | 5 |
| 2021/C 422/08 | Case C-446/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 20 July 2021 — Maximilian Schrems v Facebook Ireland Ltd | 5 |
| 2021/C 422/09 | Case C-450/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Vercelli (Italy) lodged on 20 July 2021 — UC v Ministero dell’Istruzione | 6 |
| 2021/C 422/10 | Case C-467/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 30 July 2021 — Comune di Venezia v Telecom Italia SpA, Infrastrutture Wireless Italiane SpA — Inwit SpA | 7 |
| 2021/C 422/11 | Case C-481/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Wiesbaden (Germany) lodged on 4 August 2021 — TX v Bundesrepublik Deutschland | 8 |
| 2021/C 422/12 | Case C-488/21: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (Ireland) made on 10 August 2021 — GV v Chief Appeals Officer, Social Welfare Appeals Office, Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection, Ireland, Attorney General | 8 |
| | General Court |
| 2021/C 422/13 | Case T-328/18: Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2021 — Naturgy Energy Group v Commission (State aid — Environmental incentive adopted by Spain in favour of coal-fired power plants — Decision to initiate the procedure laid down by Article 108(2) TFEU — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment — Selective nature) | 10 |
| 2021/C 422/14 | Case T-152/19: Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2021 — Brunswick Bowling Products v Commission (Protection of the health and safety of consumers and workers — Directive 2006/42/EC — Safeguard clause — National measure of withdrawal from the market and prohibition of placing on the market of a pinsetter machine and a supplementary kit — Essential health and safety requirements — Commission decision declaring the measure justified — Equal treatment) | 10 |
| 2021/C 422/15 | Case T-517/19: Judgment of the General Court of 1 September 2021 — Homoki v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Final report of the OLAF investigation into the implementation of a street-lighting investment project in Hungary — Refusal to grant access — Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits — Exception relating to the protection of the commercial interests of a third party — Exception relating to the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual — Protection of personal data) | 11 |
| 2021/C 422/16 | Case T-834/19: Judgment of the General Court of 1 September 2021 — e*Message Wireless Information Services v EUIPO — Apple (e*message) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark e*message — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Lack of distinctive character — Declaration of invalidity — Provisions applicable ratione temporis — Application of subsequent case-law — Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Principles of protection of legitimate expectations and of legal certainty) | 12 |
| 2021/C 422/17 | Case T-23/20: Judgment of the General Court of 1 September 2021 — FF IP v EUIPO — Seven (the DoubleF) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark the DoubleF — Earlier EU word mark THE DOUBLE — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Relevant public — Similarity of the goods — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 12 |
| 2021/C 422/18 | Case T-96/20: Judgment of the General Court of 1 September 2021 — Gruppe Nymphenburg Consult v EUIPO (Limbic® Types) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark Limbic® Types — Absolute grounds for refusal — Decision taken following the annulment of an earlier decision by the General Court — Referral of the case back to the Grand Board of Appeal — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Error of law — Examination of the facts of the Office’s own motion — Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Res judicata — Article 72(6) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Composition of the Grand Board of Appeal) | 13 |
| 2021/C 422/19 | Case T-463/20: Judgment of the General Court of 1 September 2021 — Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe v EUIPO — Wong (GT RACING) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark GT RACING — Earlier EU figurative trade mark representing bold curved, vertical and horizontal lines — Earlier EU word mark GT — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Earlier non-registered national marks — Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Rules governing common-law action for passing off — No misrepresentation — Use in the course of trade of more than mere local significance — Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union and from Euratom) | 14 |
| 2021/C 422/20 | Case T-561/20: Judgment of the General Court of 1 September 2021 — Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe v EUIPO — Vieta Audio (Vita) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark Vita — Genuine use of the mark — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Use in connection with the goods in respect of which the mark was registered) | 14 |
| 2021/C 422/21 | Case T-566/20: Judgment of the General Court of 1 September 2021 — Residencial Palladium v EUIPO — Palladium Gestión (PALLADIUM HOTEL GARDEN BEACH) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark PALLADIUM HOTEL GARDEN BEACH — Earlier national trade name GRAND HOTEL PALLADIUM — Relative Ground for refusal — Use in the course of trade of a sign of more than mere local significance — Article 8(4) and Article 53(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) and Article 60(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 15 |
| 2021/C 422/22 | Case T-697/20: Judgment of the General Court of 1 September 2021 — Bimbo Donuts Iberia v EUIPO — Hijos de Antonio Juan (DONAS DULCESOL) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark DONAS DULCESOL — Earlier national word mark DONAS — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Lack of proof of genuine use of earlier mark — Classification of the goods in respect of which genuine use has been shown — Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001) | 16 |
| 2021/C 422/23 | Case T-305/20: Order of the General Court of 9 August 2021 — Telefónica Germany v EUIPO — Google (LOOP) (EU trade mark — Cancellation proceedings — Withdrawal of the application for a declaration of invalidity — No need to adjudicate) | 16 |
| 2021/C 422/24 | Case T-371/21: Action brought on 29 June 2021 — WV v EEAS | 17 |
| 2021/C 422/25 | Case T-431/21: Action brought on 16 July 2021 — L'union nationale des indépendants solidaires v Commission | 18 |
| 2021/C 422/26 | Case T-486/21: Action brought on 3 August 2021 — OE (*1) v Commission | 19 |
| 2021/C 422/27 | Case T-488/21: Action brought on 10 August 2021 — Tralux and Others v Parliament | 20 |
| 2021/C 422/28 | Case T-490/21: Action brought on 11 August 2021 — Vanhoudt v EIB | 20 |
| 2021/C 422/29 | Case T-496/21: Action brought on 9 August 2021 — Vasallo Andrés v Parliament | 21 |
| 2021/C 422/30 | Case T-503/21: Action brought on 15 August 2021 — Lagardère, unité médico-sociale v Commission | 23 |
| 2021/C 422/31 | Case T-507/21: Action brought on 16 August 2021 — Migadakis v ENISA | 23 |
| 2021/C 422/32 | Case T-515/21: Action brought on 20 August 2021– Zeta farmaceutici v EUIPO — Specchiasol (EUPHYTOS) | 24 |
| 2021/C 422/33 | Case T-517/21: Action brought on 20 August 2021 — Grieger v Commission | 25 |
| 2021/C 422/34 | Case T-519/21: Action brought on 24 August 2021 — VY v Commission | 25 |
| 2021/C 422/35 | Case T-521/21: Action brought on 26 August 2021 — 6Minutes Media v EUIPO — ad pepper media International (ad pepper the e-advertising network) | 26 |
| 2021/C 422/36 | Case T-526/21: Action brought on 27 August 2021 — Gutseriev v Council | 27 |
| 2021/C 422/37 | Case T-527/21: Action brought on 30 August 2021 — Abenante and Others v Council and Parliament | 28 |
| 2021/C 422/38 | Case T-530/21: Action brought on 30 August 2021 — Pierre Lannier v EUIPO — Pierre Lang Trading (PL) | 29 |
| 2021/C 422/39 | Case T-532/21: Action brought on 31 august 2021 — MAZ-upravljajusaja kompanija holdinga Belavtomaz v Council | 30 |
| 2021/C 422/40 | Case T-533/21: Action brought on 31 august 2021 — Belaz-upravljajusaja kompanija holdinga Belaz Holding v Council | 31 |
| 2021/C 422/41 | Case T-536/21: Action brought on 1 September 2021 — Belaeronavigatsia v Council | 32 |
| 2021/C 422/42 | Case T-537/21: Action brought on 1 September 2021 — bett1.de v EUIPO — XXXLutz Marken (BODY STAR) | 32 |
| 2021/C 422/43 | Case T-539/21: Action brought on 1 September 2021 — the airscreen company v EUIPO — Moviescreens Rental (airframe) | 33 |
| 2021/C 422/44 | Case T-543/21: Action brought on 2 September 2021 — Purasac v EUIPO — Prollenium Medical Technologies (Rejeunesse) | 34 |
| 2021/C 422/45 | Case T-546/21: Action brought on 2 September 2021 — Rochem Group v EUIPO — Rochem Marine (R.T.S. ROCHEM Technical Services) | 34 |
| 2021/C 422/46 | Case T-547/21: Action brought on 2 September 2021 — Rochem Group v EUIPO — Rochem Marine (R.T.S. ROCHEM Technical Services) | 35 |
| 2021/C 422/47 | Case T-548/21: Action brought on 3 September 2021 — Rochem Group v EUIPO — Rochem Marine (ROCHEM) | 36 |
| 2021/C 422/48 | Case T-549/21: Action brought on 3 September 2021 — Rochem Group v EUIPO — Rochem Marine (ROCHEM) | 37 |
| 2021/C 422/49 | Case T-553/21: Action brought on 7 September 2021 — Agrarfrost v EUIPO — McCain (Shape of a smiley) | 37 |
| 2021/C 422/50 | Case T-268/19: Order of the General Court of 26 August 2021 — Imagina Media Audiovisual and Others v Commission | 38 |
| 2021/C 422/51 | Case T-269/19: Order of the General Court of 26 August 2021 — Imagina Media Audiovisual v Commission | 38 |
| 2021/C 422/52 | Case T-492/19: Order of the General Court of 27 August 2021 — GlaxoSmithKline Finance and Setfirst v Commission | 38 |
| 2021/C 422/53 | Case T-418/20: Order of the General Court of 23 August 2021 — GitLab v EUIPO — Gitlab (GitLab) | 39 |
| 2021/C 422/54 | Case T-234/21: Order of the General Court of 23 August 2021 — Cristalfarma v EUIPO — Reinhard Kosch (STILAXX) | 39 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2021/C 422/02

Case C-94/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 16 February 2021 — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v FT

2

2021/C 422/03

Case C-141/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 5 March 2021 — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v VR

2

2021/C 422/04

Case C-423/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 12 July 2021 — Grand Production d.o.o. v GO4YU GmbH and Others

3

2021/C 422/05

Case C-433/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 16 July 2021 — Agenzia delle Entrate v Contship Italia SpA

4

2021/C 422/06

Case C-434/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 16 July 2021 — Agenzia delle Entrate v Contship Italia SpA

4

2021/C 422/07

Case C-435/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 15 July 2021 — easyJet Airline Company Ltd. v HG

5

2021/C 422/08

Case C-446/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 20 July 2021 — Maximilian Schrems v Facebook Ireland Ltd

5

2021/C 422/09

Case C-450/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Vercelli (Italy) lodged on 20 July 2021 — UC v Ministero dell’Istruzione

6

2021/C 422/10

Case C-467/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 30 July 2021 — Comune di Venezia v Telecom Italia SpA, Infrastrutture Wireless Italiane SpA — Inwit SpA

7

2021/C 422/11

Case C-481/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Wiesbaden (Germany) lodged on 4 August 2021 — TX v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

8

2021/C 422/12

Case C-488/21: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (Ireland) made on 10 August 2021 — GV v Chief Appeals Officer, Social Welfare Appeals Office, Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection, Ireland, Attorney General

8

General Court

2021/C 422/13

Case T-328/18: Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2021 — Naturgy Energy Group v Commission (State aid — Environmental incentive adopted by Spain in favour of coal-fired power plants — Decision to initiate the procedure laid down by Article 108(2) TFEU — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment — Selective nature)

10

2021/C 422/14

Case T-152/19: Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2021 — Brunswick Bowling Products v Commission (Protection of the health and safety of consumers and workers — Directive 2006/42/EC — Safeguard clause — National measure of withdrawal from the market and prohibition of placing on the market of a pinsetter machine and a supplementary kit — Essential health and safety requirements — Commission decision declaring the measure justified — Equal treatment)

10

2021/C 422/15

Case T-517/19: Judgment of the General Court of 1 September 2021 — Homoki v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Final report of the OLAF investigation into the implementation of a street-lighting investment project in Hungary — Refusal to grant access — Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits — Exception relating to the protection of the commercial interests of a third party — Exception relating to the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual — Protection of personal data)

11

2021/C 422/16

Case T-834/19: Judgment of the General Court of 1 September 2021 — e*Message Wireless Information Services v EUIPO — Apple (e*message) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark e*message — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Lack of distinctive character — Declaration of invalidity — Provisions applicable ratione temporis — Application of subsequent case-law — Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Principles of protection of legitimate expectations and of legal certainty)

12

2021/C 422/17

Case T-23/20: Judgment of the General Court of 1 September 2021 — FF IP v EUIPO — Seven (the DoubleF) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark the DoubleF — Earlier EU word mark THE DOUBLE — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Relevant public — Similarity of the goods — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

12

2021/C 422/18

Case T-96/20: Judgment of the General Court of 1 September 2021 — Gruppe Nymphenburg Consult v EUIPO (Limbic® Types) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark Limbic® Types — Absolute grounds for refusal — Decision taken following the annulment of an earlier decision by the General Court — Referral of the case back to the Grand Board of Appeal — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Error of law — Examination of the facts of the Office’s own motion — Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Res judicata — Article 72(6) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Composition of the Grand Board of Appeal)

13

2021/C 422/19

Case T-463/20: Judgment of the General Court of 1 September 2021 — Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe v EUIPO — Wong (GT RACING) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark GT RACING — Earlier EU figurative trade mark representing bold curved, vertical and horizontal lines — Earlier EU word mark GT — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Earlier non-registered national marks — Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Rules governing common-law action for passing off — No misrepresentation — Use in the course of trade of more than mere local significance — Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union and from Euratom)

14

2021/C 422/20

Case T-561/20: Judgment of the General Court of 1 September 2021 — Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe v EUIPO — Vieta Audio (Vita) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark Vita — Genuine use of the mark — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Use in connection with the goods in respect of which the mark was registered)

14

2021/C 422/21

Case T-566/20: Judgment of the General Court of 1 September 2021 — Residencial Palladium v EUIPO — Palladium Gestión (PALLADIUM HOTEL GARDEN BEACH) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark PALLADIUM HOTEL GARDEN BEACH — Earlier national trade name GRAND HOTEL PALLADIUM — Relative Ground for refusal — Use in the course of trade of a sign of more than mere local significance — Article 8(4) and Article 53(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) and Article 60(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

15

2021/C 422/22

Case T-697/20: Judgment of the General Court of 1 September 2021 — Bimbo Donuts Iberia v EUIPO — Hijos de Antonio Juan (DONAS DULCESOL) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark DONAS DULCESOL — Earlier national word mark DONAS — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Lack of proof of genuine use of earlier mark — Classification of the goods in respect of which genuine use has been shown — Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001)

16

2021/C 422/23

Case T-305/20: Order of the General Court of 9 August 2021 — Telefónica Germany v EUIPO — Google (LOOP) (EU trade mark — Cancellation proceedings — Withdrawal of the application for a declaration of invalidity — No need to adjudicate)

16

2021/C 422/24

Case T-371/21: Action brought on 29 June 2021 — WV v EEAS

17

2021/C 422/25

Case T-431/21: Action brought on 16 July 2021 — L'union nationale des indépendants solidaires v Commission

18

2021/C 422/26

Case T-486/21: Action brought on 3 August 2021 — OE (*1) v Commission

*1

19

2021/C 422/27

Case T-488/21: Action brought on 10 August 2021 — Tralux and Others v Parliament

20

2021/C 422/28

Case T-490/21: Action brought on 11 August 2021 — Vanhoudt v EIB

20

2021/C 422/29

Case T-496/21: Action brought on 9 August 2021 — Vasallo Andrés v Parliament

21

2021/C 422/30

Case T-503/21: Action brought on 15 August 2021 — Lagardère, unité médico-sociale v Commission

23

2021/C 422/31

Case T-507/21: Action brought on 16 August 2021 — Migadakis v ENISA

23

2021/C 422/32

Case T-515/21: Action brought on 20 August 2021– Zeta farmaceutici v EUIPO — Specchiasol (EUPHYTOS)

24

2021/C 422/33

Case T-517/21: Action brought on 20 August 2021 — Grieger v Commission

25

2021/C 422/34

Case T-519/21: Action brought on 24 August 2021 — VY v Commission

25

2021/C 422/35

Case T-521/21: Action brought on 26 August 2021 — 6Minutes Media v EUIPO — ad pepper media International (ad pepper the e-advertising network)

26

2021/C 422/36

Case T-526/21: Action brought on 27 August 2021 — Gutseriev v Council

27

2021/C 422/37

Case T-527/21: Action brought on 30 August 2021 — Abenante and Others v Council and Parliament

28

2021/C 422/38

Case T-530/21: Action brought on 30 August 2021 — Pierre Lannier v EUIPO — Pierre Lang Trading (PL)

29

2021/C 422/39

Case T-532/21: Action brought on 31 august 2021 — MAZ-upravljajusaja kompanija holdinga Belavtomaz v Council

30

2021/C 422/40

Case T-533/21: Action brought on 31 august 2021 — Belaz-upravljajusaja kompanija holdinga Belaz Holding v Council

31

2021/C 422/41

Case T-536/21: Action brought on 1 September 2021 — Belaeronavigatsia v Council

32

2021/C 422/42

Case T-537/21: Action brought on 1 September 2021 — bett1.de v EUIPO — XXXLutz Marken (BODY STAR)

32

2021/C 422/43

Case T-539/21: Action brought on 1 September 2021 — the airscreen company v EUIPO — Moviescreens Rental (airframe)

33

2021/C 422/44

Case T-543/21: Action brought on 2 September 2021 — Purasac v EUIPO — Prollenium Medical Technologies (Rejeunesse)

34

2021/C 422/45

Case T-546/21: Action brought on 2 September 2021 — Rochem Group v EUIPO — Rochem Marine (R.T.S. ROCHEM Technical Services)

34

2021/C 422/46

Case T-547/21: Action brought on 2 September 2021 — Rochem Group v EUIPO — Rochem Marine (R.T.S. ROCHEM Technical Services)

35

2021/C 422/47

Case T-548/21: Action brought on 3 September 2021 — Rochem Group v EUIPO — Rochem Marine (ROCHEM)

36

2021/C 422/48

Case T-549/21: Action brought on 3 September 2021 — Rochem Group v EUIPO — Rochem Marine (ROCHEM)

37

2021/C 422/49

Case T-553/21: Action brought on 7 September 2021 — Agrarfrost v EUIPO — McCain (Shape of a smiley)

37

2021/C 422/50

Case T-268/19: Order of the General Court of 26 August 2021 — Imagina Media Audiovisual and Others v Commission

38

2021/C 422/51

Case T-269/19: Order of the General Court of 26 August 2021 — Imagina Media Audiovisual v Commission

38

2021/C 422/52

Case T-492/19: Order of the General Court of 27 August 2021 — GlaxoSmithKline Finance and Setfirst v Commission

38

2021/C 422/53

Case T-418/20: Order of the General Court of 23 August 2021 — GitLab v EUIPO — Gitlab (GitLab)

39

2021/C 422/54

Case T-234/21: Order of the General Court of 23 August 2021 — Cristalfarma v EUIPO — Reinhard Kosch (STILAXX)

39

---

| | |
| --- | --- |

---

| EN | For reasons of protection of personal data and/or confidentiality, some information contained in this issue cannot be disclosed anymore and therefore a new authentic version has been published. |
| --- | --- |

EN

For reasons of protection of personal data and/or confidentiality, some information contained in this issue cannot be disclosed anymore and therefore a new authentic version has been published.

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 18.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 422/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 422/1

---

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

(2021/C 422/01)

Last publication

OJ C 412, 11.10.2021

Past publications

OJ C 401, 4.10.2021

OJ C 391, 27.9.2021

OJ C 382, 20.9.2021

OJ C 368, 13.9.2021

OJ C 357, 6.9.2021

OJ C 349, 30.8.2021

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 18.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 422/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 422/2

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 16 February 2021 — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v FT

(Case C-94/21)

(2021/C 422/02)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

Defendant: FT

The case was removed from the Register of the Court of Justice by order of the President of the Court of 17 June 2021.

---

| 18.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 422/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 422/2

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 5 March 2021 — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v VR

(Case C-141/21)

(2021/C 422/03)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

Defendant: VR

The case was removed from the Register of the Court of Justice by order of the President of the Court of 18 June 2021.

---

| 18.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 422/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 422/3

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 12 July 2021 — Grand Production d.o.o. v GO4YU GmbH and Others

(Case C-423/21)

(2021/C 422/04)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Grand Production d.o.o.

Defendants: GO4YU GmbH, DH, GO4YU d.o.o Beograd, MTEL Austria GmbH

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the concept of ‘communication to the public’ in Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that such communication is made by the direct operator (not established in the European Union in this case) of a streaming platform, whereby that operator






  — | alone decides on the content and blacking out of TV programmes broadcast by it and implements them from a technical point of view, |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Is the concept of ‘communication to the public’ in Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that such communication is made by the direct operator (not established in the European Union in this case) of a streaming platform, whereby that operator

—

alone decides on the content and blacking out of TV programmes broadcast by it and implements them from a technical point of view,

| — | has sole administrator rights for the streaming platform, |
| --- | --- |

—

has sole administrator rights for the streaming platform,

| — | can influence which TV programmes can be received by the end user via the service, but cannot influence the content of the programmes, |
| --- | --- |

—

can influence which TV programmes can be received by the end user via the service, but cannot influence the content of the programmes,

| — | and is the sole point of control as regards which programmes and content can be watched in which territories and when, |
| --- | --- |

—

and is the sole point of control as regards which programmes and content can be watched in which territories and when,

where, in each case,

| — | the user is provided with access not only to broadcasting content the online use of which has been authorised by the respective rightholders, but also to protected content for which rights clearance has not been obtained, and |
| --- | --- |

—

the user is provided with access not only to broadcasting content the online use of which has been authorised by the respective rightholders, but also to protected content for which rights clearance has not been obtained, and

| — | the direct operator of the streaming platform is aware that its service also enables the reception of protected broadcasting content without the consent of the rightholders by virtue of the fact that the end customers use VPN services which give the impression that the IP address and device of the end customers are located in areas for which the consent of the rightholder has been obtained, but |
| --- | --- |

—

the direct operator of the streaming platform is aware that its service also enables the reception of protected broadcasting content without the consent of the rightholders by virtue of the fact that the end customers use VPN services which give the impression that the IP address and device of the end customers are located in areas for which the consent of the rightholder has been obtained, but

| — | the reception of protected broadcasting content via the streaming platform without the consent of the rightholders was in fact possible for several weeks even without VPN tunnelling? |
| --- | --- |

—

the reception of protected broadcasting content via the streaming platform without the consent of the rightholders was in fact possible for several weeks even without VPN tunnelling?

| 2. | If the first question is answered in the affirmative:
  Is the concept of ‘communication to the public’ in Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29 to be interpreted as meaning that such communication is also carried out by third parties (having, in this case, their registered offices in the EU) which are related, contractually and/or under company law, to the platform operator described in the first question, and which, without themselves having any influence on the blackouts and on the programmes and content of the broadcasts brought to the streaming platform,






  — | advertise the operator’s streaming platform and its services, and/or |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

If the first question is answered in the affirmative:

Is the concept of ‘communication to the public’ in Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29 to be interpreted as meaning that such communication is also carried out by third parties (having, in this case, their registered offices in the EU) which are related, contractually and/or under company law, to the platform operator described in the first question, and which, without themselves having any influence on the blackouts and on the programmes and content of the broadcasts brought to the streaming platform,

—

advertise the operator’s streaming platform and its services, and/or

| — | offer trial subscriptions to customers that automatically end after 15 days, and/or |
| --- | --- |

—

offer trial subscriptions to customers that automatically end after 15 days, and/or

| — | support the customers of the streaming platform as a customer service provider, and/or |
| --- | --- |

—

support the customers of the streaming platform as a customer service provider, and/or

| — | offer on their website paid subscriptions to the streaming platform of the direct operator and then act as the contractual partner of the customers and as the recipient of payment, whereby the paid subscriptions are created in such a way that an express reference to the fact that certain programmes are not available is made only if a customer explicitly indicates at the time of conclusion of the contract that he or she wishes to see those programmes, but, if customers do not express that wish or specifically enquire about such programmes, they are not informed of that fact in advance? |
| --- | --- |

—

offer on their website paid subscriptions to the streaming platform of the direct operator and then act as the contractual partner of the customers and as the recipient of payment, whereby the paid subscriptions are created in such a way that an express reference to the fact that certain programmes are not available is made only if a customer explicitly indicates at the time of conclusion of the contract that he or she wishes to see those programmes, but, if customers do not express that wish or specifically enquire about such programmes, they are not informed of that fact in advance?

| 3. | Are Article 2(a) and (e) and Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29, read in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1215/2012, (2) to be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of an allegation of infringement of copyright and related rights guaranteed by the Member State of the court seised, that court has jurisdiction only to rule on the damage caused in the territory of the Member State to which it belongs — because the territoriality principle precludes domestic courts from having jurisdiction to determine and examine the facts in relation to foreign acts of infringement — or can or must that court also rule on offences committed outside that territory (worldwide), as alleged by the author whose rights were allegedly infringed? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Are Article 2(a) and (e) and Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29, read in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1215/2012, (2) to be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of an allegation of infringement of copyright and related rights guaranteed by the Member State of the court seised, that court has jurisdiction only to rule on the damage caused in the territory of the Member State to which it belongs — because the territoriality principle precludes domestic courts from having jurisdiction to determine and examine the facts in relation to foreign acts of infringement — or can or must that court also rule on offences committed outside that territory (worldwide), as alleged by the author whose rights were allegedly infringed?

---

(1)  Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10).

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

---

| 18.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 422/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 422/4

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 16 July 2021 — Agenzia delle Entrate v Contship Italia SpA

(Case C-433/21)

(2021/C 422/05)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Agenzia delle Entrate

Respondent: Contship Italia SpA

Question referred

Do Articles 18 (ex Article 12 TEC) and 49 (ex Article 43 TEC) TFEU preclude national legislation which, like Article 30(1)(5) of legge 23 dicembre 1994, n. 724 (Law No 724 of 23 December 1994), in the version applicable ratione temporis, prior to the amendments introduced by legge 27 dicembre 2006, n. 296 (Law No 296 of 27 December 2006), excludes from the measures to prevent tax avoidance by non-operational companies — based on minimum revenue and income thresholds relative to the value of specific corporate assets, which, if not met, is a sign that the company is non-operational and means that the taxable income must be determined by way of presumption — only companies and entities whose securities are traded on Italian regulated markets and not companies and entities whose securities are traded on foreign regulated markets, as well as the companies that control or are controlled by, even indirectly, those listed companies and entities?

---

| 18.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 422/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 422/4

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 16 July 2021 — Agenzia delle Entrate v Contship Italia SpA

(Case C-434/21)

(2021/C 422/06)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Agenzia delle Entrate

Respondent: Contship Italia SpA

Question referred

Do Articles 18 (ex Article 12 TEC) and 49 (ex Article 43 TEC) TFEU preclude national legislation which, like Article 30(1)(5) of legge 23 dicembre 1994, n. 724 (Law No 724 of 23 December 1994), in the version applicable ratione temporis, prior to the amendments introduced by legge 27 dicembre 2006, n. 296 (Law No 296 of 27 December 2006), excludes from the measures to prevent tax avoidance by non-operational companies — based on minimum revenue and income thresholds relative to the value of specific corporate assets, which, if not met, is a sign that the company is non-operational and means that the taxable income must be determined by way of presumption — only companies and entities whose securities are traded on Italian regulated markets and not companies and entities whose securities are traded on foreign regulated markets, as well as the companies that control or are controlled by, even indirectly, those listed companies and entities?

---

| 18.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 422/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 422/5

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 15 July 2021 — easyJet Airline Company Ltd. v HG

(Case C-435/21)

(2021/C 422/07)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law: easyJet Airline Company Ltd.

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: HG

The case was removed from the register of the Court of Justice by order of the President of the Court of 10 August 2021.

---

| 18.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 422/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 422/5

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 20 July 2021 — Maximilian Schrems v Facebook Ireland Ltd

(Case C-446/21)

(2021/C 422/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law: Maximilian Schrems

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Facebook Ireland Ltd

Questions referred

| 1. | Are the provisions of Article 6(1)(a) and (b) of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the lawfulness of contractual provisions in general terms of service for platform agreements such as that in the main proceedings (in particular, contractual provisions such as: ‘Instead of paying ... by using the Facebook Products covered by these Terms you agree that we can show you ads ... We use your personal data ... to show you ads that are more relevant to you.’) which provide for the processing of personal data with a view to aggregating and analysing it for the purposes of personalised advertising must be assessed in accordance with the requirements of Article 6(1)(a) of the GDPR, read in conjunction with Article 7 thereof, which cannot be replaced by invoking Article 6(1)(b) thereof? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are the provisions of Article 6(1)(a) and (b) of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the lawfulness of contractual provisions in general terms of service for platform agreements such as that in the main proceedings (in particular, contractual provisions such as: ‘Instead of paying ... by using the Facebook Products covered by these Terms you agree that we can show you ads ... We use your personal data ... to show you ads that are more relevant to you.’) which provide for the processing of personal data with a view to aggregating and analysing it for the purposes of personalised advertising must be assessed in accordance with the requirements of Article 6(1)(a) of the GDPR, read in conjunction with Article 7 thereof, which cannot be replaced by invoking Article 6(1)(b) thereof?

| 2. | Is Article 5(1)(c) of the GDPR (data minimisation) to be interpreted as meaning that all personal data held by a platform such as that in the main proceedings (by way of, in particular, the data subject or third parties on and outside the platform) may be aggregated, analysed and processed for the purposes of targeted advertising without restriction as to time or type of data? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is Article 5(1)(c) of the GDPR (data minimisation) to be interpreted as meaning that all personal data held by a platform such as that in the main proceedings (by way of, in particular, the data subject or third parties on and outside the platform) may be aggregated, analysed and processed for the purposes of targeted advertising without restriction as to time or type of data?

| 3. | Is Article 9(1) of the GDPR to be interpreted as applying to the processing of data that permits the targeted filtering of special categories of personal data such as political opinions or sexual orientation (for advertising, for example), even if the controller does not differentiate between those types of data? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is Article 9(1) of the GDPR to be interpreted as applying to the processing of data that permits the targeted filtering of special categories of personal data such as political opinions or sexual orientation (for advertising, for example), even if the controller does not differentiate between those types of data?

| 4. | Is Article 5(1)(b) of the GDPR, read in conjunction with Article 9(2)(e) thereof, to be interpreted as meaning that a statement made by a person about his or her own sexual orientation for the purposes of a panel discussion permits the processing of other data concerning sexual orientation with a view to aggregating and analysing the data for the purposes of personalised advertising? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is Article 5(1)(b) of the GDPR, read in conjunction with Article 9(2)(e) thereof, to be interpreted as meaning that a statement made by a person about his or her own sexual orientation for the purposes of a panel discussion permits the processing of other data concerning sexual orientation with a view to aggregating and analysing the data for the purposes of personalised advertising?

---

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

---

| 18.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 422/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 422/6

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Vercelli (Italy) lodged on 20 July 2021 — UC v Ministero dell’Istruzione

(Case C-450/21)

(2021/C 422/09)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale ordinario di Vercelli

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: UC

Defendant: Ministero dell’Istruzione

Questions referred

| 1. | Is clause 4(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999, (1) to be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that contained in Article 1(121) of legge n. 107/2015 (Law No 107/2015), which expressly excludes the recognition and payment of additional remuneration of EUR 500 for teaching staff hired by the Ministero dell’Istruzione (Italian Ministry of Education) on fixed-term contracts, since such additional remuneration is solely for the training and continuous professional development of staff hired on contracts of indefinite duration? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is clause 4(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999, (1) to be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that contained in Article 1(121) of legge n. 107/2015 (Law No 107/2015), which expressly excludes the recognition and payment of additional remuneration of EUR 500 for teaching staff hired by the Ministero dell’Istruzione (Italian Ministry of Education) on fixed-term contracts, since such additional remuneration is solely for the training and continuous professional development of staff hired on contracts of indefinite duration?

| 2. | Is additional remuneration of EUR 500 per year, such as that provided for in Article 1(121) of Law No 107/2015 [and Article] 2 of decreto legge n. 22/2020 (Decree-Law No 22/2020), (‘the teacher’s electronic card’), which is intended to be used to purchase training materials and services aimed at developing professional skills and to purchase connectivity services, to be considered covered by the employment conditions referred to in clause 4(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is additional remuneration of EUR 500 per year, such as that provided for in Article 1(121) of Law No 107/2015 [and Article] 2 of decreto legge n. 22/2020 (Decree-Law No 22/2020), (‘the teacher’s electronic card’), which is intended to be used to purchase training materials and services aimed at developing professional skills and to purchase connectivity services, to be considered covered by the employment conditions referred to in clause 4(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999?

| 3. | In the event that this allowance is deemed not to be covered by the abovementioned employment conditions, is clause 6 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999, in conjunction with Article 150 [TEC], Article 14 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 10 of the European Social Charter, to be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law, such as that contained in Article 1(121) of Law No 107/2015, which gives only workers with an employment contract or relationship of indefinite duration the right to receive funding for training, despite the fact that they are in a comparable situation to that of fixed-term workers? |
| --- | --- |

3.

In the event that this allowance is deemed not to be covered by the abovementioned employment conditions, is clause 6 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999, in conjunction with Article 150 [TEC], Article 14 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 10 of the European Social Charter, to be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law, such as that contained in Article 1(121) of Law No 107/2015, which gives only workers with an employment contract or relationship of indefinite duration the right to receive funding for training, despite the fact that they are in a comparable situation to that of fixed-term workers?

| 4. | Within the scope of Directive 1999/70/EC, are the general principles of [European Union] law presently in force on equality, equal treatment and non-discrimination in matters of employment, enshrined in Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in Directives 2000/43/EC (2) and 2000/78/EC (3) and in clause 4 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, put into effect by Directive [1]999/70/EC, to be interpreted as precluding a legal provision such as the one contained in Article 1(121) of Law No 107/2015, which allows teachers who are in a comparable situation to permanent teachers, as regards the type of work and employment conditions, having performed the same duties and possessing the same disciplinary, pedagogical, methodological, organisational, interpersonal and research skills, obtained through teaching experience recognised as equivalent under the same national legislation, to be treated less favourably and to be subjected to discrimination regarding their employment conditions and access to training, solely because they have a fixed-term employment relationship? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Within the scope of Directive 1999/70/EC, are the general principles of [European Union] law presently in force on equality, equal treatment and non-discrimination in matters of employment, enshrined in Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in Directives 2000/43/EC (2) and 2000/78/EC (3) and in clause 4 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, put into effect by Directive [1]999/70/EC, to be interpreted as precluding a legal provision such as the one contained in Article 1(121) of Law No 107/2015, which allows teachers who are in a comparable situation to permanent teachers, as regards the type of work and employment conditions, having performed the same duties and possessing the same disciplinary, pedagogical, methodological, organisational, interpersonal and research skills, obtained through teaching experience recognised as equivalent under the same national legislation, to be treated less favourably and to be subjected to discrimination regarding their employment conditions and access to training, solely because they have a fixed-term employment relationship?

| 5. | Is clause 6 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, read in the light of and in accordance with the general principles of [European Union] law presently in force on equality, equal treatment and non-discrimination in matters of employment and the fundamental rights enshrined in Articles 14, 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law, such as that contained in Article 1(121) of Law No 107/2015, which gives only workers with an employment relationship of indefinite duration access to training? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Is clause 6 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, read in the light of and in accordance with the general principles of [European Union] law presently in force on equality, equal treatment and non-discrimination in matters of employment and the fundamental rights enshrined in Articles 14, 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law, such as that contained in Article 1(121) of Law No 107/2015, which gives only workers with an employment relationship of indefinite duration access to training?

---

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

(2)  Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin (OJ 2000 L 180, p. 22).

(3)  Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16).

---

| 18.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 422/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 422/7

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 30 July 2021 — Comune di Venezia v Telecom Italia SpA, Infrastrutture Wireless Italiane SpA — Inwit SpA

(Case C-467/21)

(2021/C 422/10)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Comune di Venezia

Respondents: Telecom Italia SpA, Infrastrutture Wireless Italiane SpA — Inwit SpA

Question referred

Does EU law preclude a provision of national legislation (such as Article 8(6) of legge 22 febbraio 2001, n. 36 (Law No 36 of 22 February 2001)), which is understood and applied as allowing individual local authorities to define siting criteria for mobile telephone apparatus, which may be expressed in the form of prohibitions, such as a prohibition on placing antennae in specific areas or within a certain distance of a certain type of building?

---

| 18.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 422/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 422/8

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Wiesbaden (Germany) lodged on 4 August 2021 — TX v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-481/21)

(2021/C 422/11)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Wiesbaden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: TX

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland, represented by the Bundeskriminalamt

Questions referred

| 1. | Considered in the light of Article 54 of Directive (EU) 2016/680, (1) is Article 15(3) and (1) of Directive (EU) 2016/680, read in conjunction with Article 14 thereof, to be interpreted as meaning that it permits national legislation






  (a) | under which, in the case of joint responsibility for data processing, the entity actually responsible for the data stored does not have to be named, and |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Considered in the light of Article 54 of Directive (EU) 2016/680, (1) is Article 15(3) and (1) of Directive (EU) 2016/680, read in conjunction with Article 14 thereof, to be interpreted as meaning that it permits national legislation

(a)

under which, in the case of joint responsibility for data processing, the entity actually responsible for the data stored does not have to be named, and

| (b) | which also allows access to be refused without substantive reasons being given to a court? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

which also allows access to be refused without substantive reasons being given to a court?

| 2. | If Questions 1(a) and 1(b) are answered in the affirmative, is Article 15(3) and (1) of Directive (EU) 2016/680 consistent with the right to an effective judicial remedy under Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2) even though it would thus be impossible for the court






  (a) | to join to the proceedings, in accordance with national procedural rules, in a multi-stage administrative procedure, the other authority which is involved and is actually responsible and which must give its consent to the provision of access to data; and |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

If Questions 1(a) and 1(b) are answered in the affirmative, is Article 15(3) and (1) of Directive (EU) 2016/680 consistent with the right to an effective judicial remedy under Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2) even though it would thus be impossible for the court

(a)

to join to the proceedings, in accordance with national procedural rules, in a multi-stage administrative procedure, the other authority which is involved and is actually responsible and which must give its consent to the provision of access to data; and

| (b) | substantively to verify whether the conditions for the refusal of access are met and have been correctly applied by the authority refusing access? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

substantively to verify whether the conditions for the refusal of access are met and have been correctly applied by the authority refusing access?

| 3. | Does the refusal of access and thus of an effective remedy under Article 47 of the Charter unlawfully interfere with the freedom to choose an occupation under Article 15 of the Charter in the case where the information stored is used to exclude a data subject from the desired activity on the ground of an alleged security risk? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the refusal of access and thus of an effective remedy under Article 47 of the Charter unlawfully interfere with the freedom to choose an occupation under Article 15 of the Charter in the case where the information stored is used to exclude a data subject from the desired activity on the ground of an alleged security risk?

---

(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).

(2)  OJ 2012 C 326, p. 391.

---

| 18.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 422/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 422/8

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (Ireland) made on 10 August 2021 — GV v Chief Appeals Officer, Social Welfare Appeals Office, Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection, Ireland, Attorney General

(Case C-488/21)

(2021/C 422/12)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: GV

Defendants: Chief Appeals Officer, Social Welfare Appeals Office, Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection, Ireland, Attorney General

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the derived right of residence of a direct relative in the ascending line of a Union citizen worker pursuant to Article 7(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC (1) conditional on the continued dependency of that relative on the worker? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the derived right of residence of a direct relative in the ascending line of a Union citizen worker pursuant to Article 7(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC (1) conditional on the continued dependency of that relative on the worker?

| 2. | Does Directive 2004/38/EC preclude a host Member State from limiting access to a social assistance payment benefit by a family member of a Union citizen worker who enjoys a derived right of residence on the basis of her dependency on that worker, where access to such payment would mean she is no longer dependent on the worker? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does Directive 2004/38/EC preclude a host Member State from limiting access to a social assistance payment benefit by a family member of a Union citizen worker who enjoys a derived right of residence on the basis of her dependency on that worker, where access to such payment would mean she is no longer dependent on the worker?

| 3. | Does Directive 2004/38/EC preclude a host Member State from limiting access to a social assistance payment benefit by a family member of a Union citizen worker who enjoys a derived right of residence on the basis of her dependency on that worker, on the grounds that payment of the benefit will result in the family member concerned becoming an unreasonable burden on the social assistance system of the State? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does Directive 2004/38/EC preclude a host Member State from limiting access to a social assistance payment benefit by a family member of a Union citizen worker who enjoys a derived right of residence on the basis of her dependency on that worker, on the grounds that payment of the benefit will result in the family member concerned becoming an unreasonable burden on the social assistance system of the State?

---

(1)  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 (OJ 2004, L 158, p. 77).

---

General Court

| 18.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 422/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 422/10

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2021 — Naturgy Energy Group v Commission

(Case T-328/18) (1)

(State aid - Environmental incentive adopted by Spain in favour of coal-fired power plants - Decision to initiate the procedure laid down by Article 108(2) TFEU - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Selective nature)

(2021/C 422/13)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Naturgy Energy Group, SA, formerly Gas Natural SDG, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: F. González Díaz and J. Blanco Carol, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Němečková and D. Recchia, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicant: EDP España, SA (Oviedo, Spain) (represented by: J. Buendía Sierra and A. Lamadrid de Pablo, lawyers), Viesgo Producción, SL, successor in title to Viesgo Generación, SL (Santander, Spain) (represented by: F. Plasencia Sánchez, L. Ques Mena and L. de Pedro Martín, lawyers)

Re:

APPLICATION under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2017) 7733 final of 27 November 2017, concerning State Aid SA.47912 (2017/NN) — Environmental incentive adopted by Spain in favour of coal-fired power plants, initiating the formal investigation procedure laid down by Article 108(2) TFEU.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Naturgy Energy Group, SA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Naturgy Energy Group, SA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders Viesgo Producción, SL and EDP España, SA to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Viesgo Producción, SL and EDP España, SA to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 268, 30.7.2018.

---

| 18.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 422/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 422/10

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2021 — Brunswick Bowling Products v Commission

(Case T-152/19) (1)

(Protection of the health and safety of consumers and workers - Directive 2006/42/EC - Safeguard clause - National measure of withdrawal from the market and prohibition of placing on the market of a pinsetter machine and a supplementary kit - Essential health and safety requirements - Commission decision declaring the measure justified - Equal treatment)

(2021/C 422/14)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Brunswick Bowling Products LLC, formerly Brunswick Bowling & Billiards Corporation (Muskegon, Michigan, United States) (represented by: R. Martens and V. Ostrovskis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Huttunen and P. Ondrůšek, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: H. Eklinder, R. Eriksson, C. Meyer-Seitz, A. Runeskjöld, M. Salborn Hodgson, H. Shev, J. Lundberg and O. Simonsson, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/1960 of 10 December 2018 on a safeguard measure taken by Sweden pursuant to Directive 2006/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, to prohibit the placing on the market of a type of pinsetter machine and a supplementary kit to be used together with that type of pinsetter machine, manufactured by Brunswick Bowling & Billiards, and to withdraw those machines already placed on the market (OJ 2018 L 315, p. 29).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Brunswick Bowling Products LLC to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Brunswick Bowling Products LLC to pay the costs;

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

3.

Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 155, 6.5.2019.

---

| 18.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 422/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 422/11

---

Judgment of the General Court of 1 September 2021 — Homoki v Commission

(Case T-517/19) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Final report of the OLAF investigation into the implementation of a street-lighting investment project in Hungary - Refusal to grant access - Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits - Exception relating to the protection of the commercial interests of a third party - Exception relating to the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual - Protection of personal data)

(2021/C 422/15)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: Andrea Homoki (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: T. Hüttl, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Béres and A. Spina, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) of 22 May 2019 rejecting a confirmatory application for access to documents in accordance with 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).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Decision No OCM(2019)11506 of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) of 22 May 2019, in so far as it refused to grant access to the final report of the OLAF investigation in Case No OF/2015/0034/B4, with any personal data concerning witnesses, internal notes and references to OLAF’s methods redacted; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Decision No OCM(2019)11506 of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) of 22 May 2019, in so far as it refused to grant access to the final report of the OLAF investigation in Case No OF/2015/0034/B4, with any personal data concerning witnesses, internal notes and references to OLAF’s methods redacted;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

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

3.

Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 328, 30.9.2019.

---

| 18.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 422/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 422/12

---

Judgment of the General Court of 1 September 2021 — e*Message Wireless Information Services v EUIPO — Apple (e*message)

(Case T-834/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark e*message - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Lack of distinctive character - Declaration of invalidity - Provisions applicable ratione temporis - Application of subsequent case-law - Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Principles of protection of legitimate expectations and of legal certainty)

(2021/C 422/16)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: e*Message Wireless Information Services GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: A. Hotz, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Apple Inc. (Cupertino, California, United States) (represented by: V. Schmitz-Fohrmann, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 September 2019 (Case R 2454/2018-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between Apple and e*Message Wireless Information Services.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders e*Message Wireless Information Services GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Apple Inc. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders e*Message Wireless Information Services GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Apple Inc.

---

(1)  OJ C 45, 10.2.2020.

---

| 18.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 422/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 422/12

---

Judgment of the General Court of 1 September 2021 — FF IP v EUIPO — Seven (the DoubleF)

(Case T-23/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark the DoubleF - Earlier EU word mark THE DOUBLE - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Relevant public - Similarity of the goods - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2021/C 422/17)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: FF IP Srl (Mantua, Italy) (represented by: M. Locatelli, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Seven SpA (Leinì, Italy) (represented by: D. Sindico and E. Tonello, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 October 2019 (Case R 2588/2018-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Seven and FF IP.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Dismisses Seven SpA’s application for refusal of registration of the European Union figurative mark the DoubleF for goods in Class 18 and services in Class 35; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses Seven SpA’s application for refusal of registration of the European Union figurative mark the DoubleF for goods in Class 18 and services in Class 35;

| 3. | Orders FF IP Srl to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders FF IP Srl to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 68, 2.3.2020.

---

| 18.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 422/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 422/13

---

Judgment of the General Court of 1 September 2021 — Gruppe Nymphenburg Consult v EUIPO (Limbic® Types)

(Case T-96/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark Limbic® Types - Absolute grounds for refusal - Decision taken following the annulment of an earlier decision by the General Court - Referral of the case back to the Grand Board of Appeal - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Error of law - Examination of the facts of the Office’s own motion - Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Res judicata - Article 72(6) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Composition of the Grand Board of Appeal)

(2021/C 422/18)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Gruppe Nymphenburg Consult AG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: R. Kunze, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Grand Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 December 2019 (Case R 1276/2017-G), concerning an application for registration of the word sign Limbic® Types as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Grand Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 2 December 2019 (Case R 1276/2017-G); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Grand Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 2 December 2019 (Case R 1276/2017-G);

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

2.

Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 191, 8.6.2020.

---

| 18.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 422/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 422/14

---

Judgment of the General Court of 1 September 2021 — Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe v EUIPO — Wong (GT RACING)

(Case T-463/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark GT RACING - Earlier EU figurative trade mark representing bold curved, vertical and horizontal lines - Earlier EU word mark GT - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Earlier non-registered national marks - Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Rules governing common-law action for passing off - No misrepresentation - Use in the course of trade of more than mere local significance - Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union and from Euratom)

(2021/C 422/19)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz QC and M. Maier, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Wai Leong Wong (Glasgow, United Kingdom)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 May 2020 (Case R 1612/2019-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe and Mr Wong.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 313, 21.9.2020.

---

| 18.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 422/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 422/14

---

Judgment of the General Court of 1 September 2021 — Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe v EUIPO — Vieta Audio (Vita)

(Case T-561/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark Vita - Genuine use of the mark - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Use in connection with the goods in respect of which the mark was registered)

(2021/C 422/20)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz QC and P. Ruess, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Vieta Audio, SA (Barcelona, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 June 2020 (Case R 425/2020-2), relating to revocation proceedings between Vieta Audio and Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 371, 3.11.2020.

---

| 18.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 422/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 422/15

---

Judgment of the General Court of 1 September 2021 — Residencial Palladium v EUIPO — Palladium Gestión (PALLADIUM HOTEL GARDEN BEACH)

(Case T-566/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark PALLADIUM HOTEL GARDEN BEACH - Earlier national trade name GRAND HOTEL PALLADIUM - Relative Ground for refusal - Use in the course of trade of a sign of more than mere local significance - Article 8(4) and Article 53(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) and Article 60(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2021/C 422/21)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Residencial Palladium, SL (Ibiza, Spain) (represented by: D. Solana Giménez, lawyer)

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

Intervener before the General Court, authorised to replace the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Palladium Gestión, SL (Ibiza) (represented by: J. Rojo García-Lajara, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 June 2020 (Case R 1542/2019-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Residencial Palladium and Fiesta Hotels & Resorts, SL.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Authorises Palladium Gestión, SL to replace Fiesta Hotels & Resorts, SL as intervener; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Authorises Palladium Gestión, SL to replace Fiesta Hotels & Resorts, SL as intervener;

| 2. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action;

| 3. | Orders Residencial Palladium, SL to pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and Palladium Gestión. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Residencial Palladium, SL to pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and Palladium Gestión.

---

(1)  OJ C 371, 3.11.2020.

---

| 18.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 422/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 422/16

---

Judgment of the General Court of 1 September 2021 — Bimbo Donuts Iberia v EUIPO — Hijos de Antonio Juan (DONAS DULCESOL)

(Case T-697/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark DONAS DULCESOL - Earlier national word mark DONAS - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Lack of proof of genuine use of earlier mark - Classification of the goods in respect of which genuine use has been shown - Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2021/C 422/22)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Bimbo Donuts Iberia, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: M. Ceballos Rodríguez, I. Robledo McClymont and M. Hernández Gázquez, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Hijos de Antonio Juan, SL (Villalonga, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 September 2020 (Case R 514/2020-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Bimbo Donuts Iberia and Hijos de Antonio Juan.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Bimbo Donuts Iberia, SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Bimbo Donuts Iberia, SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 28, 25.1.2021.

---

| 18.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 422/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 422/16

---

Order of the General Court of 9 August 2021 — Telefónica Germany v EUIPO — Google (LOOP)

(Case T-305/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Cancellation proceedings - Withdrawal of the application for a declaration of invalidity - No need to adjudicate)

(2021/C 422/23)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Telefónica Germany GmbH & Co. OHG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: A. Fottner and M. Müller, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: Google LLC (Mountain View, California, United States) (represented by: M. Kinkeldey, C. Schmitt and S. Clotten, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 March 2020 (Case R 281/2019-4), relating to cancellation proceedings between Google and Telefónica Germany.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

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

| 2. | Telefónica Germany GmbH & Co. OHG and Google LLC are ordered to bear their own costs and each to pay half of the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Telefónica Germany GmbH & Co. OHG and Google LLC are ordered to bear their own costs and each to pay half of the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 247, 27.7.2020.

---

| 18.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 422/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 422/17

---

Action brought on 29 June 2021 — WV v EEAS

(Case T-371/21)

(2021/C 422/24)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: WV (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

Defendant: European External Action Service

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the appointing authority of the EEAS of 26 August 2020 and, as appropriate, all the preparatory acts and decisions by which it decides that ‘the sanction of removal of post without reduction of her pension rights is imposed pursuant to Article 9(1)(h) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations on [confidential], (1) an official at the European External Action Service (EEAS). This decision shall take effect on the first day of the month following the date of signature’, reference [confidential], and notified the same day by e-mail by [confidential]; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the appointing authority of the EEAS of 26 August 2020 and, as appropriate, all the preparatory acts and decisions by which it decides that ‘the sanction of removal of post without reduction of her pension rights is imposed pursuant to Article 9(1)(h) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations on [confidential], (1) an official at the European External Action Service (EEAS). This decision shall take effect on the first day of the month following the date of signature’, reference [confidential], and notified the same day by e-mail by [confidential];

| — | order compensation for the full extent of the damage which she is suffering and will suffer as a result of the adoption and implementation of the contested decision and of the entirety of the conduct complained of in the course of which that decision was adopted, fixed provisionally and subject to increase in the course of the proceedings, ex aequo et bono, at EUR 3 500 000; |
| --- | --- |

—

order compensation for the full extent of the damage which she is suffering and will suffer as a result of the adoption and implementation of the contested decision and of the entirety of the conduct complained of in the course of which that decision was adopted, fixed provisionally and subject to increase in the course of the proceedings, ex aequo et bono, at EUR 3 500 000;

| — | order the defendant to pay the entirety of the costs, in accordance with Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the entirety of the costs, in accordance with Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court of the European Union.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea, alleging lack of materiality of the acts complained of, use of incorrect legal bases, infringement of Articles 17(1), 21(1), 25, 55(1) and 60 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’), manifest errors of assessment, inadequate reasoning, breach of the duty to state reasons and of the rights of the defence, and violation of the ‘non bis in idem’ principle. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea, alleging lack of materiality of the acts complained of, use of incorrect legal bases, infringement of Articles 17(1), 21(1), 25, 55(1) and 60 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’), manifest errors of assessment, inadequate reasoning, breach of the duty to state reasons and of the rights of the defence, and violation of the ‘non bis in idem’ principle.

| 2. | Second plea, alleging formal and procedural defects in the disciplinary procedure, and in particular infringement of Articles 1, 2 and 22(1) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations and of several provisions of the decision of the Commission of 12 June 2019 laying down general implementing provisions on the conduct of administrative enquiries and disciplinary proceedings (‘the GIPs’), repeated violations of the rights of the defence and, in particular, of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) guaranteeing the access of every person to the file concerning him or her, infringement of Article 26, second paragraph, of the Staff Regulations, breach of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be heard, infringement of Article 41(1) of the Charter and breach of the duty of impartiality enshrined therein, infringement of Regulation 2018/1725 (2) and of Regulation 2001/1049, (3) violation of the principle of equality of arms which is the corollary of the concept of a fair trial guaranteed by Article 47 of the Charter, breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of staff, breach of the duty to state reasons and a manifest error of assessment, breach of the duty to conduct an impartial, independent and thorough investigation, be it inculpatory or exculpatory, and violation of the principles of good faith and of sound administration. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea, alleging formal and procedural defects in the disciplinary procedure, and in particular infringement of Articles 1, 2 and 22(1) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations and of several provisions of the decision of the Commission of 12 June 2019 laying down general implementing provisions on the conduct of administrative enquiries and disciplinary proceedings (‘the GIPs’), repeated violations of the rights of the defence and, in particular, of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) guaranteeing the access of every person to the file concerning him or her, infringement of Article 26, second paragraph, of the Staff Regulations, breach of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be heard, infringement of Article 41(1) of the Charter and breach of the duty of impartiality enshrined therein, infringement of Regulation 2018/1725 (2) and of Regulation 2001/1049, (3) violation of the principle of equality of arms which is the corollary of the concept of a fair trial guaranteed by Article 47 of the Charter, breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of staff, breach of the duty to state reasons and a manifest error of assessment, breach of the duty to conduct an impartial, independent and thorough investigation, be it inculpatory or exculpatory, and violation of the principles of good faith and of sound administration.

| 3. | Third plea, alleging infringement of Article 10 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations, violation of the principle of legal certainty and of the principle of proportionality of the penalty, as well as violation of legitimate expectations and a manifest error of assessment. The applicant argues that the penalty is not commensurate with the facts on which the decision is based. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea, alleging infringement of Article 10 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations, violation of the principle of legal certainty and of the principle of proportionality of the penalty, as well as violation of legitimate expectations and a manifest error of assessment. The applicant argues that the penalty is not commensurate with the facts on which the decision is based.

| 4. | Fourth plea, alleging breach of the principle of non-discrimination, infringement of Articles 12 and 22b of the Staff Regulations, of the duty to assist and of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations, abuse and misuse of powers, infringement of the provisions of Directive 2019/1937, (4) infringement of Directives 2000/78 (5) and 2000/43, (6) breach of the duty of sincere cooperation towards the European Parliament and infringement of the European Parliament resolution of 1 June 2017 on combating anti-Semitism (2017/2692(RSP)), of the Council Declaration on combating anti-Semitism of 2 December 2020, of Articles 2 and 3 TEU, of the European Charter of Human Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, of the UN Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea, alleging breach of the principle of non-discrimination, infringement of Articles 12 and 22b of the Staff Regulations, of the duty to assist and of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations, abuse and misuse of powers, infringement of the provisions of Directive 2019/1937, (4) infringement of Directives 2000/78 (5) and 2000/43, (6) breach of the duty of sincere cooperation towards the European Parliament and infringement of the European Parliament resolution of 1 June 2017 on combating anti-Semitism (2017/2692(RSP)), of the Council Declaration on combating anti-Semitism of 2 December 2020, of Articles 2 and 3 TEU, of the European Charter of Human Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, of the UN Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

---

(1)  Confidential data redacted.

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

(3)  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).

(4)  Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2019 on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law (OJ 2019 L 305, p. 17).

(5)  Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16).

(6)  Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin (OJ 2000 L 180, p. 22).

---

| 18.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 422/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 422/18

---

Action brought on 16 July 2021 — L'union nationale des indépendants solidaires v Commission

(Case T-431/21)

(2021/C 422/25)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: L'union nationale des indépendants solidaires (Lorient, France) (represented by: F. Ortega, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that the Commission has based its response to the complaint on a personal, and therefore unlawful, interpretation of Article 153(4) TFEU; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the Commission has based its response to the complaint on a personal, and therefore unlawful, interpretation of Article 153(4) TFEU;

| — | declare that the Commission has failed to fulfil its obligations arising out of the Treaties and, in particular, those laid down in the first paragraph of Article 105 TFEU; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the Commission has failed to fulfil its obligations arising out of the Treaties and, in particular, those laid down in the first paragraph of Article 105 TFEU;

| — | declare that the CNAV and its related bodies are in breach of EU competition rules; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the CNAV and its related bodies are in breach of EU competition rules;

| — | order the Commission to pay to the Union syndicale des indépendants solidaires the sum of EUR 2 500 in respect of its legal fees; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay to the Union syndicale des indépendants solidaires the sum of EUR 2 500 in respect of its legal fees;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the entirety of the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action against Commission Decision Ares(2021)3291074 of 18 May 2021 rejecting its complaint, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 267 TFEU, by which the legislature confers on the Court of Justice of the European Union alone the jurisdiction to rule on the interpretation of the Treaties. The applicant concludes from this that the Commission is obliged to recognise as law only the interpretation that the Court of Justice has given to the content of the Treaties. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 267 TFEU, by which the legislature confers on the Court of Justice of the European Union alone the jurisdiction to rule on the interpretation of the Treaties. The applicant concludes from this that the Commission is obliged to recognise as law only the interpretation that the Court of Justice has given to the content of the Treaties.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 153(4) TFEU. The applicant claims that the Commission's interpretation of that article, according to which the design and management of social security systems, including pension systems, remain fundamentally a competence of the Member States, cannot succeed. The applicant adds that the Commission is exceeding its powers in order to justify its refusal to find an infringement of EU competition rules committed by the body to which the complaint refers. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 153(4) TFEU. The applicant claims that the Commission's interpretation of that article, according to which the design and management of social security systems, including pension systems, remain fundamentally a competence of the Member States, cannot succeed. The applicant adds that the Commission is exceeding its powers in order to justify its refusal to find an infringement of EU competition rules committed by the body to which the complaint refers.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 101, 102 and 105 TFEU on the ground that, according to the applicant, one of the Commission’s tasks is specifically to investigate, of its own motion, breaches of the principles laid down in those articles. The applicant takes the view that the body to which the complaint relates can only be regarded as an undertaking and concludes from this that EU competition rules therefore apply to it. The applicant concludes that the monopolistic position of the Caisse nationale d'assurance vieillesse (CNAV) and its associated bodies is unlawful. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 101, 102 and 105 TFEU on the ground that, according to the applicant, one of the Commission’s tasks is specifically to investigate, of its own motion, breaches of the principles laid down in those articles. The applicant takes the view that the body to which the complaint relates can only be regarded as an undertaking and concludes from this that EU competition rules therefore apply to it. The applicant concludes that the monopolistic position of the Caisse nationale d'assurance vieillesse (CNAV) and its associated bodies is unlawful.

---

| 18.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 422/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 422/19

---

Action brought on 3 August 2021 —  OE (*1) v Commission

(Case T-486/21)

(2021/C 422/26)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: OE (*1) (represented by: G. Hervet, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

principally:

| — | declare that Article 71 of the Staff Regulations, on which the decision of the Appointing Authority of 5 May 2021 is based, is unlawful; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that Article 71 of the Staff Regulations, on which the decision of the Appointing Authority of 5 May 2021 is based, is unlawful;

in the alternative:

| — | annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of 5 May 2021; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of 5 May 2021;

and consequently,

| — | order the European Commission to pay  OE (*1) the sum of EUR 51,89 by way of compensation for professional expenses; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay  OE (*1) the sum of EUR 51,89 by way of compensation for professional expenses;

| — | order the European Commission to provide to  OE (*1) an Internet plan for professional use by whatever means and for any telework situation that may arise; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to provide to  OE (*1) an Internet plan for professional use by whatever means and for any telework situation that may arise;

| — | order the European Commission to pay  OE (*1) the sum of EUR 10 000 euros in respect of the damage suffered; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay  OE (*1) the sum of EUR 10 000 euros in respect of the damage suffered;

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

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging, principally, that Article 71 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) is unlawful and, in the alternative, that the decision of the Appointing Authority of 5 May 2021 should be annulled on the ground that that decision is incompatible with the case-law relating to Article 71 of the Staff Regulations. In support of that plea, the applicant further alleges breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials and of the duty of sound administration, and that the decision of the Appointing Authority is discriminatory. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging, principally, that Article 71 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) is unlawful and, in the alternative, that the decision of the Appointing Authority of 5 May 2021 should be annulled on the ground that that decision is incompatible with the case-law relating to Article 71 of the Staff Regulations. In support of that plea, the applicant further alleges breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials and of the duty of sound administration, and that the decision of the Appointing Authority is discriminatory.

| 2. | Second plea in law, in support of the application for an Internet plan for professional use, alleging infringement of Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, in support of the application for an Internet plan for professional use, alleging infringement of Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| 3. | Third plea in law, in support of the claim for compensation for the damage suffered, alleging that the unlawfulness of the Commission’s conduct gives rise to non-contractual liability on the part of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, in support of the claim for compensation for the damage suffered, alleging that the unlawfulness of the Commission’s conduct gives rise to non-contractual liability on the part of the European Union.

---

(*1)  Information erased or replaced within the framework of protection of personal data and/or confidentiality.

---

| 18.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 422/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 422/20

---

Action brought on 10 August 2021 — Tralux and Others v Parliament

(Case T-488/21)

(2021/C 422/27)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Tralux, Société Générale de travaux — Luxembourg Sàrl (Leudelange, Luxembourg), Eric Soldermann, René-Pierre Ortiz, Rodrigue Thiemann, Richard Lang, Marie Real, Olivier Lingelser, Architectes Associés, Aea Architectes (Mulhouse, France), Energie & Environnement — Ingénieurs Conseils (Niederanven, Luxembourg), Edeis (Ivry-sur-Seine, France) (represented by: G. Krieger, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | find the present action to be admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

find the present action to be admissible;

| — | on the substance, find the action to be justified and well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

on the substance, find the action to be justified and well founded;

and accordingly,

| — | annul the decision of the European Parliament of 20 July 2021 to reject the applicants’ tender of 16 April 2021. |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the European Parliament of 20 July 2021 to reject the applicants’ tender of 16 April 2021.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action against the decision to reject their offer filed in response to tender procedure No 06D10/2020/SI2KAD-01 for the design and construction of a ‘Europa Experience’ space and a conference centre in Luxembourg, the applicants rely on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 51 of Regulation 2018/1046. (1) The applicants rely on several arguments in support of that plea. Firstly, they submit that they met the selection criteria and, in particular, the minimum staffing requirement. Secondly, the applicants argue that the tender specifications did not require the production of supporting documents, failing which the tender would be disregarded. Finally, they added that clarifications to the tender could have been submitted, at the request of the contracting authority, after the submission of their tender. In any event, according to the applicants, those clarifications were not such as to substantially alter the documents submitted.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, amending Regulations (EU) No 1296/2013, (EU) No 1301/2013, (EU) No 1303/2013, (EU) No 1304/2013, (EU) No 1309/2013, (EU) No 1316/2013, (EU) No 223/2014, (EU) No 283/2014, and Decision No 541/2014/EU and repealing Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 (OJ 2018 L 193, p. 1).

---

| 18.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 422/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 422/20

---

Action brought on 11 August 2021 — Vanhoudt v EIB

(Case T-490/21)

(2021/C 422/28)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Patrick Vanhoudt (Gonderange, Luxembourg) (represented by: L. Levi and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Investment Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

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

—

declare the present action admissible and well founded;

accordingly,

| — | annul the decision of 16 December 2020 to the extent that it dismisses the applicant’s application for the position of Head of Office of the EIB Vice-President and the decision to nominate [confidential] (1) to the position concerned; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 16 December 2020 to the extent that it dismisses the applicant’s application for the position of Head of Office of the EIB Vice-President and the decision to nominate [confidential] (1) to the position concerned;

| — | annul, where appropriate, the decision of 17 May 2021, communicated to the applicant on 18 May 2021, refusing the applicant’s requests for administrative review of 18 December 2020 and 17 March 2021; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, where appropriate, the decision of 17 May 2021, communicated to the applicant on 18 May 2021, refusing the applicant’s requests for administrative review of 18 December 2020 and 17 March 2021;

| — | order the EIB to compensate the applicant’s non-material damage, which is assessed, ex aequo et bono, at EUR 4 000; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the EIB to compensate the applicant’s non-material damage, which is assessed, ex aequo et bono, at EUR 4 000;

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

—

order the EIB to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea, alleging procedural irregularities and breach of the guidelines on internal mobility and promotion. The applicant submits in that regard, inter alia, that he was never informed of the selection criteria or of the composition of the selection board. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea, alleging procedural irregularities and breach of the guidelines on internal mobility and promotion. The applicant submits in that regard, inter alia, that he was never informed of the selection criteria or of the composition of the selection board.

| 2. | Second plea, alleging violation of the vacancy notice and manifest errors of assessment. In support of this plea, the applicant submits that the candidate selected at the end of the selection procedure manifestly did not meet the criteria set. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea, alleging violation of the vacancy notice and manifest errors of assessment. In support of this plea, the applicant submits that the candidate selected at the end of the selection procedure manifestly did not meet the criteria set.

| 3. | Third plea, alleging breach of the obligation to state reasons. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea, alleging breach of the obligation to state reasons.

| 4. | Fourth plea, alleging that the guidelines and the vacancy notice, in combination or separately, are unlawful in that they violate the principles of legal certainty, transparency and good administration. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea, alleging that the guidelines and the vacancy notice, in combination or separately, are unlawful in that they violate the principles of legal certainty, transparency and good administration.

---

(1)  Confidential data redacted.

---

| 18.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 422/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 422/21

---

Action brought on 9 August 2021 — Vasallo Andrés v Parliament

(Case T-496/21)

(2021/C 422/29)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Ángel Vasallo Andrés (Valladolid, Spain) (represented by: F. González Álvarez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | under Article 263 TFEU, uphold the claim that the President of the Committee on Petitions of the European Parliament, Ms Dolors Montserrat, as well as any employee of the Spanish public administration in active employment or on leave or any person who is or has at any time been linked to or affiliated with the latter or the legislature or the executive of the Kingdom of Spain, must be required to recuse themselves on the ground that their participation in the petition procedure entails a clear conflict of interests constituting, in short, an infringement of essential procedural requirements that gives rise to the annulment sought; |
| --- | --- |

—

under Article 263 TFEU, uphold the claim that the President of the Committee on Petitions of the European Parliament, Ms Dolors Montserrat, as well as any employee of the Spanish public administration in active employment or on leave or any person who is or has at any time been linked to or affiliated with the latter or the legislature or the executive of the Kingdom of Spain, must be required to recuse themselves on the ground that their participation in the petition procedure entails a clear conflict of interests constituting, in short, an infringement of essential procedural requirements that gives rise to the annulment sought;

| — | in the same vein, in accordance with Article 263 TFEU, recognise the applicant’s right to know the justification and reasoning of the decisions taken during the process that led to the contested decision, and specifically for the initial admission of the applicant’s petition, as well as the change in the status thereof from ‘Available to supporters’ to ‘Not admissible’, inasmuch as it entails a subsequent infringement of essential procedural requirements; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the same vein, in accordance with Article 263 TFEU, recognise the applicant’s right to know the justification and reasoning of the decisions taken during the process that led to the contested decision, and specifically for the initial admission of the applicant’s petition, as well as the change in the status thereof from ‘Available to supporters’ to ‘Not admissible’, inasmuch as it entails a subsequent infringement of essential procedural requirements;

| — | furthermore, annul Decision D 200663, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, on the ground that it results in an infringement of the Treaties and other rules of law relating to their application in the terms set out, as well as a further infringement of essential procedural requirements, since the grounds of that decision by which the applicant’s petition is declared inadmissible are not applicable to the case and lack any foundation in law. In the light of the foregoing, the Court should, following the appropriate legal formalities: — primarily, declare that the applicant’s petition is allowed to proceed; — in the alternative, order the Committee on Petitions to return the matter to the initial moment, in which that committee should take a new decision on the petition submitted, this time respecting the rights that were infringed and declaring that the applicant’s petition is allowed to proceed and is available to supporters; |
| --- | --- |

—

furthermore, annul Decision D 200663, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, on the ground that it results in an infringement of the Treaties and other rules of law relating to their application in the terms set out, as well as a further infringement of essential procedural requirements, since the grounds of that decision by which the applicant’s petition is declared inadmissible are not applicable to the case and lack any foundation in law. In the light of the foregoing, the Court should, following the appropriate legal formalities: — primarily, declare that the applicant’s petition is allowed to proceed; — in the alternative, order the Committee on Petitions to return the matter to the initial moment, in which that committee should take a new decision on the petition submitted, this time respecting the rights that were infringed and declaring that the applicant’s petition is allowed to proceed and is available to supporters;

| — | as a result of all the foregoing, and in accordance with Article 263 TFEU, urge the corresponding allocation of personal liability to those other parties who have infringed the applicable legislation, and who have participated in what may clearly be regarded as irregular actions adopted with the sole aim of preventing the applicant’s petition from succeeding in parliament. In the alternative, if such a request exceeds the Court’s jurisdiction, take such steps that the existence of the irregular actions complained of is reflected in its decision as proven facts, in such a way that it may support subsequent administrative proceedings brought on the basis of that liability; |
| --- | --- |

—

as a result of all the foregoing, and in accordance with Article 263 TFEU, urge the corresponding allocation of personal liability to those other parties who have infringed the applicable legislation, and who have participated in what may clearly be regarded as irregular actions adopted with the sole aim of preventing the applicant’s petition from succeeding in parliament. In the alternative, if such a request exceeds the Court’s jurisdiction, take such steps that the existence of the irregular actions complained of is reflected in its decision as proven facts, in such a way that it may support subsequent administrative proceedings brought on the basis of that liability;

| — | lastly, under Articles 133 et seq. of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, expressly order the opposing party to pay the costs of the present proceedings, including in the case where there is an admission on its part, while requesting that the Court should, in the event that some of the applicant’s claims are unsuccessful, not order the applicant to pay the appropriate portion of the other party’s costs, given the seriousness and the legal merits of the claims put forward. |
| --- | --- |

—

lastly, under Articles 133 et seq. of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, expressly order the opposing party to pay the costs of the present proceedings, including in the case where there is an admission on its part, while requesting that the Court should, in the event that some of the applicant’s claims are unsuccessful, not order the applicant to pay the appropriate portion of the other party’s costs, given the seriousness and the legal merits of the claims put forward.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a preliminary infringement of essential procedural requirements when the decision was taken on the matter raised in the petition.
  The applicant submits in that regard that the employment history and the nationality of the President of the Committee on Petitions of the European Parliament, Ms Dolors Montserrat, should have led her to abstain in respect of the contested decision, since the petition entailed a clear conflict of interests on her part. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a preliminary infringement of essential procedural requirements when the decision was taken on the matter raised in the petition.

The applicant submits in that regard that the employment history and the nationality of the President of the Committee on Petitions of the European Parliament, Ms Dolors Montserrat, should have led her to abstain in respect of the contested decision, since the petition entailed a clear conflict of interests on her part.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes the European Union (EU) Treaties, as well as a failure to state reasons regarding the substance of the matter.
  The applicant maintains in that regard that the matter raised in the petition does fall within the fields of activity of the European Union, as a result of which the contested decision must be annulled on the ground that it infringes the applicable EU legislation. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes the European Union (EU) Treaties, as well as a failure to state reasons regarding the substance of the matter.

The applicant maintains in that regard that the matter raised in the petition does fall within the fields of activity of the European Union, as a result of which the contested decision must be annulled on the ground that it infringes the applicable EU legislation.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of procedural requirements stemming from the change in status of the applicant’s petition, as well as a failure to state reasons for that change. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of procedural requirements stemming from the change in status of the applicant’s petition, as well as a failure to state reasons for that change.

The applicant submits in that regard that the status of the petition was changed unduly and irregularly, on account of the fact that, after being admitted and its status being ‘Available to supporters’, it passed in but a few hours to ‘Not admissible’, with no justification given.

---

| 18.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 422/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 422/23

---

Action brought on 15 August 2021 — Lagardère, unité médico-sociale v Commission

(Case T-503/21)

(2021/C 422/30)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Lagardère, unité médico-sociale (Ghlin, Belgium) (represented by: P. Vanlangendonck, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | Declare Regulation 2021/953 (1) null and void. |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare Regulation 2021/953 (1) null and void.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 9(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ 2016 L 119, p. 1), in so far as the contested measure failed to have regard to the prohibition on the processing of personal data concerning the health of a natural person. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 9(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ 2016 L 119, p. 1), in so far as the contested measure failed to have regard to the prohibition on the processing of personal data concerning the health of a natural person.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 21(1) TFEU, which confers on EU citizens the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 21(1) TFEU, which confers on EU citizens the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 168 and 169 TFEU and of Articles 3, 35 and 38 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 168 and 169 TFEU and of Articles 3, 35 and 38 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) 2021/953 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2021 on a framework for the issuance, verification and acceptance of interoperable COVID-19 vaccination, test and recovery certificates (EU Digital COVID Certificate) to facilitate free movement during the COVID-19 pandemic (OJ 2021 L 211, p. 1).

---

| 18.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 422/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 422/23

---

Action brought on 16 August 2021 — Migadakis v ENISA

(Case T-507/21)

(2021/C 422/31)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Ioannis Migadakis (Athens, Greece) (represented by: K. Bicard, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

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

—

declare his application admissible and well founded;

| — | annul the decision made against him; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision made against him;

| — | order ENISA to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

—

order ENISA to pay the costs;

| — | reserve the applicant the right to raise all other pleas of fact and of law to be argued at the appropriate time and place; |
| --- | --- |

—

reserve the applicant the right to raise all other pleas of fact and of law to be argued at the appropriate time and place;

| — | reserve the applicant the right to produce, in addition to the documents listed in the body of the present action, all documents at the appropriate time and place; |
| --- | --- |

—

reserve the applicant the right to produce, in addition to the documents listed in the body of the present action, all documents at the appropriate time and place;

| — | reserve the applicant all other rights, entitlements, pleas and actions. |
| --- | --- |

—

reserve the applicant all other rights, entitlements, pleas and actions.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea, alleging violation of the legal framework. The applicant submits, inter alia, that the vacancy notice did not provide for remote examination and that he did not give his consent for remote written and oral examinations. The applicant adds that he did not have the choice between face-to-face and remote examinations. Moreover, according to the applicant, a remote examination in July 2020 was not justified because Greece had then been in the green zone since 4 May 2020, the date on which the lockdown ended. Finally, the applicant maintains that he was rejected for having obtained 60 points out of 100, whereas only eligible candidates having obtained 75/100 succeeded, it being specified that nothing was provided for in the notice concerning such a level of mark to be achieved. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea, alleging violation of the legal framework. The applicant submits, inter alia, that the vacancy notice did not provide for remote examination and that he did not give his consent for remote written and oral examinations. The applicant adds that he did not have the choice between face-to-face and remote examinations. Moreover, according to the applicant, a remote examination in July 2020 was not justified because Greece had then been in the green zone since 4 May 2020, the date on which the lockdown ended. Finally, the applicant maintains that he was rejected for having obtained 60 points out of 100, whereas only eligible candidates having obtained 75/100 succeeded, it being specified that nothing was provided for in the notice concerning such a level of mark to be achieved.

| 2. | Second plea, alleging violation of the principle of equality on the ground that the competition was held in poor conditions. The applicant was therefore not treated equally with the other candidates. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea, alleging violation of the principle of equality on the ground that the competition was held in poor conditions. The applicant was therefore not treated equally with the other candidates.

| 3. | Third plea, alleging violation of the principle of objectivity of marks. The applicant submits in this regard that the questions in the oral and written examinations and the marks for the applicant’s answers were not objective. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea, alleging violation of the principle of objectivity of marks. The applicant submits in this regard that the questions in the oral and written examinations and the marks for the applicant’s answers were not objective.

---

| 18.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 422/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 422/24

---

Action brought on 20 August 2021– Zeta farmaceutici v EUIPO — Specchiasol (EUPHYTOS)

(Case T-515/21)

(2021/C 422/32)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Zeta farmaceutici SpA (Vicenza, Italy) (represented by: F. Celluprica, F. Fischetti and F. De Bono, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Specchiasol Srl (Bussolengo, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark EUPHYTOS — European Union trade mark No 6 316 541

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 June in Case R 2094/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | alter the contested decision and find and declare the contested mark, namely European Union trade mark No 6 316 541, invalid; |
| --- | --- |

—

alter the contested decision and find and declare the contested mark, namely European Union trade mark No 6 316 541, invalid;

| — | in the alternative, annul the contested decision and refer the case back to the Board of Appeal, ordering it to comply with the findings of the Court when issuing its new decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul the contested decision and refer the case back to the Board of Appeal, ordering it to comply with the findings of the Court when issuing its new decision;

| — | order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 18.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 422/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 422/25

---

Action brought on 20 August 2021 — Grieger v Commission

(Case T-517/21)

(2021/C 422/33)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Vladimir Grieger (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of 29 October 2020; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 29 October 2020;

| — | annul, in so far as is necessary, the decision dated 11 May 2021 rejecting the complaint; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, in so far as is necessary, the decision dated 11 May 2021 rejecting the complaint;

| — | order the administration to pay the applicant financial compensation equivalent to the management allowance which he would have received from the month following the submission of his transfer request (namely from 1 August 2020); |
| --- | --- |

—

order the administration to pay the applicant financial compensation equivalent to the management allowance which he would have received from the month following the submission of his transfer request (namely from 1 August 2020);

| — | order the administration to compensate the effects of that illegality on the applicant’s pension rights, namely the difference between his actual pension and the pension which he claims he would have been entitled to by reference to his last basic salary including the management allowance; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the administration to compensate the effects of that illegality on the applicant’s pension rights, namely the difference between his actual pension and the pension which he claims he would have been entitled to by reference to his last basic salary including the management allowance;

| — | 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 against the decision of 29 October 2020 rejecting the applicant’s request to be transferred to a senior management position, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a manifest infringement of the priority principle and of the commitments made by the Appointing Authority in the decision of 30 March 2015 to make the applicant available to the Support Group for Ukraine (SGUA). |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a manifest infringement of the priority principle and of the commitments made by the Appointing Authority in the decision of 30 March 2015 to make the applicant available to the Support Group for Ukraine (SGUA).

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty of sound administration, the applicant’s legitimate expectations, his acquired rights and the authority’s duty to have regard for the welfare of officials. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty of sound administration, the applicant’s legitimate expectations, his acquired rights and the authority’s duty to have regard for the welfare of officials.

---

| 18.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 422/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 422/25

---

Action brought on 24 August 2021 — VY v Commission

(Case T-519/21)

(2021/C 422/34)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: VY (represented by: F. Moyse, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of 25 May 2021; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 25 May 2021;

| — | consequently, declare that the complaint lodged is admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

consequently, declare that the complaint lodged is admissible;

| — | as regards the substance, annul the decision dated 30 March 2020; |
| --- | --- |

—

as regards the substance, annul the decision dated 30 March 2020;

| — | consequently, declare that the applicant is entitled to receive a survivor’s pension under Article 18 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

consequently, declare that the applicant is entitled to receive a survivor’s pension under Article 18 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations;

| — | in any event, order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

in any event, order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of her action against the Commission’s decision refusing to grant her a survivor’s pension, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, arguing that the complaint of 2 February 2021 is admissible. The applicant submits that the complaint lodged is admissible on the ground that the decision of 30 March 2020 was not an administrative decision that could be the subject of an action and that, consequently, the view could legitimately be taken that it was merely a letter informing her of the steps to be taken following the death of her spouse. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, arguing that the complaint of 2 February 2021 is admissible. The applicant submits that the complaint lodged is admissible on the ground that the decision of 30 March 2020 was not an administrative decision that could be the subject of an action and that, consequently, the view could legitimately be taken that it was merely a letter informing her of the steps to be taken following the death of her spouse.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that Article 18 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) is unlawful because it is in breach of the principle of equal treatment and discriminates on the ground of the nature of the legal relationship of a couple’s life together. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that Article 18 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) is unlawful because it is in breach of the principle of equal treatment and discriminates on the ground of the nature of the legal relationship of a couple’s life together.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging an error of law in the application of Article 18 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, in that the Commission should have interpreted that article as referring to living together as a married couple, whether the couple is married, in a civil partnership, or cohabiting. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging an error of law in the application of Article 18 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, in that the Commission should have interpreted that article as referring to living together as a married couple, whether the couple is married, in a civil partnership, or cohabiting.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging an error in the interpretation of the concept of a spouse for the purpose of the system applicable to the survivor’s pension, on the ground that the general evolution of European society as regards living together calls for a broad interpretation of that concept. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging an error in the interpretation of the concept of a spouse for the purpose of the system applicable to the survivor’s pension, on the ground that the general evolution of European society as regards living together calls for a broad interpretation of that concept.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment resulting from the failure to take into account the applicant’s individual situation. In that regard, the applicant submits, first, that she lived with her spouse for more than 32 years, second, they had a child together and, lastly, when her husband’s state of health deteriorated, she was by his side to help him. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment resulting from the failure to take into account the applicant’s individual situation. In that regard, the applicant submits, first, that she lived with her spouse for more than 32 years, second, they had a child together and, lastly, when her husband’s state of health deteriorated, she was by his side to help him.

---

| 18.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 422/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 422/26

---

Action brought on 26 August 2021 — 6Minutes Media v EUIPO — ad pepper media International (ad pepper the e-advertising network)

(Case T-521/21)

(2021/C 422/35)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: 6Minutes Media GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: N. Marquard and P. Koch, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: ad pepper media International NV (Nuremberg, Germany)

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: EU figurative mark ad pepper the e-advertising network in grey and red — EU trade mark No 9 680 737

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 June 2021 in Case R 1621/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision in so far as it dismissed the application for revocation of EU trade mark No 9 680 737 and revoke EU trade mark No 9 680 737 in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in so far as it dismissed the application for revocation of EU trade mark No 9 680 737 and revoke EU trade mark No 9 680 737 in its entirety;

| — | order the defendant and — in the event of formal intervention — also the other party before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant and — in the event of formal intervention — also the other party before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 18(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 18(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 18(1)(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 18(1)(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by the defendant’s decision which is vitiated by an error of law without proof of genuine use. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by the defendant’s decision which is vitiated by an error of law without proof of genuine use.

---

| 18.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 422/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 422/27

---

Action brought on 27 August 2021 — Gutseriev v Council

(Case T-526/21)

(2021/C 422/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Mikail Safarbekovich Gutseriev (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: B. Kennelly, QC, J. Pobjoy, Barrister, and D. Anderson, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul (i) Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2021/1002 of 21 June 2021 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus (OJ 2021, L 219 I, p. 70) and (ii) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/997 of 21 June 2021 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ 2021, L 219 I, p. 3), insofar as they apply to the applicant (together, the ‘Contested Acts’); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul (i) Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2021/1002 of 21 June 2021 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus (OJ 2021, L 219 I, p. 70) and (ii) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/997 of 21 June 2021 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ 2021, L 219 I, p. 3), insofar as they apply to the applicant (together, the ‘Contested Acts’);

| — | declare that Article 4(1) of Council Decision 2012/642/CFSP of 15 October 2012 (as amended) and Article 2(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 of 18 May 2006 (as amended) are inapplicable insofar as they apply to the applicant by reason of illegality, and consequently annul, insofar as they apply to the Applicant, the Contested Acts. |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that Article 4(1) of Council Decision 2012/642/CFSP of 15 October 2012 (as amended) and Article 2(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 of 18 May 2006 (as amended) are inapplicable insofar as they apply to the applicant by reason of illegality, and consequently annul, insofar as they apply to the Applicant, the Contested Acts.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Council made a manifest error of assessment in considering that the criterion for listing the applicant in the contested measures is satisfied. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Council made a manifest error of assessment in considering that the criterion for listing the applicant in the contested measures is satisfied.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Council infringed the applicant’s fundamental rights, including the rights to private life, defence, property and freedom to conduct business. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Council infringed the applicant’s fundamental rights, including the rights to private life, defence, property and freedom to conduct business.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging illegality if the designation criterion in Article 4(1) of Council Decision 2012/642 and Article 2(5) of Council Regulation 765/2006 is to be interpreted to capture any form of support or any form of benefit. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging illegality if the designation criterion in Article 4(1) of Council Decision 2012/642 and Article 2(5) of Council Regulation 765/2006 is to be interpreted to capture any form of support or any form of benefit.

---

| 18.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 422/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 422/28

---

Action brought on 30 August 2021 — Abenante and Others v Council and Parliament

(Case T-527/21)

(2021/C 422/37)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Stefania Abenante (Ferrara, Italy) and 423 other applicants (represented by: M. Sandri, lawyer)

Defendants: European Parliament, Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | as an immediate interim measure, immediately suspend application of Article 1(1)(a) and (b); |
| --- | --- |

—

as an immediate interim measure, immediately suspend application of Article 1(1)(a) and (b);

| — | principally, annul the contested Regulation (EU) 2021/953 in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

principally, annul the contested Regulation (EU) 2021/953 in its entirety;

| — | in the alternative, (i) annul definitively Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2021/953, (1) and (ii) either annul Article 3(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2021/953 definitively and/or until such time as a provision is expressly inserted into the regulation stating that only positive cases as provided for under the protocols issued by the World Health Organisation (WHO) and by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), in the field of RT-PCR swabs in respect of asymptomatic persons and in respect of persons showing symptoms and concerning development cycles, are to constitute positive cases of Covid-19; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, (i) annul definitively Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2021/953, (1) and (ii) either annul Article 3(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2021/953 definitively and/or until such time as a provision is expressly inserted into the regulation stating that only positive cases as provided for under the protocols issued by the World Health Organisation (WHO) and by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), in the field of RT-PCR swabs in respect of asymptomatic persons and in respect of persons showing symptoms and concerning development cycles, are to constitute positive cases of Covid-19;

| — | in the further alternative, as a possible compromise to the specific demands of the parties, annul the wording of Article 3(1)(a) and (b) of the contested regulation and amend that provision in part by replacing the wording thereof with an obligation making the issuance of an EU Certificate subject to an EU citizen first undertaking, in the circumstances provided for in the regulation, a saliva test and, in the event that the result of that test is positive, adhering to the WHO and ECDC protocols for an effective verification of a confirmed case of Sars Cov 2 of Covid-19; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the further alternative, as a possible compromise to the specific demands of the parties, annul the wording of Article 3(1)(a) and (b) of the contested regulation and amend that provision in part by replacing the wording thereof with an obligation making the issuance of an EU Certificate subject to an EU citizen first undertaking, in the circumstances provided for in the regulation, a saliva test and, in the event that the result of that test is positive, adhering to the WHO and ECDC protocols for an effective verification of a confirmed case of Sars Cov 2 of Covid-19;

| — | order the defendants to pay the costs in the present case. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendants to pay the costs in the present case.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) and of Resolutions Nos 2383/21 and 2361/2021 of the Council of Europe.
  In that regard, the applicants submit that the contested regulation, which favours vaccinated persons over those not vaccinated against Covid-19, on the incorrect scientific assumption that vaccinated persons are not infectious, constitutes unlawful discrimination with regard to the exercise of freedom of movement, expressly prohibited by the Council of Europe, the executive body of the European Court of Human Rights (‘the ECtHR’), an organisation of which the Member States are members and which is supported by the European Union and from whose policies the Member States and the European Union cannot, therefore, deviate. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) and of Resolutions Nos 2383/21 and 2361/2021 of the Council of Europe.

In that regard, the applicants submit that the contested regulation, which favours vaccinated persons over those not vaccinated against Covid-19, on the incorrect scientific assumption that vaccinated persons are not infectious, constitutes unlawful discrimination with regard to the exercise of freedom of movement, expressly prohibited by the Council of Europe, the executive body of the European Court of Human Rights (‘the ECtHR’), an organisation of which the Member States are members and which is supported by the European Union and from whose policies the Member States and the European Union cannot, therefore, deviate.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 20, 21 and 41 to 49 of the Charter and infringement of Article 54 of the Charter.
  In that regard, the applicants submit that the regulation does not refer to any source capable of providing any circumstantial or probative evidence that there is, in fact, scientific uncertainty specifically as to whether vaccinated persons are less likely to infect another person with Sars-CoV-2 as compared with persons who are not infected. The indispensable and precautionary step of adequate and suitable medical and scientific consultation to support that assertion has not been carried out. The assertion that vaccinated persons are not infectious is contradicted by the regulation itself, in which it is stated that it is necessary to wait for evidence. No EU citizen may be discriminated against and thereby prevented from exercising in full his or her fundamental right to unrestricted movement in the absence of any evidence whatsoever of the veracity of the scientific basis for such an impediment. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 20, 21 and 41 to 49 of the Charter and infringement of Article 54 of the Charter.

In that regard, the applicants submit that the regulation does not refer to any source capable of providing any circumstantial or probative evidence that there is, in fact, scientific uncertainty specifically as to whether vaccinated persons are less likely to infect another person with Sars-CoV-2 as compared with persons who are not infected. The indispensable and precautionary step of adequate and suitable medical and scientific consultation to support that assertion has not been carried out. The assertion that vaccinated persons are not infectious is contradicted by the regulation itself, in which it is stated that it is necessary to wait for evidence. No EU citizen may be discriminated against and thereby prevented from exercising in full his or her fundamental right to unrestricted movement in the absence of any evidence whatsoever of the veracity of the scientific basis for such an impediment.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 21 of the Charter in the form of misuse of power and infringement of the principle of legality as set out in Article 49 of the Charter due to the scientific basis of the regulation lacking substance.
  In that regard, the applicants submit that the development of, and marketing authorisation for, vaccines aimed at preventing the spread of the virus Sars cov 2 were never intended to prevent vaccinated persons from infecting others. Extending the applicability of vaccines outside the context of that development and authorisation is illegitimate. There is ample incontrovertible and uncontested documentary evidence, based on statistics tracking the course of infections in Europe and globally, which shows that countries in which more people are vaccinated are those where the highest number of infections take place and that vaccinated persons promote the spread of variants and, in particular, of the ‘delta’ variant. There is evidence that mortality from Covid-19 is higher among vaccinated persons. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 21 of the Charter in the form of misuse of power and infringement of the principle of legality as set out in Article 49 of the Charter due to the scientific basis of the regulation lacking substance.

In that regard, the applicants submit that the development of, and marketing authorisation for, vaccines aimed at preventing the spread of the virus Sars cov 2 were never intended to prevent vaccinated persons from infecting others. Extending the applicability of vaccines outside the context of that development and authorisation is illegitimate. There is ample incontrovertible and uncontested documentary evidence, based on statistics tracking the course of infections in Europe and globally, which shows that countries in which more people are vaccinated are those where the highest number of infections take place and that vaccinated persons promote the spread of variants and, in particular, of the ‘delta’ variant. There is evidence that mortality from Covid-19 is higher among vaccinated persons.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 20 and 35 of the Charter on the basis that the contested regulation is not aligned with WHO and ECDC guidelines as regards the use of swabs. Misuse of power.
  In that regard, the applicants submit that RT-PCR swabs are amplified in the laboratories of certain countries with a higher number of cycles than that set out as being reliable by the ECDC and the WHO. Swabs are used without precautionary and/or subsequent clinical verification, and the incorrect amplification means that the results are wrong. If the result is positive, the test is not repeated as is advised in the WHO guidelines, and thus in that respect in-vitro testing is also entirely unreliable. The contested regulation obliges asymptomatic persons to be subject to screening in order to obtain an EU Certificate, whereas the WHO guidelines state that the RT-PCR swab tests and/or rapid tests for asymptomatic persons are useless, it not being proven that those persons are infectious. The only seriously practicable solution for reaching, with the maximum level of scientific reliability, the objective of making travel as safe as possible, which the contested regulation sets out as its goal, is to oblige vaccinated and unvaccinated persons to undergo a saliva test immediately prior to the required use and, in the event of a positive result, to carry out an RT-PCR swab test that is amplified by a number of cycles that is compatible with the WHO and ECDC guidelines. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 20 and 35 of the Charter on the basis that the contested regulation is not aligned with WHO and ECDC guidelines as regards the use of swabs. Misuse of power.

In that regard, the applicants submit that RT-PCR swabs are amplified in the laboratories of certain countries with a higher number of cycles than that set out as being reliable by the ECDC and the WHO. Swabs are used without precautionary and/or subsequent clinical verification, and the incorrect amplification means that the results are wrong. If the result is positive, the test is not repeated as is advised in the WHO guidelines, and thus in that respect in-vitro testing is also entirely unreliable. The contested regulation obliges asymptomatic persons to be subject to screening in order to obtain an EU Certificate, whereas the WHO guidelines state that the RT-PCR swab tests and/or rapid tests for asymptomatic persons are useless, it not being proven that those persons are infectious. The only seriously practicable solution for reaching, with the maximum level of scientific reliability, the objective of making travel as safe as possible, which the contested regulation sets out as its goal, is to oblige vaccinated and unvaccinated persons to undergo a saliva test immediately prior to the required use and, in the event of a positive result, to carry out an RT-PCR swab test that is amplified by a number of cycles that is compatible with the WHO and ECDC guidelines.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) 2021/953 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2021 on a framework for the issuance, verification and acceptance of interoperable COVID-19 vaccination, test and recovery certificates (EU Digital COVID Certificate) to facilitate free movement during the COVID-19 pandemic (OJ 2021 L 211, p. 1).

---

| 18.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 422/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 422/29

---

Action brought on 30 August 2021 — Pierre Lannier v EUIPO — Pierre Lang Trading (PL)

(Case T-530/21)

(2021/C 422/38)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Pierre Lannier (Ernolsheim-lès-Saverne, France) (represented by: N. Boespflug, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Pierre Lang Trading GmbH (Vienna, Austria)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark PL — Application for registration No 16 176 992

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 June 2021 in Case R 1915/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the appeal brought against the opposition decision to be inadmissible because the statement of grounds was not submitted within the time limit; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the appeal brought against the opposition decision to be inadmissible because the statement of grounds was not submitted within the time limit;

| — | annul the contested decision is so far as it states that the mark applied for is similar to the earlier mark; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision is so far as it states that the mark applied for is similar to the earlier mark;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs;

| — | order the company Pierre Lang GmbH to pay the costs occasioned by its intervention, should it intervene. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the company Pierre Lang GmbH to pay the costs occasioned by its intervention, should it intervene.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 22(1) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625, and of Article 67 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 22(1) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625, and of Article 67 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.

---

| 18.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 422/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 422/30

---

Action brought on 31 august 2021 — MAZ-upravljajusaja kompanija holdinga Belavtomaz v Council

(Case T-532/21)

(2021/C 422/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: OAO Minskii Avtomobilnyi Zavod — upravljajusaja kompanija holdinga Belavtomaz (Minsk, Belarus) (represented by: D. O’Keeffe, Solicitor, and N. Tuominen, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/997 of 21 June 2021 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (1), and Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2021/1002 of 21 June 2021 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus (2) (‘Contested Measures’), as far as they concern the applicant; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/997 of 21 June 2021 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (1), and Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2021/1002 of 21 June 2021 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus (2) (‘Contested Measures’), as far as they concern the applicant; and

| — | order that the Council pays the applicant’s costs for this action. |
| --- | --- |

—

order that the Council pays the applicant’s costs for this action.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Contested Measures breach the principle of effective judicial protection. It is argued that by not sending an individual notification to inform of the measures taken against the applicant, the Council breached Article 8a (2) of Council Regulation 765/2006. Further, since 18 June 2012, the applicant’s name is Open Joint Stock Company ‘Minsk Automobile Works’ — Management Company of ‘BELAVTOMAZ’ Holding. By referring to Minskii Avtomobilnyi Zavod (MAZ) / OJSC ‘MAZ’, a name that the applicant has never used as its official registered company name (either full or shortened), the Contested Measures fail to properly identify the designated entity. As a result, the applicant is not able to determine the exact scope of the Contested Measures. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Contested Measures breach the principle of effective judicial protection. It is argued that by not sending an individual notification to inform of the measures taken against the applicant, the Council breached Article 8a (2) of Council Regulation 765/2006. Further, since 18 June 2012, the applicant’s name is Open Joint Stock Company ‘Minsk Automobile Works’ — Management Company of ‘BELAVTOMAZ’ Holding. By referring to Minskii Avtomobilnyi Zavod (MAZ) / OJSC ‘MAZ’, a name that the applicant has never used as its official registered company name (either full or shortened), the Contested Measures fail to properly identify the designated entity. As a result, the applicant is not able to determine the exact scope of the Contested Measures.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Council has made a manifest error of assessment by including the applicant in the annexes to the Contested Measures. The applicant claims that the Contested Measures provide unsubstantiated, factually incorrect and unfounded reasons for its designation. Further, the deficient reasons provided do not demonstrate a sufficiently substantive link to the scope of the measures. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Council has made a manifest error of assessment by including the applicant in the annexes to the Contested Measures. The applicant claims that the Contested Measures provide unsubstantiated, factually incorrect and unfounded reasons for its designation. Further, the deficient reasons provided do not demonstrate a sufficiently substantive link to the scope of the measures.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Contested Measures do not meet the standard of proof required for adopting individual sanctions. By attempting to use individual measures in order to achieve the objective of restricting business activities and profits of a foreign state-owned enterprise, the Council has applied an unlawful type of measure. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Contested Measures do not meet the standard of proof required for adopting individual sanctions. By attempting to use individual measures in order to achieve the objective of restricting business activities and profits of a foreign state-owned enterprise, the Council has applied an unlawful type of measure.

---

(1)  OJ 2021, L 219 I, p. 3.

(2)  OJ 2021, L 219 I, p. 70.

---

| 18.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 422/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 422/31

---

Action brought on 31 august 2021 — Belaz-upravljajusaja kompanija holdinga Belaz Holding v Council

(Case T-533/21)

(2021/C 422/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: OAO Belaz-upravljajusaja kompanija holdinga Belaz Holding (Zhodino, Belarus) (represented by: D. O’Keeffe, Solicitor, and N. Tuominen, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/997 of 21 June 2021 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (1), and Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2021/1002 of 21 June 2021 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus (2) (‘Contested Measures’), as far as they concern the applicant; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/997 of 21 June 2021 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (1), and Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2021/1002 of 21 June 2021 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus (2) (‘Contested Measures’), as far as they concern the applicant; and

| — | order that the Council pays the applicant’s costs for this action. |
| --- | --- |

—

order that the Council pays the applicant’s costs for this action.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Contested Measures breach the principle of effective judicial protection. It is argued to this end that since 18 June 2012, the applicant’s name is Open Joint Stock Company ‘BELAZ’ — Management Company of Holding ‘BELAZHOLDING’. By referring to Belarusski Avtomobilnyi Zavod (BelAZ) / OJSC ‘BELAZ’, a name that the applicant never used as its official registered company name (either full or shortened), the Contested Measures fail to properly identify the designated entity. As a result, the applicant is not able to determine the exact scope of the Contested Measures. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Contested Measures breach the principle of effective judicial protection. It is argued to this end that since 18 June 2012, the applicant’s name is Open Joint Stock Company ‘BELAZ’ — Management Company of Holding ‘BELAZHOLDING’. By referring to Belarusski Avtomobilnyi Zavod (BelAZ) / OJSC ‘BELAZ’, a name that the applicant never used as its official registered company name (either full or shortened), the Contested Measures fail to properly identify the designated entity. As a result, the applicant is not able to determine the exact scope of the Contested Measures.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Council has made a manifest error of assessment by including the applicant in the annexes to the Contested Measures. The applicant claims that the Contested Measures provide unsubstantiated, factually incorrect and unfounded reasons for its designation. Further, the deficient reasons provided do not demonstrate a sufficiently substantive link to the scope of the measures. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Council has made a manifest error of assessment by including the applicant in the annexes to the Contested Measures. The applicant claims that the Contested Measures provide unsubstantiated, factually incorrect and unfounded reasons for its designation. Further, the deficient reasons provided do not demonstrate a sufficiently substantive link to the scope of the measures.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Contested Measures do not meet the standard of proof required for adopting individual sanctions. By attempting to use individual measures in order to achieve the objective of restricting business activities and profits of a foreign state-owned enterprise, the Council has applied an unlawful type of measure. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Contested Measures do not meet the standard of proof required for adopting individual sanctions. By attempting to use individual measures in order to achieve the objective of restricting business activities and profits of a foreign state-owned enterprise, the Council has applied an unlawful type of measure.

---

(1)  OJ 2021, L 219 I, p. 3.

(2)  OJ 2021, L 219 I, p. 70.

---

| 18.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 422/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 422/32

---

Action brought on 1 September 2021 — Belaeronavigatsia v Council

(Case T-536/21)

(2021/C 422/41)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Belaeronavigatsia (Minsk, Belarus) (represented by: M. Michalauskas, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/999 of 21 June 2021 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ L 219 I, 21.6.2021, p. 55); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/999 of 21 June 2021 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ L 219 I, 21.6.2021, p. 55);

| — | annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/1001 of 21 June 2021 amending Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/1001 of 21 June 2021 amending Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus;

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

—

order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging an error of assessment. The applicant alleges, in that regard, that there is no factual justification for the contested acts. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging an error of assessment. The applicant alleges, in that regard, that there is no factual justification for the contested acts.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a failure to comply with the principle of proportionality on the basis that the contested act risks jeopardising the objective of safety in international aviation. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a failure to comply with the principle of proportionality on the basis that the contested act risks jeopardising the objective of safety in international aviation.

---

| 18.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 422/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 422/32

---

Action brought on 1 September 2021 — bett1.de v EUIPO — XXXLutz Marken (BODY STAR)

(Case T-537/21)

(2021/C 422/42)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: bett1.de GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: O. Brexl, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: XXXLutz Marken GmbH (Wels, Austria)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark BODY STAR — Application for registration No 18 023 614

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 June 2021 in Joined Cases R 1711/2020-2 and R 1727/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order the defendant to pay 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.

---

| 18.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 422/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 422/33

---

Action brought on 1 September 2021 — the airscreen company v EUIPO — Moviescreens Rental (airframe)

(Case T-539/21)

(2021/C 422/43)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: the airscreen company GmbH & Co. KG (Münster, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch and D. Mienert, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Moviescreens Rental GmbH (Damme, Germany)

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: EU figurative mark airframe — EU trade mark No 17 948 222

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 July 2021 in Case R 63/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

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

—

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

---

| 18.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 422/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 422/34

---

Action brought on 2 September 2021 — Purasac v EUIPO — Prollenium Medical Technologies (Rejeunesse)

(Case T-543/21)

(2021/C 422/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Purasac Co. Ltd (Anyang-si, Republic of Korea) (represented by: P. Lee, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Prollenium Medical Technologies, Inc. (Aurora, Ontario, Canada)

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 Rejeunesse — Application for registration No 18 117 313

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 July 2021 in Case R 146/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in the erroneous assessment of the likelihood of confusion between the trade marks. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in the erroneous assessment of the likelihood of confusion between the trade marks.

---

| 18.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 422/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 422/34

---

Action brought on 2 September 2021 — Rochem Group v EUIPO — Rochem Marine (R.T.S. ROCHEM Technical Services)

(Case T-546/21)

(2021/C 422/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Rochem Group AG (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by: K. Guridi Sedlak, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Rochem Marine Srl (Genoa, Italy)

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 R.T.S. ROCHEM Technical Services — European Union trade mark No 12 326 609

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 June 2021 in Case R 1544/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | stay the proceeding until a final judgement has been taken in the proceeding before the court of Milan against the Italian trade mark 933481 ROCHEM MARINE (fig.); |
| --- | --- |

—

stay the proceeding until a final judgement has been taken in the proceeding before the court of Milan against the Italian trade mark 933481 ROCHEM MARINE (fig.);

| — | in the alternative, annul the contested decision, ordering that the Board of Appeal of the EUIPO renders a new decision, refusing the declaration of invalidation filed against the European Union trade mark registration No. 12 326 609 R.T.S. ROCHEM Technical Services (fig.) against the classes 11 and 40; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul the contested decision, ordering that the Board of Appeal of the EUIPO renders a new decision, refusing the declaration of invalidation filed against the European Union trade mark registration No. 12 326 609 R.T.S. ROCHEM Technical Services (fig.) against the classes 11 and 40;

| — | order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, should the latter appear before the Court, to bear their own costs and the fees and costs of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, should the latter appear before the Court, to bear their own costs and the fees and costs of the applicant.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Articles 18 and 64(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 18 and 64(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 18.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 422/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 422/35

---

Action brought on 2 September 2021 — Rochem Group v EUIPO — Rochem Marine (R.T.S. ROCHEM Technical Services)

(Case T-547/21)

(2021/C 422/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Rochem Group AG (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by: K. Guridi Sedlak, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Rochem Marine Srl (Genoa, Italy)

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 R.T.S. ROCHEM Technical Services — European Union trade mark No 12 313 797

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 June 2021 in Case R 1545/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | stay the proceeding until a final judgement has been taken in the proceeding before the court of Milan against the Italian trade mark 933481 ROCHEM MARINE (fig.); |
| --- | --- |

—

stay the proceeding until a final judgement has been taken in the proceeding before the court of Milan against the Italian trade mark 933481 ROCHEM MARINE (fig.);

| — | in the alternative, annul the contested decision, ordering that the Board of Appeal of the EUIPO renders a new decision, refusing the declaration of invalidation filed against the European Union trade mark registration No 12 313 797 R.T.S. ROCHEM Technical Services (word) against the classes 11 and 40; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul the contested decision, ordering that the Board of Appeal of the EUIPO renders a new decision, refusing the declaration of invalidation filed against the European Union trade mark registration No 12 313 797 R.T.S. ROCHEM Technical Services (word) against the classes 11 and 40;

| — | order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, should the latter appear before the Court, to bear their own costs and the fees and costs of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, should the latter appear before the Court, to bear their own costs and the fees and costs of the applicant.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Articles 18 and 64(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 18 and 64(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 18.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 422/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 422/36

---

Action brought on 3 September 2021 — Rochem Group v EUIPO — Rochem Marine (ROCHEM)

(Case T-548/21)

(2021/C 422/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Rochem Group AG (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by: K. Guridi Sedlak, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Rochem Marine Srl (Genoa, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark ROCHEM — International registration designating the European Union No 1 151 545

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 June 2021 in Case R 1546/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | stay the proceeding until a final judgement has been taken in the proceeding before the court of Milan against the Italian trade mark 933481 ROCHEM MARINE (fig.); |
| --- | --- |

—

stay the proceeding until a final judgement has been taken in the proceeding before the court of Milan against the Italian trade mark 933481 ROCHEM MARINE (fig.);

| — | in the alternative, annul the contested decision, ordering that the Board of Appeal of the EUIPO renders a new decision, refusing the declaration of invalidation filed against the international registration No 1 151 545 ROCHEM (word) against the classes 11 and 40; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul the contested decision, ordering that the Board of Appeal of the EUIPO renders a new decision, refusing the declaration of invalidation filed against the international registration No 1 151 545 ROCHEM (word) against the classes 11 and 40;

| — | order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, should the latter appear before the Court, to bear their own costs and the fees and costs of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, should the latter appear before the Court, to bear their own costs and the fees and costs of the applicant.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Articles 18 and 64(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 18 and 64(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 18.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 422/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 422/37

---

Action brought on 3 September 2021 — Rochem Group v EUIPO — Rochem Marine (ROCHEM)

(Case T-549/21)

(2021/C 422/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Rochem Group AG (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by: K. Guridi Sedlak, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Rochem Marine Srl (Genoa, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark ROCHEM — International registration designating the European Union No 1 151 485

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 June 2021 in Case R 1547/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | stay the proceeding until a final judgement has been taken in the proceeding before the Court of Milan against the Italian trade mark 933481 ROCHEM MARINE (fig.); |
| --- | --- |

—

stay the proceeding until a final judgement has been taken in the proceeding before the Court of Milan against the Italian trade mark 933481 ROCHEM MARINE (fig.);

| — | In the alternative, annul the contested decision, ordering that the Board of Appeal of the EUIPO renders a new decision, refusing the declaration of invalidation filed against the international registration No 1 151 485 ROCHEM (fig.) against the classes 11 and 40; |
| --- | --- |

—

In the alternative, annul the contested decision, ordering that the Board of Appeal of the EUIPO renders a new decision, refusing the declaration of invalidation filed against the international registration No 1 151 485 ROCHEM (fig.) against the classes 11 and 40;

| — | order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, should the latter appear before the Court, to bear their own costs and the fees and costs of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, should the latter appear before the Court, to bear their own costs and the fees and costs of the applicant.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Articles 18 and 64(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 18 and 64(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 18.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 422/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 422/37

---

Action brought on 7 September 2021 — Agrarfrost v EUIPO — McCain (Shape of a smiley)

(Case T-553/21)

(2021/C 422/49)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Agrarfrost GmbH & Co. KG (Wildeshausen, Germany) (represented by: H. Förster and A. Ebert-Weidenfeller, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: McCain GmbH (Eschborn, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union three-dimensional mark (Shape of a smiley) –European Union trade mark No 1 801 166

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 June 2021 in Case R 1088/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Cancellation Division and the Board of Appeal of the defendant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Cancellation Division and the Board of Appeal of the defendant.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 18(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 18(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

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

—

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

---

| 18.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 422/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 422/38

---

Order of the General Court of 26 August 2021 — Imagina Media Audiovisual and Others v Commission

(Case T-268/19) (1)

(2021/C 422/50)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 213, 24.6.2019.

---

| 18.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 422/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 422/38

---

Order of the General Court of 26 August 2021 — Imagina Media Audiovisual v Commission

(Case T-269/19) (1)

(2021/C 422/51)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 213, 24.6.2019.

---

| 18.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 422/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 422/38

---

Order of the General Court of 27 August 2021 — GlaxoSmithKline Finance and Setfirst v Commission

(Case T-492/19) (1)

(2021/C 422/52)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 312, 16.9.2019.

---

| 18.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 422/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 422/39

---

Order of the General Court of 23 August 2021 — GitLab v EUIPO — Gitlab (GitLab)

(Case T-418/20) (1)

(2021/C 422/53)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2020.

---

| 18.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 422/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 422/39

---

Order of the General Court of 23 August 2021 — Cristalfarma v EUIPO — Reinhard Kosch (STILAXX)

(Case T-234/21) (1)

(2021/C 422/54)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 242, 21.6.2021.

---