# Official Journal C 502/13 D

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 502 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6413 December 2021 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 502

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6413 December 2021

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2021/C 502/01 | 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 502/01

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 502/02 | Case C-186/18: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 14 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — José Cánovas Pardo SL v Club de Variedades Vegetales Protegidas (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Community plant variety rights — Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 — Article 96 — Calculation of the period of prescription for claims pursuant to Articles 94 and 95 — Point from which time starts to run — Date of grant of Community rights and of knowledge of the act and of the identity of the party liable — Date on which the course of action in question ceased — Repeated acts — Continuous acts — Restricted to acts carried out more than three years ago) | 2 |
| 2021/C 502/03 | Case C-373/19: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 21 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt München III v Dubrovin & Tröger GbR — Aquatics (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 132(1)(i) and (j) — Exemptions for certain activities in the public interest — Provision of children’s or young people’s education, school or university education — School or university education — Basic swimming tuition) | 3 |
| 2021/C 502/04 | Case C-583/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 October 2021 — Belén Bernaldo de Quirós v European Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Disciplinary proceedings — Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union — Article 3 of Annex IX — Commission Decision C(2004) 1588 on general implementing provisions on the conduct of administrative enquiries and disciplinary proceedings — Article 4(4) — Administrative enquiry — Hearing of the official concerned — Mandate given to the Investigation and Disciplinary Office of the Commission (IDOC) to carry out that hearing — Rights of the defence — Right to be heard) | 3 |
| 2021/C 502/05 | Case C-662/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 October 2021 — NRW. Bank v Single Resolution Board (SRB), Council of the European Union, European Commission (Appeal — Economic and monetary union — Banking union — Recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms — Single resolution mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) — Single Resolution Board (SRB) — Single Resolution Fund (SRF) — Determination of the 2016 ex ante contribution — Action for annulment — Period within which proceedings must be commenced — Late submission — Challengeable act — Confirmatory act) | 4 |
| 2021/C 502/06 | Case C-683/19: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Viesgo Infraestructuras Energéticas SL v Administración General del Estado and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common rules for the internal market in electricity — Directive 2009/72/EC — Article 3(2) and (6) — Imposition of public service obligations — Financing of a regulated discount for the purpose of the protection of vulnerable consumers — Requirements of transparency and non-discrimination) | 4 |
| 2021/C 502/07 | Case C-824/19: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — TC, UB v Komisia za zashtita ot diskriminatsia, VA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Directive 2000/78/EC — Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of disability — Article 2(2)(a) — Article 4(1) — Article 5 — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Articles 21 and 26 — United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities — Duties of juror in criminal proceedings — Blind person — Total exclusion from participation in criminal proceedings) | 5 |
| 2021/C 502/08 | Case C-825/19: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Thüringer Finanzgericht — Germany) — Beeren-, Wild-, Feinfrucht GmbH v Hauptzollamt Erfurt (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs union — End-use procedure — Authorisation with retroactive effect — Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 — Union Customs Code — Article 211(2) — Scope ratione temporis — Conditions — Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 — Article 294(2) — Scope) | 6 |
| 2021/C 502/09 | Case C-29/20: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Köln — Germany) — Biofa AG v Sikma D. Vertriebs GmbH und Co. KG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (UE) No 528/2012 — Article 3(1)(a) and (c) — Definitions of biocidal product and active substance — Conditions — Mode of action other than mere physical or mechanical action — Article 9(1)(a) — Approval of an active substance — Scope of approval) | 6 |
| 2021/C 502/10 | Joined Cases C-45/20 and C-46/20: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 October 2021 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — E v Finanzamt N (C-45/20) and Z v Finanzamt G (C-46/20) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 167, Article 168(a), Article 250 and Article 252 — Deduction of input tax — Immovable property — An office room — Photovoltaic system — Allocation decision giving rise to a right of deduction — Communication of the allocation decision — Limitation period for exercising a right to deduct — Presumption of allocation to the private assets of the taxable person where the allocation decision is not communicated — Principle of neutrality — Principle of legal certainty — Principles of equivalence and proportionality) | 7 |
| 2021/C 502/11 | Case C-231/20: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — MT v Landespolizeidirektion Steiermark (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom to provide services — Article 56 TFEU — Games of chance — Making prohibited lotteries available — Penalties — Proportionality — Minimum-level fines — Accumulation — No limit — Custodial sentence in the event of non-payment — Proportional contribution to the costs of proceedings — Article 49(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union) | 8 |
| 2021/C 502/12 | Case C-244/20: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña — Spain) — F.C.I. v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 79/7/EEC — Article 3(2) — Equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security — Survivors’ benefits — Survivor’s pension based on a de facto partnership — Exclusion clause — Validity — Prohibition of any discrimination based on sex — Benefit which does not come within the scope of Directive 79/7 — Inadmissibility — Article 21(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Non-discrimination on grounds of sex — Article 17(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Right to property — Legal situation which does not come within the scope of EU law — Lack of jurisdiction) | 9 |
| 2021/C 502/13 | Case C-360/20: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Argeş — Romania) — Ministerul Lucrărilor Publice, Dezvoltării şi Administraţiei, formerly Ministerul Dezvoltării Regionale şi Administraţiei Publice v NE (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protection of the European Union’s financial interests — Article 325 TFEU — Combating fraud and other illegal activities — Convention on the protection of the Union’s financial interests — Concept of fraud — Unlawful conduct during a project’s sustainability phase) | 9 |
| 2021/C 502/14 | Case C-373/20: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 14 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Szczecinie — Poland) — A.M. v Dyrektor Z. Oddziału Regionalnego Agencji Restrukturyzacji i Modernizacji Rolnictwa (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — Direct support schemes — Common rules — Single payment scheme — Regulation (EC) No 1120/2009 — Article 2(c) — Concept of permanent pasture — Crop rotation — Natural periodic flooding of meadows and pastures situated in a special environmental protection area) | 10 |
| 2021/C 502/15 | Case C-464/20 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 October 2021 — KF v European Union Satellite Centre (Appeal — Institutional law — Staff of the European Union Satellite Centre (SatCen) — Members of the contract staff — Manner in which the administrative investigation was carried out in respect of the applicant — Reopening of the investigation — Compliance with the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 25 October 2018, KF v SatCen (T 286/15, EU:T:2018:718) — Action for annulment and for damages) | 11 |
| 2021/C 502/16 | Case C-27/21 P: Appeal brought on 13 January 2021 by Ramón González Calvet and Joan González Calvet against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) made on 17 November 2020 in Case T-257/20, González Calvet v SRB | 11 |
| 2021/C 502/17 | Case C-145/21 P: Appeal brought on 27 February 2021 by José María Castillejo Oriol against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 11 February 2021 in Case T-696/20, Castillejo Oriol v Spain and Commission | 11 |
| 2021/C 502/18 | Case C-225/21 P: Appeal brought on 17 March 2021 by Luis Gonzalo Segura del Oro Pulido against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 3 February 2021 in Case T-701/20, Segura del Oro Pulido v Commission | 12 |
| 2021/C 502/19 | Case C-497/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Schleswig-Holsteinisches Verwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 13 August 2021 — SI and Others v Federal Republic of Germany | 12 |
| 2021/C 502/20 | Case C-580/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 22 September 2021 — EEW Energy from Waste Großräschen GmbH v MNG Mitteldeutsche Netzgesellschaft Strom GmbH | 13 |
| 2021/C 502/21 | Case C-593/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (Belgium) lodged on 24 September 2021 — NY v Herios SARL | 13 |
| 2021/C 502/22 | Case C-595/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht Ansbach (Germany) lodged on 27 September 2021 — LSI — Germany GmbH v Freistaat Bayern | 14 |
| 2021/C 502/23 | Case C-600/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 28 September 2021 — QE v Caisse régionale de Crédit mutuel de Loire-Atlantique et du Centre Ouest | 15 |
| 2021/C 502/24 | Case C-607/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 30 September 2021 — XXX v État belge | 15 |
| | General Court |
| 2021/C 502/25 | Case T-191/16: Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2021 — Lito Maieftiko Gynaikologiko kai Cheirourgiko Kentro v Commission (Financial assistance — Sixth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities contributing to the creation of the European Research Area and to innovation (2002-2006) — Contract concerning Union financial assistance in favour of a project in the field of medical collaboration — Enforceable decision — Competence of the Commission — Grant agreements — Recovery of part of the financial contribution paid — Arbitration clause — Eligible costs — Legitimate expectations) | 17 |
| 2021/C 502/26 | Case T-240/18: Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2021 — Polskie Linie Lotnicze LOT v Commission (Competition — Concentrations — Air transport — Decision declaring a concentration compatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement — Relevant market — Assessment of the effects of the concentration on competition — Absence of commitment — Obligation to state reasons) | 17 |
| 2021/C 502/27 | Case T-296/18: Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2021 — Polskie Linie Lotnicze LOT v Commission (Competition — Concentrations — Air transport — Decision declaring a concentration compatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement — Relevant market — Assessment of the effects of the concentration on competition — Commitments — Obligation to state reasons) | 18 |
| 2021/C 502/28 | Case T-671/18 and T-140/19: Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2021 — ZU v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Transfer in the interests of the service — Article 12a of the Staff Regulations — Psychological harassment — Article 25 of the Staff Regulations — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence and the right to be heard — Manifest error of assessment — Principle of sound administration and duty to have regard for the welfare of staff — Article 22a of the Staff Regulations — Misuse of powers — Article 24 of the Staff Regulations — Request for assistance — Refusal of the request — 2017 appraisal exercise — Appraisal report — 2018 promotion exercise — Proposed non-promotion — Liability) | 19 |
| 2021/C 502/29 | Case T-434/19: Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2021 — Rosca v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Recruitment — Notice of competition — Open Competition EPSO/AD/363/18 — Decision of the selection board to exclude the applicant from the next phase of the competition — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment — Article 27 of the Staff Regulations — Equal treatment) | 19 |
| 2021/C 502/30 | Case T-790/19: Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2021 — Novolipetsk Steel v Commission (Measures that the European Union may take in relation to the combined effect of anti-dumping or anti-subsidy measures with safeguard measures — Importation of cold-rolled flat steel products and hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or other alloy steel — Modification of regulations imposing anti-dumping or anti-subsidy measures on products subject to safeguard measures — Principle of non-discrimination — Manifest error of assessment) | 20 |
| 2021/C 502/31 | Case T-823/19: Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2021 — JMS Sports v EUIPO — Inter-Vion (Spiral hair elastics) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered community design representing a spiral hair elastic — Disclosure of the earlier designs — Disclosure on the Internet — Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Equality of arms — Evidence submitted for the first time before the General Court) | 21 |
| 2021/C 502/32 | Case T-112/20: Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2021 — Intis v EUIPO — Televes (TELEVEND) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark TELEVEND — Earlier EU word mark TELEVES — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 21 |
| 2021/C 502/33 | Case T-210/20: Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2021 — Square v EUIPO — ($ Cash App) (EU trade mark — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark $ Cash App — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Right to be heard — Obligation to state reasons — Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Equal treatment and principle of sound administration) | 22 |
| 2021/C 502/34 | Case T-211/20: Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2021 — Square v EUIPO — ($ Cash App) (EU trade mark — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark $ Cash App — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Right to be heard — Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001) | 22 |
| 2021/C 502/35 | Case T-351/20: Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2021 — St. Hippolyt v EUIPO — Raisioaqua (Vital like nature) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark Vital like nature — Earlier EU figurative mark VITAL — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 23 |
| 2021/C 502/36 | Case T-352/20: Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2021 — St. Hippolyt v EUIPO — Elephant (Strong like nature) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark Strong like nature — Earlier EU figurative mark STRONG NATURE — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 24 |
| 2021/C 502/37 | Case T-356/20: Judgment of the General Court of 27 October 2021 — Jiruš v EUIPO — Nile Clothing (Racing Syndicate) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark Racing Syndicate — Earlier international word mark SYNDICATE — Submission of evidence for the first time before the Board of Appeal — Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001)) | 24 |
| 2021/C 502/38 | Case T-559/20: Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2021 — Yadex International v EUIPO — Sütas Süt Ürünleri (PINAR Süzme Peynir) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark PINAR Süzme Peynir — Earlier international figurative mark Süzme Peynir — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 25 |
| 2021/C 502/39 | Case T-560/20: Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2021 — Yadex International v EUIPO — Sütas Süt Ürünleri (PINAR Tam kivaminda Süzme Peynir Yumusacik ve Leziz) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark PINAR Tam kivaminda Süzme Peynir Yumusacik ve Leziz — Earlier international figurative mark Süzme Peynir — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 25 |
| 2021/C 502/40 | Case T-596/20: Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2021 — Roller v EUIPO — Flex Equipos de Descanso (DORMILLO) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark DORMILLO — Earlier EU figurative mark DORMILON — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 26 |
| 2021/C 502/41 | Case T-597/20: Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2021 — Roller v EUIPO — Flex Equipos de Descanso (Dormillo) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark Dormillo — Earlier EU figurative mark DORMILON — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 27 |
| 2021/C 502/42 | Case T-74/20: Order of the General Court of 1 October 2021 — IJ v Parliament (Civil service — Article 100 of the CEOS — Five-year medical cover deferment — Complaint with the Ombudsman — Time limit for bringing proceedings — Delay — No new and substantial facts — Inadmissibility) | 27 |
| 2021/C 502/43 | Case T-100/20: Order of the General Court of 14 October 2021 — Junqueras i Vies v Parliament (Action for annulment — Law governing the institutions — Member of the Parliament — Privileges and immunities — Request for privileges and immunities to be defended — Decision of the President of the Parliament not to grant that request — No interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility) | 28 |
| 2021/C 502/44 | Case T-208/20: Order of the General Court of 19 October 2021 — JH v Europol (Action for damages — Civil service — Temporary staff — Europol — Probative value of the evidence — No act adversely affecting the applicant — Irregular nature of the pre-litigation procedure — Inadmissibility) | 28 |
| 2021/C 502/45 | Case T-613/20: Order of the General Court of 5 October 2021 — Junqueras i Vies v Parliament (Action for annulment — Acknowledgement by the Parliament of the election of a Member of the European Parliament as a result of another parliamentary seat becoming vacant — Locus standi — Concept of addressee of a decision — Lack of direct concern — No regulatory act of general application — Inadmissibility) | 29 |
| 2021/C 502/46 | Case T-19/21: Order of the General Court of 14 October 2021 — Amazon.com and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — Competition — Abuse of dominant position — Online sales — Decision to open an investigation — Territorial scope of the investigation — Exclusion of Italy — Act not open to challenge — Preparatory act — Inadmissibility) | 30 |
| 2021/C 502/47 | Case T-497/21 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 20 October 2021 — Girardi v EUIPO (Interim relief — EU trade mark — Professional representation — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency) | 30 |
| 2021/C 502/48 | Case T-554/21: Action brought on 8 September 2021 — European Lotto and Betting v EUIPO — Tipp24 Services (Cash4Life) | 31 |
| 2021/C 502/49 | Case T-567/21: Action brought on 7 September 2021 — WG v EUIPO | 31 |
| 2021/C 502/50 | Case T-592/21: Action brought on 16 September 2021 — Kakuzo v EUIPO — Rauch Fruchtsäfte (Kakuzo) | 33 |
| 2021/C 502/51 | Case T-611/21: Action brought on 23 September 2021 — ADS L. Kowalik, B. Włodarczyk v EUIPO — ESSAtech (Remote controls [wireless] (Accessories for -)) | 34 |
| 2021/C 502/52 | Case T-612/21: Action brought on 23 September 2021 — ADS L. Kowalik, B. Włodarczyk v EUIPO — ESSAtech (Remote controls [wireless] (Accessories for -)) | 34 |
| 2021/C 502/53 | Case T-634/21: Action brought on 30 September 2021 — Rimini Street v EUIPO (WE DO SUPPORT) | 35 |
| 2021/C 502/54 | Case T-648/21: Action brought on 5 October 2021 — YD v FRA | 36 |
| 2021/C 502/55 | Case T-656/21: Action brought on 11 October 2021 — H/2 Credit Manager v EUIPO — Hcapital Partners SCR (H/2 CAPITAL PARTNERS) | 37 |
| 2021/C 502/56 | Case T-664/21: Action brought on 15 October 2021 — YF v EFCA | 37 |
| 2021/C 502/57 | Case T-667/21: Action brought on 12 October 2021 — BAWAG PSK v ECB | 38 |
| 2021/C 502/58 | Case T-672/21: Action brought on 18 October 2021 — Grupa LEW v EUIPO — Lechwerke (GRUPALEW.) | 39 |
| 2021/C 502/59 | Case T-676/21: Action brought on 19 October 2021 — Target Brands v EUIPO — The Art Company B & S (art class) | 39 |
| 2021/C 502/60 | Case T-677/21: Action brought on 18 October 2021 — TL v Commission | 40 |
| 2021/C 502/61 | Case T-678/21: Action brought on 19 October 2021 — Mendes v EUIPO — Actial Farmaceutica (VSL3TOTAL) | 41 |
| 2021/C 502/62 | Case T-680/21: Action brought on 20 October 2021 — Funline International v EUIPO (AMSTERDAM POPPERS) | 41 |
| 2021/C 502/63 | Case T-714/19: Order of the General Court of 18 October 2021 — Smiths Group and Siti 1 v Commission | 42 |
| 2021/C 502/64 | Case T-719/19: Order of the General Court of 5 October 2021 — Northgate and Northgate Europe v Commission | 42 |
| 2021/C 502/65 | Case T-731/19: Order of the General Court of 5 October 2021 — Arris Global v Commission | 42 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2021/C 502/02

Case C-186/18: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 14 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — José Cánovas Pardo SL v Club de Variedades Vegetales Protegidas (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Community plant variety rights — Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 — Article 96 — Calculation of the period of prescription for claims pursuant to Articles 94 and 95 — Point from which time starts to run — Date of grant of Community rights and of knowledge of the act and of the identity of the party liable — Date on which the course of action in question ceased — Repeated acts — Continuous acts — Restricted to acts carried out more than three years ago)

2

2021/C 502/03

Case C-373/19: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 21 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt München III v Dubrovin & Tröger GbR — Aquatics (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 132(1)(i) and (j) — Exemptions for certain activities in the public interest — Provision of children’s or young people’s education, school or university education — School or university education — Basic swimming tuition)

3

2021/C 502/04

Case C-583/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 October 2021 — Belén Bernaldo de Quirós v European Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Disciplinary proceedings — Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union — Article 3 of Annex IX — Commission Decision C(2004) 1588 on general implementing provisions on the conduct of administrative enquiries and disciplinary proceedings — Article 4(4) — Administrative enquiry — Hearing of the official concerned — Mandate given to the Investigation and Disciplinary Office of the Commission (IDOC) to carry out that hearing — Rights of the defence — Right to be heard)

3

2021/C 502/05

Case C-662/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 October 2021 — NRW. Bank v Single Resolution Board (SRB), Council of the European Union, European Commission (Appeal — Economic and monetary union — Banking union — Recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms — Single resolution mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) — Single Resolution Board (SRB) — Single Resolution Fund (SRF) — Determination of the 2016 ex ante contribution — Action for annulment — Period within which proceedings must be commenced — Late submission — Challengeable act — Confirmatory act)

4

2021/C 502/06

Case C-683/19: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Viesgo Infraestructuras Energéticas SL v Administración General del Estado and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common rules for the internal market in electricity — Directive 2009/72/EC — Article 3(2) and (6) — Imposition of public service obligations — Financing of a regulated discount for the purpose of the protection of vulnerable consumers — Requirements of transparency and non-discrimination)

4

2021/C 502/07

Case C-824/19: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — TC, UB v Komisia za zashtita ot diskriminatsia, VA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Directive 2000/78/EC — Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of disability — Article 2(2)(a) — Article 4(1) — Article 5 — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Articles 21 and 26 — United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities — Duties of juror in criminal proceedings — Blind person — Total exclusion from participation in criminal proceedings)

5

2021/C 502/08

Case C-825/19: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Thüringer Finanzgericht — Germany) — Beeren-, Wild-, Feinfrucht GmbH v Hauptzollamt Erfurt (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs union — End-use procedure — Authorisation with retroactive effect — Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 — Union Customs Code — Article 211(2) — Scope ratione temporis — Conditions — Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 — Article 294(2) — Scope)

6

2021/C 502/09

Case C-29/20: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Köln — Germany) — Biofa AG v Sikma D. Vertriebs GmbH und Co. KG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (UE) No 528/2012 — Article 3(1)(a) and (c) — Definitions of biocidal product and active substance — Conditions — Mode of action other than mere physical or mechanical action — Article 9(1)(a) — Approval of an active substance — Scope of approval)

6

2021/C 502/10

Joined Cases C-45/20 and C-46/20: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 October 2021 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — E v Finanzamt N (C-45/20) and Z v Finanzamt G (C-46/20) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 167, Article 168(a), Article 250 and Article 252 — Deduction of input tax — Immovable property — An office room — Photovoltaic system — Allocation decision giving rise to a right of deduction — Communication of the allocation decision — Limitation period for exercising a right to deduct — Presumption of allocation to the private assets of the taxable person where the allocation decision is not communicated — Principle of neutrality — Principle of legal certainty — Principles of equivalence and proportionality)

7

2021/C 502/11

Case C-231/20: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — MT v Landespolizeidirektion Steiermark (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom to provide services — Article 56 TFEU — Games of chance — Making prohibited lotteries available — Penalties — Proportionality — Minimum-level fines — Accumulation — No limit — Custodial sentence in the event of non-payment — Proportional contribution to the costs of proceedings — Article 49(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)

8

2021/C 502/12

Case C-244/20: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña — Spain) — F.C.I. v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 79/7/EEC — Article 3(2) — Equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security — Survivors’ benefits — Survivor’s pension based on a de facto partnership — Exclusion clause — Validity — Prohibition of any discrimination based on sex — Benefit which does not come within the scope of Directive 79/7 — Inadmissibility — Article 21(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Non-discrimination on grounds of sex — Article 17(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Right to property — Legal situation which does not come within the scope of EU law — Lack of jurisdiction)

9

2021/C 502/13

Case C-360/20: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Argeş — Romania) — Ministerul Lucrărilor Publice, Dezvoltării şi Administraţiei, formerly Ministerul Dezvoltării Regionale şi Administraţiei Publice v NE (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protection of the European Union’s financial interests — Article 325 TFEU — Combating fraud and other illegal activities — Convention on the protection of the Union’s financial interests — Concept of fraud — Unlawful conduct during a project’s sustainability phase)

9

2021/C 502/14

Case C-373/20: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 14 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Szczecinie — Poland) — A.M. v Dyrektor Z. Oddziału Regionalnego Agencji Restrukturyzacji i Modernizacji Rolnictwa (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — Direct support schemes — Common rules — Single payment scheme — Regulation (EC) No 1120/2009 — Article 2(c) — Concept of permanent pasture — Crop rotation — Natural periodic flooding of meadows and pastures situated in a special environmental protection area)

10

2021/C 502/15

Case C-464/20 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 October 2021 — KF v European Union Satellite Centre (Appeal — Institutional law — Staff of the European Union Satellite Centre (SatCen) — Members of the contract staff — Manner in which the administrative investigation was carried out in respect of the applicant — Reopening of the investigation — Compliance with the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 25 October 2018, KF v SatCen (T 286/15, EU:T:2018:718) — Action for annulment and for damages)

11

2021/C 502/16

Case C-27/21 P: Appeal brought on 13 January 2021 by Ramón González Calvet and Joan González Calvet against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) made on 17 November 2020 in Case T-257/20, González Calvet v SRB

11

2021/C 502/17

Case C-145/21 P: Appeal brought on 27 February 2021 by José María Castillejo Oriol against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 11 February 2021 in Case T-696/20, Castillejo Oriol v Spain and Commission

11

2021/C 502/18

Case C-225/21 P: Appeal brought on 17 March 2021 by Luis Gonzalo Segura del Oro Pulido against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 3 February 2021 in Case T-701/20, Segura del Oro Pulido v Commission

12

2021/C 502/19

Case C-497/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Schleswig-Holsteinisches Verwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 13 August 2021 — SI and Others v Federal Republic of Germany

12

2021/C 502/20

Case C-580/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 22 September 2021 — EEW Energy from Waste Großräschen GmbH v MNG Mitteldeutsche Netzgesellschaft Strom GmbH

13

2021/C 502/21

Case C-593/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (Belgium) lodged on 24 September 2021 — NY v Herios SARL

13

2021/C 502/22

Case C-595/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht Ansbach (Germany) lodged on 27 September 2021 — LSI — Germany GmbH v Freistaat Bayern

14

2021/C 502/23

Case C-600/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 28 September 2021 — QE v Caisse régionale de Crédit mutuel de Loire-Atlantique et du Centre Ouest

15

2021/C 502/24

Case C-607/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 30 September 2021 — XXX v État belge

15

General Court

2021/C 502/25

Case T-191/16: Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2021 — Lito Maieftiko Gynaikologiko kai Cheirourgiko Kentro v Commission (Financial assistance — Sixth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities contributing to the creation of the European Research Area and to innovation (2002-2006) — Contract concerning Union financial assistance in favour of a project in the field of medical collaboration — Enforceable decision — Competence of the Commission — Grant agreements — Recovery of part of the financial contribution paid — Arbitration clause — Eligible costs — Legitimate expectations)

17

2021/C 502/26

Case T-240/18: Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2021 — Polskie Linie Lotnicze LOT v Commission (Competition — Concentrations — Air transport — Decision declaring a concentration compatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement — Relevant market — Assessment of the effects of the concentration on competition — Absence of commitment — Obligation to state reasons)

17

2021/C 502/27

Case T-296/18: Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2021 — Polskie Linie Lotnicze LOT v Commission (Competition — Concentrations — Air transport — Decision declaring a concentration compatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement — Relevant market — Assessment of the effects of the concentration on competition — Commitments — Obligation to state reasons)

18

2021/C 502/28

Case T-671/18 and T-140/19: Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2021 — ZU v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Transfer in the interests of the service — Article 12a of the Staff Regulations — Psychological harassment — Article 25 of the Staff Regulations — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence and the right to be heard — Manifest error of assessment — Principle of sound administration and duty to have regard for the welfare of staff — Article 22a of the Staff Regulations — Misuse of powers — Article 24 of the Staff Regulations — Request for assistance — Refusal of the request — 2017 appraisal exercise — Appraisal report — 2018 promotion exercise — Proposed non-promotion — Liability)

19

2021/C 502/29

Case T-434/19: Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2021 — Rosca v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Recruitment — Notice of competition — Open Competition EPSO/AD/363/18 — Decision of the selection board to exclude the applicant from the next phase of the competition — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment — Article 27 of the Staff Regulations — Equal treatment)

19

2021/C 502/30

Case T-790/19: Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2021 — Novolipetsk Steel v Commission (Measures that the European Union may take in relation to the combined effect of anti-dumping or anti-subsidy measures with safeguard measures — Importation of cold-rolled flat steel products and hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or other alloy steel — Modification of regulations imposing anti-dumping or anti-subsidy measures on products subject to safeguard measures — Principle of non-discrimination — Manifest error of assessment)

20

2021/C 502/31

Case T-823/19: Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2021 — JMS Sports v EUIPO — Inter-Vion (Spiral hair elastics) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered community design representing a spiral hair elastic — Disclosure of the earlier designs — Disclosure on the Internet — Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Equality of arms — Evidence submitted for the first time before the General Court)

21

2021/C 502/32

Case T-112/20: Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2021 — Intis v EUIPO — Televes (TELEVEND) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark TELEVEND — Earlier EU word mark TELEVES — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

21

2021/C 502/33

Case T-210/20: Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2021 — Square v EUIPO — ($ Cash App) (EU trade mark — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark $ Cash App — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Right to be heard — Obligation to state reasons — Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Equal treatment and principle of sound administration)

22

2021/C 502/34

Case T-211/20: Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2021 — Square v EUIPO — ($ Cash App) (EU trade mark — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark $ Cash App — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Right to be heard — Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)

22

2021/C 502/35

Case T-351/20: Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2021 — St. Hippolyt v EUIPO — Raisioaqua (Vital like nature) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark Vital like nature — Earlier EU figurative mark VITAL — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

23

2021/C 502/36

Case T-352/20: Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2021 — St. Hippolyt v EUIPO — Elephant (Strong like nature) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark Strong like nature — Earlier EU figurative mark STRONG NATURE — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

24

2021/C 502/37

Case T-356/20: Judgment of the General Court of 27 October 2021 — Jiruš v EUIPO — Nile Clothing (Racing Syndicate) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark Racing Syndicate — Earlier international word mark SYNDICATE — Submission of evidence for the first time before the Board of Appeal — Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001))

24

2021/C 502/38

Case T-559/20: Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2021 — Yadex International v EUIPO — Sütas Süt Ürünleri (PINAR Süzme Peynir) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark PINAR Süzme Peynir — Earlier international figurative mark Süzme Peynir — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

25

2021/C 502/39

Case T-560/20: Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2021 — Yadex International v EUIPO — Sütas Süt Ürünleri (PINAR Tam kivaminda Süzme Peynir Yumusacik ve Leziz) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark PINAR Tam kivaminda Süzme Peynir Yumusacik ve Leziz — Earlier international figurative mark Süzme Peynir — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

25

2021/C 502/40

Case T-596/20: Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2021 — Roller v EUIPO — Flex Equipos de Descanso (DORMILLO) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark DORMILLO — Earlier EU figurative mark DORMILON — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

26

2021/C 502/41

Case T-597/20: Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2021 — Roller v EUIPO — Flex Equipos de Descanso (Dormillo) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark Dormillo — Earlier EU figurative mark DORMILON — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

27

2021/C 502/42

Case T-74/20: Order of the General Court of 1 October 2021 — IJ v Parliament (Civil service — Article 100 of the CEOS — Five-year medical cover deferment — Complaint with the Ombudsman — Time limit for bringing proceedings — Delay — No new and substantial facts — Inadmissibility)

27

2021/C 502/43

Case T-100/20: Order of the General Court of 14 October 2021 — Junqueras i Vies v Parliament (Action for annulment — Law governing the institutions — Member of the Parliament — Privileges and immunities — Request for privileges and immunities to be defended — Decision of the President of the Parliament not to grant that request — No interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility)

28

2021/C 502/44

Case T-208/20: Order of the General Court of 19 October 2021 — JH v Europol (Action for damages — Civil service — Temporary staff — Europol — Probative value of the evidence — No act adversely affecting the applicant — Irregular nature of the pre-litigation procedure — Inadmissibility)

28

2021/C 502/45

Case T-613/20: Order of the General Court of 5 October 2021 — Junqueras i Vies v Parliament (Action for annulment — Acknowledgement by the Parliament of the election of a Member of the European Parliament as a result of another parliamentary seat becoming vacant — Locus standi — Concept of addressee of a decision — Lack of direct concern — No regulatory act of general application — Inadmissibility)

29

2021/C 502/46

Case T-19/21: Order of the General Court of 14 October 2021 — Amazon.com and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — Competition — Abuse of dominant position — Online sales — Decision to open an investigation — Territorial scope of the investigation — Exclusion of Italy — Act not open to challenge — Preparatory act — Inadmissibility)

30

2021/C 502/47

Case T-497/21 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 20 October 2021 — Girardi v EUIPO (Interim relief — EU trade mark — Professional representation — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency)

30

2021/C 502/48

Case T-554/21: Action brought on 8 September 2021 — European Lotto and Betting v EUIPO — Tipp24 Services (Cash4Life)

31

2021/C 502/49

Case T-567/21: Action brought on 7 September 2021 — WG v EUIPO

31

2021/C 502/50

Case T-592/21: Action brought on 16 September 2021 — Kakuzo v EUIPO — Rauch Fruchtsäfte (Kakuzo)

33

2021/C 502/51

Case T-611/21: Action brought on 23 September 2021 — ADS L. Kowalik, B. Włodarczyk v EUIPO — ESSAtech (Remote controls [wireless] (Accessories for -))

34

2021/C 502/52

Case T-612/21: Action brought on 23 September 2021 — ADS L. Kowalik, B. Włodarczyk v EUIPO — ESSAtech (Remote controls [wireless] (Accessories for -))

34

2021/C 502/53

Case T-634/21: Action brought on 30 September 2021 — Rimini Street v EUIPO (WE DO SUPPORT)

35

2021/C 502/54

Case T-648/21: Action brought on 5 October 2021 — YD v FRA

36

2021/C 502/55

Case T-656/21: Action brought on 11 October 2021 — H/2 Credit Manager v EUIPO — Hcapital Partners SCR (H/2 CAPITAL PARTNERS)

37

2021/C 502/56

Case T-664/21: Action brought on 15 October 2021 — YF v EFCA

37

2021/C 502/57

Case T-667/21: Action brought on 12 October 2021 — BAWAG PSK v ECB

38

2021/C 502/58

Case T-672/21: Action brought on 18 October 2021 — Grupa LEW v EUIPO — Lechwerke (GRUPALEW.)

39

2021/C 502/59

Case T-676/21: Action brought on 19 October 2021 — Target Brands v EUIPO — The Art Company B & S (art class)

39

2021/C 502/60

Case T-677/21: Action brought on 18 October 2021 — TL v Commission

40

2021/C 502/61

Case T-678/21: Action brought on 19 October 2021 — Mendes v EUIPO — Actial Farmaceutica (VSL3TOTAL)

41

2021/C 502/62

Case T-680/21: Action brought on 20 October 2021 — Funline International v EUIPO (AMSTERDAM POPPERS)

41

2021/C 502/63

Case T-714/19: Order of the General Court of 18 October 2021 — Smiths Group and Siti 1 v Commission

42

2021/C 502/64

Case T-719/19: Order of the General Court of 5 October 2021 — Northgate and Northgate Europe v Commission

42

2021/C 502/65

Case T-731/19: Order of the General Court of 5 October 2021 — Arris Global v Commission

42

---

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 13.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 502/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 502/1

---

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

(2021/C 502/01)

Last publication

OJ C 490, 6.12.2021

Past publications

OJ C 481, 29.11.2021

OJ C 471, 22.11.2021

OJ C 462, 15.11.2021

OJ C 452, 8.11.2021

OJ C 431, 25.10.2021

OJ C 422, 18.10.2021

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 13.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 502/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 502/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 14 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — José Cánovas Pardo SL v Club de Variedades Vegetales Protegidas

(Case C-186/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Community plant variety rights - Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 - Article 96 - Calculation of the period of prescription for claims pursuant to Articles 94 and 95 - Point from which time starts to run - Date of grant of Community rights and of knowledge of the act and of the identity of the party liable - Date on which the course of action in question ceased - Repeated acts - Continuous acts - Restricted to acts carried out more than three years ago)

(2021/C 502/02)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: José Cánovas Pardo SL

Defendant: Club de Variedades Vegetales Protegidas

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 96 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 of 27 July 1994 on Community plant variety rights must be interpreted as meaning that, irrespective of the ongoing nature of an act of infringement of a protected variety or of the date on which that act ended, the three-year period of prescription set out in that provision in respect of claims pursuant to Articles 94 and 95 of that regulation starts to run from the date on which, first, the Community plant variety right was finally granted and, second, the holder of the right had knowledge of the act and of the identity of the party liable; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 96 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 of 27 July 1994 on Community plant variety rights must be interpreted as meaning that, irrespective of the ongoing nature of an act of infringement of a protected variety or of the date on which that act ended, the three-year period of prescription set out in that provision in respect of claims pursuant to Articles 94 and 95 of that regulation starts to run from the date on which, first, the Community plant variety right was finally granted and, second, the holder of the right had knowledge of the act and of the identity of the party liable;

| 2. | Article 96 of Regulation No 2100/94 must be interpreted as meaning that claims pursuant to Articles 94 and 95 of that regulation in respect of a set of acts of infringement of a protected variety brought after more than three years have elapsed are time barred only from when, first, the Community plant variety right was finally granted and, second, the right holder had knowledge of each individual act forming part of that set of acts and of the identity of the party liable for them. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 96 of Regulation No 2100/94 must be interpreted as meaning that claims pursuant to Articles 94 and 95 of that regulation in respect of a set of acts of infringement of a protected variety brought after more than three years have elapsed are time barred only from when, first, the Community plant variety right was finally granted and, second, the right holder had knowledge of each individual act forming part of that set of acts and of the identity of the party liable for them.

---

(1)  OJ C 211, 18.6.2018.

---

| 13.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 502/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 502/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 21 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt München III v Dubrovin & Tröger GbR — Aquatics

(Case C-373/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 132(1)(i) and (j) - Exemptions for certain activities in the public interest - Provision of children’s or young people’s education, school or university education - School or university education - Basic swimming tuition)

(2021/C 502/03)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Finanzamt München III

Defendant: Dubrovin & Tröger GbR — Aquatics

Operative part of the judgment

The concept of ‘school or university education’, within the meaning of Article 132(1)(i) and (j) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, must be interpreted as not covering swimming tuition provided by a swimming school.

---

(1)  OJ C 27, 27.1.2020.

---

| 13.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 502/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 502/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 October 2021 — Belén Bernaldo de Quirós v European Commission

(Case C-583/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Disciplinary proceedings - Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union - Article 3 of Annex IX - Commission Decision C(2004) 1588 on general implementing provisions on the conduct of administrative enquiries and disciplinary proceedings - Article 4(4) - Administrative enquiry - Hearing of the official concerned - Mandate given to the Investigation and Disciplinary Office of the Commission (IDOC) to carry out that hearing - Rights of the defence - Right to be heard)

(2021/C 502/04)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Belén Bernaldo de Quirós (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: B. Mongin and A.-C. Simon, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Ms Belén Bernaldo de Quirós to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ms Belén Bernaldo de Quirós to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 19, 20.1.2020.

---

| 13.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 502/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 502/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 October 2021 — NRW. Bank v Single Resolution Board (SRB), Council of the European Union, European Commission

(Case C-662/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Economic and monetary union - Banking union - Recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms - Single resolution mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) - Single Resolution Board (SRB) - Single Resolution Fund (SRF) - Determination of the 2016 ex ante contribution - Action for annulment - Period within which proceedings must be commenced - Late submission - Challengeable act - Confirmatory act)

(2021/C 502/05)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: NRW. Bank (represented by: J. Seitz, J. Witte and D. Flore, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: Single Resolution Board (SRB) (represented by: H. Ehlers, J. Kerlin and P. A. Messina, acting as Agents, and B. Meyring, S. Schelo, T. Klupsch and S. Ianc, Rechtsanwälte), Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Sikora-Kalėda and M. J. Bauerschmidt, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented initially by: D. Triantafyllou, K.-P. Wojcik and A. Steiblytė, and subsequently by D. Triantafyllou and A. Steiblytė, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 26 June 2019, NRW. Bank v SRB (T-466/16, not published, EU:T:2019:445); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 26 June 2019, NRW. Bank v SRB (T-466/16, not published, EU:T:2019:445);

| 2. | Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union;

| 3. | Reserves the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Reserves the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 399, 25.11.2019.

---

| 13.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 502/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 502/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Viesgo Infraestructuras Energéticas SL v Administración General del Estado and Others

(Case C-683/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common rules for the internal market in electricity - Directive 2009/72/EC - Article 3(2) and (6) - Imposition of public service obligations - Financing of a regulated discount for the purpose of the protection of vulnerable consumers - Requirements of transparency and non-discrimination)

(2021/C 502/06)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Viesgo Infraestructuras Energéticas SL

Defendants: Administración General del Estado, Iberdrola SA, Naturgy Energy Group SA, formerly Gas Natural SDG SA, EDP España SAU, formerly Hidroeléctrica del Cantábrico SA, CIDE Asociación de Distribuidores de Energía Eléctrica, Endesa SA, Agri-Energía SA, Navarro Generación SA, Electra del Cardener SA, Serviliano García SA, Energías de Benasque SL, Candín Energía SL, Cooperativa Eléctrica Benéfica Catralense, Cooperativa Valenciana, Eléctrica Vaquer SA, Hijos de José Bassols SA, Electra Aduriz SA, El Gas SA, Estabanell y Pahisa SA, Electra Caldense SA, Cooperativa Popular de Fluid Electric Camprodón SCCL, Fuciños Rivas SL, Electra del Maestrazgo SA

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 3(2) of Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC must be interpreted as precluding the cost of a public service obligation consisting in supplying electricity at a reduced rate to certain vulnerable consumers from being borne solely by the parent companies of groups of companies or, where applicable, companies that simultaneously carry on electricity production, distribution and retail activities, since that criterion, chosen by the national legislature in order to distinguish among companies which must bear that cost and those which are exempted entirely from that burden, results in a difference in treatment which is not objectively justified between the various companies operating on that market; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 3(2) of Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC must be interpreted as precluding the cost of a public service obligation consisting in supplying electricity at a reduced rate to certain vulnerable consumers from being borne solely by the parent companies of groups of companies or, where applicable, companies that simultaneously carry on electricity production, distribution and retail activities, since that criterion, chosen by the national legislature in order to distinguish among companies which must bear that cost and those which are exempted entirely from that burden, results in a difference in treatment which is not objectively justified between the various companies operating on that market;

| 2. | Article 3(2) of Directive 2009/72 must be interpreted as not precluding the system for financing a public service obligation consisting in the supply of electricity at a reduced rate to certain vulnerable consumers from being established without any temporal limit and without any compensatory measure. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 3(2) of Directive 2009/72 must be interpreted as not precluding the system for financing a public service obligation consisting in the supply of electricity at a reduced rate to certain vulnerable consumers from being established without any temporal limit and without any compensatory measure.

---

(1)  OJ C 423, 16.12.2019.

---

| 13.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 502/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 502/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — TC, UB v Komisia za zashtita ot diskriminatsia, VA

(Case C-824/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Directive 2000/78/EC - Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of disability - Article 2(2)(a) - Article 4(1) - Article 5 - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Articles 21 and 26 - United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities - Duties of juror in criminal proceedings - Blind person - Total exclusion from participation in criminal proceedings)

(2021/C 502/07)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven administrativen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: TC, UB

Defendants: Komisia za zashtita ot diskriminatsia, VA

Interested party: Varhovna administrativna prokuratura

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(2)(a) and Article 4(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, read in the light of Articles 21 and 26 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2010/48/EC of 26 November 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that they preclude that a blind person be totally deprived of any possibility of performing the duties of a juror in criminal proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 27, 27.1.2020.

---

| 13.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 502/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 502/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Thüringer Finanzgericht — Germany) — Beeren-, Wild-, Feinfrucht GmbH v Hauptzollamt Erfurt

(Case C-825/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs union - End-use procedure - Authorisation with retroactive effect - Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 - Union Customs Code - Article 211(2) - Scope ratione temporis - Conditions - Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 - Article 294(2) - Scope)

(2021/C 502/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Thüringer Finanzgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Beeren-, Wild-, Feinfrucht GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Erfurt

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 211(2) of the Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code must be interpreted as not applying to an application for renewal of authorisation with retroactive effect submitted before 1 May 2016, the date on which that article became applicable pursuant to Article 288(2) of that regulation, even if the decision on that application was adopted after that date. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 211(2) of the Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code must be interpreted as not applying to an application for renewal of authorisation with retroactive effect submitted before 1 May 2016, the date on which that article became applicable pursuant to Article 288(2) of that regulation, even if the decision on that application was adopted after that date.

| 2. | Article 294(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/12 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1602/2000 of 24 July 2000, must be interpreted as meaning that the issue, by the customs authorities, of a new authorisation with retroactive effect for operations and goods of the same type as those covered by the original authorisation is not subject to the conditions laid down in paragraph 3 of that article. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 294(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/12 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1602/2000 of 24 July 2000, must be interpreted as meaning that the issue, by the customs authorities, of a new authorisation with retroactive effect for operations and goods of the same type as those covered by the original authorisation is not subject to the conditions laid down in paragraph 3 of that article.

---

(1)  OJ C 77, 9.3.2020.

---

| 13.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 502/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 502/6

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Köln — Germany) — Biofa AG v Sikma D. Vertriebs GmbH und Co. KG

(Case C-29/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (UE) No 528/2012 - Article 3(1)(a) and (c) - Definitions of ‘biocidal product’ and ‘active substance’ - Conditions - Mode of action other than mere physical or mechanical action - Article 9(1)(a) - Approval of an active substance - Scope of approval)

(2021/C 502/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Biofa AG

Defendant: Sikma D. Vertriebs GmbH und Co. KG

Operative part of the judgment

The first indent of Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products, as amended by Regulation (EU) No 334/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2014, read in conjunction with Article 3(1)(c) of that regulation, must be interpreted as meaning that a product intended to destroy, deter or render harmless harmful organisms, which contains an active substance approved under an implementing regulation of the Commission, in accordance with Article 9(1)(a) of that regulation, does not, solely because of that approval, come under the definition of ‘biocidal product’ within the meaning of the first indent of Article 3(1)(a) of that regulation, with the result that it falls to the competent national court to ascertain whether that product satisfies all the conditions laid down by that provision in order to come under that definition. However, where the composition of that product is identical to the composition of the biocidal product presented as representative at the time of the application for approval of that active substance, that court is required to consider that that product comes under that definition.

---

(1)  OJ C 191, 8.6.2020.

---

| 13.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 502/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 502/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 October 2021 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — E v Finanzamt N (C-45/20) and Z v Finanzamt G (C-46/20)

(Joined Cases C-45/20 and C-46/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 167, Article 168(a), Article 250 and Article 252 - Deduction of input tax - Immovable property - An office room - Photovoltaic system - Allocation decision giving rise to a right of deduction - Communication of the allocation decision - Limitation period for exercising a right to deduct - Presumption of allocation to the private assets of the taxable person where the allocation decision is not communicated - Principle of neutrality - Principle of legal certainty - Principles of equivalence and proportionality)

(2021/C 502/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: E (C-45/20), Z (C-46/20)

Defendants: Finanzamt N (C-45/20), Finanzamt G (C-46/20)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 168(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2009/162/EU of 22 December 2009, read in conjunction with Article 167 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC, must be interpreted as not precluding national provisions interpreted by a national court in such a manner that where a taxable person has the right to decide to allocate an asset to his or her business assets and where, at the latest upon expiry of the statutory period for submitting the annual turnover-tax return, the competent national tax authority has not been put in a position to establish such an allocation of that asset by means of an express decision or sufficient evidence, that authority may refuse the right to deduct value added tax in respect of that asset on the ground that it has been allocated to the taxable person’s private assets, unless the specific legal arrangements under which that option may be exercised show that it does not comply with the principle of proportionality.

---

(1)  OJ C 191, 8.6.2020.

---

| 13.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 502/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 502/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — MT v Landespolizeidirektion Steiermark

(Case C-231/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom to provide services - Article 56 TFEU - Games of chance - Making prohibited lotteries available - Penalties - Proportionality - Minimum-level fines - Accumulation - No limit - Custodial sentence in the event of non-payment - Proportional contribution to the costs of proceedings - Article 49(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)

(2021/C 502/11)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: MT

Defendant: Landespolizeidirektion Steiermark

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that, in proceedings concerning the imposition of penalties for infringement of a monopoly in the sector of games of chance, a national court, hearing an assessment of the lawfulness of a penalty imposed for such an infringement, must specifically assess whether the penalties laid down by the applicable legislation comply with Article 56 TFEU, having regard to the actual rules for determining those penalties; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that, in proceedings concerning the imposition of penalties for infringement of a monopoly in the sector of games of chance, a national court, hearing an assessment of the lawfulness of a penalty imposed for such an infringement, must specifically assess whether the penalties laid down by the applicable legislation comply with Article 56 TFEU, having regard to the actual rules for determining those penalties;

| 2. | Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding a national provision which, in cases where prohibited lotteries have been made commercially available, makes it mandatory to:






  — | impose a minimum fine per unauthorised gaming machine, with no limit on the total amount of the fines imposed, to the extent that the total amount of the fines imposed is not disproportionate to the economic benefit which the infringements thus penalised might provide; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding a national provision which, in cases where prohibited lotteries have been made commercially available, makes it mandatory to:

—

impose a minimum fine per unauthorised gaming machine, with no limit on the total amount of the fines imposed, to the extent that the total amount of the fines imposed is not disproportionate to the economic benefit which the infringements thus penalised might provide;

| — | impose a custodial sentence in lieu of a fine per unauthorised gaming machine, with no limit on the total length of the custodial sentences imposed, to the extent that the length of the custodial sentence in lieu of a fine actually imposed is not excessive in the light of the seriousness of the infringements found; and |
| --- | --- |

—

impose a custodial sentence in lieu of a fine per unauthorised gaming machine, with no limit on the total length of the custodial sentences imposed, to the extent that the length of the custodial sentence in lieu of a fine actually imposed is not excessive in the light of the seriousness of the infringements found; and

| — | contribute to the costs of proceedings amounting to 10 % of the fines imposed, to the extent that that contribution is neither excessive in the light of the actual cost of such proceedings nor infringes the right of access to a tribunal enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

—

contribute to the costs of proceedings amounting to 10 % of the fines imposed, to the extent that that contribution is neither excessive in the light of the actual cost of such proceedings nor infringes the right of access to a tribunal enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 304, 14.9.2020.

---

| 13.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 502/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 502/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña — Spain) — F.C.I. v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS)

(Case C-244/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 79/7/EEC - Article 3(2) - Equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security - Survivors’ benefits - Survivor’s pension based on a de facto partnership - Exclusion clause - Validity - Prohibition of any discrimination based on sex - Benefit which does not come within the scope of Directive 79/7 - Inadmissibility - Article 21(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Non-discrimination on grounds of sex - Article 17(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Right to property - Legal situation which does not come within the scope of EU law - Lack of jurisdiction)

(2021/C 502/12)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña

Parties to the main proceedings

Appelant: F.C.I.

Respondent: Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS)

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The first question referred for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña (High Court of Justice of Catalonia, Spain) is inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The first question referred for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña (High Court of Justice of Catalonia, Spain) is inadmissible;

| 2. | The Court of Justice of the European Union has no jurisdiction to answer the second to fourth questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña (High Court of Justice of Catalonia). |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Court of Justice of the European Union has no jurisdiction to answer the second to fourth questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña (High Court of Justice of Catalonia).

---

(1)  OJ C 320, 28.9.2020.

---

| 13.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 502/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 502/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Argeş — Romania) — Ministerul Lucrărilor Publice, Dezvoltării şi Administraţiei, formerly Ministerul Dezvoltării Regionale şi Administraţiei Publice v NE

(Case C-360/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of the European Union’s financial interests - Article 325 TFEU - Combating fraud and other illegal activities - Convention on the protection of the Union’s financial interests - Concept of ‘fraud’ - Unlawful conduct during a project’s sustainability phase)

(2021/C 502/13)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Argeş

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ministerul Lucrărilor Publice, Dezvoltării şi Administraţiei, formerly Ministerul Dezvoltării Regionale şi Administraţiei Publice

Defendant: NE

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The concept of ‘fraud affecting the European [Union’s] financial interests’ referred to in Article 1(1)(a) of the Convention drawn up on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests, signed in Brussels on 26 July 1995, must be interpreted as including the use of false or incorrect statements submitted following the execution of the funded project in order to give a semblance of compliance with the obligations laid down during the project’s sustainability phase. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The concept of ‘fraud affecting the European [Union’s] financial interests’ referred to in Article 1(1)(a) of the Convention drawn up on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests, signed in Brussels on 26 July 1995, must be interpreted as including the use of false or incorrect statements submitted following the execution of the funded project in order to give a semblance of compliance with the obligations laid down during the project’s sustainability phase.

| 2. | The principle of primacy of EU law must be interpreted as requiring a national court to interpret provisions of national law consistently with the obligations arising from Article 325(1) and (2) TFEU, read in the light of Article 1(1)(a) of the Convention drawn up on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests, signed in Brussels on 26 July 1995, provided such an interpretation does not entail a breach of the principle of legality of criminal offences and penalties. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The principle of primacy of EU law must be interpreted as requiring a national court to interpret provisions of national law consistently with the obligations arising from Article 325(1) and (2) TFEU, read in the light of Article 1(1)(a) of the Convention drawn up on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests, signed in Brussels on 26 July 1995, provided such an interpretation does not entail a breach of the principle of legality of criminal offences and penalties.

---

(1)  OJ C 390, 16.11.2020.

---

| 13.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 502/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 502/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 14 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Szczecinie — Poland) — A.M. v Dyrektor Z. Oddziału Regionalnego Agencji Restrukturyzacji i Modernizacji Rolnictwa

(Case C-373/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - Common agricultural policy - Direct support schemes - Common rules - Single payment scheme - Regulation (EC) No 1120/2009 - Article 2(c) - Concept of ‘permanent pasture’ - Crop rotation - Natural periodic flooding of meadows and pastures situated in a special environmental protection area)

(2021/C 502/14)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Szczecinie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: A.M.

Defendant: Dyrektor Z. Oddziału Regionalnego Agencji Restrukturyzacji i Modernizacji Rolnictwa

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(c) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1120/2009 of 29 October 2009 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of the single payment scheme provided for in Title III of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers must be interpreted as meaning that meadows or pasture situated in a special protection area and which are subject to natural periodic flooding or submersion are not excluded from the concept of ‘permanent pasture’, within the meaning of that provision, since such flooding or submersion cannot, in themselves, cause a ‘crop rotation’ on the land concerned, within the meaning of that same provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 423, 7.12.2020.

---

| 13.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 502/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 502/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 October 2021 — KF v European Union Satellite Centre

(Case C-464/20 P) (1)

(Appeal - Institutional law - Staff of the European Union Satellite Centre (SatCen) - Members of the contract staff - Manner in which the administrative investigation was carried out in respect of the applicant - Reopening of the investigation - Compliance with the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 25 October 2018, KF v SatCen (T 286/15, EU:T:2018:718) - Action for annulment and for damages)

(2021/C 502/15)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Satellite Centre (represented by: A. Guillerme and T. Payan, avocates)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

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

2.

Orders KF to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 433, 14.12.2020.

---

| 13.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 502/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 502/11

---

Appeal brought on 13 January 2021 by Ramón González Calvet and Joan González Calvet against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) made on 17 November 2020 in Case T-257/20, González Calvet v SRB

(Case C-27/21 P)

(2021/C 502/16)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellants: Ramón González Calvet and Joan González Calvet (represented by: P. Molina Bosch, abogado)

Other party to the proceedings: Single Resolution Board

By order of 30 September 2021, the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded and ordered Ramón González Calvet and Joan González Calvet to bear their own costs.

---

| 13.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 502/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 502/11

---

Appeal brought on 27 February 2021 by José María Castillejo Oriol against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 11 February 2021 in Case T-696/20, Castillejo Oriol v Spain and Commission

(Case C-145/21 P)

(2021/C 502/17)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: José María Castillejo Oriol (represented by: J. Jover Padró, lawyer)

Other parties to the proceedings: Kingdom of Spain and European Commission

By order of 6 October 2021, the Court of Justice (Ninth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded and ordered José María Castillejo Oriol to bear his own costs.

---

| 13.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 502/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 502/12

---

Appeal brought on 17 March 2021 by Luis Gonzalo Segura del Oro Pulido against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 3 February 2021 in Case T-701/20, Segura del Oro Pulido v Commission

(Case C-225/21 P)

(2021/C 502/18)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Luis Gonzalo Segura del Oro Pulido (represented by: J. Jover Padró, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

By order of 29 September 2021, the Court of Justice (Ninth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as being manifestly inadmissible and orders Luis Gonzalo Segura del Oro Pulido to bear his own costs.

---

| 13.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 502/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 502/12

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Schleswig-Holsteinisches Verwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 13 August 2021 — SI and Others v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-497/21)

(2021/C 502/19)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Schleswig-Holsteinisches Verwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: SI, TL, ND, VH, YT, HN

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

Questions referred

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

1.

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

| 2. | If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: Is national legislation under which an application for international protection can be rejected as an inadmissible subsequent application compatible with Article 33(2)(d) and Article 2(q) of Directive 2013/32/EU even if the unsuccessful initial asylum procedure was conducted in Denmark? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: Is national legislation under which an application for international protection can be rejected as an inadmissible subsequent application compatible with Article 33(2)(d) and Article 2(q) of Directive 2013/32/EU even if the unsuccessful initial asylum procedure was conducted in Denmark?

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

3.

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

---

(1)  Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 60).

---

| 13.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 502/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 502/13

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 22 September 2021 — EEW Energy from Waste Großräschen GmbH v MNG Mitteldeutsche Netzgesellschaft Strom GmbH

(Case C-580/21)

(2021/C 502/20)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: EEW Energy from Waste Großräschen GmbH

Defendant: MNG Mitteldeutsche Netzgesellschaft Strom GmbH

Other party: 50Hertz Transmission GmbH

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 16(2)(c) of Directive 2009/28/EC, (1) read in conjunction with Article 2(a) and (e) thereof, to be interpreted as meaning that priority in respect of the feeding of electricity into the grid must also be given to generating installations in which electricity is produced by means of thermal recovery from mixed waste, whereby the waste contains a variable proportion of industrial and municipal biodegradable waste? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 16(2)(c) of Directive 2009/28/EC, (1) read in conjunction with Article 2(a) and (e) thereof, to be interpreted as meaning that priority in respect of the feeding of electricity into the grid must also be given to generating installations in which electricity is produced by means of thermal recovery from mixed waste, whereby the waste contains a variable proportion of industrial and municipal biodegradable waste?

| 2. | If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, is the giving of priority in respect of the feed-in of electricity pursuant to Article 16(2)(c) of Directive 2009/28/EC dependent on the proportion of biodegradable waste used in the production of electricity in the manner described in Question 1? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, is the giving of priority in respect of the feed-in of electricity pursuant to Article 16(2)(c) of Directive 2009/28/EC dependent on the proportion of biodegradable waste used in the production of electricity in the manner described in Question 1?

| 3. | If Question 2 is answered in the affirmative, is there a materiality threshold for the proportion of biodegradable waste below which the rules applicable to electricity from renewable energy sources do not apply to the electricity produced? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If Question 2 is answered in the affirmative, is there a materiality threshold for the proportion of biodegradable waste below which the rules applicable to electricity from renewable energy sources do not apply to the electricity produced?

| 4. | If Question 3 is answered in the affirmative, what is the level of that threshold, or how is the threshold to be determined? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If Question 3 is answered in the affirmative, what is the level of that threshold, or how is the threshold to be determined?

| 5. | If Questions 1 and 2 are answered in the affirmative, when applying the rules on electricity from renewable energy sources to electricity which has been produced only partly from biodegradable waste, can the legal rationale underlying the second subparagraph of Article 5(3) of Directive 2009/28/EC be applied in such a way that those rules apply only to the part of electricity produced from renewable energy sources, and that part is calculated on the basis of the energy content of the individual energy sources? |
| --- | --- |

5.

If Questions 1 and 2 are answered in the affirmative, when applying the rules on electricity from renewable energy sources to electricity which has been produced only partly from biodegradable waste, can the legal rationale underlying the second subparagraph of Article 5(3) of Directive 2009/28/EC be applied in such a way that those rules apply only to the part of electricity produced from renewable energy sources, and that part is calculated on the basis of the energy content of the individual energy sources?

---

(1)  Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC (OJ 2009 L 140, p. 16).

---

| 13.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 502/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 502/13

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (Belgium) lodged on 24 September 2021 — NY v Herios SARL

(Case C-593/21)

(2021/C 502/21)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: NY

Respondent: Herios SARL

Question referred

Must Article 17(2)(a), first indent, of Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents (1) be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation such as that in the present case, the goodwill indemnity payable to the main agent by reference to the number of customers brought in by the subagent does not provide ‘a substantial benefit’ to the main agent?

---

(1)  OJ 1986 L 382, p. 17.

---

| 13.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 502/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 502/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht Ansbach (Germany) lodged on 27 September 2021 — LSI — Germany GmbH v Freistaat Bayern

(Case C-595/21)

(2021/C 502/22)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht Ansbach

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: LSI — Germany GmbH

Defendant: Freistaat Bayern (represented by: Bayerische Kontrollbehörde für Lebensmittelsicherheit und Veterinärwesen)

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the term ‘name of the product’ in point 4 of Part A of Annex VI to Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 (1) to be interpreted as being synonymous with the ‘name of the food’ within the meaning of Article 17(1) to (3) of that regulation? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the term ‘name of the product’ in point 4 of Part A of Annex VI to Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 (1) to be interpreted as being synonymous with the ‘name of the food’ within the meaning of Article 17(1) to (3) of that regulation?

| 2. | If Question 1 is answered in the negative:
  Is the ‘name of the product’ the name under which the food is offered in trade and in advertising and is generally known to consumers, even if it is not the name of the food but the protected name, brand name or fancy name within the meaning of Article 17(4) of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If Question 1 is answered in the negative:

Is the ‘name of the product’ the name under which the food is offered in trade and in advertising and is generally known to consumers, even if it is not the name of the food but the protected name, brand name or fancy name within the meaning of Article 17(4) of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011?

| 3. | If Question 2 is answered in the affirmative:
  Can the ‘name of the product’ also consist of two components, one of which is a generic name or term protected under trade mark law which is not related to the individual food and is supplemented, for each of the individual products, by an additional element (as the second part of the name of the product) which specifies the food in question? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If Question 2 is answered in the affirmative:

Can the ‘name of the product’ also consist of two components, one of which is a generic name or term protected under trade mark law which is not related to the individual food and is supplemented, for each of the individual products, by an additional element (as the second part of the name of the product) which specifies the food in question?

| 4. | If Question 3 is answered in the affirmative:
  Which of the two components of the name of the product is to be taken as the basis for the purposes of the additional indication pursuant to point 4(b) of Part A of Annex VI to Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 where the two components of the name of the product are printed on the packaging in different sizes? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If Question 3 is answered in the affirmative:

Which of the two components of the name of the product is to be taken as the basis for the purposes of the additional indication pursuant to point 4(b) of Part A of Annex VI to Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 where the two components of the name of the product are printed on the packaging in different sizes?

---

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

---

| 13.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 502/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 502/15

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 28 September 2021 — QE v Caisse régionale de Crédit mutuel de Loire-Atlantique et du Centre Ouest

(Case C-600/21)

(2021/C 502/23)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: QE

Respondent: Caisse régionale de Crédit mutuel de Loire-Atlantique et du Centre Ouest

Questions referred

| 1. | Are Article 3(1) and Article 4 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts to be interpreted as meaning that a consumer contract (1) may not dispense with the requirement for a formal written demand, even if it is expressly and unequivocally provided for in the contract? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are Article 3(1) and Article 4 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts to be interpreted as meaning that a consumer contract (1) may not dispense with the requirement for a formal written demand, even if it is expressly and unequivocally provided for in the contract?

| 2. | Is the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 26 January 2017, Banco Primus, C-421/14, [EU:C:2017:60,] to be interpreted as meaning that a delay of over 30 days in the payment of a single instalment of principal, interest or incidental amounts may constitute sufficiently serious non-compliance in the light of the term and amount of the loan and the overall balance of the contractual relationship? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 26 January 2017, Banco Primus, C-421/14, [EU:C:2017:60,] to be interpreted as meaning that a delay of over 30 days in the payment of a single instalment of principal, interest or incidental amounts may constitute sufficiently serious non-compliance in the light of the term and amount of the loan and the overall balance of the contractual relationship?

| 3. | Are Article 3(1) and Article 4 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 to be interpreted as precluding a clause which provides that accelerated repayment of a loan may be triggered in the event of a delay in payment of over 30 days, when national law, which requires a formal written demand to be sent before the accelerated repayment of the loan, permits the parties to dispense with that step, in which case reasonable notice is required? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Are Article 3(1) and Article 4 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 to be interpreted as precluding a clause which provides that accelerated repayment of a loan may be triggered in the event of a delay in payment of over 30 days, when national law, which requires a formal written demand to be sent before the accelerated repayment of the loan, permits the parties to dispense with that step, in which case reasonable notice is required?

| 4. | As to the four criteria identified by the Court of Justice of the European Union in its judgment of 26 January 2017, Banco Primus, C-421/14, [EU:C:2017:60], for use by the national court in assessing the potential unfairness of the term relating to accelerated repayment resulting from a failure on the part of the debtor to comply with his obligations during a limited specific period, are those criteria cumulative or alternative? |
| --- | --- |

4.

As to the four criteria identified by the Court of Justice of the European Union in its judgment of 26 January 2017, Banco Primus, C-421/14, [EU:C:2017:60], for use by the national court in assessing the potential unfairness of the term relating to accelerated repayment resulting from a failure on the part of the debtor to comply with his obligations during a limited specific period, are those criteria cumulative or alternative?

| 5. | If the four criteria referred to above are cumulative, can the clause nevertheless be held not to be unfair in the light of the relative importance of a particular criterion? |
| --- | --- |

5.

If the four criteria referred to above are cumulative, can the clause nevertheless be held not to be unfair in the light of the relative importance of a particular criterion?

---

(1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.

---

| 13.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 502/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 502/15

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 30 September 2021 — XXX v État belge

(Case C-607/21)

(2021/C 502/24)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: XXX

Respondent: État belge

Questions referred

| 1. | In the context of the examination of the concept of a dependant for the purposes of Article 2(2)(d) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC, (1) should account be taken of the situation of an applicant who is already in the territory of the State in which the sponsor is established? |
| --- | --- |

1.

In the context of the examination of the concept of a dependant for the purposes of Article 2(2)(d) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC, (1) should account be taken of the situation of an applicant who is already in the territory of the State in which the sponsor is established?

| 2. | If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, should an applicant who is lawfully in the territory of that State be treated differently from an applicant who is there unlawfully? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, should an applicant who is lawfully in the territory of that State be treated differently from an applicant who is there unlawfully?

| 3. | Is Article 2(2)(d) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC to be interpreted as meaning that, in order to be regarded as a dependant and thus to fall within the definition of ‘family member’ referred to in that provision, a direct relative in the ascending line [may] rely on a situation of real material dependence in the country of origin established by documents which, at the time of lodging the application for a residence card as a family member of a Union citizen, were, however, issued several years previously, on the ground that the departure from the country of origin and the lodging of the application for a residence card in the host Member State did not occur at the same time? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is Article 2(2)(d) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC to be interpreted as meaning that, in order to be regarded as a dependant and thus to fall within the definition of ‘family member’ referred to in that provision, a direct relative in the ascending line [may] rely on a situation of real material dependence in the country of origin established by documents which, at the time of lodging the application for a residence card as a family member of a Union citizen, were, however, issued several years previously, on the ground that the departure from the country of origin and the lodging of the application for a residence card in the host Member State did not occur at the same time?

| 4. | If the answer to the third question is in the negative, what are the criteria for assessing the situation of material dependence of an applicant seeking to join a European citizen or his or her partner, as a relative in the ascending line, without having been able to obtain a residence permit on the basis of an application lodged immediately after his or her departure from the country of origin? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If the answer to the third question is in the negative, what are the criteria for assessing the situation of material dependence of an applicant seeking to join a European citizen or his or her partner, as a relative in the ascending line, without having been able to obtain a residence permit on the basis of an application lodged immediately after his or her departure from the country of origin?

---

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

---

General Court

| 13.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 502/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 502/17

---

Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2021 — Lito Maieftiko Gynaikologiko kai Cheirourgiko Kentro v Commission

(Case T-191/16) (1)

(Financial assistance - Sixth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities contributing to the creation of the European Research Area and to innovation (2002-2006) - Contract concerning Union financial assistance in favour of a project in the field of medical collaboration - Enforceable decision - Competence of the Commission - Grant agreements - Recovery of part of the financial contribution paid - Arbitration clause - Eligible costs - Legitimate expectations)

(2021/C 502/25)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Lito Maieftiko Gynaikologiko kai Cheirourgiko Kentro AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: E. Tzannini, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Katsimerou, L. André and J. Estrada de Solà, acting as Agents, and E. Roussou, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2016) 1080 final of 16 February 2016 concerning the recovery of a sum of EUR 109 415,20, plus interest, paid to the applicant in the context of financial assistance in support of a medical research project.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Lito Maieftiko Gynaikologiko kai Cheirourgiko Kentro AE to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Lito Maieftiko Gynaikologiko kai Cheirourgiko Kentro AE to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 251, 11.7.2016.

---

| 13.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 502/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 502/17

---

Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2021 — Polskie Linie Lotnicze ‘LOT’ v Commission

(Case T-240/18) (1)

(Competition - Concentrations - Air transport - Decision declaring a concentration compatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement - Relevant market - Assessment of the effects of the concentration on competition - Absence of commitment - Obligation to state reasons)

(2021/C 502/26)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Polskie Linie Lotnicze ‘LOT’ S.A. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: M. Jeżewski and M. König, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Wildpanner, T. Franchoo and J. Szczodrowski, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: easyJet plc (Luton, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Odriozola Alén, I. Terlecka and T. Reeves, lawyers)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2017) 8776 final of 12 December 2017 (Case No COMP/M.8672 — easyJet / Certain Air Berlin assets) declaring a concentration compatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Polskie Linie Lotnicze ‘LOT’ S.A. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Polskie Linie Lotnicze ‘LOT’ S.A. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 200, 11.6.2018.

---

| 13.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 502/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 502/18

---

Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2021 — Polskie Linie Lotnicze ‘LOT’ v Commission

(Case T-296/18) (1)

(Competition - Concentrations - Air transport - Decision declaring a concentration compatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement - Relevant market - Assessment of the effects of the concentration on competition - Commitments - Obligation to state reasons)

(2021/C 502/27)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Polskie Linie Lotnicze ‘LOT’ S.A. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: M. Jeżewski and M. König, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Wildpanner, T. Franchoo and J. Szczodrowski, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: S. Völcker and R. Benditz, lawyers)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2017) 9118 final of 21 December 2017 (Case No COMP/M.8633 — Lufthansa / Certain Air Berlin assets) declaring a concentration compatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Polskie Linie Lotnicze ‘LOT’ S.A. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Polskie Linie Lotnicze ‘LOT’ S.A. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 231, 2.7.2018.

---

| 13.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 502/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 502/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2021 — ZU v Commission

(Case T-671/18 and T-140/19) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Transfer in the interests of the service - Article 12a of the Staff Regulations - Psychological harassment - Article 25 of the Staff Regulations - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence and the right to be heard - Manifest error of assessment - Principle of sound administration and duty to have regard for the welfare of staff - Article 22a of the Staff Regulations - Misuse of powers - Article 24 of the Staff Regulations - Request for assistance - Refusal of the request - 2017 appraisal exercise - Appraisal report - 2018 promotion exercise - Proposed non-promotion - Liability)

(2021/C 502/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ZU (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: I. Melo Sampaio, D. Milanowska and L. Vernier, acting as Agents, and by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

Re:

Applications pursuant to Article 270 TFEU, in Case T 671/18, first, for annulment of the decision of the Commission of 12 October 2018 to transfer the applicant to the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) in Brussels (Belgium), of the letter of the Commission of 29 October 2018 by which it provisionally confirmed to the applicant that he would be transferred to OLAF as of 1 December 2018 and communicated to him practical information concerning his return to Brussels and of the decision rejecting the complaint lodged against those two decisions and, second, for compensation for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result, inter alia, of those decisions and, in Case T 140/19, for annulment of the applicant’s 2017 appraisal report, of the proposal for his non-promotion for 2018, of the rejection of his request for assistance made on 26 January 2018 and of the decisions rejecting the complaints brought against those three decisions.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the actions in Joined Cases T-671/18 and T-140/19; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the actions in Joined Cases T-671/18 and T-140/19;

| 2. | Orders ZU to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those proceedings for interim measures in Case T-671/18 R. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders ZU to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those proceedings for interim measures in Case T-671/18 R.

---

(1)  OJ C 16, 14.1.2019.

---

| 13.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 502/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 502/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2021 — Rosca v Commission

(Case T-434/19) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Recruitment - Notice of competition - Open Competition EPSO/AD/363/18 - Decision of the selection board to exclude the applicant from the next phase of the competition - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Article 27 of the Staff Regulations - Equal treatment)

(2021/C 502/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ioana-Felicia Rosca (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: L.-O. Tufler and B. Nelissen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Brauhoff, D. Milanowska and L. Vernier, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of the decision of the selection board in Open Competition EPSO/AD/363/18 of 22 March 2019, based on qualifications and tests, rejecting the applicant’s application and excluding her from the assessment centre for that competition.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Ms Ioana-Felicia Rosca to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ms Ioana-Felicia Rosca to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 295, 2.9.2019.

---

| 13.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 502/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 502/20

---

Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2021 — Novolipetsk Steel v Commission

(Case T-790/19) (1)

(Measures that the European Union may take in relation to the combined effect of anti-dumping or anti-subsidy measures with safeguard measures - Importation of cold-rolled flat steel products and hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or other alloy steel - Modification of regulations imposing anti-dumping or anti-subsidy measures on products subject to safeguard measures - Principle of non-discrimination - Manifest error of assessment)

(2021/C 502/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Novolipetsk Steel PAO (Lipetsk, Russia) (represented by: E. Gergondet and P. Vander Schueren, lawyers)

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

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1382 of 2 September 2019 amending certain Regulations imposing anti-dumping or anti-subsidy measures on certain steel products subject to safeguard measures (OJ 2019 L 227, p. 1), in so far as it concerns the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Novolipetsk Steel PAO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Novolipetsk Steel PAO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 10, 13.1.2020.

---

| 13.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 502/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 502/21

---

Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2021 — JMS Sports v EUIPO — Inter-Vion (Spiral hair elastics)

(Case T-823/19) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered community design representing a spiral hair elastic - Disclosure of the earlier designs - Disclosure on the Internet - Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Equality of arms - Evidence submitted for the first time before the General Court)

(2021/C 502/31)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: JMS Sports sp. z o.o. (Łódź, Poland) (represented by: D. Piróg and J. Słupski, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Inter-Vion S.A. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: T. Grucelski and T. Gawliczek, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 September 2019 (Case R 1573/2018-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Inter-Vion and JMS Sports.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders JMS Sports sp. z o.o. to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Inter-Vion S.A. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders JMS Sports sp. z o.o. to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Inter-Vion S.A.

---

(1)  OJ C 54, 17.2.2020.

---

| 13.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 502/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 502/21

---

Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2021 — Intis v EUIPO — Televes (TELEVEND)

(Case T-112/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark TELEVEND - Earlier EU word mark TELEVES - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2021/C 502/32)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Intis d.o.o. (Zagreb, Croatia) (represented by: T. Nagy, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Televes, SA (Santiago de Compostela, Spain) (represented by: F. Peña López, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 December 2019 (Case R 1923/2019 5), relating to invalidity proceedings between Televes and Intis.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Intis d.o.o. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Intis d.o.o. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 137, 27.4.2020.

---

| 13.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 502/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 502/22

---

Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2021 — Square v EUIPO — ($ Cash App)

(Case T-210/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark $ Cash App - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Right to be heard - Obligation to state reasons - Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Equal treatment and principle of sound administration)

(2021/C 502/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Square, Inc. (San Francisco, California, United States) (represented by: M. Hawkins, Solicitor, and by K. Lüder and T. Dolde, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 February 2020 (Case R 811/2019-1), relating to the international registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark $ Cash App.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Square, Inc. to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Square, Inc. to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 209, 22.6.2020.

---

| 13.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 502/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 502/22

---

Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2021 — Square v EUIPO — ($ Cash App)

(Case T-211/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark $ Cash App - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Right to be heard - Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2021/C 502/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Square, Inc. (San Francisco, California, United States) (represented by: M. Hawkins, Solicitor, and by K. Lüder and T. Dolde, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 February 2020 (Case R 810/2019-1), relating to the international registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark $ Cash App.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Square, Inc. to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Square, Inc. to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 209, 22.6.2020.

---

| 13.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 502/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 502/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2021 — St. Hippolyt v EUIPO — Raisioaqua (Vital like nature)

(Case T-351/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark Vital like nature - Earlier EU figurative mark VITAL - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2021/C 502/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: St. Hippolyt Holding GmbH (Dielheim, Germany) (represented by: M. Gail, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Raisioaqua Oy (Raisio, Finland) (represented by: K. Rantala, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 March 2020 (Case R 1279/2019-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Raisioaqua and St. Hippolyt Holding.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders St. Hippolyt Holding GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders St. Hippolyt Holding GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 247, 27.7.2020.

---

| 13.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 502/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 502/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2021 — St. Hippolyt v EUIPO — Elephant (Strong like nature)

(Case T-352/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark Strong like nature - Earlier EU figurative mark STRONG NATURE - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2021/C 502/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: St. Hippolyt Holding GmbH (Dielheim, Germany) (represented by: M. Gail, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Preduzeće za proizvodnju, unutrašnju i spoljnu trgovinu Elephant Co. d.o.o. (Belgrade, Serbia) (represented by: D. Cañadas Arcas, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 March 2020 (Case R 1909/2019-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Preduzeće za proizvodnju, unutrašnju i spoljnu trgovinu Elephant and St. Hippolyt Holding.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders St. Hippolyt Holding GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders St. Hippolyt Holding GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 247, 27.7.2020.

---

| 13.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 502/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 502/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 27 October 2021 — Jiruš v EUIPO — Nile Clothing (Racing Syndicate)

(Case T-356/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark Racing Syndicate - Earlier international word mark SYNDICATE - Submission of evidence for the first time before the Board of Appeal - Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001))

(2021/C 502/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Václav Jiruš (Vitín, Czech Republic) (represented by: J. Zedníková, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Nile Clothing AG (Sutz-Lattrigen, Switzerland) (represented by: C. Raßmann, M. Suether and F. Adinolfi, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 March 2020 (Case R 1488/2019-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between Nile Clothing and Mr Jiruš.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Václav Jiruš to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Václav Jiruš to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 255, 3.8.2020.

---

| 13.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 502/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 502/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2021 — Yadex International v EUIPO — Sütas Süt Ürünleri (PINAR Süzme Peynir)

(Case T-559/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark PINAR Süzme Peynir - Earlier international figurative mark Süzme Peynir - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2021/C 502/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Yadex International GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: N. Johnson, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Sütas Süt Ürünleri AS (Bursa, Turkey) (represented by: O. Ruhl, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 July 2020 (Case R 2127/2019-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Sütas Süt Ürünleri and Yadex International.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Yadex International GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Yadex International GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 371, 3.11.2020.

---

| 13.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 502/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 502/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2021 — Yadex International v EUIPO — Sütas Süt Ürünleri (PINAR Tam kivaminda Süzme Peynir Yumusacik ve Leziz)

(Case T-560/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark PINAR Tam kivaminda Süzme Peynir Yumusacik ve Leziz - Earlier international figurative mark Süzme Peynir - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2021/C 502/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Yadex International GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: N. Johnson, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Sütas Süt Ürünleri AS (Bursa, Turkey) (represented by: O. Ruhl, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 July 2020 (Case R 2126/2019-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Sütas Süt Ürünleri and Yadex International.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Yadex International GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Yadex International GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 371, 3.11.2020.

---

| 13.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 502/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 502/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2021 — Roller v EUIPO — Flex Equipos de Descanso (DORMILLO)

(Case T-596/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark DORMILLO - Earlier EU figurative mark DORMILON - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2021/C 502/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Roller GmbH & Co. KG (Gelsenkirchen, Germany) (represented by: W. Zürbig, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Flex Equipos de Descanso, SA (Getafe, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 June 2020 (Case R 2846/2019-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Flex Equipos de Descanso and Roller.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Roller GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Roller GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 378, 9.11.2020.

---

| 13.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 502/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 502/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2021 — Roller v EUIPO — Flex Equipos de Descanso (Dormillo)

(Case T-597/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark Dormillo - Earlier EU figurative mark DORMILON - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2021/C 502/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Roller GmbH & Co. KG (Gelsenkirchen, Germany) (represented by: W. Zürbig, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Flex Equipos de Descanso, SA (Getafe, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 June 2020 (Case R 2847/2019-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Flex Equipos de Descanso and Roller.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Roller GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Roller GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 390, 16.11.2020.

---

| 13.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 502/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 502/27

---

Order of the General Court of 1 October 2021 — IJ v Parliament

(Case T-74/20) (1)

(Civil service - Article 100 of the CEOS - Five-year medical cover deferment - Complaint with the Ombudsman - Time limit for bringing proceedings - Delay - No new and substantial facts - Inadmissibility)

(2021/C 502/42)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: IJ (represented by: L. Levi, M. Vandenbussche and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: T. Lazian and C. González Argüelles, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and M. Alver, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: T. Bohr, L. Vernier and M. Brauhoff, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of the Parliament’s decision of 10 October 2018 to defer medical cover in respect of the applicant, as provided for in the first paragraph of Article 100 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union and, in so far as is necessary, of the decision of 29 October 2019 rejecting the complaint of 8 January 2019 against that decision.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | IJ shall bear her own costs and pay those incurred by the European Parliament. |
| --- | --- |

2.

IJ shall bear her own costs and pay those incurred by the European Parliament.

| 3. | The Council of the European Union and the European Commission shall bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Council of the European Union and the European Commission shall bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 103, 30.3.2020.

---

| 13.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 502/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 502/28

---

Order of the General Court of 14 October 2021 — Junqueras i Vies v Parliament

(Case T-100/20) (1)

(Action for annulment - Law governing the institutions - Member of the Parliament - Privileges and immunities - Request for privileges and immunities to be defended - Decision of the President of the Parliament not to grant that request - No interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility)

(2021/C 502/43)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Oriol Junqueras i Vies (Sant Joan de Vilatorrada, Spain) (represented by: M. Marsal i Ferret, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Görlitz and C. Burgos, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the decision of the President of the Parliament of 10 December 2019 not to grant the request, made on behalf of the applicant, for his immunities, as referred to in the first and second paragraphs of Article 9 of Protocol (No 7) on the privileges and immunities of the European Union, to be defended.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | There is no need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene made by the Kingdom of Spain. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene made by the Kingdom of Spain.

| 3. | Mr Oriol Junqueras i Vies shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Parliament. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Mr Oriol Junqueras i Vies shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Parliament.

| 4. | The Kingdom of Spain shall bear its own costs relating to its application for leave to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Kingdom of Spain shall bear its own costs relating to its application for leave to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 114, 6.4.2020.

---

| 13.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 502/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 502/28

---

Order of the General Court of 19 October 2021 — JH v Europol

(Case T-208/20) (1)

(Action for damages - Civil service - Temporary staff - Europol - Probative value of the evidence - No act adversely affecting the applicant - Irregular nature of the pre-litigation procedure - Inadmissibility)

(2021/C 502/44)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: JH (represented by: M. Quaas and T. Flachsbarth, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (represented by: O. Sajin and A. Ketels, acting as Agents, and B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for compensation in respect of the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of, first, Europol’s order of 2 April 2019 to relieve him from office with immediate effect and, second, the failure to investigate a complaint against him in accordance with the applicable provisions.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | JH shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

JH shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 191, 8.6.2020.

---

| 13.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 502/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 502/29

---

Order of the General Court of 5 October 2021 — Junqueras i Vies v Parliament

(Case T-613/20) (1)

(Action for annulment - Acknowledgement by the Parliament of the election of a Member of the European Parliament as a result of another parliamentary seat becoming vacant - Locus standi - Concept of ‘addressee’ of a decision - Lack of direct concern - No regulatory act of general application - Inadmissibility)

(2021/C 502/45)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Oriol Junqueras i Vies (Sant Joan de Vilatorrada, Spain) (represented by: M. Marsal i Ferret, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Görlitz, T. Lukácsi and C. Burgos, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the acknowledgement of the election of Mr Jordi Solé i Ferrando as a Member of the European Parliament replacing the applicant with effect from 3 January 2020, announced by the President of the Parliament in plenary on 23 July 2020.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | There is no need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene made by the Kingdom of Spain. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene made by the Kingdom of Spain.

| 3. | Mr Oriol Junqueras i Vies shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Mr Oriol Junqueras i Vies shall pay the costs.

| 4. | The Kingdom of Spain shall bear the costs relating to its application for leave to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Kingdom of Spain shall bear the costs relating to its application for leave to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 390, 16.11.2020.

---

| 13.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 502/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 502/30

---

Order of the General Court of 14 October 2021 — Amazon.com and Others v Commission

(Case T-19/21) (1)

(Action for annulment - Competition - Abuse of dominant position - Online sales - Decision to open an investigation - Territorial scope of the investigation - Exclusion of Italy - Act not open to challenge - Preparatory act - Inadmissibility)

(2021/C 502/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Amazon.com, Inc. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States), Amazon Services Europe Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), Amazon EU Sàrl (Luxembourg), Amazon Europe Core Sàrl (Luxembourg) (represented by: A. Komninos and G. Tantulli, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Ernst, T. Franchoo, G. Meessen and C. Sjödin, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2020) 7692 final of 10 November 2020 initiating proceedings under Article 102 TFEU in Case AT.40703 Amazon — Buy Box.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | There is no need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene of the Italian Republic, the Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (Competition and Market Authority, Italy), the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America and the Computer & Communications Industry Association. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene of the Italian Republic, the Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (Competition and Market Authority, Italy), the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America and the Computer & Communications Industry Association.

| 3. | Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon Services Europe Sàrl, Amazon EU Sàrl and Amazon Europe Core Sàrl shall bear their own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon Services Europe Sàrl, Amazon EU Sàrl and Amazon Europe Core Sàrl shall bear their own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

| 4. | The Italian Republic, the Competition and Market Authority, the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America and the Computer & Communications Industry Association shall bear their own costs relating to the applications to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Italian Republic, the Competition and Market Authority, the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America and the Computer & Communications Industry Association shall bear their own costs relating to the applications to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 72, 1.3.2021.

---

| 13.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 502/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 502/30

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 20 October 2021 — Girardi v EUIPO

(Case T-497/21 R)

(Interim relief - EU trade mark - Professional representation - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency)

(2021/C 502/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Giovanna Paola Girardi (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: G. Macías Bonilla, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Söder and G. Predonzani, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking suspension of operation, first, of the decision of EUIPO of 14 June 2021 concerning the applicant’s capacity to act as a representative before EUIPO and, secondly, of the part of EUIPO’s Guidelines for examination of European Union trade marks relating to professional representation by Spanish lawyers (Part A, Section 5, Annex 1).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---

| 13.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 502/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 502/31

---

Action brought on 8 September 2021 — European Lotto and Betting v EUIPO — Tipp24 Services (Cash4Life)

(Case T-554/21)

(2021/C 502/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Lotto and Betting Ltd (Ocean Village, Gibraltar) (represented by: D. Egan, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tipp24 Services Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

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 Cash4Life — European Union trade mark No 15 065 964

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 July 2021 in Case R 264/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and Tipp24 to bear their own costs and pay those of European Lotto and Betting Ltd. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and Tipp24 to bear their own costs and pay those of European Lotto and Betting Ltd.

Pleas in law

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

—

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

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

—

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

---

| 13.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 502/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 502/31

---

Action brought on 7 September 2021 — WG v EUIPO

(Case T-567/21)

(2021/C 502/49)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: WG (represented by: P. Schimanek, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Management Board of EUIPO of 17 November 2020 not to appoint the applicant as a member of the Board of Appeal following the selection procedure ‘EXT/20/42/AD 11/Member of the Board of Appeal’; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Management Board of EUIPO of 17 November 2020 not to appoint the applicant as a member of the Board of Appeal following the selection procedure ‘EXT/20/42/AD 11/Member of the Board of Appeal’;

| — | annul the decision of the Management Board of the same day, appointing Ms Nina Korjus, Dr. Alejandra González and Mr Sergio Rizzo as members; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Management Board of the same day, appointing Ms Nina Korjus, Dr. Alejandra González and Mr Sergio Rizzo as members;

| — | annul the decision not to include the applicant on the list of six candidates proposed by the Selection Committee to the Management Board for election by vote; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision not to include the applicant on the list of six candidates proposed by the Selection Committee to the Management Board for election by vote;

| — | annul all decisions of the Selection Committee, the Management Board and, where appropriate, others in the selection procedure ‘EXT/20/42/AD 11/Member of the Board of Appeal’, which preceded and led to those decisions; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul all decisions of the Selection Committee, the Management Board and, where appropriate, others in the selection procedure ‘EXT/20/42/AD 11/Member of the Board of Appeal’, which preceded and led to those decisions;

| — | annul the decision of 7 June 2021, rejecting the applicant’s complaint; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 7 June 2021, rejecting the applicant’s complaint;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringements of Article 166 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 (1) and procedural errors






  — | Pursuant to Article 166(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001, the Management Board of EUIPO is competent to appoint members of the Board of Appeal. The Management Board divested itself of its decision-making powers and transferred them to the Preparatory Subcommittee. The Preparatory Subcommittee exceeded its purely preparatory powers and adopted its own decisions which were not comprehensible for the Management Board because the relevant and decisive information was not submitted to it. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringements of Article 166 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 (1) and procedural errors

—

Pursuant to Article 166(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001, the Management Board of EUIPO is competent to appoint members of the Board of Appeal. The Management Board divested itself of its decision-making powers and transferred them to the Preparatory Subcommittee. The Preparatory Subcommittee exceeded its purely preparatory powers and adopted its own decisions which were not comprehensible for the Management Board because the relevant and decisive information was not submitted to it.

| — | As a result of the participation of the President of the Boards of Appeal in the Subcommittee, the latter’s constitution infringes Article 166(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001. The President of the Boards of Appeal is not a member of the Management Board. The participation of the President of the Board of Appeal is contrary to the wording of Article 166(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001, which enumerates the competences of the organs/bodies referred to therein. |
| --- | --- |

—

As a result of the participation of the President of the Boards of Appeal in the Subcommittee, the latter’s constitution infringes Article 166(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001. The President of the Boards of Appeal is not a member of the Management Board. The participation of the President of the Board of Appeal is contrary to the wording of Article 166(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001, which enumerates the competences of the organs/bodies referred to therein.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment due to objective unsuitability of the examination of the candidates in the interview






  — | The candidates’ language skills were assessed only from level C1 in the interview; the language skills indicated by the candidates as level B2 were not tested at all. Only a conversation took place, reading or writing was not tested. A brief conversation on everyday subjects is manifestly unsuitable for assessing level C1 as defined in the vacancy notice by reference to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment due to objective unsuitability of the examination of the candidates in the interview

—

The candidates’ language skills were assessed only from level C1 in the interview; the language skills indicated by the candidates as level B2 were not tested at all. Only a conversation took place, reading or writing was not tested. A brief conversation on everyday subjects is manifestly unsuitable for assessing level C1 as defined in the vacancy notice by reference to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages.

| — | The personal competences pursuant to point 4(e) of the vacancy notice were exclusively and jointly assessed by the three members of the Preparatory Subcommittee. However, those members had neither a specialisation in human resources/recruitment nor sufficient training which is why the examination could only have been based on a subjective assessment. |
| --- | --- |

—

The personal competences pursuant to point 4(e) of the vacancy notice were exclusively and jointly assessed by the three members of the Preparatory Subcommittee. However, those members had neither a specialisation in human resources/recruitment nor sufficient training which is why the examination could only have been based on a subjective assessment.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringements of the vacancy notice and subsequent modification of the selection criteria






  — | The defendant did not act in accordance with the vacancy notice. It did not invite only the ‘best qualified candidates’ to the interview. It had subsequently modified the selection criteria by applying a weighting which had not been provided for. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringements of the vacancy notice and subsequent modification of the selection criteria

—

The defendant did not act in accordance with the vacancy notice. It did not invite only the ‘best qualified candidates’ to the interview. It had subsequently modified the selection criteria by applying a weighting which had not been provided for.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringements of the principles of equal treatment, transparency and the duty of documentation, failure to state reasons and abuse of discretion






  — | Two unequal categories of candidates were invited to the interview, those who were graded ‘excellent’ and those who were graded ‘very good’. In addition, the initial grade, which was awarded after the evaluation of the written application, was later disregarded as only the grade obtained in the interview was decisive in drawing up the list of six candidates proposed by the Selection Committee to the Management Board for voting. |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringements of the principles of equal treatment, transparency and the duty of documentation, failure to state reasons and abuse of discretion

—

Two unequal categories of candidates were invited to the interview, those who were graded ‘excellent’ and those who were graded ‘very good’. In addition, the initial grade, which was awarded after the evaluation of the written application, was later disregarded as only the grade obtained in the interview was decisive in drawing up the list of six candidates proposed by the Selection Committee to the Management Board for voting.

| — | The criteria for the invitation to the interview were subsequently modified in relation to the vacancy notice. This occurred at a time when the experience, skills and knowledge of the individual candidates were known to the secretariat of the Management Board. |
| --- | --- |

—

The criteria for the invitation to the interview were subsequently modified in relation to the vacancy notice. This occurred at a time when the experience, skills and knowledge of the individual candidates were known to the secretariat of the Management Board.

| — | The crucial stages of the procedure were not documented. There is no documentation regarding the course of the interview. |
| --- | --- |

—

The crucial stages of the procedure were not documented. There is no documentation regarding the course of the interview.

| — | There is a lack of justification for the downgrading by two marks (from ‘excellent’ to ‘good’) in the interview, constituting a devaluation of the results obtained in the first stage of the selection procedure. |
| --- | --- |

—

There is a lack of justification for the downgrading by two marks (from ‘excellent’ to ‘good’) in the interview, constituting a devaluation of the results obtained in the first stage of the selection procedure.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark (OJ 2017 L 154, p. 1).

---

| 13.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 502/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 502/33

---

Action brought on 16 September 2021 — Kakuzo v EUIPO — Rauch Fruchtsäfte (Kakuzo)

(Case T-592/21)

(2021/C 502/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Kakuzo GmbH (Berlin, 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: Rauch Fruchtsäfte GmbH (Rankweil, Austria)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark Kakuzo — Application for registration No 17 452 541

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 July 2021 in Case R 356/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO 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.

---

| 13.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 502/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 502/34

---

Action brought on 23 September 2021 — ADS L. Kowalik, B. Włodarczyk v EUIPO — ESSAtech (Remote controls [wireless] (Accessories for -))

(Case T-611/21)

(2021/C 502/51)

Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

Parties

Applicant: ADS L. Kowalik, B. Włodarczyk s.c. (Sosnowiec, Poland) (represented by: M. Oleksyn, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: ESSAtech (Přistoupim, Czech Republic)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant

Design at issue: EU design Remote controls [wireless] (Accessories for -) — EU design No 4 539 302-0001

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 July 2021 in Case R 1070/2020-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings to bear their own costs, and order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings to pay the costs incurred by the applicant, including those incurred in the proceedings before EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings to bear their own costs, and order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings to pay the costs incurred by the applicant, including those incurred in the proceedings before EUIPO.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringements of Article 8(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002, read in conjunction with Article 25(1)(b) thereof, and breaches of the rule of law established in DOCERAM, C-395/16, (1) as well as infringement of Article 41(2)(c) and Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (right to good administration); |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringements of Article 8(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002, read in conjunction with Article 25(1)(b) thereof, and breaches of the rule of law established in DOCERAM, C-395/16, (1) as well as infringement of Article 41(2)(c) and Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (right to good administration);

| — | Infringements of Article 63(1) of that regulation, read in conjunction with Article 63(2) thereof, and breaches of the rule of law established in DOCERAM, C-395/16, as well as infringement of Article 41(2)(c) and Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (right to good administration). |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringements of Article 63(1) of that regulation, read in conjunction with Article 63(2) thereof, and breaches of the rule of law established in DOCERAM, C-395/16, as well as infringement of Article 41(2)(c) and Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (right to good administration).

---

(1)  Judgment of 8 March 2018, DOCERAM, C-395/16, EU:C:2018:172.

---

| 13.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 502/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 502/34

---

Action brought on 23 September 2021 — ADS L. Kowalik, B. Włodarczyk v EUIPO — ESSAtech (Remote controls [wireless] (Accessories for -))

(Case T-612/21)

(2021/C 502/52)

Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

Parties

Applicant: ADS L. Kowalik, B. Włodarczyk s.c. (Sosnowiec, Poland) (represented by: M. Oleksyn, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: ESSAtech (Přistoupim, Czech Republic)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant

Design at issue: EU design Remote controls [wireless] (Accessories for -) — EU design No 4 539 302-0003

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 July 2021 in Case R 1072/2020-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings to bear their own costs, and order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings to pay the costs incurred by the applicant, including those incurred in the proceedings before EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings to bear their own costs, and order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings to pay the costs incurred by the applicant, including those incurred in the proceedings before EUIPO.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringements of Article 8(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002, read in conjunction with Article 25(1)(b) thereof, and breaches of the rule of law established in DOCERAM, C-395/16, (1) as well as infringement of Article 41(2)(c) and Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (right to good administration); |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringements of Article 8(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002, read in conjunction with Article 25(1)(b) thereof, and breaches of the rule of law established in DOCERAM, C-395/16, (1) as well as infringement of Article 41(2)(c) and Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (right to good administration);

| — | Infringements of Article 63(1) of that regulation, read in conjunction with Article 63(2) thereof, and breaches of the rule of law established in DOCERAM, C-395/16, as well as infringement of Article 41(2)(c) and Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (right to good administration). |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringements of Article 63(1) of that regulation, read in conjunction with Article 63(2) thereof, and breaches of the rule of law established in DOCERAM, C-395/16, as well as infringement of Article 41(2)(c) and Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (right to good administration).

---

(1)  Judgment of 8 March 2018, DOCERAM, C-395/16, EU:C:2018:172.

---

| 13.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 502/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 502/35

---

Action brought on 30 September 2021 — Rimini Street v EUIPO (WE DO SUPPORT)

(Case T-634/21)

(2021/C 502/53)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Rimini Street, Inc. (Las Vegas, Nevada, United States) (represented by: E. Ratjen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark WE DO SUPPORT — Application for registration No 1 559 178

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 August 2021 in Case R 710/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 13.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 502/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 502/36

---

Action brought on 5 October 2021 — YD v FRA

(Case T-648/21)

(2021/C 502/54)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: YD (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the defendant’s Director refusing to grant him an exception under Article 12(2)(a) of the CEOS (1) and terminating, as a consequence, the applicant’s contract under Article 47(c)(ii) of the CEOS; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the defendant’s Director refusing to grant him an exception under Article 12(2)(a) of the CEOS (1) and terminating, as a consequence, the applicant’s contract under Article 47(c)(ii) of the CEOS;

| — | if need be, annul the decision of the defendant’s director rejecting the complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations directed by the applicant against the above decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

if need be, annul the decision of the defendant’s director rejecting the complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations directed by the applicant against the above decision;

| — | compensate the applicant’s non-material damage estimated ex aequo et bono at 50 000 euros; |
| --- | --- |

—

compensate the applicant’s non-material damage estimated ex aequo et bono at 50 000 euros;

| — | prescribe, as a measure of inquiry pursuant to Article 91 of the Rules of Procedure, the production by the defendant of the information related to the newly appointed Accounting Officer’s experience recorded in the defendant’s Activity Based Budget records; and |
| --- | --- |

—

prescribe, as a measure of inquiry pursuant to Article 91 of the Rules of Procedure, the production by the defendant of the information related to the newly appointed Accounting Officer’s experience recorded in the defendant’s Activity Based Budget records; and

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated the applicant’s right to be heard because the contested decision was adopted without the applicant being heard by the Director following the negative recommendation of the Head of Legal Service of the defendant. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated the applicant’s right to be heard because the contested decision was adopted without the applicant being heard by the Director following the negative recommendation of the Head of Legal Service of the defendant.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated the principle of legal certainty. The applicant contests that the administrative note launching the authorization of exception process was issued by the Head of Corporate of the defendant and it is therefore unclear if this process was established by a competent authority. In addition, there is no evidence that the Director of the defendant approved the administrative note. It is also alleged that even the criteria for assessing the interest of the service are clear whether they have been adopted by a competent authority or not. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated the principle of legal certainty. The applicant contests that the administrative note launching the authorization of exception process was issued by the Head of Corporate of the defendant and it is therefore unclear if this process was established by a competent authority. In addition, there is no evidence that the Director of the defendant approved the administrative note. It is also alleged that even the criteria for assessing the interest of the service are clear whether they have been adopted by a competent authority or not.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated the principle of impartiality because the recommendation of the applicant’s case was made by the applicant’s former line manager, who was not in a position to assess his expression of interest in the light of the relevant criteria and who was not impartial. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated the principle of impartiality because the recommendation of the applicant’s case was made by the applicant’s former line manager, who was not in a position to assess his expression of interest in the light of the relevant criteria and who was not impartial.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error in the assessment of the interest of the service and in the reasoning for the contested decision. Furthermore, it is alleged that the defendant violated its obligation of good administration and misused its powers. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error in the assessment of the interest of the service and in the reasoning for the contested decision. Furthermore, it is alleged that the defendant violated its obligation of good administration and misused its powers.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated the principle of good administration, its duty of care, as well as Article 41 of the Charter and the principle of legal certainty, because the applicant, being a UK staff member, didn’t have clarity as to his legal position in the defendant for almost two years. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated the principle of good administration, its duty of care, as well as Article 41 of the Charter and the principle of legal certainty, because the applicant, being a UK staff member, didn’t have clarity as to his legal position in the defendant for almost two years.

| 6. | Sixth pleas in law, alleging that the contested decision creates discrimination on the grounds of the applicant’s health. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth pleas in law, alleging that the contested decision creates discrimination on the grounds of the applicant’s health.

---

(1)  Regulation No 31 (EEC), 11 (EAEC), laying down the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community (OJ 1962 45, p. 1385).

---

| 13.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 502/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 502/37

---

Action brought on 11 October 2021 — H/2 Credit Manager v EUIPO — Hcapital Partners SCR (H/2 CAPITAL PARTNERS)

(Case T-656/21)

(2021/C 502/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: H/2 Credit Manager LP (Stamford, Connecticut, United States) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister-at-Law, and J. Bittner, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hcapital Partners SCR, SA (Lisbon, Portugal)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark H/2 CAPITAL PARTNERS — Application for registration No 17 599 374

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 July 2021 in Case R 1954/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and the other party (if it takes part in these proceedings) to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the other party (if it takes part in these proceedings) to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | The Board of Appeal wrongly held that the relevant public included the general public; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal wrongly held that the relevant public included the general public;

| — | The Board of Appeal failed to consider the two marks as respective wholes, taking account of their dominant and distinctive elements. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal failed to consider the two marks as respective wholes, taking account of their dominant and distinctive elements.

---

| 13.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 502/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 502/37

---

Action brought on 15 October 2021 — YF v EFCA

(Case T-664/21)

(2021/C 502/56)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: YF (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

Defendant: European Fisheries Control Agency

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

declare the present application admissible and well founded;

in consequence,

| — | annul the contested decision of 18 February 2021 by which the applicant’s contract as a member of the temporary staff for an indefinite period was terminated; and annul, in so far as necessary, the rejection decision of 5 July 2021; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision of 18 February 2021 by which the applicant’s contract as a member of the temporary staff for an indefinite period was terminated; and annul, in so far as necessary, the rejection decision of 5 July 2021;

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

—

order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, which is divided into two parts.

| 1. | First part, alleging a manifest error of assessment. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First part, alleging a manifest error of assessment.

| 2. | Second part, alleging infringement of the principle of sound administration and of the principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second part, alleging infringement of the principle of sound administration and of the principle of proportionality.

---

| 13.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 502/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 502/38

---

Action brought on 12 October 2021 — BAWAG PSK v ECB

(Case T-667/21)

(2021/C 502/57)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: BAWAG PSK Bank für Arbeit und Wirtschaft und Österreichische Postsparkasse AG (Wien, Austria) (represented by: H. Bälz and D. Bliesener, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the defendant’s decision of 2 August 2021 (1); and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the defendant’s decision of 2 August 2021 (1); and

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the defendant is incompetent to impose absorption interest under Sec. 97(1) of the Austrian Banking Act (‘BWG’). |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant is incompetent to impose absorption interest under Sec. 97(1) of the Austrian Banking Act (‘BWG’).

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the imposition of absorption interest under Sec. 97(1) BWG is time barred. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the imposition of absorption interest under Sec. 97(1) BWG is time barred.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the applicant did not breach the large exposure limit provided in Art. 395(1) of Regulation (EU) No 375/2013 (2). |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the applicant did not breach the large exposure limit provided in Art. 395(1) of Regulation (EU) No 375/2013 (2).

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes the applicant’s right to be heard. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes the applicant’s right to be heard.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the defendant incorrectly calculated the amount of absorption interest under Sec. 97(1) BWG. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the defendant incorrectly calculated the amount of absorption interest under Sec. 97(1) BWG.

---

(1)  No SSM- 2021-ATBAW-7_ESA-2018-0000126.

(2)  Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 Text with EEA relevance (OJ 2013 L 176, p. 1-337).

---

| 13.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 502/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 502/39

---

Action brought on 18 October 2021 — Grupa ‘LEW’ v EUIPO — Lechwerke (GRUPALEW.)

(Case T-672/21)

(2021/C 502/58)

Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Grupa ‘LEW’ S.A. (Częstochowa, Poland) (represented by: A. Korbela, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lechwerke AG (Augsburg, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark GRUPALEW. — International registration designating the European Union No 1 344 392

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 August 2021 in Case R 2763/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | annul the decision of the Opposition Division of EUIPO of 25 October 2019 which preceded the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Opposition Division of EUIPO of 25 October 2019 which preceded the contested decision;

| — | remit Notice of Opposition No B 002 956 640 of 13 September 2017, filed by Lechwerke AG, established in Augsburg (Germany), to EUIPO for review. |
| --- | --- |

—

remit Notice of Opposition No B 002 956 640 of 13 September 2017, filed by Lechwerke AG, established in Augsburg (Germany), to EUIPO for review.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 10 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625. (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 10 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625. (1)

---

(1)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 of 5 March 2018 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Union trade mark, and repealing Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430 (OJ 2018 L 104, p. 1)

---

| 13.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 502/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 502/39

---

Action brought on 19 October 2021 — Target Brands v EUIPO — The Art Company B & S (art class)

(Case T-676/21)

(2021/C 502/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Target Brands, Inc. (Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States) (represented by: R. Kunze, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: The Art Company B & S, SA (Quel, Spain)

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 art class — Application for registration No 16 888 737

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 August 2021 in Case R 1596/2019-5

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 before the Board of Appeal as well as the Opposition Division. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred before the Board of Appeal as well as the Opposition Division.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 13.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 502/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 502/40

---

Action brought on 18 October 2021 — TL v Commission

(Case T-677/21)

(2021/C 502/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: TL (represented by: L. Levi and N. Flandin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the applicant’s career development report (‘CDR’) for 2019; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the applicant’s career development report (‘CDR’) for 2019;

| — | subsidiarily, annul the CDR in so far it contains contested comments; |
| --- | --- |

—

subsidiarily, annul the CDR in so far it contains contested comments;

| — | together with, and in so far as necessary, annul the defendant’s decision of 8 July 2021 rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant against the CDR; |
| --- | --- |

—

together with, and in so far as necessary, annul the defendant’s decision of 8 July 2021 rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant against the CDR;

| — | order the compensation of the non-material damage suffered by the applicant; and |
| --- | --- |

—

order the compensation of the non-material damage suffered by the applicant; and

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that since no objectives have been fixed for 2019, the defendant could not conduct a proper and fair appraisal of the applicant’s performance in 2019. It is alleged that this lack of objectives has resulted in manifest errors of appreciation, in a breach of the duty of care and of the principle of good administration. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that since no objectives have been fixed for 2019, the defendant could not conduct a proper and fair appraisal of the applicant’s performance in 2019. It is alleged that this lack of objectives has resulted in manifest errors of appreciation, in a breach of the duty of care and of the principle of good administration.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached Article 43 of the Staff Regulations and violated its Guidance for Reporting Officers. It is also alleged that the defendant committed manifest errors of assessment and misused its powers. The applicant also alleges that the defendant breached its duty of care and its duty of good administration. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached Article 43 of the Staff Regulations and violated its Guidance for Reporting Officers. It is also alleged that the defendant committed manifest errors of assessment and misused its powers. The applicant also alleges that the defendant breached its duty of care and its duty of good administration.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached Article 292(2) TFUE in conjunction with Article 25(2) of Staff Regulations and Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached Article 292(2) TFUE in conjunction with Article 25(2) of Staff Regulations and Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

---

| 13.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 502/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 502/41

---

Action brought on 19 October 2021 — Mendes v EUIPO — Actial Farmaceutica (VSL3TOTAL)

(Case T-678/21)

(2021/C 502/61)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Mendes SA (Lugano, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Cavattoni, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Actial Farmaceutica Srl (Rome, 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 VSL3TOTAL — European Union trade mark No 11 702 172

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 August 2021 in Case R 1568/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | uphold the present action; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the present action;

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | condemn the other party in the proceedings to bear the costs and fees. |
| --- | --- |

—

condemn the other party in the proceedings to bear the costs and fees.

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.

---

| 13.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 502/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 502/41

---

Action brought on 20 October 2021 — Funline International v EUIPO (AMSTERDAM POPPERS)

(Case T-680/21)

(2021/C 502/62)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Funline International (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: V. Echevarría García, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark AMSTERDAM POPPERS — Application for registration No 18 354 314

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 August 2021 in Case R 439/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | grant the mark in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

grant the mark in its entirety;

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

—

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

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 13.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 502/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 502/42

---

Order of the General Court of 18 October 2021 — Smiths Group and Siti 1 v Commission

(Case T-714/19) (1)

(2021/C 502/63)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 10, 13.1.2020.

---

| 13.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 502/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 502/42

---

Order of the General Court of 5 October 2021 — Northgate and Northgate Europe v Commission

(Case T-719/19) (1)

(2021/C 502/64)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 19, 20.1.2020.

---

| 13.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 502/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 502/42

---

Order of the General Court of 5 October 2021 — Arris Global v Commission

(Case T-731/19) (1)

(2021/C 502/65)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 19, 20.1.2020.

---