# Official Journal C 68/2020

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 68 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 632 March 2020 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 68

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 632 March 2020

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2020/C 68/01 | Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union | 1 |
| | General Court |
| 2020/C 68/02 | Formation of Chambers and assignment of Judges to Chambers | 2 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

2020/C 68/01

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

1

General Court

2020/C 68/02

Formation of Chambers and assignment of Judges to Chambers

2

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2020/C 68/03 | Case C-236/18: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — GRDF SA v Eni Gas & Power France SA, Direct énergie, Commission de régulation de l’énergie, Procureur général at the Cour d’appel de Paris (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common rules for the internal market in natural gas — Directive 2009/73/EC — Article 41(11) — Settlement of disputes concerning the obligations imposed on a system operator — Temporal effects of decisions of the dispute settlement authority — Legal certainty — Legitimate expectations) | 7 |
| 2020/C 68/04 | Joined Cases C-355/18 to C-357/18 and C-479/18: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Salzburg, Bezirksgericht für Handelssachen Wien — Austria) — Barbara Rust-Hackner (C-355/18), Christian Gmoser (C-356/18), Bettina Plackner (C-357/18) v Nürnberger Versicherung Aktiengesellschaft Österreich and KL v UNIQA Österreich Versicherungen AG, LK v DONAU Versicherung AG Vienna Insurance Group, MJ v Allianz Elementar Lebensversicherungs-Aktiengesellschaft, NI v Allianz Elementar Lebensversicherungs-Aktiengesellschaft (C-479/18) (References for a preliminary ruling — Freedom to provide services — Direct life assurance — Directives 90/619/EEC, 92/96/EEC, 2002/83/EC and 2009/138/EC — Right of cancellation — Incorrect information concerning the detailed rules for exercising the right of cancellation — Formal requirements for the declaration of cancellation — Effects on the obligations of the assurance undertaking — Time limit — Lapse of the right of cancellation — Possibility to cancel a contract after it has been terminated — Repayment of the surrender value of the contract — Reimbursement of premiums paid — Right to remuneration interest — Limitation) | 8 |
| 2020/C 68/05 | Case C-385/18: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Arriva Italia Srl, Ferrotramviaria SpA, Consorzio Trasporti Aziende Pugliesi (CO.TRA.P) v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti (Reference for a preliminary ruling — State aid — Notion — Public railway undertaking in difficulties — Aid measures — Allocation of financial aid — Aim — Continued operation of the public railway undertaking — Allocation to and shareholding in the capital of that public undertaking — Transfer to the capital of another public undertaking — Private investor test — Prior notification obligation for new aid) | 9 |
| 2020/C 68/06 | Case C-418/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 December 2019 — Patrick Grégor Puppinck and Others v Republic of Poland, European Commission, European Parliament, Council of the European Union, European Citizens’ Initiative One of Us (Appeal — Institutional law — Citizens’ initiative One of us — Communication from the European Commission setting out its conclusions and the reasons for not taking the action requested in the citizens’ initiative) | 10 |
| 2020/C 68/07 | Joined Cases C-453/18 and C-494/18: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 December 2019 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Primera Instancia No 11 de Vigo, Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 20 de Barcelona — Spain) — Bondora AS v Carlos V.C. (Case C-453/18), XY (C-494/18) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — European order for payment procedure — Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 — Provision of additional documents to support the claim — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Directive 93/13/EEC — Review by the court seised in the context of an application for a European payment order) | 11 |
| 2020/C 68/08 | Case C-460/18 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 December 2019 — HK v European Commission, Council of the European Union (Appeal — Civil service — Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union — Article 1d — First paragraph of Article 17 of Annex VIII — Pension for the surviving spouse — Conditions for granting — Concept of surviving spouse of a Union official — Marriage and non-marital partnership — Cohabitation — Principle of non-discrimination — Comparable situation — None — Condition of duration of marriage — Combating fraud — Justification) | 11 |
| 2020/C 68/09 | Case C-465/18: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — AV, BU v Comune di Bernareggio (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of establishment — Sale of a pharmacy under a tendering procedure — National legislation — Right of pre-emption granted to employees of the pharmacy being sold) | 12 |
| 2020/C 68/10 | Case C-592/18: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 19 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven — Netherlands) — Darie BV v Staatssecretaris van Infrastructuur en Milieu (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 — Article 3(1)(a) and (c) — Concept of biocidal product — Concept of active substance — Bacterial product containing the bacterial species Bacillus ferment — Mode of action other than mere physical or mechanical action — Indirect action — Period within which effect takes place) | 13 |
| 2020/C 68/11 | Case C-677/18: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 19 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Amoena Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Headings 6212 and 9021 — Mastectomy bras — Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1167 — Validity — Notion of accessories — Sincere cooperation) | 14 |
| 2020/C 68/12 | Case C-707/18: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from Tribunalul Timiș — Romania) — Amărăști Land Investment SRL v Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Timișoara, Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Timiș (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Common system of value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Taxable transactions — Deduction of input tax — Purchase of immovable property not registered in the national land register — First-registration costs incurred by the purchaser — Recourse to specialist third companies — Participation in a supply of services or investment expenditure carried out for the purposes of an undertaking) | 14 |
| 2020/C 68/13 | Case C-290/19: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Trnave — Slovakia) — RN v Home Credit Slovakia a.s. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 2008/48/EC — Consumer credit agreements — Article 10(2) — Information to be included in credit agreements — Annual percentage rate of charge — Lack of indication of the exact percentage of that rate of charge — Rate of charge expressed as a range between 21.5% and 22.4%) | 15 |
| 2020/C 68/14 | Case C-502/19: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 December 2019 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Criminal proceedings against Oriol Junqueras Vies (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Expedited procedure — Institutional law — Citizen of the European Union elected to the European Parliament while being held in provisional detention in the context of criminal proceedings — Article 14 TEU — Concept of Member of the European Parliament — Article 343 TFEU — Immunities necessary for the performance of the tasks of the European Union — Protocol (No 7) on the privileges and immunities of the European Union — Article 9 — Immunities enjoyed by Members of the European Parliament — Immunity as regards travel — Immunities as regards sessions — Personal, temporal and material scope of the various immunities — Waiver of immunity by the European Parliament — Request to waive immunity from a national court — Act concerning the election of Members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage — Article 5 — Term of office — Article 8 — Electoral procedure — Article 12 — Verification of the credentials of Members of the European Parliament following the official declaration of the election results — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 39(2) — Election of Members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage in a free and secret ballot — Right to stand as a candidate at elections) | 16 |
| 2020/C 68/15 | Case C-181/18 P: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 December 2019 — Republic of Poland v PGNiG Supply & Trading GmbH, European Commission (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Action for annulment — Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU Article 263 — Admissibility — Decision which is of neither direct nor individual concern to the appellant — Regulatory act — Absence — Article 130 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court — Assessment of the pleas on the substance — Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Right to effective judicial protection and to a fair trial — Principle of audi alteram partem — Appeal manifestly inadmissible) | 17 |
| 2020/C 68/16 | Case C-362/18: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 18 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Székesfehérvári Törvényszék — Hungary) — Hochtief AG v Fővárosi Törvényszék (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Review procedures — Directive 89/665/EEC — Directive 92/13/EEC — Right to effective judicial protection — Principles of effectiveness and equivalence — Action for review of judicial decisions in breach of EU law — Liability of the Member States in the event of infringement of EU law by national courts or tribunals — Assessment of damage eligible for compensation) | 18 |
| 2020/C 68/17 | Case C-431/18: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial Sección No 4 de Zaragoza — Spain) — María Pilar Bueno Ruiz and Zurich Insurance PL, Sucursal de España v Irene Conte Sánchez (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles — Directive 2009/103/EC — First paragraph of Article 3 — Concept of use of vehicles — Leaks of oil and other liquids from a motor vehicle — Damages) | 19 |
| 2020/C 68/18 | Case C-568/18 P: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 17 December 2019 — Rogesa Roheisengesellschaft Saar mbH v European Commission (Appeal — Access to documents of the institutions — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Article 4(2), first indent — Exceptions to the right of access — Protection of commercial interests of a natural or legal person — Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 — Article 6(1) — Application of the exceptions concerning requests for access to environmental information — Documents drawn up by the European Commission under the scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading — Refusal of access — Subsequent transmission of the documents requested — Article 149 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — No further interest in bringing proceedings — No need to adjudicate) | 19 |
| 2020/C 68/19 | Case C-618/18: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 17 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di pace di L’Aquila (Italy) — Gabriele Di Girolamo v Ministero della Giustizia (Request for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Fixed-term employment — ETUC-UNICE-CEEP — Definition of a fixed-term worker — Giudice di Pace — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Manifest inadmissibility) | 20 |
| 2020/C 68/20 | Case C-645/18: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark — Austria) — NE v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Hartberg-Fürstenfeld (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Freedom to provide services — Posting of workers — Article 56 TFEU — Directive 2014/67/EU — Articles 9 and 20 — Reporting of workers — Retention of records of wages — Penalties — Proportionality — Fines of a predefined minimum amount — Cumulative — No upper limit — Court fees) | 21 |
| 2020/C 68/21 | Case C-741/18 P: Order of the Court of 19 December 2019 — OPS Újpesti Csökkentmunkaképességűek Ipari és Kereskemeldi Ktf. (OPS Újpest Kft.) v European Commission (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — State Aid — Aid implemented by Hungary in favour of undertakings employing disabled workers — Action for annulment — Alleged decisions not to raise objections — Deadline for lodging an appeal — Starting point — Awareness of the existence of the contested measure — Request for translation of the contested measure — Reasonable time — Out of time — Inadmissibility of the action at first instance — Assessment of the facts — Appeal, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded) | 22 |
| 2020/C 68/22 | Case C-747/18 P: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 December 2019 — Lux-Rehab Foglalkoztató Non-Profit Kft. (Lux-Rehab Non-Profit Kft.) v European Commission (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — State aid — Aid implemented by Hungary in favour of companies employing disabled workers — Action for annulment — Alleged decisions not to raise objections — Lack of locus standi — Person not individually concerned — Action not brought in order to safeguard procedural rights — Inadmissibility of the action at first instance — Appeal manifestly unfounded) | 22 |
| 2020/C 68/23 | Case C-748/18 P: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 December 2019 — Motex Ipari és Szolgáltató Rehabilitációs Kft. (Motex Kft.) v European Commission (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — State aid — Aid implemented by Hungary in favour of companies employing disabled workers — Action for annulment — Alleged decisions not to raise objections — Lack of standing — Person not individually concerned — Action not brought in order to safeguard procedural rights — Inadmissibility of the action at first instance — Appeal manifestly unfounded) | 23 |
| 2020/C 68/24 | Case C-757/18 P: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 December 2019 — M-Sansz Kereskedelmi, Termelő és Szolgáltató Kft. (M-Sansz Kft.) v European Commission (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — State aid — Aid implemented by Hungary in favour of companies employing disabled workers — Action for annulment — Alleged decisions not to raise objections — Lack of locus standi — Person not individually concerned — Action not brought in order to safeguard procedural rights — Inadmissibility of the action at first instance — Appeal manifestly unfounded) | 24 |
| 2020/C 68/25 | Joined Cases C-123/19 P and C-125/19 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 December 2019 — Vans, Inc. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Deichmann SE (Appeal — EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the opposition — Appeals which have become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate — Costs) | 24 |
| 2020/C 68/26 | Joined Cases C-140/19, C-141/19 and C-492/19 to C-494/19: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 December 2019 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark — Austria) — EX EX (C-140/19 and C-141/19), OK (C-492/19), PL (C-493/19), QM (C-494/19) v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Hartberg-Fürstenfeld (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) and Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Freedom to provide services — Posting of workers — Article 56 TFEU — Directive 2014/67/EU — Articles 9 and 20 — Reporting of workers — Retention of records of wages — Penalties — Proportionality — Fines of a predefined minimum amount — Cumulative — No upper limit — Court fees — Manifest inadmissibility) | 25 |
| 2020/C 68/27 | Case C-200/19: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 November 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Trgovački sud u Zagrebu — Croatia) — INA-INDUSTRIJA NAFTE d.d. and Others v LJUBLJANSKA BANKA d.d. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Article 7(1)(a) — Special jurisdiction in matters relating to a contract — Concept of matters relating to a contract — Financial obligations imposed by national law on the co-owners of a building — Legal action seeking enforcement of those obligations) | 26 |
| 2020/C 68/28 | Case C-465/19: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Straubing — Germany) — B & L Elektrogeräte GmbH v GC (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 2011/83/EU — Article 2(8)(c) and (9) — Off-premises contract — Concept of business premises — Contract entered into at a stand at a trade fair immediately after the consumer, who was in a common area of the fair, had been solicited by the trader) | 27 |
| 2020/C 68/29 | Case C-483/19: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 11 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Liège — Belgium) — Ville de Verviers v J (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Social policy — Directive 1999/70/EC — Framework Agreement, concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP regarding fixed-term work — Clause 2 — Scope of the Framework Agreement — Possibility for Member States to exclude initial vocational training relationships and apprenticeship schemes and employment contracts and relationships which have been concluded within the framework of a specific public or publicly supported training, integration and vocational retraining programme — Consequences) | 27 |
| 2020/C 68/30 | Case C-845/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Apelativen sad Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 19 November 2019 — Criminal proceedings against DR | 28 |
| 2020/C 68/31 | Case C-850/19 P: Appeal brought on 21 November 2019 by FVE Holýšov I s. r. o. and Others against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 20 September 2019 in Case T-217/17, FVE Holýšov I s. r. o. and Others v Commission | 29 |
| 2020/C 68/32 | Case C-851/19 P: Appeal brought on 19 November 2019 by DK against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 10 September 2019 in Case T-217/18 DK v EEAS | 30 |
| 2020/C 68/33 | Case C-852/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 21 November 2019 — Criminal proceedings against Ivan Gavanozov | 31 |
| 2020/C 68/34 | Case C-863/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Apelativen sad Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 26 November 2019 — Criminal proceedings against TS | 32 |
| 2020/C 68/35 | Case C-864/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 26 November 2019 — NH v Deutsche Lufthansa AG | 32 |
| 2020/C 68/36 | Case C-881/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud v Brně (Czech Republic) lodged on 4 December 2019 — Tesco Stores ČR a.s. v Ministerstvo zemědělství | 33 |
| 2020/C 68/37 | Case C-928/19 P: Appeal brought on 19 December 2019 by European Federation of Public Service Unions (EPSU) against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 24 October 2019 in Case T-310/18, EPSU and Goudriaan v Commission | 34 |
| 2020/C 68/38 | Case C-941/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud v Ostravě (Czech Republic) lodged on 27 December 2019 — Samohýl group a. s. v Generální ředitelství cel | 36 |
| 2020/C 68/39 | Case C-946/19: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) made on 27 December 2019 – MG v HH | 36 |
| 2020/C 68/40 | Case C-2/20: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Queen's Bench Division) (United Kingdom) made on 6 January 2020 – Daimler AG v Walleniusrederierna Aktiebolag, Wallenius Wilhelmsen ASA, Wallenius Logistics AB, Wilhelmsen Ships Holding Malta Limited, Wallenius Wilhelmsen Ocean AS, K Line Holding (Europe) Limited, K Line Europe Limited, Nyk Group Europe Limited, Compañia Sudamericana de Vapores SA | 37 |
| 2020/C 68/41 | Case C-11/20: Action brought on 10 January 2020 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic | 38 |
| 2020/C 68/42 | Case C-369/18: Order of the President of the Court of 2 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Justice de paix du troisième canton de Charleroi — Belgium) — Giovanni Martina v Ryanair DAC, formerly Ryanair Ltd | 38 |
| 2020/C 68/43 | Case C-495/18: Order of the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of 1 October 2019 — (request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky — Slovakia) — Criminal proceedings against YX | 39 |
| 2020/C 68/44 | Case C-517/18: Order of the President of the Ninth Chamber of the Court of 17 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Fédération des fabricants de cigares v Premier ministre, Ministre des Solidarités et de la Santé | 39 |
| 2020/C 68/45 | Case C-738/18 P: Order of the President of the Court of 19 September 2019 — Duferco Long Products SA v European Commission | 39 |
| 2020/C 68/46 | Case C-60/19 P: Order of the President of the Ninth Chamber of the Court of 25 September 2019 — Mouvement pour une Europe des nations et des libertés v European Parliament | 40 |
| 2020/C 68/47 | Case C-240/19: Order of the President of the Court of 19 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo no2 de Ourense — Spain) — FA v Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS) | 40 |
| 2020/C 68/48 | Case C-277/19: Order of the President of the Sixth Chamber of the Court of 26 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Općinski sud u Zadru — Croatia) — R. D., A. D. v Raiffeisenbank St. Stefan-Jagerberg-Wolfsberg eGen | 40 |
| 2020/C 68/49 | Case C-414/19: Order of the President of the Court of 13 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Erding — Germany) — E. M., M. S. v Eurowings GmbH | 41 |
| | General Court |
| 2020/C 68/50 | Case T-257/18: Judgment of the General Court of 16 January 2020 — Iberpotash v Commission (State aid — Mining sector — Measure consisting (i) in the reduction of financial guarantees for the restoration of mining sites and (ii) in State investment for the restoration of mining sites ensuring a higher level of environmental protection — Decision declaring aid partly incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Concept of aid — Advantage — Transfer of State resources — Selective nature — Legitimate expectations — Legal certainty — Calculation of the amount of the aid) | 42 |
| 2020/C 68/51 | Case T-753/19: Action brought on 7 November 2019 — Ungureanu v Commission | 42 |
| 2020/C 68/52 | Case T-850/19: Action brought on 13 December 2019 — Hellenic Republic v Commission | 43 |
| 2020/C 68/53 | Case T-852/19: Action brought on 16 December 2019 – Albéa Services v EUIPO – dm-drogerie markt (ALBÉA) | 44 |
| 2020/C 68/54 | Case T-866/19: Action brought on 19 December 2019 – Ryanair and Laudamotion v Commission | 45 |
| 2020/C 68/55 | Case T-867/19: Action brought on 20 December 2019 — RA v Court of Auditors | 46 |
| 2020/C 68/56 | Case T-868/19: Action brought on 20 December 2019 – Nouryon Industrial Chemicals and Others v Commission | 47 |
| 2020/C 68/57 | Case T-872/19: Action brought on 22 December 2019 — IM v EIB | 48 |
| 2020/C 68/58 | Case T-880/19: Action brought on 31 December 2019 — UW v Commission | 49 |
| 2020/C 68/59 | Case T-882/19: Action brought on 27 December 2019 — Kerangus v EUIPO (ΑΠΛΑ) | 50 |
| 2020/C 68/60 | Case T-883/19: Action brought on 27 December 2019 – Gustopharma Consumer Health v EUIPO – Helixor Heilmittel (HELIX ELIXIR) | 51 |
| 2020/C 68/61 | Case T-885/19: Action brought on 25 December 2019 – Aquind and Others v Commission | 52 |
| 2020/C 68/62 | Case T-1/20: Action brought on 2 January 2020 – M. I. Industries v EUIPO – Natural Instinct (INSTINCT) | 54 |
| 2020/C 68/63 | Case T-2/20: Action brought on 3 January 2020 – Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO – Bio-tec Biologische Naturverpackungen (BIOPLAST BIOPLASTICS FOR A BETTER LIFE) | 55 |
| 2020/C 68/64 | Case T-5/20: Action brought on 6 January 2020 — CP v Parliament | 56 |
| 2020/C 68/65 | Case T-6/20: Action brought on 8 January 2020 — Dr. Spiller v EUIPO — Rausch (Alpenrausch Dr. Spiller) | 57 |
| 2020/C 68/66 | Case T-10/20: Action brought on 8 January 2020 — Italy v Commission | 58 |
| 2020/C 68/67 | Case T-11/20: Action brought on 9 January 2020 — Paravan v EUIPO — paragon (Paragon) | 59 |
| 2020/C 68/68 | Case T-12/20: Action brought on 9 January 2020 — Schneider v EUIPO — Frutaria Comercial de Frutas y Hortalizas (Frutaria.) | 60 |
| 2020/C 68/69 | Case T-17/20: Action brought on 11 January 2020 – adp Gauselmann v EUIPO – Gameloft (GAMELAND) | 61 |
| 2020/C 68/70 | Case T-19/20: Action brought on 13 January 2020 — sprd.net v EUIPO — Shirtlabor (I love) | 62 |
| 2020/C 68/71 | Case T-21/20: Action brought on 14 January 2020 – LG Electronics v EUIPO – Staszewski (K7) | 63 |
| 2020/C 68/72 | Case T-22/20: Action brought on 13 January 2020 — IB v EUIPO | 64 |
| 2020/C 68/73 | Case T-23/20: Action brought on 15 January 2020 — FF IP v EUIPO — Seven (the DoubleF) | 65 |
| 2020/C 68/74 | Case T-24/20: Action brought on 17 January 2020 — Junqueras i Vies v Parliament | 66 |
| 2020/C 68/75 | Case T-25/20: Action brought on 17 January 2020 – Deutsche Post v EUIPO – Pošta Slovenije (Representation of a device of a horn) | 67 |
| 2020/C 68/76 | Case T-26/20: Action brought on 16 January 2020 – Forex Bank v EUIPO – Coino UK (FOREX) | 68 |
| 2020/C 68/77 | Case T-30/20: Action brought on 20 January 2020 – Promed v EUIPO – Centrumelektroniki (Promed) | 69 |
| 2020/C 68/78 | Case T-35/20: Action brought on 20 January 2020 – Monster Energy v EUIPO – Nanjing aisiyou Clothing (Device of a claw-like scratch) | 70 |
| 2020/C 68/79 | Case T-734/18: Order of the General Court of 18 December 2019 — Sumitomo Chemical and Tenka Best v Commission | 71 |
| 2020/C 68/80 | Case T-163/19: Order of the General Court of 23 December 2019 — Mersinis v ESMA | 71 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2020/C 68/03

Case C-236/18: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — GRDF SA v Eni Gas & Power France SA, Direct énergie, Commission de régulation de l’énergie, Procureur général at the Cour d’appel de Paris (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common rules for the internal market in natural gas — Directive 2009/73/EC — Article 41(11) — Settlement of disputes concerning the obligations imposed on a system operator — Temporal effects of decisions of the dispute settlement authority — Legal certainty — Legitimate expectations)

7

2020/C 68/04

Joined Cases C-355/18 to C-357/18 and C-479/18: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Salzburg, Bezirksgericht für Handelssachen Wien — Austria) — Barbara Rust-Hackner (C-355/18), Christian Gmoser (C-356/18), Bettina Plackner (C-357/18) v Nürnberger Versicherung Aktiengesellschaft Österreich and KL v UNIQA Österreich Versicherungen AG, LK v DONAU Versicherung AG Vienna Insurance Group, MJ v Allianz Elementar Lebensversicherungs-Aktiengesellschaft, NI v Allianz Elementar Lebensversicherungs-Aktiengesellschaft (C-479/18) (References for a preliminary ruling — Freedom to provide services — Direct life assurance — Directives 90/619/EEC, 92/96/EEC, 2002/83/EC and 2009/138/EC — Right of cancellation — Incorrect information concerning the detailed rules for exercising the right of cancellation — Formal requirements for the declaration of cancellation — Effects on the obligations of the assurance undertaking — Time limit — Lapse of the right of cancellation — Possibility to cancel a contract after it has been terminated — Repayment of the surrender value of the contract — Reimbursement of premiums paid — Right to remuneration interest — Limitation)

8

2020/C 68/05

Case C-385/18: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Arriva Italia Srl, Ferrotramviaria SpA, Consorzio Trasporti Aziende Pugliesi (CO.TRA.P) v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti (Reference for a preliminary ruling — State aid — Notion — Public railway undertaking in difficulties — Aid measures — Allocation of financial aid — Aim — Continued operation of the public railway undertaking — Allocation to and shareholding in the capital of that public undertaking — Transfer to the capital of another public undertaking — Private investor test — Prior notification obligation for new aid)

9

2020/C 68/06

Case C-418/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 December 2019 — Patrick Grégor Puppinck and Others v Republic of Poland, European Commission, European Parliament, Council of the European Union, European Citizens’ Initiative One of Us (Appeal — Institutional law — Citizens’ initiative One of us — Communication from the European Commission setting out its conclusions and the reasons for not taking the action requested in the citizens’ initiative)

10

2020/C 68/07

Joined Cases C-453/18 and C-494/18: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 December 2019 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Primera Instancia No 11 de Vigo, Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 20 de Barcelona — Spain) — Bondora AS v Carlos V.C. (Case C-453/18), XY (C-494/18) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — European order for payment procedure — Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 — Provision of additional documents to support the claim — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Directive 93/13/EEC — Review by the court seised in the context of an application for a European payment order)

11

2020/C 68/08

Case C-460/18 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 December 2019 — HK v European Commission, Council of the European Union (Appeal — Civil service — Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union — Article 1d — First paragraph of Article 17 of Annex VIII — Pension for the surviving spouse — Conditions for granting — Concept of surviving spouse of a Union official — Marriage and non-marital partnership — Cohabitation — Principle of non-discrimination — Comparable situation — None — Condition of duration of marriage — Combating fraud — Justification)

11

2020/C 68/09

Case C-465/18: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — AV, BU v Comune di Bernareggio (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of establishment — Sale of a pharmacy under a tendering procedure — National legislation — Right of pre-emption granted to employees of the pharmacy being sold)

12

2020/C 68/10

Case C-592/18: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 19 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven — Netherlands) — Darie BV v Staatssecretaris van Infrastructuur en Milieu (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 — Article 3(1)(a) and (c) — Concept of biocidal product — Concept of active substance — Bacterial product containing the bacterial species Bacillus ferment — Mode of action other than mere physical or mechanical action — Indirect action — Period within which effect takes place)

13

2020/C 68/11

Case C-677/18: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 19 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Amoena Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Headings 6212 and 9021 — Mastectomy bras — Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1167 — Validity — Notion of accessories — Sincere cooperation)

14

2020/C 68/12

Case C-707/18: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from Tribunalul Timiș — Romania) — Amărăști Land Investment SRL v Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Timișoara, Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Timiș (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Common system of value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Taxable transactions — Deduction of input tax — Purchase of immovable property not registered in the national land register — First-registration costs incurred by the purchaser — Recourse to specialist third companies — Participation in a supply of services or investment expenditure carried out for the purposes of an undertaking)

14

2020/C 68/13

Case C-290/19: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Trnave — Slovakia) — RN v Home Credit Slovakia a.s. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 2008/48/EC — Consumer credit agreements — Article 10(2) — Information to be included in credit agreements — Annual percentage rate of charge — Lack of indication of the exact percentage of that rate of charge — Rate of charge expressed as a range between 21.5% and 22.4%)

15

2020/C 68/14

Case C-502/19: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 December 2019 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Criminal proceedings against Oriol Junqueras Vies (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Expedited procedure — Institutional law — Citizen of the European Union elected to the European Parliament while being held in provisional detention in the context of criminal proceedings — Article 14 TEU — Concept of Member of the European Parliament — Article 343 TFEU — Immunities necessary for the performance of the tasks of the European Union — Protocol (No 7) on the privileges and immunities of the European Union — Article 9 — Immunities enjoyed by Members of the European Parliament — Immunity as regards travel — Immunities as regards sessions — Personal, temporal and material scope of the various immunities — Waiver of immunity by the European Parliament — Request to waive immunity from a national court — Act concerning the election of Members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage — Article 5 — Term of office — Article 8 — Electoral procedure — Article 12 — Verification of the credentials of Members of the European Parliament following the official declaration of the election results — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 39(2) — Election of Members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage in a free and secret ballot — Right to stand as a candidate at elections)

16

2020/C 68/15

Case C-181/18 P: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 December 2019 — Republic of Poland v PGNiG Supply & Trading GmbH, European Commission (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Action for annulment — Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU Article 263 — Admissibility — Decision which is of neither direct nor individual concern to the appellant — Regulatory act — Absence — Article 130 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court — Assessment of the pleas on the substance — Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Right to effective judicial protection and to a fair trial — Principle of audi alteram partem — Appeal manifestly inadmissible)

17

2020/C 68/16

Case C-362/18: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 18 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Székesfehérvári Törvényszék — Hungary) — Hochtief AG v Fővárosi Törvényszék (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Review procedures — Directive 89/665/EEC — Directive 92/13/EEC — Right to effective judicial protection — Principles of effectiveness and equivalence — Action for review of judicial decisions in breach of EU law — Liability of the Member States in the event of infringement of EU law by national courts or tribunals — Assessment of damage eligible for compensation)

18

2020/C 68/17

Case C-431/18: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial Sección No 4 de Zaragoza — Spain) — María Pilar Bueno Ruiz and Zurich Insurance PL, Sucursal de España v Irene Conte Sánchez (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles — Directive 2009/103/EC — First paragraph of Article 3 — Concept of use of vehicles — Leaks of oil and other liquids from a motor vehicle — Damages)

19

2020/C 68/18

Case C-568/18 P: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 17 December 2019 — Rogesa Roheisengesellschaft Saar mbH v European Commission (Appeal — Access to documents of the institutions — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Article 4(2), first indent — Exceptions to the right of access — Protection of commercial interests of a natural or legal person — Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 — Article 6(1) — Application of the exceptions concerning requests for access to environmental information — Documents drawn up by the European Commission under the scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading — Refusal of access — Subsequent transmission of the documents requested — Article 149 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — No further interest in bringing proceedings — No need to adjudicate)

19

2020/C 68/19

Case C-618/18: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 17 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di pace di L’Aquila (Italy) — Gabriele Di Girolamo v Ministero della Giustizia (Request for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Fixed-term employment — ETUC-UNICE-CEEP — Definition of a fixed-term worker — Giudice di Pace — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Manifest inadmissibility)

20

2020/C 68/20

Case C-645/18: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark — Austria) — NE v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Hartberg-Fürstenfeld (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Freedom to provide services — Posting of workers — Article 56 TFEU — Directive 2014/67/EU — Articles 9 and 20 — Reporting of workers — Retention of records of wages — Penalties — Proportionality — Fines of a predefined minimum amount — Cumulative — No upper limit — Court fees)

21

2020/C 68/21

Case C-741/18 P: Order of the Court of 19 December 2019 — OPS Újpesti Csökkentmunkaképességűek Ipari és Kereskemeldi Ktf. (OPS Újpest Kft.) v European Commission (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — State Aid — Aid implemented by Hungary in favour of undertakings employing disabled workers — Action for annulment — Alleged decisions not to raise objections — Deadline for lodging an appeal — Starting point — Awareness of the existence of the contested measure — Request for translation of the contested measure — Reasonable time — Out of time — Inadmissibility of the action at first instance — Assessment of the facts — Appeal, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded)

22

2020/C 68/22

Case C-747/18 P: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 December 2019 — Lux-Rehab Foglalkoztató Non-Profit Kft. (Lux-Rehab Non-Profit Kft.) v European Commission (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — State aid — Aid implemented by Hungary in favour of companies employing disabled workers — Action for annulment — Alleged decisions not to raise objections — Lack of locus standi — Person not individually concerned — Action not brought in order to safeguard procedural rights — Inadmissibility of the action at first instance — Appeal manifestly unfounded)

22

2020/C 68/23

Case C-748/18 P: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 December 2019 — Motex Ipari és Szolgáltató Rehabilitációs Kft. (Motex Kft.) v European Commission (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — State aid — Aid implemented by Hungary in favour of companies employing disabled workers — Action for annulment — Alleged decisions not to raise objections — Lack of standing — Person not individually concerned — Action not brought in order to safeguard procedural rights — Inadmissibility of the action at first instance — Appeal manifestly unfounded)

23

2020/C 68/24

Case C-757/18 P: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 December 2019 — M-Sansz Kereskedelmi, Termelő és Szolgáltató Kft. (M-Sansz Kft.) v European Commission (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — State aid — Aid implemented by Hungary in favour of companies employing disabled workers — Action for annulment — Alleged decisions not to raise objections — Lack of locus standi — Person not individually concerned — Action not brought in order to safeguard procedural rights — Inadmissibility of the action at first instance — Appeal manifestly unfounded)

24

2020/C 68/25

Joined Cases C-123/19 P and C-125/19 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 December 2019 — Vans, Inc. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Deichmann SE (Appeal — EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the opposition — Appeals which have become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate — Costs)

24

2020/C 68/26

Joined Cases C-140/19, C-141/19 and C-492/19 to C-494/19: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 December 2019 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark — Austria) — EX EX (C-140/19 and C-141/19), OK (C-492/19), PL (C-493/19), QM (C-494/19) v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Hartberg-Fürstenfeld (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) and Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Freedom to provide services — Posting of workers — Article 56 TFEU — Directive 2014/67/EU — Articles 9 and 20 — Reporting of workers — Retention of records of wages — Penalties — Proportionality — Fines of a predefined minimum amount — Cumulative — No upper limit — Court fees — Manifest inadmissibility)

25

2020/C 68/27

Case C-200/19: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 November 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Trgovački sud u Zagrebu — Croatia) — INA-INDUSTRIJA NAFTE d.d. and Others v LJUBLJANSKA BANKA d.d. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Article 7(1)(a) — Special jurisdiction in matters relating to a contract — Concept of matters relating to a contract — Financial obligations imposed by national law on the co-owners of a building — Legal action seeking enforcement of those obligations)

26

2020/C 68/28

Case C-465/19: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Straubing — Germany) — B & L Elektrogeräte GmbH v GC (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 2011/83/EU — Article 2(8)(c) and (9) — Off-premises contract — Concept of business premises — Contract entered into at a stand at a trade fair immediately after the consumer, who was in a common area of the fair, had been solicited by the trader)

27

2020/C 68/29

Case C-483/19: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 11 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Liège — Belgium) — Ville de Verviers v J (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Social policy — Directive 1999/70/EC — Framework Agreement, concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP regarding fixed-term work — Clause 2 — Scope of the Framework Agreement — Possibility for Member States to exclude initial vocational training relationships and apprenticeship schemes and employment contracts and relationships which have been concluded within the framework of a specific public or publicly supported training, integration and vocational retraining programme — Consequences)

27

2020/C 68/30

Case C-845/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Apelativen sad Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 19 November 2019 — Criminal proceedings against DR

28

2020/C 68/31

Case C-850/19 P: Appeal brought on 21 November 2019 by FVE Holýšov I s. r. o. and Others against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 20 September 2019 in Case T-217/17, FVE Holýšov I s. r. o. and Others v Commission

29

2020/C 68/32

Case C-851/19 P: Appeal brought on 19 November 2019 by DK against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 10 September 2019 in Case T-217/18 DK v EEAS

30

2020/C 68/33

Case C-852/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 21 November 2019 — Criminal proceedings against Ivan Gavanozov

31

2020/C 68/34

Case C-863/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Apelativen sad Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 26 November 2019 — Criminal proceedings against TS

32

2020/C 68/35

Case C-864/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 26 November 2019 — NH v Deutsche Lufthansa AG

32

2020/C 68/36

Case C-881/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud v Brně (Czech Republic) lodged on 4 December 2019 — Tesco Stores ČR a.s. v Ministerstvo zemědělství

33

2020/C 68/37

Case C-928/19 P: Appeal brought on 19 December 2019 by European Federation of Public Service Unions (EPSU) against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 24 October 2019 in Case T-310/18, EPSU and Goudriaan v Commission

34

2020/C 68/38

Case C-941/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud v Ostravě (Czech Republic) lodged on 27 December 2019 — Samohýl group a. s. v Generální ředitelství cel

36

2020/C 68/39

Case C-946/19: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) made on 27 December 2019 – MG v HH

36

2020/C 68/40

Case C-2/20: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Queen's Bench Division) (United Kingdom) made on 6 January 2020 – Daimler AG v Walleniusrederierna Aktiebolag, Wallenius Wilhelmsen ASA, Wallenius Logistics AB, Wilhelmsen Ships Holding Malta Limited, Wallenius Wilhelmsen Ocean AS, K Line Holding (Europe) Limited, K Line Europe Limited, Nyk Group Europe Limited, Compañia Sudamericana de Vapores SA

37

2020/C 68/41

Case C-11/20: Action brought on 10 January 2020 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

38

2020/C 68/42

Case C-369/18: Order of the President of the Court of 2 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Justice de paix du troisième canton de Charleroi — Belgium) — Giovanni Martina v Ryanair DAC, formerly Ryanair Ltd

38

2020/C 68/43

Case C-495/18: Order of the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of 1 October 2019 — (request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky — Slovakia) — Criminal proceedings against YX

39

2020/C 68/44

Case C-517/18: Order of the President of the Ninth Chamber of the Court of 17 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Fédération des fabricants de cigares v Premier ministre, Ministre des Solidarités et de la Santé

39

2020/C 68/45

Case C-738/18 P: Order of the President of the Court of 19 September 2019 — Duferco Long Products SA v European Commission

39

2020/C 68/46

Case C-60/19 P: Order of the President of the Ninth Chamber of the Court of 25 September 2019 — Mouvement pour une Europe des nations et des libertés v European Parliament

40

2020/C 68/47

Case C-240/19: Order of the President of the Court of 19 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo no2 de Ourense — Spain) — FA v Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS)

40

2020/C 68/48

Case C-277/19: Order of the President of the Sixth Chamber of the Court of 26 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Općinski sud u Zadru — Croatia) — R. D., A. D. v Raiffeisenbank St. Stefan-Jagerberg-Wolfsberg eGen

40

2020/C 68/49

Case C-414/19: Order of the President of the Court of 13 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Erding — Germany) — E. M., M. S. v Eurowings GmbH

41

General Court

2020/C 68/50

Case T-257/18: Judgment of the General Court of 16 January 2020 — Iberpotash v Commission (State aid — Mining sector — Measure consisting (i) in the reduction of financial guarantees for the restoration of mining sites and (ii) in State investment for the restoration of mining sites ensuring a higher level of environmental protection — Decision declaring aid partly incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Concept of aid — Advantage — Transfer of State resources — Selective nature — Legitimate expectations — Legal certainty — Calculation of the amount of the aid)

42

2020/C 68/51

Case T-753/19: Action brought on 7 November 2019 — Ungureanu v Commission

42

2020/C 68/52

Case T-850/19: Action brought on 13 December 2019 — Hellenic Republic v Commission

43

2020/C 68/53

Case T-852/19: Action brought on 16 December 2019 – Albéa Services v EUIPO – dm-drogerie markt (ALBÉA)

44

2020/C 68/54

Case T-866/19: Action brought on 19 December 2019 – Ryanair and Laudamotion v Commission

45

2020/C 68/55

Case T-867/19: Action brought on 20 December 2019 — RA v Court of Auditors

46

2020/C 68/56

Case T-868/19: Action brought on 20 December 2019 – Nouryon Industrial Chemicals and Others v Commission

47

2020/C 68/57

Case T-872/19: Action brought on 22 December 2019 — IM v EIB

48

2020/C 68/58

Case T-880/19: Action brought on 31 December 2019 — UW v Commission

49

2020/C 68/59

Case T-882/19: Action brought on 27 December 2019 — Kerangus v EUIPO (ΑΠΛΑ)

50

2020/C 68/60

Case T-883/19: Action brought on 27 December 2019 – Gustopharma Consumer Health v EUIPO – Helixor Heilmittel (HELIX ELIXIR)

51

2020/C 68/61

Case T-885/19: Action brought on 25 December 2019 – Aquind and Others v Commission

52

2020/C 68/62

Case T-1/20: Action brought on 2 January 2020 – M. I. Industries v EUIPO – Natural Instinct (INSTINCT)

54

2020/C 68/63

Case T-2/20: Action brought on 3 January 2020 – Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO – Bio-tec Biologische Naturverpackungen (BIOPLAST BIOPLASTICS FOR A BETTER LIFE)

55

2020/C 68/64

Case T-5/20: Action brought on 6 January 2020 — CP v Parliament

56

2020/C 68/65

Case T-6/20: Action brought on 8 January 2020 — Dr. Spiller v EUIPO — Rausch (Alpenrausch Dr. Spiller)

57

2020/C 68/66

Case T-10/20: Action brought on 8 January 2020 — Italy v Commission

58

2020/C 68/67

Case T-11/20: Action brought on 9 January 2020 — Paravan v EUIPO — paragon (Paragon)

59

2020/C 68/68

Case T-12/20: Action brought on 9 January 2020 — Schneider v EUIPO — Frutaria Comercial de Frutas y Hortalizas (Frutaria.)

60

2020/C 68/69

Case T-17/20: Action brought on 11 January 2020 – adp Gauselmann v EUIPO – Gameloft (GAMELAND)

61

2020/C 68/70

Case T-19/20: Action brought on 13 January 2020 — sprd.net v EUIPO — Shirtlabor (I love)

62

2020/C 68/71

Case T-21/20: Action brought on 14 January 2020 – LG Electronics v EUIPO – Staszewski (K7)

63

2020/C 68/72

Case T-22/20: Action brought on 13 January 2020 — IB v EUIPO

64

2020/C 68/73

Case T-23/20: Action brought on 15 January 2020 — FF IP v EUIPO — Seven (the DoubleF)

65

2020/C 68/74

Case T-24/20: Action brought on 17 January 2020 — Junqueras i Vies v Parliament

66

2020/C 68/75

Case T-25/20: Action brought on 17 January 2020 – Deutsche Post v EUIPO – Pošta Slovenije (Representation of a device of a horn)

67

2020/C 68/76

Case T-26/20: Action brought on 16 January 2020 – Forex Bank v EUIPO – Coino UK (FOREX)

68

2020/C 68/77

Case T-30/20: Action brought on 20 January 2020 – Promed v EUIPO – Centrumelektroniki (Promed)

69

2020/C 68/78

Case T-35/20: Action brought on 20 January 2020 – Monster Energy v EUIPO – Nanjing aisiyou Clothing (Device of a claw-like scratch)

70

2020/C 68/79

Case T-734/18: Order of the General Court of 18 December 2019 — Sumitomo Chemical and Tenka Best v Commission

71

2020/C 68/80

Case T-163/19: Order of the General Court of 23 December 2019 — Mersinis v ESMA

71

---

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/1

---

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

(2020/C 68/01)

Last publication

OJ C 61, 24.2.2020

Past publications

OJ C 54, 17.2.2020

OJ C 45, 10.2.2020

OJ C 36, 3.2.2020

OJ C 27, 27.1.2020

OJ C 19, 20.1.2020

OJ C 10, 13.1.2020

These texts are available on:

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

---

General Court

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/2

---

Formation of Chambers and assignment of Judges to Chambers

(2020/C 68/02)

On 3 February 2020, the General Court, composed of 51 Judges, decided, following Mr Forrester’s departure from office, on a proposal from the President submitted pursuant to Article 13(2) of the Rules of Procedure, to amend the decision on the formation of Chambers of 30 September 2019 (1) and the decision on the assignment of Judges to Chambers of 4 October 2019 (2) in respect of the period from 3 February 2020 to 31 August 2022 and to assign the Judges to Chambers as follows:

First Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

Mr Kanninen, President of the Chamber, Mr Jaeger, Ms Półtorak, Ms Porchia and Ms Stancu, Judges.

First Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

Mr Kanninen, President of the Chamber;

Formation A: Mr Jaeger and Ms Półtorak, Judges;

Formation B: Mr Jaeger and Ms Porchia, Judges;

Formation C: Mr Jaeger and Ms Stancu, Judges;

Formation D: Ms Półtorak and Ms Porchia, Judges;

Formation E: Ms Półtorak and Ms Stancu, Judges;

Formation F: Ms Porchia and Ms Stancu, Judges.

Second Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

Ms Tomljenović, President of the Chamber, Ms Labucka, Mr Schalin, Ms Škvařilová-Pelzl and Mr Nõmm, Judges.

Second Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

Ms Tomljenović, President of the Chamber;

Formation A: Ms Labucka and Mr Schalin, Judges;

Formation B: Ms Labucka and Ms Škvařilová-Pelzl, Judges;

Formation C: Ms Labucka and Mr Nõmm, Judges;

Formation D: Mr Schalin and Ms Škvařilová-Pelzl, Judges;

Formation E: Mr Schalin and Mr Nõmm, Judges;

Formation F: Ms Škvařilová-Pelzl and Mr Nõmm, Judges.

Third Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

Mr Collins, President of the Chamber, Mr Kreuschitz, Mr Csehi, Mr De Baere and Ms Steinfatt, Judges.

Third Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

Mr Collins, President of the Chamber;

Formation A: Mr Kreuschitz and Mr Csehi, Judges;

Formation B: Mr Kreuschitz and Mr De Baere, Judges;

Formation C: Mr Kreuschitz and Ms Steinfatt, Judges;

Formation D: Mr Csehi and Mr De Baere, Judges;

Formation E: Mr Csehi and Ms Steinfatt, Judges;

Formation F: Mr De Baere and Ms Steinfatt, Judges.

Fourth Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

Mr Gervasoni, President of the Chamber, Mr Madise, Mr Nihoul, Ms Frendo and Mr Martín y Pérez de Nanclares, Judges.

Fourth Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

Mr Gervasoni, President of the Chamber;

Formation A: Mr Madise and Mr Nihoul, Judges;

Formation B: Mr Madise and Ms Frendo, Judges;

Formation C: Mr Madise and Mr Martín y Pérez de Nanclares, Judges;

Formation D: Mr Nihoul and Ms Frendo, Judges;

Formation E: Mr Nihoul and Mr Martín y Pérez de Nanclares, Judges;

Formation F: Ms Frendo and Mr Martín y Pérez de Nanclares, Judges.

Fifth Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

Mr Spielmann, President of the Chamber, Mr Öberg, Ms Spineanu-Matei, Mr Mastroianni and Mr Norkus, Judges.

Fifth Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

Mr Spielmann, President of the Chamber;

Formation A: Mr Öberg and Ms Spineanu-Matei, Judges;

Formation B: Mr Öberg and Mr Mastroianni, Judges;

Formation C: Ms Spineanu-Matei and Mr Mastroianni, Judges.

Sixth Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

Ms Marcoulli, President of the Chamber, Mr Frimodt Nielsen, Mr Schwarcz, Mr Iliopoulos and Mr Norkus, Judges.

Sixth Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

Ms Marcoulli, President of the Chamber;

Formation A: Mr Frimodt Nielsen and Mr Schwarcz, Judges;

Formation B: Mr Frimodt Nielsen and Mr Iliopoulos, Judges;

Formation C: Mr Frimodt Nielsen and Mr Norkus, Judges;

Formation D: Mr Schwarcz and Mr Iliopoulos, Judges;

Formation E: Mr Schwarcz and Mr Norkus, Judges;

Formation F: Mr Iliopoulos and Mr Norkus, Judges.

Seventh Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

Mr da Silva Passos, President of the Chamber, Mr Valančius, Ms Reine, Mr Truchot and Mr Sampol Pucurull, Judges.

Seventh Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

Mr da Silva Passos, President of the Chamber;

Formation A: Mr Valančius and Ms Reine, Judges;

Formation B: Mr Valančius and Mr Truchot, Judges;

Formation C: Mr Valančius and Mr Sampol Pucurull, Judges;

Formation D: Ms Reine and Mr Truchot, Judges;

Formation E: Ms Reine and Mr Sampol Pucurull, Judges;

Formation F: Mr Truchot and Mr Sampol Pucurull, Judges.

Eighth Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

Mr Svenningsen, President of the Chamber, Mr Barents, Mr Mac Eochaidh, Ms Pynnä and Mr Laitenberger, Judges.

Eighth Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

Mr Svenningsen, President of the Chamber;

Formation A: Mr Barents and Mr Mac Eochaidh, Judges;

Formation B: Mr Barents and Ms Pynnä, Judges;

Formation C: Mr Barents and Mr Laitenberger, Judges;

Formation D: Mr Mac Eochaidh and Ms Pynnä, Judges;

Formation E: Mr Mac Eochaidh and Mr Laitenberger, Judges;

Formation F: Ms Pynnä and Mr Laitenberger, Judges.

Ninth Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

Ms Costeira, President of the Chamber, Mr Gratsias, Ms Kancheva, Mr Berke and Ms Perišin, Judges.

Ninth Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

Ms Costeira, President of the Chamber;

Formation A: Mr Gratsias and Ms Kancheva, Judges;

Formation B: Mr Gratsias and Mr Berke, Judges;

Formation C: Mr Gratsias and Ms Perišin, Judges;

Formation D: Ms Kancheva and Mr Berke, Judges;

Formation E: Ms Kancheva and Ms Perišin, Judges;

Formation F: Mr Berke and Ms Perišin, Judges.

Tenth Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

Mr Kornezov, President of the Chamber, Mr Buttigieg, Mr Passer, Ms Kowalik-Bańczyk and Mr Hesse, Judges.

Tenth Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

Mr Kornezov, President of the Chamber;

Formation A: Mr Buttigieg and Mr Passer, Judges;

Formation B: Mr Buttigieg and Ms Kowalik-Bańczyk, Judges;

Formation C: Mr Buttigieg and Mr Hesse, Judges;

Formation D: Mr Passer and Ms Kowalik-Bańczyk, Judges;

Formation E: Mr Passer and Mr Hesse, Judges;

Formation F: Ms Kowalik-Bańczyk and Mr Hesse, Judges.

The Fifth Chamber, composed of four Judges, shall be extended by including a fifth Judge from the Sixth Chamber. The fifth Judge shall be designated according to the reverse order to the order laid down in Article 8 of the Rules of Procedure for the period ending on 31 August 2022.

The General Court confirms its decision of 4 October 2019 that the First, Fourth, Seventh and Eighth Chambers shall hear cases brought under Article 270 TFEU and, where appropriate, Article 50a of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, and that the Second, Third, Fifth, Sixth, Ninth and Tenth Chambers shall hear cases relating to intellectual property rights referred to in Title IV of the Rules of Procedure.

The General Court also confirms the following:

| — | the President and the Vice-President shall not be attached permanently to a Chamber, |
| --- | --- |

—

the President and the Vice-President shall not be attached permanently to a Chamber,

| — | in the course of each judicial year, the Vice-President shall sit in each of the ten Chambers sitting with five Judges, on the basis of one case per Chamber in the following order:






  — | the first case referred back, by decision of the General Court, to an extended Chamber sitting with five Judges of the First Chamber, the Second Chamber, the Third Chamber, the Fourth Chamber and the Fifth Chamber, |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

in the course of each judicial year, the Vice-President shall sit in each of the ten Chambers sitting with five Judges, on the basis of one case per Chamber in the following order:

—

the first case referred back, by decision of the General Court, to an extended Chamber sitting with five Judges of the First Chamber, the Second Chamber, the Third Chamber, the Fourth Chamber and the Fifth Chamber,

| — | the third case referred back, by decision of the General Court, to an extended Chamber sitting with five Judges of the Sixth Chamber, the Seventh Chamber, the Eighth Chamber, the Ninth Chamber and the Tenth Chamber. |
| --- | --- |

—

the third case referred back, by decision of the General Court, to an extended Chamber sitting with five Judges of the Sixth Chamber, the Seventh Chamber, the Eighth Chamber, the Ninth Chamber and the Tenth Chamber.

Where the Vice-President, acting in that capacity, sits in a Chamber sitting with five Judges, that Chamber shall be composed of the Vice-President, the Judges of the Chamber sitting with three Judges originally seized as well as one of the other Judges of the Chamber in question, determined on the basis of the reverse order to the order laid down in Article 8 of the Rules of Procedure.

---

(1)  OJ C 372, 4.11.2019, p. 3.

(2)  OJ C 372, 4.11.2019, p. 3.

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — GRDF SA v Eni Gas & Power France SA, Direct énergie, Commission de régulation de l’énergie, Procureur général at the Cour d’appel de Paris

(Case C-236/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common rules for the internal market in natural gas - Directive 2009/73/EC - Article 41(11) - Settlement of disputes concerning the obligations imposed on a system operator - Temporal effects of decisions of the dispute settlement authority - Legal certainty - Legitimate expectations)

(2020/C 68/03)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: GRDF SA

Defendants: Eni Gas & Power France SA, Direct énergie, Commission de régulation de l’énergie, Procureur général at the Cour d’appel de Paris

Operative part of the judgment

It follows from the foregoing considerations that the answer to the question referred is that Directive 2009/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 2003/55/EC must be interpreted as not precluding that the effects of a decision of a regulatory authority, referred to in Article 41(11) of that directive, extend to the situation of the parties to the dispute before that authority which prevailed between them before the emergence of that dispute, inter alia, as regards a contract for the transmission of natural gas, by requiring a party to that dispute to bring that contract into conformity with Union law for the entire contractual period.

---

(1)  OJ C 190, 4.6.2018.

---

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Salzburg, Bezirksgericht für Handelssachen Wien — Austria) — Barbara Rust-Hackner (C-355/18), Christian Gmoser (C-356/18), Bettina Plackner (C-357/18) v Nürnberger Versicherung Aktiengesellschaft Österreich and KL v UNIQA Österreich Versicherungen AG, LK v DONAU Versicherung AG Vienna Insurance Group, MJ v Allianz Elementar Lebensversicherungs-Aktiengesellschaft, NI v Allianz Elementar Lebensversicherungs-Aktiengesellschaft (C-479/18)

(Joined Cases C-355/18 to C-357/18 and C-479/18) (1)

(References for a preliminary ruling - Freedom to provide services - Direct life assurance - Directives 90/619/EEC, 92/96/EEC, 2002/83/EC and 2009/138/EC - Right of cancellation - Incorrect information concerning the detailed rules for exercising the right of cancellation - Formal requirements for the declaration of cancellation - Effects on the obligations of the assurance undertaking - Time limit - Lapse of the right of cancellation - Possibility to cancel a contract after it has been terminated - Repayment of the surrender value of the contract - Reimbursement of premiums paid - Right to remuneration interest - Limitation)

(2020/C 68/04)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht Salzburg, Bezirksgericht für Handelssachen Wien

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Barbara Rust-Hackner (C-355/18), Christian Gmoser (C-356/18), Bettina Plackner (C-357/18), KL, LK, MJ, NI (C-479/18)

Defendants: Nürnberger Versicherung Aktiengesellschaft Österreich (C-355/18 to C-357/18), UNIQA Österreich Versicherungen AG, DONAU Versicherung AG Vienna Insurance Group, Allianz Elementar Lebensversicherungs-Aktiengesellschaft, Allianz Elementar Lebensversicherungs-Aktiengesellschaft (C-479/18)

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 15(1) of Council Directive 90/619/EEC of 8 November 1990 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct life assurance, laying down provisions to facilitate the effective exercise of freedom to provide services and amending Directive 79/267/EEC, as amended by Council Directive 92/96/EEC of 10 November 1992, in conjunction with Article 31 of Council Directive 92/96/EEC of 10 November 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct life assurance and amending Directives 79/267/EEC and 90/619/EEC (third life assurance Directive), Article 35(1) of Directive 2002/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 November 2002 concerning life assurance, in conjunction with Article 36(1) of that directive, and Article 185(1) of Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II), in conjunction with Article 186(1) of that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that the period for exercising the right to cancel a life assurance contract begins to run from the moment when the policyholder is informed that the contract is concluded, even though the information provided by the assurance undertaking to that policyholder






  — | either fails to specify that the national law applicable to the contract does not provide for any formal requirements for the exercise of that right of cancellation, or |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Article 15(1) of Council Directive 90/619/EEC of 8 November 1990 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct life assurance, laying down provisions to facilitate the effective exercise of freedom to provide services and amending Directive 79/267/EEC, as amended by Council Directive 92/96/EEC of 10 November 1992, in conjunction with Article 31 of Council Directive 92/96/EEC of 10 November 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct life assurance and amending Directives 79/267/EEC and 90/619/EEC (third life assurance Directive), Article 35(1) of Directive 2002/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 November 2002 concerning life assurance, in conjunction with Article 36(1) of that directive, and Article 185(1) of Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II), in conjunction with Article 186(1) of that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that the period for exercising the right to cancel a life assurance contract begins to run from the moment when the policyholder is informed that the contract is concluded, even though the information provided by the assurance undertaking to that policyholder

—

either fails to specify that the national law applicable to the contract does not provide for any formal requirements for the exercise of that right of cancellation, or

| — | indicates formal requirements that are in reality not required by the national law applicable to that contract or by the clauses set out in that contract, provided that such an indication does not essentially limit the circumstances in which the policyholders can exercise their right of cancellation as compared with the circumstances in which they could have done so if that information had been correct. It is for the referring courts to assess, on the basis of an overall assessment taking into account, in particular, the national legislative context and the facts in the main proceedings, whether the error contained in the information provided to the policyholder created such a limitation. |
| --- | --- |

—

indicates formal requirements that are in reality not required by the national law applicable to that contract or by the clauses set out in that contract, provided that such an indication does not essentially limit the circumstances in which the policyholders can exercise their right of cancellation as compared with the circumstances in which they could have done so if that information had been correct. It is for the referring courts to assess, on the basis of an overall assessment taking into account, in particular, the national legislative context and the facts in the main proceedings, whether the error contained in the information provided to the policyholder created such a limitation.

| 2. | Article 15(1) of Directive 90/619, as amended by Directive 92/96, in conjunction with Article 31 of Directive 92/96, must be interpreted as meaning that, where no information is provided by the assurance undertaking to the policyholder concerning the latter’s right of cancellation or where the information provided by the assurance undertaking is so incorrect that it essentially limits the circumstances in which the policyholder can exercise his or her right of cancellation as compared with the circumstances in which he or she could have done so if that information had been correct, the period for exercising the right of cancellation shall not start to run, even if the policyholder has become aware of the existence of the right of cancellation by other means. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 15(1) of Directive 90/619, as amended by Directive 92/96, in conjunction with Article 31 of Directive 92/96, must be interpreted as meaning that, where no information is provided by the assurance undertaking to the policyholder concerning the latter’s right of cancellation or where the information provided by the assurance undertaking is so incorrect that it essentially limits the circumstances in which the policyholder can exercise his or her right of cancellation as compared with the circumstances in which he or she could have done so if that information had been correct, the period for exercising the right of cancellation shall not start to run, even if the policyholder has become aware of the existence of the right of cancellation by other means.

| 3. | Article 15(1) of Directive 90/619, as amended by Directive 92/96, in conjunction with Article 31 of Directive 92/96, and Article 35(1) of Directive 2002/83, in conjunction with Article 36(1) of that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that, once the contract has been terminated and all obligations arising from it have been complied with, including, in particular, the payment by the assurance undertaking of the surrender value, the policyholder may still exercise his or her right of cancellation provided that the law applicable to the contract does not determine the legal effects arising where either no information is provided in respect of the right of cancellation or incorrect information is provided. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 15(1) of Directive 90/619, as amended by Directive 92/96, in conjunction with Article 31 of Directive 92/96, and Article 35(1) of Directive 2002/83, in conjunction with Article 36(1) of that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that, once the contract has been terminated and all obligations arising from it have been complied with, including, in particular, the payment by the assurance undertaking of the surrender value, the policyholder may still exercise his or her right of cancellation provided that the law applicable to the contract does not determine the legal effects arising where either no information is provided in respect of the right of cancellation or incorrect information is provided.

| 4. | Article 15(1) of Directive 90/619, as amended by Directive 92/96, Article 35(1) of Directive 2002/83 and Article 185(1) of Directive 2009/138 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which an assurance undertaking is required to reimburse to a policyholder who has exercised his or her right of cancellation only the surrender value. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Article 15(1) of Directive 90/619, as amended by Directive 92/96, Article 35(1) of Directive 2002/83 and Article 185(1) of Directive 2009/138 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which an assurance undertaking is required to reimburse to a policyholder who has exercised his or her right of cancellation only the surrender value.

| 5. | Article 15(1) of Directive 90/619, as amended by Directive 92/96, Article 35(1) of Directive 2002/83 and Article 186(1) of Directive 2009/138 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation providing for a limitation period of 3 years for the exercise of the right to remuneration interest, associated with the repayment of sums that were not payable, requested by a policyholder who has exercised his or her right of cancellation, provided that establishment of such a period does not undermine the effectiveness of that policyholder’s right of cancellation, such a matter being for the referring court in Case C-479/18 to verify. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Article 15(1) of Directive 90/619, as amended by Directive 92/96, Article 35(1) of Directive 2002/83 and Article 186(1) of Directive 2009/138 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation providing for a limitation period of 3 years for the exercise of the right to remuneration interest, associated with the repayment of sums that were not payable, requested by a policyholder who has exercised his or her right of cancellation, provided that establishment of such a period does not undermine the effectiveness of that policyholder’s right of cancellation, such a matter being for the referring court in Case C-479/18 to verify.

---

(1)  OJ C 294, 20.8.2018.

OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.

---

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Arriva Italia Srl, Ferrotramviaria SpA, Consorzio Trasporti Aziende Pugliesi (CO.TRA.P) v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti

(Case C-385/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - State aid - Notion - Public railway undertaking in difficulties - Aid measures - Allocation of financial aid - Aim - Continued operation of the public railway undertaking - Allocation to and shareholding in the capital of that public undertaking - Transfer to the capital of another public undertaking - Private investor test - Prior notification obligation for new aid)

(2020/C 68/05)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Arriva Italia Srl, Ferrotramviaria SpA, Consorzio Trasporti Aziende Pugliesi (CO.TRA.P)

Defendant: Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti

Joined parties: Ferrovie dello Stato Italiane SpA, Gestione Commissariale per le Ferrovie del Sud Est e Servizi Automobilistici Srl a socio unico, Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 107 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that, subject to the verifications to be carried out by the referring court, both the allocation of a sum of money to a public undertaking in serious financial difficulties and the transfer of the entire shareholding of a Member State in the capital of that undertaking to another public undertaking, for no consideration but in exchange for an obligation on the part of the latter to remedy the asset imbalance of the former undertaking, can be classified as ‘State aid’ within the meaning of Article 107 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 107 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that, subject to the verifications to be carried out by the referring court, both the allocation of a sum of money to a public undertaking in serious financial difficulties and the transfer of the entire shareholding of a Member State in the capital of that undertaking to another public undertaking, for no consideration but in exchange for an obligation on the part of the latter to remedy the asset imbalance of the former undertaking, can be classified as ‘State aid’ within the meaning of Article 107 TFEU.

| 2. | EU law must be interpreted as meaning that, where measures such as the allocation of a sum of money to a public undertaking in serious financial difficulties or the transfer of the entire shareholding of a Member State in the capital of that undertaking to another public undertaking, for no consideration but in exchange for an obligation on the part of the latter to remedy the asset imbalance of the former, are classified as ‘State aid’ within the meaning of Article 107 TFEU, it is for the referring court to draw all the necessary inferences from the fact that the Commission was not notified of that aid, contrary to Article 108(3) TFEU, and that aid must therefore be regarded as being unlawful. |
| --- | --- |

2.

EU law must be interpreted as meaning that, where measures such as the allocation of a sum of money to a public undertaking in serious financial difficulties or the transfer of the entire shareholding of a Member State in the capital of that undertaking to another public undertaking, for no consideration but in exchange for an obligation on the part of the latter to remedy the asset imbalance of the former, are classified as ‘State aid’ within the meaning of Article 107 TFEU, it is for the referring court to draw all the necessary inferences from the fact that the Commission was not notified of that aid, contrary to Article 108(3) TFEU, and that aid must therefore be regarded as being unlawful.

---

(1)  OJ C 294, 20.8.2018.

---

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 December 2019 — Patrick Grégor Puppinck and Others v Republic of Poland, European Commission, European Parliament, Council of the European Union, European Citizens’ Initiative One of Us

(Case C-418/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Institutional law - Citizens’ initiative ‘One of us’ - Communication from the European Commission setting out its conclusions and the reasons for not taking the action requested in the citizens’ initiative)

(2020/C 68/06)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Patrick Grégor Puppinck, Filippo Vari, Josephine Quintavalle, Edith Frivaldszky, Jakub Baltroszewicz, Alicia Latorre Canizares, Manfred Liebner (represented by: R. Kiska, Solicitor, P. Diamond, Barrister)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Citizens’ Initiative One of Us, European Commission (represented by: H. Krämer, acting as Agent), Republic of Poland, European Parliament, Council of the European Union

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Mr Patrick Grégor Puppinck, Mr Filippo Vari, Ms Josephine Quintavalle, Ms Edith Frivaldszky, Mr Jakub Baltroszewicz, Ms Alicia Latorre Canizares and Mr Manfred Liebner to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Patrick Grégor Puppinck, Mr Filippo Vari, Ms Josephine Quintavalle, Ms Edith Frivaldszky, Mr Jakub Baltroszewicz, Ms Alicia Latorre Canizares and Mr Manfred Liebner to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 341, 24.9.2018.

---

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/11

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 December 2019 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Primera Instancia No 11 de Vigo, Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 20 de Barcelona — Spain) — Bondora AS v Carlos V.C. (Case C-453/18), XY (C-494/18)

(Joined Cases C-453/18 and C-494/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - European order for payment procedure - Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 - Provision of additional documents to support the claim - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Directive 93/13/EEC - Review by the court seised in the context of an application for a European payment order)

(2020/C 68/07)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Primera Instancia No 11 de Vigo, Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 20 de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bondora AS

Defendants: Carlos V.C. (Case C-453/18), XY (C-494/18)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(2)(d) and (e) of Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure and Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, as interpreted by the Court and read in the light of Article 38 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as allowing a ‘court’, within the meaning of that regulation, seised in the context of a European order for payment procedure, to request from the creditor additional information relating to the terms of the agreement relied on in support of the claim at issue, in order to carry out an ex officio review of the possible unfairness of those terms and, consequently, that they preclude national legislation which declares the additional documents provided for that purpose to be inadmissible.

---

(1)  OJ C 381, 22.10.2018.

---

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/11

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 December 2019 — HK v European Commission, Council of the European Union

(Case C-460/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union - Article 1d - First paragraph of Article 17 of Annex VIII - Pension for the surviving spouse - Conditions for granting - Concept of ‘surviving spouse’ of a Union official - Marriage and non-marital partnership - Cohabitation - Principle of non-discrimination - Comparable situation - None - Condition of duration of marriage - Combating fraud - Justification)

(2020/C 68/08)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: HK (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Champetier, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara and B. Mongin, Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and R. Meyer, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 3 May 2018, HK v Commission (T-574/16, not published, EU:T:2018:252); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 3 May 2018, HK v Commission (T-574/16, not published, EU:T:2018:252);

| 2. | Dismisses HK’s action seeking annulment of European Commission’s decision refusing to grant him the benefit of the survivor’s pension and to pay compensation for the material and non-material damage alleged; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses HK’s action seeking annulment of European Commission’s decision refusing to grant him the benefit of the survivor’s pension and to pay compensation for the material and non-material damage alleged;

| 3. | Orders HK, the European Commission and the Council of the European Union to bear their own costs at first instance and on appeal. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders HK, the European Commission and the Council of the European Union to bear their own costs at first instance and on appeal.

---

(1)  OJ C 381, 22.10.2018.

---

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — AV, BU v Comune di Bernareggio

(Case C-465/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of establishment - Sale of a pharmacy under a tendering procedure - National legislation - Right of pre-emption granted to employees of the pharmacy being sold)

(2020/C 68/09)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: AV, BU

Defendant: Comune di Bernareggio

Intervener: CT

Operative part of the judgment

Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a national measure that grants an unconditional right of pre-emption to pharmacists employed by a municipal pharmacy, in the event of the sale of that pharmacy by tender.

---

(1)  OJ C 399, 5.11.2018.

---

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 19 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven — Netherlands) — Darie BV v Staatssecretaris van Infrastructuur en Milieu

(Case C-592/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 - Article 3(1)(a) and (c) - Concept of ‘biocidal product’ - Concept of ‘active substance’ - Bacterial product containing the bacterial species Bacillus ferment - Mode of action other than mere physical or mechanical action - Indirect action - Period within which effect takes place)

(2020/C 68/10)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Darie BV

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Infrastructuur en Milieu

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The concept of ‘biocidal product’ within the meaning 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 must be interpreted as covering products containing one or more bacterial species, enzymes or other constituents which, due to the specific way in which they act, have no direct effect on the harmful organism for which they are intended, but on the creation or maintenance of a potential habitat of that harmful organism, provided that those products involve an action other than mere physical or mechanical action, which forms an integral part of a causal chain, the objective of which is to produce an inhibiting effect in relation to those organisms; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The concept of ‘biocidal product’ within the meaning 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 must be interpreted as covering products containing one or more bacterial species, enzymes or other constituents which, due to the specific way in which they act, have no direct effect on the harmful organism for which they are intended, but on the creation or maintenance of a potential habitat of that harmful organism, provided that those products involve an action other than mere physical or mechanical action, which forms an integral part of a causal chain, the objective of which is to produce an inhibiting effect in relation to those organisms;

| 2. | Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation No 528/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that a product must be applied to the surface to be treated only after the removal of target harmful organisms present on that surface does not affect the classification of that product as a ‘biocidal product’ within the meaning of that provision; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation No 528/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that a product must be applied to the surface to be treated only after the removal of target harmful organisms present on that surface does not affect the classification of that product as a ‘biocidal product’ within the meaning of that provision;

| 3. | Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation No 528/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that the period within which a product takes effect does not affect the classification of that product as a ‘biocidal product’ within the meaning of that provision. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation No 528/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that the period within which a product takes effect does not affect the classification of that product as a ‘biocidal product’ within the meaning of that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 436, 3.12.2018.

---

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 19 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Amoena Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

(Case C-677/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Headings 6212 and 9021 - Mastectomy bras - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1167 - Validity - Notion of ‘accessories’ - Sincere cooperation)

(2020/C 68/11)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Amoena Ltd

Defendant: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Operative part of the judgment

The examination of the questions referred has not revealed any elements capable of affecting the validity of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1167 of 26 June 2017 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature.

---

(1)  OJ C 25, 21.1.2019.

---

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from Tribunalul Timiș — Romania) — Amărăști Land Investment SRL v Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Timișoara, Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Timiș

(Case C-707/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Common system of value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Taxable transactions - Deduction of input tax - Purchase of immovable property not registered in the national land register - First-registration costs incurred by the purchaser - Recourse to specialist third companies - Participation in a supply of services or investment expenditure carried out for the purposes of an undertaking)

(2020/C 68/12)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Timiș

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Amărăști Land Investment SRL

Defendants: Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Timișoara, Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Timiș

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as not precluding the parties to a transaction, the aim of which is to transfer the ownership of immovable property, from agreeing a clause according to which the future purchaser will incur some or all of the costs of the administrative formalities relating to that transaction, in particular those connected with the first registration of that property in the national land register. However, the mere presence of such a clause in a bilateral promise for the sale of immovable property is not determinative in order to ascertain whether the future purchaser is entitled to deduct the value added tax relating to the payment of the costs arising from the first registration of the property concerned in the national land register; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as not precluding the parties to a transaction, the aim of which is to transfer the ownership of immovable property, from agreeing a clause according to which the future purchaser will incur some or all of the costs of the administrative formalities relating to that transaction, in particular those connected with the first registration of that property in the national land register. However, the mere presence of such a clause in a bilateral promise for the sale of immovable property is not determinative in order to ascertain whether the future purchaser is entitled to deduct the value added tax relating to the payment of the costs arising from the first registration of the property concerned in the national land register;

| 2. | Directive 2006/112, and in particular Article 28 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of a bilateral promise for the sale of immovable property not registered in the national land register, the future purchaser — a taxable person — who, as he or she contractually undertook to do with regard to the future vendor in that promise, carries out the necessary steps for the first registration of the property concerned in that register by having recourse to the services provided by third parties who are taxable persons, is deemed to have supplied the services in question himself or herself to the future vendor, within the meaning of Article 28, even though the parties to the contract agreed that the sale price of that property does not include the value of the land-registration operations. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Directive 2006/112, and in particular Article 28 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of a bilateral promise for the sale of immovable property not registered in the national land register, the future purchaser — a taxable person — who, as he or she contractually undertook to do with regard to the future vendor in that promise, carries out the necessary steps for the first registration of the property concerned in that register by having recourse to the services provided by third parties who are taxable persons, is deemed to have supplied the services in question himself or herself to the future vendor, within the meaning of Article 28, even though the parties to the contract agreed that the sale price of that property does not include the value of the land-registration operations.

---

(1)  OJ C 54, 11.02.2019.

---

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/15

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Trnave — Slovakia) — RN v Home Credit Slovakia a.s.

(Case C-290/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 2008/48/EC - Consumer credit agreements - Article 10(2) - Information to be included in credit agreements - Annual percentage rate of charge - Lack of indication of the exact percentage of that rate of charge - Rate of charge expressed as a range between 21.5% and 22.4%)

(2020/C 68/13)

Language of the case: Slovakian

Referring court

Krajský súd v Trnave

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: RN

Defendant: Home Credit Slovakia a.s.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 10(2)(g) of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC, as amended by Commission Directive 2011/90/EU of 14 November 2011, must be interpreted as precluding, in a consumer credit agreement, the annual percentage rate of charge from being expressed not as a single rate but as a range referring to a minimum and a maximum rate.

---

(1)  OJ C 213, 24.6.2019.

---

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 December 2019 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Criminal proceedings against Oriol Junqueras Vies

(Case C-502/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Expedited procedure - Institutional law - Citizen of the European Union elected to the European Parliament while being held in provisional detention in the context of criminal proceedings - Article 14 TEU - Concept of ‘Member of the European Parliament’ - Article 343 TFEU - Immunities necessary for the performance of the tasks of the European Union - Protocol (No 7) on the privileges and immunities of the European Union - Article 9 - Immunities enjoyed by Members of the European Parliament - Immunity as regards travel - Immunities as regards sessions - Personal, temporal and material scope of the various immunities - Waiver of immunity by the European Parliament - Request to waive immunity from a national court - Act concerning the election of Members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage - Article 5 - Term of office - Article 8 - Electoral procedure - Article 12 - Verification of the credentials of Members of the European Parliament following the official declaration of the election results - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 39(2) - Election of Members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage in a free and secret ballot - Right to stand as a candidate at elections)

(2020/C 68/14)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Criminal proceedings against

Oriol Junqueras Vies

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

Operative part of the judgment

Article 9 of the Protocol (No 7) on the privileges and immunities of the European Union must be interpreted as meaning that:

| — | a person who was officially declared elected to the European Parliament while subject to a measure of provisional detention in the context of proceedings in respect of serious criminal offences, but who was not authorised to comply with certain requirements under national law following such a declaration and to travel to the European Parliament in order to take part in its first session, must be regarded as enjoying an immunity under the second paragraph of that article; |
| --- | --- |

—

a person who was officially declared elected to the European Parliament while subject to a measure of provisional detention in the context of proceedings in respect of serious criminal offences, but who was not authorised to comply with certain requirements under national law following such a declaration and to travel to the European Parliament in order to take part in its first session, must be regarded as enjoying an immunity under the second paragraph of that article;

| — | that immunity entails that the measure of provisional detention imposed on the person concerned must be lifted, in order to enable that person to travel to the European Parliament and complete the necessary formalities there. That being said, if the competent national court considers that that measure should be maintained after the person concerned acquires the status of Member of the European Parliament, it must as soon as possible request the European Parliament to waive that immunity, on the basis of the third paragraph of Article 9 of that protocol. |
| --- | --- |

—

that immunity entails that the measure of provisional detention imposed on the person concerned must be lifted, in order to enable that person to travel to the European Parliament and complete the necessary formalities there. That being said, if the competent national court considers that that measure should be maintained after the person concerned acquires the status of Member of the European Parliament, it must as soon as possible request the European Parliament to waive that immunity, on the basis of the third paragraph of Article 9 of that protocol.

---

(1)  OJ C 328, 30.9.2019.

---

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/17

---

Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 December 2019 — Republic of Poland v PGNiG Supply & Trading GmbH, European Commission

(Case C-181/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Action for annulment - Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU Article 263 - Admissibility - Decision which is of neither direct nor individual concern to the appellant - Regulatory act - Absence - Article 130 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court - Assessment of the pleas on the substance - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Right to effective judicial protection and to a fair trial - Principle of audi alteram partem - Appeal manifestly inadmissible)

(2020/C 68/15)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Appellant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

Other parties to the proceedings: PGNiG Supply & Trading GmbH (represented by: M. Jeżewski, adwokat), European Commission (represented by: O. Beynet and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

Intervener: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: initially by T. Henze and R. Kanitz, then by R. Kanitz, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed as being manifestly inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed as being manifestly inadmissible;

| 2. | The Republic of Poland is to bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Republic of Poland is to bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 152, 30.4.2018.

---

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/18

---

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 18 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Székesfehérvári Törvényszék — Hungary) — Hochtief AG v Fővárosi Törvényszék

(Case C-362/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Review procedures - Directive 89/665/EEC - Directive 92/13/EEC - Right to effective judicial protection - Principles of effectiveness and equivalence - Action for review of judicial decisions in breach of EU law - Liability of the Member States in the event of infringement of EU law by national courts or tribunals - Assessment of damage eligible for compensation)

(2020/C 68/16)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Székesfehérvári Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hochtief AG

Defendant: Fővárosi Törvényszék

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The liability of a Member State for damage caused by a decision of a national court or tribunal adjudicating at final instance which breaches a rule of EU law is governed by the conditions laid down by the Court, in particular in paragraph 51 of the judgment of 30 September 2003, Köbler (C-224/01, EU:C:2003:513), without excluding the possibility that that State may incur liability under less strict conditions on the basis of national law. That liability is not precluded by the fact that that decision has acquired the force of res judicata. In the context of the enforcement of that liability, it is for the national court or tribunal before which the action for damages has been brought to determine, taking into account all the factors which characterise the situation in question, whether the national court or tribunal adjudicating at final instance committed a sufficiently serious infringement of EU law by manifestly disregarding the relevant EU law, including the relevant case-law of the Court. By contrast, EU law precludes a rule of national law which, in such a case, generally excludes the costs incurred by a party as a result of the harmful decision of the national court or tribunal from damage which may be the subject of compensation. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The liability of a Member State for damage caused by a decision of a national court or tribunal adjudicating at final instance which breaches a rule of EU law is governed by the conditions laid down by the Court, in particular in paragraph 51 of the judgment of 30 September 2003, Köbler (C-224/01, EU:C:2003:513), without excluding the possibility that that State may incur liability under less strict conditions on the basis of national law. That liability is not precluded by the fact that that decision has acquired the force of res judicata. In the context of the enforcement of that liability, it is for the national court or tribunal before which the action for damages has been brought to determine, taking into account all the factors which characterise the situation in question, whether the national court or tribunal adjudicating at final instance committed a sufficiently serious infringement of EU law by manifestly disregarding the relevant EU law, including the relevant case-law of the Court. By contrast, EU law precludes a rule of national law which, in such a case, generally excludes the costs incurred by a party as a result of the harmful decision of the national court or tribunal from damage which may be the subject of compensation.

| 2. | EU law, in particular Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Directive 2007/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007, and Council Directive 92/13/EEC of 25 February 1992 coordinating the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of Community rules on the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors, as amended by Directive 2007/66, as well as the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State which does not allow review of a judgment, which has acquired the force of res judicata, of a court or tribunal of that Member State which has ruled on an action for annulment against an act of a contracting authority without addressing a question the examination of which was envisaged in an earlier judgment of the Court in response to a request for a preliminary ruling made in the course of the proceedings relating to that action for annulment or in an earlier judgment of the Court in response to a request for a preliminary ruling in a different case. However, if the applicable domestic rules of procedure include the possibility for national courts to reverse a judgment which has acquired the force of res judicata, for the purposes of rendering the situation arising from that judgment compatible with an earlier national judicial decision which has become final – where both the court which delivered that judgment and the parties to the case leading to that judgment were already aware of that earlier decision – that possibility must, in accordance with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, in the same circumstances, prevail in order to render the situation compatible with EU law, as interpreted by an earlier judgment of the Court of Justice. |
| --- | --- |

2.

EU law, in particular Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Directive 2007/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007, and Council Directive 92/13/EEC of 25 February 1992 coordinating the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of Community rules on the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors, as amended by Directive 2007/66, as well as the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State which does not allow review of a judgment, which has acquired the force of res judicata, of a court or tribunal of that Member State which has ruled on an action for annulment against an act of a contracting authority without addressing a question the examination of which was envisaged in an earlier judgment of the Court in response to a request for a preliminary ruling made in the course of the proceedings relating to that action for annulment or in an earlier judgment of the Court in response to a request for a preliminary ruling in a different case. However, if the applicable domestic rules of procedure include the possibility for national courts to reverse a judgment which has acquired the force of res judicata, for the purposes of rendering the situation arising from that judgment compatible with an earlier national judicial decision which has become final – where both the court which delivered that judgment and the parties to the case leading to that judgment were already aware of that earlier decision – that possibility must, in accordance with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, in the same circumstances, prevail in order to render the situation compatible with EU law, as interpreted by an earlier judgment of the Court of Justice.

---

(1)  OJ C 311, 3.9.2018

---

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/19

---

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial Sección No 4 de Zaragoza — Spain) — María Pilar Bueno Ruiz and Zurich Insurance PL, Sucursal de España v Irene Conte Sánchez

(Case C-431/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles - Directive 2009/103/EC - First paragraph of Article 3 - Concept of ‘use of vehicles’ - Leaks of oil and other liquids from a motor vehicle - Damages)

(2020/C 68/17)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial Sección No 4 de Zaragoza

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: María Pilar Bueno Ruiz and Zurich Insurance PL, Sucursal de España

Defendant: Irene Conte Sánchez

Operative part of the order

The first paragraph of Article 3 of Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘use of vehicles’, referred to in that provision, covers a situation in which a vehicle which has been manoeuvred and/or parked in a private car park, in accordance with its function as a means of transport, is involved in an accident in that car park.

---

(1)  OJ C 373, 15.10.2018.

---

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/19

---

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 17 December 2019 — Rogesa Roheisengesellschaft Saar mbH v European Commission

(Case C-568/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Access to documents of the institutions - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Article 4(2), first indent - Exceptions to the right of access - Protection of commercial interests of a natural or legal person - Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 - Article 6(1) - Application of the exceptions concerning requests for access to environmental information - Documents drawn up by the European Commission under the scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading - Refusal of access - Subsequent transmission of the documents requested - Article 149 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - No further interest in bringing proceedings - No need to adjudicate)

(2020/C 68/18)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Rogesa Roheisengesellschaft Saar mbH (represented by: S. Altenschmidt and D. Jacob, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: H. Krämer and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no need to adjudicate on the appeal. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on the appeal.

| 2. | The European Commission shall pay the costs incurred in the present appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Commission shall pay the costs incurred in the present appeal proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 16, 14.1.2019.

---

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/20

---

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 17 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di pace di L’Aquila (Italy) — Gabriele Di Girolamo v Ministero della Giustizia

(Case C-618/18) (1)

(Request for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Fixed-term employment - ETUC-UNICE-CEEP - Definition of a ‘fixed-term worker’ - Giudice di Pace - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2020/C 68/19)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Giudice di pace di L’Aquila

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Gabriele Di Girolamo

Defendant: Ministero della Giustizia

intervening party: Unione Nazionale Giudici di Pace (Unagipa)

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di pace di L’Aquila (Magistrates Court, L’Aquila, Italy), made by decision of 19 September 2018, is manifestly inadmissible.

---

(1)  OJ C 25, 21.1.2019.

---

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/21

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark — Austria) — NE v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Hartberg-Fürstenfeld

(Case C-645/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Freedom to provide services - Posting of workers - Article 56 TFEU - Directive 2014/67/EU - Articles 9 and 20 - Reporting of workers - Retention of records of wages - Penalties - Proportionality - Fines of a predefined minimum amount - Cumulative - No upper limit - Court fees)

(2020/C 68/20)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: NE

Defendant: Bezirkshauptmannschaft Hartberg-Fürstenfeld

Intervener: Finanzpolizei

Operative part of the order

Article 20 of Directive 2014/67/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the enforcement of Directive 96/71/EC concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services and amending Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 on administrative cooperation through the Internal Market Information System (‘the IMI Regulation’) must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which lays down, in the event of non-compliance with labour law obligations relating to the reporting of workers and the retention of records of wages, the imposition of high fines:

| — | which may not be lower than a predefined amount; |
| --- | --- |

—

which may not be lower than a predefined amount;

| — | which are imposed cumulatively in respect of each worker concerned and without an upper limit, and |
| --- | --- |

—

which are imposed cumulatively in respect of each worker concerned and without an upper limit, and

| — | to which is added a contribution to court costs of 20 % of the amount of the fines if the appeal against the decision imposing those fines is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

—

to which is added a contribution to court costs of 20 % of the amount of the fines if the appeal against the decision imposing those fines is dismissed.

---

(1)  OJ C 122, 1.4.2019.

---

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/22

---

Order of the Court of 19 December 2019 — OPS Újpesti Csökkentmunkaképességűek Ipari és Kereskemeldi Ktf. (OPS Újpest Kft.) v European Commission

(Case C-741/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - State Aid - Aid implemented by Hungary in favour of undertakings employing disabled workers - Action for annulment - Alleged decisions not to raise objections - Deadline for lodging an appeal - Starting point - Awareness of the existence of the contested measure - Request for translation of the contested measure - Reasonable time - Out of time - Inadmissibility of the action at first instance - Assessment of the facts - Appeal, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded)

(2020/C 68/21)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Appellant: OPS Újpesti Csökkentmunkaképességűek Ipari és Kereskemeldi Ktf. (OPS Újpest Kft.) (represented by: L. Szabó, űgyvéd)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka and C. Georgieva-Kecsmar, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed as being, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed as being, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded.

| 2. | OPS Újpesti Csökkentmunkaképességűek Ipari és Kereskemeldi Ktf. (OPS Újpest Kft.) is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

OPS Újpesti Csökkentmunkaképességűek Ipari és Kereskemeldi Ktf. (OPS Újpest Kft.) is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 112, 25.3.2019.

---

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/22

---

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 December 2019 — Lux-Rehab Foglalkoztató Non-Profit Kft. (Lux-Rehab Non-Profit Kft.) v European Commission

(Case C-747/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - State aid - Aid implemented by Hungary in favour of companies employing disabled workers - Action for annulment - Alleged decisions not to raise objections - Lack of locus standi - Person not individually concerned - Action not brought in order to safeguard procedural rights - Inadmissibility of the action at first instance - Appeal manifestly unfounded)

(2020/C 68/22)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Appellant: Lux-Rehab Foglalkoztató Non-Profit Kft. (Lux-Rehab Non-Profit Kft.) (represented by: L. Szabó, ügyvéd)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka and C. Georgieva-Kecsmar, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed as being manifestly unfounded. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed as being manifestly unfounded.

| 2. | Lux-Rehab Foglalkoztató Non-Profit Kft. (Lux-Rehab Non-Profit Kft.) shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Lux-Rehab Foglalkoztató Non-Profit Kft. (Lux-Rehab Non-Profit Kft.) shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 112, 25.3.2019.

---

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/23

---

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 December 2019 — Motex Ipari és Szolgáltató Rehabilitációs Kft. (Motex Kft.) v European Commission

(Case C-748/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - State aid - Aid implemented by Hungary in favour of companies employing disabled workers - Action for annulment - Alleged decisions not to raise objections - Lack of standing - Person not individually concerned - Action not brought in order to safeguard procedural rights - Inadmissibility of the action at first instance - Appeal manifestly unfounded)

(2020/C 68/23)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Appellant: Motex Ipari és Szolgáltató Rehabilitációs Kft. (Motex Kft.) (represented by: L. Szabó, ügyvéd)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka and C. Georgieva-Kecsmar, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed as being manifestly unfounded. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed as being manifestly unfounded.

| 2. | Motex Ipari és Szolgáltató Rehabilitációs Kft. (Motex Kft.) shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Motex Ipari és Szolgáltató Rehabilitációs Kft. (Motex Kft.) shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 112, 25.3.2019.

---

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/24

---

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 December 2019 — M-Sansz Kereskedelmi, Termelő és Szolgáltató Kft. (M-Sansz Kft.) v European Commission

(Case C-757/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - State aid - Aid implemented by Hungary in favour of companies employing disabled workers - Action for annulment - Alleged decisions not to raise objections - Lack of locus standi - Person not individually concerned - Action not brought in order to safeguard procedural rights - Inadmissibility of the action at first instance - Appeal manifestly unfounded)

(2020/C 68/24)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Appellant: M Sansz Kereskedelmi, Termelő és Szolgáltató Kft. (M Sansz Kft.) (represented by: L. Ravasz, ügyvéd)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka and C. Georgieva-Kecsmar, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed as being manifestly unfounded. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed as being manifestly unfounded.

| 2. | M-Sansz Kereskedelmi, Termelő és Szolgáltató Kft. (M Sansz Kft.) shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

M-Sansz Kereskedelmi, Termelő és Szolgáltató Kft. (M Sansz Kft.) shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 148, 29.4.2019.

---

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/24

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 December 2019 — Vans, Inc. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Deichmann SE

(Joined Cases C-123/19 P and C-125/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the opposition - Appeals which have become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate - Costs)

(2020/C 68/25)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Vans, Inc. (represented by: M. Hirsch and M. Metzner, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Söder, acting as Agent) and Deichmann SE (represented by: C. Onken, Rechtsanwältin)

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no need to adjudicate on the present appeals. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on the present appeals.

| 2. | Vans Inc., Deichmann SE and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall each bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Vans Inc., Deichmann SE and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall each bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 220, 1.7.2019.

---

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/25

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 December 2019 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark — Austria) — EX EX (C-140/19 and C-141/19), OK (C-492/19), PL (C-493/19), QM (C-494/19) v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Hartberg-Fürstenfeld

(Joined Cases C-140/19, C-141/19 and C-492/19 to C-494/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) and Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Freedom to provide services - Posting of workers - Article 56 TFEU - Directive 2014/67/EU - Articles 9 and 20 - Reporting of workers - Retention of records of wages - Penalties - Proportionality - Fines of a predefined minimum amount - Cumulative - No upper limit - Court fees - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2020/C 68/26)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: EX EX (C-140/19 and C-141/19), OK (C-492/19), PL (C-493/19), QM (C-494/19)

Defendant: Bezirkshauptmannschaft Hartberg-Fürstenfeld

Intervener: Finanzpolizei

Operative part of the order

Article 20 of Directive 2014/67/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the enforcement of Directive 96/71/EC concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services and amending Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 on administrative cooperation through the Internal Market Information System (‘the IMI Regulation’) must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which lays down, in the event of non-compliance with labour law obligations relating to the reporting of workers and the retention of records of wages, the imposition of high fines:

| — | which may not be lower than a predefined amount; |
| --- | --- |

—

which may not be lower than a predefined amount;

| — | which are imposed cumulatively in respect of each worker concerned and without an upper limit, and |
| --- | --- |

—

which are imposed cumulatively in respect of each worker concerned and without an upper limit, and

| — | to which is added a contribution to court costs of 20 % of the amount of the fines if the appeal against the decision imposing those fines is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

—

to which is added a contribution to court costs of 20 % of the amount of the fines if the appeal against the decision imposing those fines is dismissed.

---

(1)  OJ C 187, 3.6.2019.

OJ C 328, 30.9.2019.

---

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/26

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 November 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Trgovački sud u Zagrebu — Croatia) — INA-INDUSTRIJA NAFTE d.d. and Others v LJUBLJANSKA BANKA d.d.

(Case C-200/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Article 7(1)(a) - Special jurisdiction in matters relating to a contract - Concept of ‘matters relating to a contract’ - Financial obligations imposed by national law on the co-owners of a building - Legal action seeking enforcement of those obligations)

(2020/C 68/27)

Language of the case: Croatian

Referring court

Trgovački sud u Zagrebu

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: INA-INDUSTRIJA NAFTE d.d., CROATIA osiguranje d.d., REPUBLIKA HRVATSKA, Croatia Airlines d.d., GRAD ZAGREB, HRVATSKA ELEKTROPRIVREDA d.d., HRVATSKE ŠUME d.o.o., KAPITAL d.o.o. u stečaju, bankrupt, PETROKEMIJA d.d., Đuro Đaković Holding d.d., ENERGOINVEST d.d., TELENERG d.o.o., ENERGOCONTROL d.o.o., UDRUGA POSLODAVACA U ZDRAVSTVU, HRVATSKI ZAVOD ZA MIROVINSKO OSIGURANJE, ZAGREPČANKA-POSLOVNI OBJEKTI d.d., BRODOGRADILIŠTE VIKTOR LENAC d.d., INOVINE d.d., MARAT INŽENJERING d.o.o., GOYA — COMPANY d.o.o., METROPOLIS PLAN d.o.o., Dalekovod d.d., INFRATERRA d.o.o., Citat d.o.o., STAROSTA d.o.o., METALKA METALCOM d.o.o., I.Š., B.C., Z.N., D.G., M.R., A.T

Defendant: LJUBLJANSKA BANKA d.d.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | Article 7 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that a dispute concerning the failure to discharge financial obligations imposed by national law on the co-owners of a building must be regarded as falling within the concept of ‘matters relating to a contract’ within the meaning of Article 7(1)(a) of that regulation. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 7 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that a dispute concerning the failure to discharge financial obligations imposed by national law on the co-owners of a building must be regarded as falling within the concept of ‘matters relating to a contract’ within the meaning of Article 7(1)(a) of that regulation.

| 2. | Article 7(5) of Regulation No 1215/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that a dispute such as that at issue in the main proceedings concerning an obligation arising from the ownership by a company of business premises in which it is established and carries out activities does not constitute a ‘dispute arising out of the operations of a branch, agency or other establishment’ within the meaning of that provision. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 7(5) of Regulation No 1215/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that a dispute such as that at issue in the main proceedings concerning an obligation arising from the ownership by a company of business premises in which it is established and carries out activities does not constitute a ‘dispute arising out of the operations of a branch, agency or other establishment’ within the meaning of that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 164, 13.5.2019

---

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/27

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Straubing — Germany) — B & L Elektrogeräte GmbH v GC

(Case C-465/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 2011/83/EU - Article 2(8)(c) and (9) - Off-premises contract - Concept of ‘business premises’ - Contract entered into at a stand at a trade fair immediately after the consumer, who was in a common area of the fair, had been solicited by the trader)

(2020/C 68/28)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Straubing

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: B & L Elektrogeräte GmbH

Defendant: GC

Operative part of the order

Article 2(8) of Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, in conjunction with Article 2(9) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that a contract concluded between a trader and a consumer at a stand run by the trader at a trade fair, immediately after the consumer, who was in the aisle common to the various stands present in an exhibition hall of the fair, had been solicited by that trader, is an ‘off-premises contract’ within the meaning of that provision

---

(1)  OJ C 348, 14.10.2019.

---

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/27

---

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 11 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Liège — Belgium) — Ville de Verviers v J

(Case C-483/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Social policy - Directive 1999/70/EC - Framework Agreement, concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP regarding fixed-term work - Clause 2 - Scope of the Framework Agreement - Possibility for Member States to exclude initial vocational training relationships and apprenticeship schemes and employment contracts and relationships which have been concluded within the framework of a specific public or publicly supported training, integration and vocational retraining programme - Consequences)

(2020/C 68/29)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour du travail de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ville de Verviers

Defendant: J

Operative part of the order

Clause 2(2)(b) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP must be interpreted as not precluding that a national legislature which, in accordance with the power granted to it under that provision, excluded from the scope of the national legislation transposing Directive 1999/70 and the framework agreement a certain category of contracts, be exempted from adopting national measures so as to provide a guarantee to workers covered by that category of contract that the objectives pursued by the framework agreement will be respected.

---

(1)  OJ C 288, 26.8.2019.

---

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/28

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Apelativen sad Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 19 November 2019 — Criminal proceedings against DR

(Case C-845/19)

(2020/C 68/30)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Apelativen sad — Varna

Party to the main proceedings

DR

Questions referred

| 1. | Are Directive 2014/42/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the freezing and confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime in the European Union (OJ 2014 L 127, p. 39, corrigendum OJ 2014 L 138, p. 114) and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union applicable with respect to a criminal offence consisting of possession of narcotics for the purpose of distribution thereof, committed by a Bulgarian citizen in the territory of the Republic of Bulgaria, and where the potential economic proceeds are also realised and located in the Republic of Bulgaria? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are Directive 2014/42/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the freezing and confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime in the European Union (OJ 2014 L 127, p. 39, corrigendum OJ 2014 L 138, p. 114) and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union applicable with respect to a criminal offence consisting of possession of narcotics for the purpose of distribution thereof, committed by a Bulgarian citizen in the territory of the Republic of Bulgaria, and where the potential economic proceeds are also realised and located in the Republic of Bulgaria?

| 2. | Should the answer to the first question be in the affirmative, how should the concept of ‘economic advantage derived [...] indirectly from a criminal offence’ in Article 2(1) of the directive be understood, and can a sum of money, found in and confiscated from the home of the convicted person and his family and from a car driven by him, constitute such an advantage? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Should the answer to the first question be in the affirmative, how should the concept of ‘economic advantage derived [...] indirectly from a criminal offence’ in Article 2(1) of the directive be understood, and can a sum of money, found in and confiscated from the home of the convicted person and his family and from a car driven by him, constitute such an advantage?

| 3. | Is Article 2 of the directive to be interpreted as precluding a legal provision such as that of Article 53(2) of the Nakazatelen kodeks (Criminal Code) of the Republic of Bulgaria, which does not provide for the confiscation of an ‘economic advantage derived [...] indirectly from a criminal offence’? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is Article 2 of the directive to be interpreted as precluding a legal provision such as that of Article 53(2) of the Nakazatelen kodeks (Criminal Code) of the Republic of Bulgaria, which does not provide for the confiscation of an ‘economic advantage derived [...] indirectly from a criminal offence’?

| 4. | Is Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to be interpreted as precluding a national legal provision such as that of Article 306(1), point 1 of the Nakazatelno-protsesualen kodeks (Code of Criminal Procedure) of the Republic of Bulgaria, which allows for the confiscation for the benefit of the State of a sum of money in respect of which it is claimed that it belongs to a person other than the person who committed the criminal offence, without that third party being able to take part in those proceedings in his or her own right and having direct access to the courts? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to be interpreted as precluding a national legal provision such as that of Article 306(1), point 1 of the Nakazatelno-protsesualen kodeks (Code of Criminal Procedure) of the Republic of Bulgaria, which allows for the confiscation for the benefit of the State of a sum of money in respect of which it is claimed that it belongs to a person other than the person who committed the criminal offence, without that third party being able to take part in those proceedings in his or her own right and having direct access to the courts?

---

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/29

---

Appeal brought on 21 November 2019 by FVE Holýšov I s. r. o. and Others against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 20 September 2019 in Case T-217/17, FVE Holýšov I s. r. o. and Others v Commission

(Case C-850/19 P)

(2020/C 68/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: FVE Holýšov I s. r. o., FVE Stříbro s. r. o., FVE Úsilné s. r. o., FVE Mozolov s. r. o., FVE Osečná s. r. o., Solarpark Rybníček s. r. o., FVE Kněžmost s. r. o., Hutira FVE - Omice a.s., Exit 90 SPV s.r.o., Onyx Energy s.r.o., Onyx Energy projekt II s.r.o., Photon SPV 1 s.r.o., Photon SPV 3 s.r.o., Photon SPV 4 s.r.o., Photon SPV 6 s.r.o., Photon SPV 8 s.r.o., Photon SPV 10 s.r.o., Photon SPV 11 s.r.o., Antaris GmbH, Michael Göde, NGL Business Europe Ltd, NIG NV, GIHG Ltd, Radiance Energy Holding Sàrl, ICW Europe Investments Ltd, Photovoltaik Knopf Betriebs-GmbH, Voltaic Network GmbH, WA Investments-Europa Nova Ltd (represented by: A. Reuter, H. Wendt, C. Bürger, T. Christner, W. Schumacher, A. Compes, T. Herbold, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Czech Republic, Kingdom of Spain, Republic of Cyprus, Slovak Republic

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

| — | quash the judgment under the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

quash the judgment under the appeal;

| — | uphold their application against the Commission Decision C(2016) 7827 final of 28 November 2016 on State aid SA.40171 (2015/NN), concerning the promotion of electricity production from renewable energy sources, a summary of which has been published in the Official Journal of the European Union (1), or alternatively |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold their application against the Commission Decision C(2016) 7827 final of 28 November 2016 on State aid SA.40171 (2015/NN), concerning the promotion of electricity production from renewable energy sources, a summary of which has been published in the Official Journal of the European Union (1), or alternatively

| — | refer the matter back to the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the matter back to the General Court;

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

—

order defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appeal concerns (i) the term ‘state aid’ in privately financed renewable energy schemes, (ii) the reliability of defendant’s decisions for EU citizens, (iii) the protection of their legitimate expectations against defendant’s about-turns and (iv) the limits to the abuse by defendant of its powers. The appellants rely on eight grounds of appeal.

First ground of appeal: The General Court’s finding that defendant’s letter of July 2004 to the relevant industry associations does not constitute a binding decision (a) misconstrues and infringes the Court’s case-law on the question what constitutes a decision and (b) was made at in breach of procedure adversely affecting the appellants.

Second ground of appeal: The appellants pleaded that the defendant was bound by a non-aid decision, which it made in 2006 (the ‘2006 Decision’). The General Court’s finding that such plea was inadmissible because (i) the appellants ‘failed to precisely identify that decision’ and (ii) the plea had been made only in the Reply, infringes (a) the Court’s case-law requirements for a decision to be at hand and (b) is in breach of procedural rules.

Third ground of appeal: The General Court’s denial of the appellants’ legitimate expectations that the defendant will maintain its 2004 Decision, its 2006 Decision, and its conduct shown from 2004 until the contested decision of 2016 is wrongful. First, it fails to take into account the circumstances of the case although they are undisputed and infringes the Court’s case-law on the requirements for legitimate expectations. Second, it is based on breaches of procedure.

Fourth ground of appeal: The General Court’s finding (at 86-127) that the Original Promotion Scheme constitutes state aid misconstrues the term ‘state aid’. Pursuant to the Court’s case-law, the Original Promotion Scheme did not involve state resources, which is true irrespective of whether or not the increase of energy prices for renewable energy cost constituted a ‘levy’. Furthermore, even if one were to consider the existence of a ‘levy’ to be decisive (quod non), the General Court finding of a ‘levy’ to exist infringes EU law and is based on breaches of procedure.

Fifth ground of appeal: By their fourth plea the appellants claimed before the General Court that the defendant imposed overreaching requirements in its compatibility assessment of the measures at issue with the internal market. The General Court (at 130-136) dismissed that plea as it considered that the relevant requirement of a ‘review mechanism’ had not been ‘imposed’ by defendant and that it was in line with the 2008 Community Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection (2). This infringes EU law.

Sixth ground of appeal: By the first part of their fifth plea, the appellants maintained that the contested decision was based on errors in fact. By their seventh plea the appellants maintained that the contested decision was based on manifest error in assessment. The General Court (at 139 and 166) dismissed both of these pleas. This dismissal was based on breaches of procedure adversely affecting the appellants. First, the General Court dismissal of the first part of fifth plea did not deal with its substance due to a misinterpretation by the GC of that plea. It also did not reflect the content of that plea as set forth in the Reply. Second, the General Court dismissal of the seventh plea did not reflect the content of that plea as set forth in the Reply.

Seventh ground of appeal: The appellants maintain that the General Court’s dismissal of the second part of their fifth plea, concerning violations of procedural rules by the defendant, infringes EU law.

Eighth ground of appeal: The appellants maintain that the General Court’s dismissal of their sixth plea, concerning wrongful adjudication by defendant of issues outside the purview of state aid law and the violation by defendant of Article 5(1) TEU, infringes EU law.

---

(1)  OJ 2017 C 69, p. 2.

(2)  OJ 2008 C 82, p. 1.

---

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/30

---

Appeal brought on 19 November 2019 by DK against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 10 September 2019 in Case T-217/18 DK v EEAS

(Case C-851/19 P)

(2020/C 68/32)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: DK (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European External Action Service

Form of order sought

The appellant submits that the Court of Justice should:

| — | set aside the judgment of 10 September 2019 in DK v EEAS (T-217/18); |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of 10 September 2019 in DK v EEAS (T-217/18);

| — | annul the decision of 23 May 2017 imposing a disciplinary measure on the appellant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 23 May 2017 imposing a disciplinary measure on the appellant;

| — | order the EEAS to pay the costs of both sets of proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the EEAS to pay the costs of both sets of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant asks the Court to set aside the judgment of 10 September 2019 (T-217/18), in which the General Court dismissed his action for annulment and ordered him to pay the costs.

In that regard, the appellant raises a single ground of appeal, alleging an error of law (paragraphs 28 to 53 of the judgment under appeal), in so far as the General Court interpreted Article 10(b) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations as allowing damage in respect of which compensation has already been paid to be taken into account in order to justify imposing a stricter disciplinary measure on a civil servant as compared to the measure recommended by the Disciplinary Committee.

---

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/31

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 21 November 2019 — Criminal proceedings against Ivan Gavanozov

(Case C-852/19)

(2020/C 68/33)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

Party to the main proceedings

Ivan Gavanozov

Questions referred

Is national legislation which does not provide for any legal remedy against the issuing of a European Investigation Order for the search of residential and business premises, the seizure of certain items and the hearing of a witness compatible with Article 14(1) to (4), Article 1(4) and recitals 18 and 22 of Directive 2014/41/EU (1) and with Articles 47 and 7 of the Charter, read in conjunction with Articles 13 and 8 of the ECHR?

Can a European Investigation Order be issued under those circumstances?

---

(1)  Directive 2014/41/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 regarding the European Investigation Order in criminal matters (OJ 2014, L 130, p. 1).

---

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/32

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Apelativen sad Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 26 November 2019 — Criminal proceedings against TS

(Case C-863/19)

(2020/C 68/34)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Apelativen sad Varna

Party to the main proceedings

TS

Questions referred

| 1. | Are Directive 2014/42/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the freezing and confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime in the European Union (OJ 2014 L 127, p. 39, corrigendum OJ 2014 L 138, p. 114) and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union applicable with respect to a criminal offence consisting of possession of narcotics for the purpose of distribution thereof, committed by a Bulgarian citizen in the territory of the Republic of Bulgaria, and where the potential economic proceeds are also realised and located in the Republic of Bulgaria? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are Directive 2014/42/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the freezing and confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime in the European Union (OJ 2014 L 127, p. 39, corrigendum OJ 2014 L 138, p. 114) and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union applicable with respect to a criminal offence consisting of possession of narcotics for the purpose of distribution thereof, committed by a Bulgarian citizen in the territory of the Republic of Bulgaria, and where the potential economic proceeds are also realised and located in the Republic of Bulgaria?

| 2. | Should the answer to the first question be in the affirmative, how should the concept of ‘economic advantage derived [...] indirectly from a criminal offence’ in Article 2(1) of the directive be understood, and can a sum of money, found in and confiscated from the home of the convicted person and his family and from a car driven by him, constitute such an advantage? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Should the answer to the first question be in the affirmative, how should the concept of ‘economic advantage derived [...] indirectly from a criminal offence’ in Article 2(1) of the directive be understood, and can a sum of money, found in and confiscated from the home of the convicted person and his family and from a car driven by him, constitute such an advantage?

| 3. | Is Article 2 of the directive to be interpreted as precluding a legal provision such as that of Article 53(2) of the Nakazatelen kodeks (Criminal Code) of the Republic of Bulgaria, which does not provide for the confiscation of an ‘economic advantage derived [...] indirectly from a criminal offence’? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is Article 2 of the directive to be interpreted as precluding a legal provision such as that of Article 53(2) of the Nakazatelen kodeks (Criminal Code) of the Republic of Bulgaria, which does not provide for the confiscation of an ‘economic advantage derived [...] indirectly from a criminal offence’?

| 4. | Is Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to be interpreted as precluding a national legal provision such as that of Article 306(1), point 1 of the Nakazatelno-protsesualen kodeks (Code of Criminal Procedure) of the Republic of Bulgaria, which allows for the confiscation for the benefit of the State of a sum of money in respect of which it is claimed that it belongs to a person other than the person who committed the criminal offence, without that third party being able to take part in those proceedings in his or her own right and having direct access to the courts? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to be interpreted as precluding a national legal provision such as that of Article 306(1), point 1 of the Nakazatelno-protsesualen kodeks (Code of Criminal Procedure) of the Republic of Bulgaria, which allows for the confiscation for the benefit of the State of a sum of money in respect of which it is claimed that it belongs to a person other than the person who committed the criminal offence, without that third party being able to take part in those proceedings in his or her own right and having direct access to the courts?

---

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/32

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 26 November 2019 — NH v Deutsche Lufthansa AG

(Case C-864/19)

(2020/C 68/35)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: NH

Defendant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

The case was removed from the Register of the Court of Justice by order of the President of the Court of 9 January 2020.

---

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/33

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud v Brně (Czech Republic) lodged on 4 December 2019 — Tesco Stores ČR a.s. v Ministerstvo zemědělství

(Case C-881/19)

(2020/C 68/36)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Krajský soud v Brně

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Tesco Stores ČR a.s.

Defendant: Ministerstvo zemědělství

Question referred

Should the rule set out in point 2(a) of part E of Annex VII to Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 (1) 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 be interpreted such that, with respect to a food intended for an end consumer in the Czech Republic, a compound ingredient listed in point 2(c) of part A of Annex I to Directive 2000/36/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 June 2000 relating to cocoa and chocolate products intended for human consumption, as amended, may only be listed among the ingredients of the product without a precise specification of its composition if that compound ingredient is labelled precisely in line with the Czech language version of Annex I to Directive 2000/36/EC?

---

(1)  OJ 2011 L 304, p. 18.

(2)  OJ 2000 L 197, p. 19.

---

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/34

---

Appeal brought on 19 December 2019 by European Federation of Public Service Unions (EPSU) against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 24 October 2019 in Case T-310/18, EPSU and Goudriaan v Commission

(Case C-928/19 P)

(2020/C 68/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Federation of Public Service Unions (EPSU) (represented by: R. Arthur, Solicitor, K. Apps, Barrister)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Jan Willem Goudriaan

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | allow the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

allow the appeal;

| — | set aside the contested judgment; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the contested judgment;

| — | annull the decision of the Commission dated 6 March 2018; |
| --- | --- |

—

annull the decision of the Commission dated 6 March 2018;

| — | order the Commission to pay the appellant’s costs of this appeal and the proceedings in the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the appellant’s costs of this appeal and the proceedings in the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits that this appeal should be allowed because the GC erred in law.

GROUND 1: Directives adopted through Council decision under Article 155(2) TFEU are legislative in nature

The GC erred in characterising the procedure under Articles 154 and 155 TFEU as incapable of producing legal acts of a legislative nature.

| a. | CJEU case law establishes that measures adopted through the second procedure have the same consequences as other directives. |
| --- | --- |

a.

CJEU case law establishes that measures adopted through the second procedure have the same consequences as other directives.

| b. | The Treaty of Lisbon did not reduce the role of the social partners or alter the nature of measures adopted through the second procedure. |
| --- | --- |

b.

The Treaty of Lisbon did not reduce the role of the social partners or alter the nature of measures adopted through the second procedure.

| c. | Measures adopted by directive through Council decision remain legislative in nature. |
| --- | --- |

c.

Measures adopted by directive through Council decision remain legislative in nature.

| d. | Measures adopted by directive through Council decision are legislative acts. |
| --- | --- |

d.

Measures adopted by directive through Council decision are legislative acts.

| e. | Alternatively, if (which is denied) directives adopted through Council decision are not legislative acts:






  i. | They are a form of lex specialis of an essentially legislative rather than executive nature. |
| --- | --- | --- |

e.

Alternatively, if (which is denied) directives adopted through Council decision are not legislative acts:

i.

They are a form of lex specialis of an essentially legislative rather than executive nature.

| ii. | They are capable of having the same legal effects as they did prior to 2007.
  The GC, therefore, erred in rejecting the appellant’s First Plea. |
| --- | --- |

ii.

They are capable of having the same legal effects as they did prior to 2007.

The GC, therefore, erred in rejecting the appellant’s First Plea.

GROUND 2: interpretation of Articles 154-155 TFEU

The GC erred in its literal, contextual and teleological interpretations of Articles 154 and 155(2) TFEU.

| a. | The GC’s interpretation of Article 155(2) TFEU does not follow the express wording. |
| --- | --- |

a.

The GC’s interpretation of Article 155(2) TFEU does not follow the express wording.

| b. | The GC should have found that, where a social partners’ agreement was reached by representative social partners and the agreement is not unlawful, the Commission has a duty to propose the text to the Council for a decision to be made under Article 155(2) TFEU, second subparagraph. |
| --- | --- |

b.

The GC should have found that, where a social partners’ agreement was reached by representative social partners and the agreement is not unlawful, the Commission has a duty to propose the text to the Council for a decision to be made under Article 155(2) TFEU, second subparagraph.

| c. | The GC should have found that the choice of method of implementation of SP Agreements lay with the social partners and not the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

c.

The GC should have found that the choice of method of implementation of SP Agreements lay with the social partners and not the Commission.

| d. | The GC should have found that the Council has the power to decide not to make a decision under Article 155(2) TFEU, second subparagraph, but the Commission has no similar power. |
| --- | --- |

d.

The GC should have found that the Council has the power to decide not to make a decision under Article 155(2) TFEU, second subparagraph, but the Commission has no similar power.

| e. | The GC misinterpreted the institutional balance of Articles 154 and 155 TFEU expanding the powers of the Commission beyond the express wording of the provisions, and misinterpreting the impact of Articles 13 and 17 TEU. |
| --- | --- |

e.

The GC misinterpreted the institutional balance of Articles 154 and 155 TFEU expanding the powers of the Commission beyond the express wording of the provisions, and misinterpreting the impact of Articles 13 and 17 TEU.

| f. | The GC’s interpretation runs contrary to the context of Title X TFEU on social policy and Article 28 of the CRFEU. |
| --- | --- |

f.

The GC’s interpretation runs contrary to the context of Title X TFEU on social policy and Article 28 of the CRFEU.

| g. | The GC misinterpreted the GC’s judgment in UEAPME case, conferring a greater political discretion on the Commission than the Commission has under the correct interpretation. |
| --- | --- |

g.

The GC misinterpreted the GC’s judgment in UEAPME case, conferring a greater political discretion on the Commission than the Commission has under the correct interpretation.

| h. | The GC erred in its assessment of Parliament’s role in the process under Articles 154 and 155 TFEU.
  The GC, therefore, erred in rejecting the appellant’s first plea. |
| --- | --- |

h.

The GC erred in its assessment of Parliament’s role in the process under Articles 154 and 155 TFEU.

The GC, therefore, erred in rejecting the appellant’s first plea.

GROUND 3: deferential approach to the Commission’s Decision

The GC erred in considering that the Commission were entitled to a broad political discretion in making the decision. In so doing the GC:

| a. | misinterpreted Articles 154 and 155 TFEU and the nature of the social partners process, and |
| --- | --- |

a.

misinterpreted Articles 154 and 155 TFEU and the nature of the social partners process, and

| b. | erred in drawing parallels with the European Citizens Initiative.
  The GC, therefore, erred in rejecting the appellant’s second plea. |
| --- | --- |

b.

erred in drawing parallels with the European Citizens Initiative.

The GC, therefore, erred in rejecting the appellant’s second plea.

GROUND 4: approach to the Commission’s reasoning in the Commission Decision

The GC erred in upholding the legality of the brief reasoning of the Commission Decision.

| a. | The reasons given by the Commission in the letter of 6 March 2018 were legally and factually misconceived. |
| --- | --- |

a.

The reasons given by the Commission in the letter of 6 March 2018 were legally and factually misconceived.

| b. | The Commission failed to provide any explanation for departing from assurances given in earlier correspondence and its published Communications. |
| --- | --- |

b.

The Commission failed to provide any explanation for departing from assurances given in earlier correspondence and its published Communications.

| c. | The reasons given in the letter were not the reasons relied on by the Commission in its defence or at the hearing. Those reasons were also legally and factually misconceived.
  The Commission has not acted consistently with Article 41 of the CFREU. |
| --- | --- |

c.

The reasons given in the letter were not the reasons relied on by the Commission in its defence or at the hearing. Those reasons were also legally and factually misconceived.

The Commission has not acted consistently with Article 41 of the CFREU.

---

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/36

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud v Ostravě (Czech Republic) lodged on 27 December 2019 — Samohýl group a. s. v Generální ředitelství cel

(Case C-941/19)

(2020/C 68/38)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Krajský soud v Ostravě

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Samohýl group a. s.

Defendant: Generální ředitelství cel

Question referred

Should the product labelled ‘Bob Martin Clear 50 mg roztok pro nakapání na kůži — spot-on pro kočky’ made available in pipettes (0.5 ml), which contains the active substance fipronil (50 mg per pipette) and the excipients butylated hydroxyanisole E 320, butylated hydroxytoluene E 321, benzyl alcohol and diethylene glycol monoethyl ether, be classified under heading 3004 or heading 3808 of the Combined Nomenclature of the Customs Tariff?

---

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/36

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) made on 27 December 2019 – MG v HH

(Case C-946/19)

(2020/C 68/39)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division)

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: MG

Respondent: HH

Questions referred

| 1. | Does Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (1) (‘Brussels I Recast’) confer a directly enforceable right upon a person domiciled in a Member State? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (1) (‘Brussels I Recast’) confer a directly enforceable right upon a person domiciled in a Member State?

| 2. | If it does:






  a) | Where such a right is breached by the bringing of proceedings against that person in a third State, is there an obligation upon the Member State to provide a remedy, including by the grant of an anti-suit injunction? |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

If it does:

a)

Where such a right is breached by the bringing of proceedings against that person in a third State, is there an obligation upon the Member State to provide a remedy, including by the grant of an anti-suit injunction?

| b) | Does any such obligation extend to a case where a cause of action available in the courts of a third State is not available under the law applicable in the courts of the Member State? |
| --- | --- |

b)

Does any such obligation extend to a case where a cause of action available in the courts of a third State is not available under the law applicable in the courts of the Member State?

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2012, L 351, p. 1).

---

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/37

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Queen's Bench Division) (United Kingdom) made on 6 January 2020 – Daimler AG v Walleniusrederierna Aktiebolag, Wallenius Wilhelmsen ASA, Wallenius Logistics AB, Wilhelmsen Ships Holding Malta Limited, Wallenius Wilhelmsen Ocean AS, ‘K’ Line Holding (Europe) Limited, ‘K’ Line Europe Limited, Nyk Group Europe Limited, Compañia Sudamericana de Vapores SA

(Case C-2/20)

(2020/C 68/40)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice (Queen's Bench Division)

Parties to the main proceedings

Claimant: Daimler AG

Defendants: Walleniusrederierna Aktiebolag, Wallenius Wilhelmsen ASA, Wallenius Logistics AB, Wilhelmsen Ships Holding Malta Limited, Wallenius Wilhelmsen Ocean AS, ‘K’ Line Holding (Europe) Limited, ‘K’ Line Europe Limited, Nyk Group Europe Limited, Compañia Sudamericana de Vapores SA

Question referred

| 1. | Does a national court have jurisdiction to determine a claim for damages under Article 85 EEC/Article 81 EC where the conduct complained of involved the provision of international maritime services exclusively between non-EEC/EC ports in the period prior to 1 May 2004 and the national court was not a relevant authority in a Member State for the purposes of Article 88 EEC/Article 84 EC? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does a national court have jurisdiction to determine a claim for damages under Article 85 EEC/Article 81 EC where the conduct complained of involved the provision of international maritime services exclusively between non-EEC/EC ports in the period prior to 1 May 2004 and the national court was not a relevant authority in a Member State for the purposes of Article 88 EEC/Article 84 EC?

| 2. | If question 1 is answered in the negative, does a national court have jurisdiction to determine such a claim in respect of the provision of international maritime services exclusively between non-EEC/EC ports in the period between 1 May 2004 and 18 October 2006? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If question 1 is answered in the negative, does a national court have jurisdiction to determine such a claim in respect of the provision of international maritime services exclusively between non-EEC/EC ports in the period between 1 May 2004 and 18 October 2006?

---

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/38

---

Action brought on 10 January 2020 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-11/20)

(2020/C 68/41)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouhagiar and Th. Ramopoulos, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period all the measures necessary to implement the Commission’s decision of 7 December 2011 in the case SA.28864 SA.28864 concerning compensation payments made by the Greek Agricultural Insurance Organisation (ELGA) in 2008 and 2009 or, in any event, by failing to inform the Commission sufficiently — in accordance with Article 4 of that decision — of the measures it has taken, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 3 and 4 of that decision and under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period all the measures necessary to implement the Commission’s decision of 7 December 2011 in the case SA.28864 SA.28864 concerning compensation payments made by the Greek Agricultural Insurance Organisation (ELGA) in 2008 and 2009 or, in any event, by failing to inform the Commission sufficiently — in accordance with Article 4 of that decision — of the measures it has taken, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 3 and 4 of that decision and under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

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

—

order Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Under the terms of the Commission decision of 7 December 2011 in case SA.28864, the Hellenic Republic was required to recover within four months the incompatible aid paid by the Greek Agricultural Insurance Agency (ELGA) during 2008 and 2009 and to provide sufficient information to the Commission regarding the necessary measures adopted to that end.

However, the Hellenic Republic has not recovered that aid as it was required to do. Moreover, the Hellenic Republic has not yet adopted the measures necessary to implement the decision. In any event, the Hellenic Republic has not sufficiently informed the European Commission of the measures relevant to the implementation of the decision.

---

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/38

---

Order of the President of the Court of 2 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Justice de paix du troisième canton de Charleroi — Belgium) — Giovanni Martina v Ryanair DAC, formerly Ryanair Ltd

(Case C-369/18) (1)

(2020/C 68/42)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 285, 13.8.2018.

---

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/39

---

Order of the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of 1 October 2019 — (request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky — Slovakia) — Criminal proceedings against YX

(Case C-495/18) (1)

(2020/C 68/43)

Language of the case: Slovak

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

---

(1)  OJ C 352, 1.10.2018.

---

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/39

---

Order of the President of the Ninth Chamber of the Court of 17 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Fédération des fabricants de cigares v Premier ministre, Ministre des Solidarités et de la Santé

(Case C-517/18) (1)

(2020/C 68/44)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 364, 8.10.2018.

---

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/39

---

Order of the President of the Court of 19 September 2019 — Duferco Long Products SA v European Commission

(Case C-738/18 P) (1)

(2020/C 68/45)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 35, 28.1.2019.

---

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/40

---

Order of the President of the Ninth Chamber of the Court of 25 September 2019 — Mouvement pour une Europe des nations et des libertés v European Parliament

(Case C-60/19 P) (1)

(2020/C 68/46)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 93, 11.3.2019.

---

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/40

---

Order of the President of the Court of 19 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo no2 de Ourense — Spain) — FA v Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS)

(Case C-240/19) (1)

(2020/C 68/47)

Language of the case: Spanish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 238, 15.7.2019.

---

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/40

---

Order of the President of the Sixth Chamber of the Court of 26 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Općinski sud u Zadru — Croatia) — R. D., A. D. v Raiffeisenbank St. Stefan-Jagerberg-Wolfsberg eGen

(Case C-277/19) (1)

(2020/C 68/48)

Language of the case: Croatian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 187, 3.6.2019.

---

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/41

---

Order of the President of the Court of 13 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Erding — Germany) — E. M., M. S. v Eurowings GmbH

(Case C-414/19) (1)

(2020/C 68/49)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 295, 2.9.2019.

---

General Court

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/42

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 January 2020 — Iberpotash v Commission

(Case T-257/18) (1)

(State aid - Mining sector - Measure consisting (i) in the reduction of financial guarantees for the restoration of mining sites and (ii) in State investment for the restoration of mining sites ensuring a higher level of environmental protection - Decision declaring aid partly incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Concept of ‘aid’ - Advantage - Transfer of State resources - Selective nature - Legitimate expectations - Legal certainty - Calculation of the amount of the aid)

(2020/C 68/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Iberpotash, SA (Súria, Spain) (represented by: N. Niejahr and B. Hoorelbeke, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2018/118 of 31 August 2017 on State aid SA.35818 (2016/C) (ex 2015/NN) (ex 2012/CP) implemented by Spain for Iberpotash (OJ 2018 L 28, p. 25).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Iberpotash, SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Iberpotash, SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 221, 25.6.2018.

---

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/42

---

Action brought on 7 November 2019 — Ungureanu v Commission

(Case T-753/19)

(2020/C 68/51)

Language of the case: Romanian

Parties

Applicant: Simeda Ungureanu (Cluj-Napoca, Romania) (represented by: R. Chiriță, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | find that the European Commission has failed to fulfil its obligation of ensuring that the Member States comply with the Treaties of the European Union and respect human rights as enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

—

find that the European Commission has failed to fulfil its obligation of ensuring that the Member States comply with the Treaties of the European Union and respect human rights as enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

| — | order the defendant to pay compensation for the non-material damage caused, estimated at EUR 40 000; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay compensation for the non-material damage caused, estimated at EUR 40 000;

| — | order the defendant to remedy the existing omissions in the future. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to remedy the existing omissions in the future.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant submits that the conditions for liability on the part of the European Commission are satisfied, since that institution failed to act in order to compel the Romanian State to comply with its obligations deriving from the Treaties of the European Union and from the right to life of its citizens, in so far as the Romanian State did not enact provisions enabling persons who are in particular situations and in respect of whom it is vital to administer medicinal products for therapeutic indications not included in the summary of product characteristics (off-label medicinal products) to have access to medical treatment.

---

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/43

---

Action brought on 13 December 2019 — Hellenic Republic v Commission

(Case T-850/19)

(2020/C 68/52)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: E. Tsaousi, E. Leftheriotou and A. Vasilopoulou)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul European Commission Implementing Decision C(2019) 7094 final of 7 October 2019 on measures SA.39119 (2016/C) (ex 2015/NN) (ex 2014/CP) implemented by the Hellenic Republic in the form of interest subsidies and guarantees, linked to the fires of 2007, which concerns only the agricultural sector; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul European Commission Implementing Decision C(2019) 7094 final of 7 October 2019 on measures SA.39119 (2016/C) (ex 2015/NN) (ex 2014/CP) implemented by the Hellenic Republic in the form of interest subsidies and guarantees, linked to the fires of 2007, which concerns only the agricultural sector; and

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant raises three pleas in law supporting its claim for annulment.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that there is no State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU: misapplication and misinterpretation of the conditions under which the State aid is incompatible with the internal market, error of fact, failure to state reasons for the contested decision and infringement by the Commission of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that there is no State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU: misapplication and misinterpretation of the conditions under which the State aid is incompatible with the internal market, error of fact, failure to state reasons for the contested decision and infringement by the Commission of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the aid at issue is compatible with the internal market since it constitutes aid to make good the damage caused by natural disasters. Misapplication and misinterpretation of Article 107(2)(b) TFEU, error of fact and failure to state reasons |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the aid at issue is compatible with the internal market since it constitutes aid to make good the damage caused by natural disasters. Misapplication and misinterpretation of Article 107(2)(b) TFEU, error of fact and failure to state reasons

| 3. | Third plea in law, based on the fact that the contested decision was adopted outside the scope of Commission’s competence ratione temporis, as defined by Article 17 of Regulation 2015/1589, (1) and previously by Article 15 of Regulation 659/1999, (2) and in any event, in breach of the principles of legal certainty, of adjudication within a reasonable period, of the rights of defence and of sound administration. The call for repayment is contrary to the principles of proportionality and legal certainty. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, based on the fact that the contested decision was adopted outside the scope of Commission’s competence ratione temporis, as defined by Article 17 of Regulation 2015/1589, (1) and previously by Article 15 of Regulation 659/1999, (2) and in any event, in breach of the principles of legal certainty, of adjudication within a reasonable period, of the rights of defence and of sound administration. The call for repayment is contrary to the principles of proportionality and legal certainty.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9)

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).

---

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/44

---

Action brought on 16 December 2019 – Albéa Services v EUIPO – dm-drogerie markt (ALBÉA)

(Case T-852/19)

(2020/C 68/53)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Albéa Services (Gennevilliers, France) (represented by: J.-H. de Mitry, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: dm-drogerie markt GmbH & Co. KG (Karlsruhe, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark ALBÉA – International registration designating the European Union No 1 210 553

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 September 2019 in Case R 1480/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul partially the contested decision which annulled the first decision of the Board of Appeal to the extent that the opposition No B002522988 against the Applicant’s trademark application in the name of Albéa Services was rejected for all the goods in classes 3, 8 and 21 and for the part of the goods of classes 16 and 20; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul partially the contested decision which annulled the first decision of the Board of Appeal to the extent that the opposition No B002522988 against the Applicant’s trademark application in the name of Albéa Services was rejected for all the goods in classes 3, 8 and 21 and for the part of the goods of classes 16 and 20;

| — | alternatively, annul partially the contested decision which annulled the first decision of the Board of Appeal to the extent that the opposition No B002522988 against the Applicant’s trademark application in the name of Albéa Services was rejected for all the goods in classes 3, 8 and 21 and for part of the goods of classes 16 and 20 and should remit the case to the Board; |
| --- | --- |

—

alternatively, annul partially the contested decision which annulled the first decision of the Board of Appeal to the extent that the opposition No B002522988 against the Applicant’s trademark application in the name of Albéa Services was rejected for all the goods in classes 3, 8 and 21 and for part of the goods of classes 16 and 20 and should remit the case to the Board;

| — | award costs in favour of the Applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

award costs in favour of the Applicant.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/45

---

Action brought on 19 December 2019 – Ryanair and Laudamotion v Commission

(Case T-866/19)

(2020/C 68/54)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Ryanair DAC (Swords, Ireland), Laudamotion GmbH (Schwechat, Austria) (represented by: E. Vahida and I. Metaxas-Maranghidis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul the Decision; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Decision; and

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In their application, the applicants request the Court to annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/1585 (1).

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

First plea in law, alleging that Commission implementing decision (EU) 2019/1585 violates the obligation to state reasons and the principle of free provision of services because the Commission has not reviewed the existence of an overriding general interest purpose that would justify the restriction of the principle of free provision of services introduced by the traffic distribution rules for Schiphol and Lelystad airports.

Second plea in law, in a subsidiary manner alleging that Commission implementing decision (EU) 2019/1585 violates the principle of free provision of services and Article 19(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) because the saturation of Schiphol airport and the superior benefit of transfer flights that the traffic distribution rules aim to enhance are not established.

Third plea in law, alleging that Commission implementing decision (EU) 2019/1585 violates the principle of free provision of services and Article 19(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 because of discrimination introduced by the traffic distribution rules in the absence of objective justifications.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that Commission implementing decision (EU) 2019/1585 violates the principle of free provision of services and Article 19(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 because of the lack of proportionality of the traffic distribution rules and the Commission’s failure to review the availability of less onerous means.

Fifth plea in law, alleging a breach of Council Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 (3) because the Commission failed to review the compliance with the procedure for the designation of Lelystad airport as a coordinated airport and because of the establishment of a link between slots and destinations and contradiction with the general principles governing Regulation (EEC) No 95/93.

Sixth plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 19(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 because the Commission did not review the satisfaction of the condition that the airports offer necessary services to air carriers and do not unduly prejudice their commercial opportunities.

---

(1)  Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/1585 of 24 September 2019 on the establishment of traffic distribution rules pursuant to Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council for the airports Amsterdam Schiphol and Amsterdam Lelystad (OJ 2019 L 246, p. 24).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community (OJ 2008, L 293, p. 3).

(3)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 of 18 January 1993 on common rules for the allocation of slots at Community airports (OJ 1993 L 14, p. 1).

---

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/46

---

Action brought on 20 December 2019 — RA v Court of Auditors

(Case T-867/19)

(2020/C 68/55)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: RA (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Court of Auditors

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of 27 February 2019 taken to comply with the judgment of 8 November 2018, RA v Court of Auditors (T-874/16, not published, EU:T:2018:757) not to promote him to grade AD11 during the 2016 promotion exercise; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 27 February 2019 taken to comply with the judgment of 8 November 2018, RA v Court of Auditors (T-874/16, not published, EU:T:2018:757) not to promote him to grade AD11 during the 2016 promotion exercise;

| — | order the Court of Auditors to pay him a sum of EUR 8 000 for the non-material damage suffered; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Court of Auditors to pay him a sum of EUR 8 000 for the non-material damage suffered;

| — | order the Court of Auditors to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Court of Auditors to pay the costs.

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 that there was inadequate reasoning given in the response dismissing the complaint in that the relevant individual ground justifying the applicant not being promoted was not identified. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that there was inadequate reasoning given in the response dismissing the complaint in that the relevant individual ground justifying the applicant not being promoted was not identified.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union for not carrying out an effective evaluation of comparative merits for all of the officials eligible for promotion. First, by carrying out a ‘general’ assessment of merits of the officials eligible for promotion, the Appointing Authority did not carry out the comparative evaluation on a basis of equality. Secondly, it applied the criterion of use of languages improperly. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union for not carrying out an effective evaluation of comparative merits for all of the officials eligible for promotion. First, by carrying out a ‘general’ assessment of merits of the officials eligible for promotion, the Appointing Authority did not carry out the comparative evaluation on a basis of equality. Secondly, it applied the criterion of use of languages improperly.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging several manifest errors of assessment which vitiate the contested decision. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging several manifest errors of assessment which vitiate the contested decision.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging a failure to fulfil the obligation to adopt measures to comply with a judgment within a reasonable period, which caused significant non-material damage to the applicant, which should be remedied. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a failure to fulfil the obligation to adopt measures to comply with a judgment within a reasonable period, which caused significant non-material damage to the applicant, which should be remedied.

---

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/47

---

Action brought on 20 December 2019 – Nouryon Industrial Chemicals and Others v Commission

(Case T-868/19)

(2020/C 68/56)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Nouryon Industrial Chemicals BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands), Knoell NL BV (Maarssen, Netherlands), Grillo-Werke AG (Duisburg, Germany), PCC Trade & Services GmbH (Duisburg) (represented by: R. Cana, G. David, lawyers, and Z. Romata, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

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

—

declare the application admissible and well-founded;

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

—

annul the contested decision in its entirety;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings; and |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings; and

| — | take such other or further measure as justice may require. |
| --- | --- |

—

take such other or further measure as justice may require.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In their application, the applicants request the Court to annul Commission Implementing Decision of 16 October 2019 on the compliance check of a registration of dimethyl ether, referred by the European Chemicals Agency to the Commission pursuant to Article 51(7) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (1).

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging the defendant acted ultra vires, and infringed Article 51(7) of the REACH Regulation (2) by adopting the contested decision to cover aspects in relation to which the Member State Committee of the European Chemicals Agency (the ‘Agency’) had reached unanimous agreement, while Article 51(7) of REACH only allows the Commission to adopt a decision when the Agency Committee ‘fails to reach unanimous agreement’. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging the defendant acted ultra vires, and infringed Article 51(7) of the REACH Regulation (2) by adopting the contested decision to cover aspects in relation to which the Member State Committee of the European Chemicals Agency (the ‘Agency’) had reached unanimous agreement, while Article 51(7) of REACH only allows the Commission to adopt a decision when the Agency Committee ‘fails to reach unanimous agreement’.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging the defendant manifestly erred in its assessment, and breached Article 13(3) of the REACH Regulation because testing dimethyl ether (the ‘substance’) at the concentrations imposed by the contested decision is technically not possible and goes against the test methods prescribed by measures under Article 13(3) of the REACH Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging the defendant manifestly erred in its assessment, and breached Article 13(3) of the REACH Regulation because testing dimethyl ether (the ‘substance’) at the concentrations imposed by the contested decision is technically not possible and goes against the test methods prescribed by measures under Article 13(3) of the REACH Regulation.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging the defendant manifestly erred in its assessment by requesting tests that will not generate relevant information on the substance. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging the defendant manifestly erred in its assessment by requesting tests that will not generate relevant information on the substance.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging the defendant manifestly erred in its assessment, and breached Column 2 of Section 8.7.3 of Annex X to the REACH Regulation by requesting the addition of cohorts 2A/2B to the extended one-generation reproductive toxicity study. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging the defendant manifestly erred in its assessment, and breached Column 2 of Section 8.7.3 of Annex X to the REACH Regulation by requesting the addition of cohorts 2A/2B to the extended one-generation reproductive toxicity study.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging the defendant acted ultra vires, breached Column I of Section 8.7.3. of Annex X to the REACH Regulation and Article 25 of the REACH Regulation by requesting a dose-range finding study. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging the defendant acted ultra vires, breached Column I of Section 8.7.3. of Annex X to the REACH Regulation and Article 25 of the REACH Regulation by requesting a dose-range finding study.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging the defendant acted ultra vires, and breached Article 41 of the REACH Regulation and Annex XI to the REACH Regulation by not allowing the applicants to address the alleged non-compliance with the REACH requirements by submitting an adaptation of the testing requirements, instead of the actual tests as requested. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging the defendant acted ultra vires, and breached Article 41 of the REACH Regulation and Annex XI to the REACH Regulation by not allowing the applicants to address the alleged non-compliance with the REACH requirements by submitting an adaptation of the testing requirements, instead of the actual tests as requested.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging the defendant acted ultra vires, and breached Article 41 of the REACH Regulation by reaching a conclusion on a potential read-across adaptation through the contested decision. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging the defendant acted ultra vires, and breached Article 41 of the REACH Regulation by reaching a conclusion on a potential read-across adaptation through the contested decision.

| 8. | Eighth plea in law, alleging the defendant manifestly erred in its assessment, failed to take relevant information into account, and breached Column 2 of Section 8.7.2 of Annex IX to the REACH Regulation by requesting a pre-natal developmental toxicity study (PNDT, test method: EU B.31/OECD TG 414) in rabbits via the inhalation route. |
| --- | --- |

8.

Eighth plea in law, alleging the defendant manifestly erred in its assessment, failed to take relevant information into account, and breached Column 2 of Section 8.7.2 of Annex IX to the REACH Regulation by requesting a pre-natal developmental toxicity study (PNDT, test method: EU B.31/OECD TG 414) in rabbits via the inhalation route.

| 9. | Ninth plea in law, alleging the defendant breached the EU principle of proportionality and Article 25 of the REACH Regulation (a) by requesting tests that are unnecessary and unsuitable because it is technically impossible to conduct them as requested by the defendant, and because when conducted they will not yield any relevant information on the substance, (b) by requesting an unnecessary dose-range finding study, also considering the substantial and heavy animal life loss that goes against the requirements in Article 25 of the REACH Regulation, and (c) by dismissing the less onerous option. |
| --- | --- |

9.

Ninth plea in law, alleging the defendant breached the EU principle of proportionality and Article 25 of the REACH Regulation (a) by requesting tests that are unnecessary and unsuitable because it is technically impossible to conduct them as requested by the defendant, and because when conducted they will not yield any relevant information on the substance, (b) by requesting an unnecessary dose-range finding study, also considering the substantial and heavy animal life loss that goes against the requirements in Article 25 of the REACH Regulation, and (c) by dismissing the less onerous option.

---

(1)  C(2019) 7336 final.

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1).

---

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/48

---

Action brought on 22 December 2019 — IM v EIB

(Case T-872/19)

(2020/C 68/57)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: IM (represented by: D. Giabbani, lawyer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | admit this action as procedurally valid; |
| --- | --- |

—

admit this action as procedurally valid;

| — | on the merits see the action as justified; |
| --- | --- |

—

on the merits see the action as justified;

| — | declare the decision of 3 October 2019, repeated and reiterated on 9 October 2019, unlawful and incorrect; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the decision of 3 October 2019, repeated and reiterated on 9 October 2019, unlawful and incorrect;

| — | consequently, order the European Investment Bank to pay to the applicant in respect of the abovementioned heads of claim the sum of EUR 143 915,70 in respect of non-material damage and the sum of EUR 1 726 988,40 in respect of material damage or any other amount, even greater, to be assessed ex aequo et bono by the Court or by experts, together with statutory interest from the date of the present application until payment is made in full; |
| --- | --- |

—

consequently, order the European Investment Bank to pay to the applicant in respect of the abovementioned heads of claim the sum of EUR 143 915,70 in respect of non-material damage and the sum of EUR 1 726 988,40 in respect of material damage or any other amount, even greater, to be assessed ex aequo et bono by the Court or by experts, together with statutory interest from the date of the present application until payment is made in full;

| — | order the opposing party to pay the costs and expenses incurred. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the opposing party to pay the costs and expenses incurred.

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 an infringement of Article 20 of the Statutes of the European Investment Fund which provides that ‘the Chief Executive shall be appointed for a term of up to 5 years and shall be eligible for reappointment’. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 20 of the Statutes of the European Investment Fund which provides that ‘the Chief Executive shall be appointed for a term of up to 5 years and shall be eligible for reappointment’.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the applicant’s letter of appointment of 5 March 2014 and its addendum on the ground that it is apparent from those documents and from the extension of the applicant’s term of office beyond 15 March 2017 that there was an agreement allowing him to work until the age of 67 and even thereafter. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the applicant’s letter of appointment of 5 March 2014 and its addendum on the ground that it is apparent from those documents and from the extension of the applicant’s term of office beyond 15 March 2017 that there was an agreement allowing him to work until the age of 67 and even thereafter.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging direct discrimination on account of the applicant’s age. The applicant submits that by rejecting his application solely on the basis of his age the recruitment panel infringed the principle of non-discrimination. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging direct discrimination on account of the applicant’s age. The applicant submits that by rejecting his application solely on the basis of his age the recruitment panel infringed the principle of non-discrimination.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging an infringement relating to the applicant’s confidential and personal data. The applicant submits that by relying on the content of the letter of appointment for the reasoning of its decision, the recruitment panel acknowledges that it was aware of a document that it was not supposed to have in its possession and which contained personal data relating to the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging an infringement relating to the applicant’s confidential and personal data. The applicant submits that by relying on the content of the letter of appointment for the reasoning of its decision, the recruitment panel acknowledges that it was aware of a document that it was not supposed to have in its possession and which contained personal data relating to the applicant.

---

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/49

---

Action brought on 31 December 2019 — UW v Commission

(Case T-880/19)

(2020/C 68/58)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: UW (represented by: F. Quraishi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | convene the parties if necessary; |
| --- | --- |

—

convene the parties if necessary;

| — | admit this action as procedurally valid; |
| --- | --- |

—

admit this action as procedurally valid;

| — | on the merits see the action as justified; |
| --- | --- |

—

on the merits see the action as justified;

| — | reverse or, alternatively, annul the contested rejection decision of 2 October 2019 adopted by [confidential] (1) in its capacity as the appointing authority (AA) and declare complaint No R/352/19 of 27 May 2019 to be justified and consequently, reverse or, alternatively, annul the original decision adopted on 27 February 2019 on grounds of invalidity as regards the decision-making process, improper referral to the invalidity committee, a formal irregularity, lack of legal basis, failure to state reasons or, alternatively, incorrect reasoning, abuse or misuse of powers or, alternatively, any other basis to be considered; |
| --- | --- |

—

reverse or, alternatively, annul the contested rejection decision of 2 October 2019 adopted by [confidential] (1) in its capacity as the appointing authority (AA) and declare complaint No R/352/19 of 27 May 2019 to be justified and consequently, reverse or, alternatively, annul the original decision adopted on 27 February 2019 on grounds of invalidity as regards the decision-making process, improper referral to the invalidity committee, a formal irregularity, lack of legal basis, failure to state reasons or, alternatively, incorrect reasoning, abuse or misuse of powers or, alternatively, any other basis to be considered;

| — | consequently, order the reintegration of the applicant in her last post occupied with [confidential] or, alternatively, an equivalent post and retroactively re-establish all of her rights; |
| --- | --- |

—

consequently, order the reintegration of the applicant in her last post occupied with [confidential] or, alternatively, an equivalent post and retroactively re-establish all of her rights;

| — | order any and all measures of investigation, in particular, a medical report from an independent medical expert for the purposes of assessing whether the applicant’s state of health corresponds to the performance of her duties in the last post occupied with [confidential] or, alternatively, any other post corresponding to her grade and her qualifications or, alternatively, any other post commensurate with her strengths and abilities with the Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

order any and all measures of investigation, in particular, a medical report from an independent medical expert for the purposes of assessing whether the applicant’s state of health corresponds to the performance of her duties in the last post occupied with [confidential] or, alternatively, any other post corresponding to her grade and her qualifications or, alternatively, any other post commensurate with her strengths and abilities with the Commission;

| — | order the AA party to pay all of the costs and expenses of the present proceedings, inter alia, the costs relating to the expert opinion; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the AA party to pay all of the costs and expenses of the present proceedings, inter alia, the costs relating to the expert opinion;

| — | see that all other rights, pleas in law, dues and actions be reserved to the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

see that all other rights, pleas in law, dues and actions be reserved to the applicant.

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 an irregularity in the decision of the AA of 27 February 2019 which erroneously mentions a decision of the AA of 31 March 2016 to make a referral to the invalidity committee, whereas the referral to that committee was made on 26 June 2018, which vitiates the contested decision of 27 February 2019 due to an irregularity which must lead to that decision being reversed or annulled. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging an irregularity in the decision of the AA of 27 February 2019 which erroneously mentions a decision of the AA of 31 March 2016 to make a referral to the invalidity committee, whereas the referral to that committee was made on 26 June 2018, which vitiates the contested decision of 27 February 2019 due to an irregularity which must lead to that decision being reversed or annulled.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging an improper referral made to the invalidity committee following the withdrawal of the decision of 9 November 2017 by decision of 30 April 2018 of the AA. Following the withdrawal of the decision of 9 November 2017 which placed the applicant on total permanent invalidity, the applicant should have undergone a check-up at the medical service. However, that was not the case and that irregularity should lead to the contested decision being reversed or annulled. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging an improper referral made to the invalidity committee following the withdrawal of the decision of 9 November 2017 by decision of 30 April 2018 of the AA. Following the withdrawal of the decision of 9 November 2017 which placed the applicant on total permanent invalidity, the applicant should have undergone a check-up at the medical service. However, that was not the case and that irregularity should lead to the contested decision being reversed or annulled.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging an improper referral made to the invalidity committee on 26 June 2018 where the conditions for referral were not fulfilled in particular the condition relating to the duration of the period of illness preceding the referral. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging an improper referral made to the invalidity committee on 26 June 2018 where the conditions for referral were not fulfilled in particular the condition relating to the duration of the period of illness preceding the referral.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging an irregular composition of the invalidity committee and that the conclusions reached were not well-founded. The applicant submits that doctor [confidential] was harassing her and therefore considers it inconceivable to submit to him the examination of her state of health. Thus, the lack of impartiality of a member of the invalidity committee constitutes an irregularity which vitiates the decision to place the applicant on invalidity. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging an irregular composition of the invalidity committee and that the conclusions reached were not well-founded. The applicant submits that doctor [confidential] was harassing her and therefore considers it inconceivable to submit to him the examination of her state of health. Thus, the lack of impartiality of a member of the invalidity committee constitutes an irregularity which vitiates the decision to place the applicant on invalidity.

---

(1)  Confidential data removed.

---

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/50

---

Action brought on 27 December 2019 — Kerangus v EUIPO (ΑΠΛΑ)

(Case T-882/19)

(2020/C 68/59)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Kerangus Holdings Ltd (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: A.-E. Malami, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for registration in the European Union of the figurative mark ΑΠΛΑ! — Application for registration No 15 554 918

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 October 2019 in Case R 1035/2017-1

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;

| — | grant trade mark application No. 015554918/17.06.2016‘ΑΠΛΑ! and representation’ for all the goods and services in Classes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 14, 16, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 39, 43 |
| --- | --- |

—

grant trade mark application No. 015554918/17.06.2016‘ΑΠΛΑ! and representation’ for all the goods and services in Classes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 14, 16, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 39, 43

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs pursuant to Article 190(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs pursuant to Article 190(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

Pleas in law

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

—

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

| — | Infringement of the principle of equal treatment with respect to all EU applicants. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the principle of equal treatment with respect to all EU applicants.

---

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/51

---

Action brought on 27 December 2019 – Gustopharma Consumer Health v EUIPO – Helixor Heilmittel (HELIX ELIXIR)

(Case T-883/19)

(2020/C 68/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Gustopharma Consumer Health, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. Gómez López, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Helixor Heilmittel GmbH (Rosenfeld, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union trade mark HELIX ELIXIR – Application for registration No 15 035 991

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 October 2019 in Case R 100/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | allow the present Appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

allow the present Appeal;

| — | annul the contested decision; and/or |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision; and/or

| — | set aside the contested decision due to erroneous application of Article 8(1)(b) and enter a finding to the effect that there does not exist likelihood of confusion between the confronted trademarks; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the contested decision due to erroneous application of Article 8(1)(b) and enter a finding to the effect that there does not exist likelihood of confusion between the confronted trademarks;

| — | issue a new Resolution granting EUTM Application No 15 035 991 HELIX ELIXIR for all the applied goods; and |
| --- | --- |

—

issue a new Resolution granting EUTM Application No 15 035 991 HELIX ELIXIR for all the applied goods; and

| — | order EUIPO (and Intervener, if he enters an appearance in proceedings) to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO (and Intervener, if he enters an appearance in proceedings) to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/52

---

Action brought on 25 December 2019 – Aquind and Others v Commission

(Case T-885/19)

(2020/C 68/61)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Aquind Ltd (Wallsend, United Kingdom), Aquind Energy Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), Aquind SAS (Rouen, France) (represented by: S. Goldberg, C. Davis, J. Bille, Solicitors, and E. White, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested measure, that is the Delegated Regulation insofar as it removes AQUIND Interconnector from the Union List; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested measure, that is the Delegated Regulation insofar as it removes AQUIND Interconnector from the Union List;

| — | in the alternative, annul the Delegated Regulation in its entirety; and |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul the Delegated Regulation in its entirety; and

| — | order the European Commission to pay the costs of the applicants in the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs of the applicants in the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In their application, the applicants ask the Court to annul Commission Delegated Regulation of 31 October 2019 amending Regulation (EU) No 347/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the Union list of projects of common interest.

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a failure to state reasons for the removal of AQUIND Interconnector from the Union list.






  — | In breach of the obligation to state reasons, the Delegated Regulation does not contain or refer to any statement of reasons for the removal of AQUIND Interconnector from the Union list and the applicants were not given any reasons for the removal. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a failure to state reasons for the removal of AQUIND Interconnector from the Union list.

—

In breach of the obligation to state reasons, the Delegated Regulation does not contain or refer to any statement of reasons for the removal of AQUIND Interconnector from the Union list and the applicants were not given any reasons for the removal.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the procedural and substantive requirements under Regulation (EU) No 347/2013 (1) (the ‘TEN-E Regulation’) and in particular Article 5(8) thereof.






  — | The establishment of the list of projects of common interest for the purposes of the Delegated Regulation was not in compliance with the requirements of the TEN-E Regulation. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the procedural and substantive requirements under Regulation (EU) No 347/2013 (1) (the ‘TEN-E Regulation’) and in particular Article 5(8) thereof.

—

The establishment of the list of projects of common interest for the purposes of the Delegated Regulation was not in compliance with the requirements of the TEN-E Regulation.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 10(1) of the Energy Charter Treaty.






  — | The removal of AQUIND Interconnector from the Union list and the lack of any reasons for such removal infringe obligations under Article 10(1) of the Energy Charter Treaty to provide stable, equitable and transparent conditions and to accord fair and equitable treatment to investments. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 10(1) of the Energy Charter Treaty.

—

The removal of AQUIND Interconnector from the Union list and the lack of any reasons for such removal infringe obligations under Article 10(1) of the Energy Charter Treaty to provide stable, equitable and transparent conditions and to accord fair and equitable treatment to investments.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the right to good administration under Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.






  — | In breach of the Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental rights, AQUIND Interconnector’s removal from the Union list was not handled impartially and the applicants had no right to be heard before the adoption of the Delegated Regulation. |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the right to good administration under Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

—

In breach of the Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental rights, AQUIND Interconnector’s removal from the Union list was not handled impartially and the applicants had no right to be heard before the adoption of the Delegated Regulation.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the Union law principle of equal treatment.






  — | In breach of the Union law principle of equal treatment, AQUIND Interconnector was treated in a different and unfair manner in comparison to comparable proposed projects of common interest (PCI) without any objective justification for such unequal treatment. |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the Union law principle of equal treatment.

—

In breach of the Union law principle of equal treatment, AQUIND Interconnector was treated in a different and unfair manner in comparison to comparable proposed projects of common interest (PCI) without any objective justification for such unequal treatment.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the Union law principle of proportionality.






  — | As an existing PCI in the development stage, the simple removal of AQUIND Interconnector from the Union list without carrying out a detailed comparison of comparable projects and without the applicants being given an opportunity to remedy any problems is disproportionate. |
| --- | --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the Union law principle of proportionality.

—

As an existing PCI in the development stage, the simple removal of AQUIND Interconnector from the Union list without carrying out a detailed comparison of comparable projects and without the applicants being given an opportunity to remedy any problems is disproportionate.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging an infringement of the Union law principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations.






  — | The contested measure infringes the applicants’ legitimate expectations that it would be entitled to rely on its inclusion in the Union list and that the process of preparing the Union list of PCIs would be carried out in accordance with the objectives and obligations of the TEN-E Regulation and other applicable legal requirements. |
| --- | --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging an infringement of the Union law principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations.

—

The contested measure infringes the applicants’ legitimate expectations that it would be entitled to rely on its inclusion in the Union list and that the process of preparing the Union list of PCIs would be carried out in accordance with the objectives and obligations of the TEN-E Regulation and other applicable legal requirements.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 347/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2013 on guidelines for trans-European energy infrastructure and repealing Decision No 1364/2006/EC and amending Regulations (EC) No 713/2009, (EC) No 714/2009 and (EC) No 715/2009 (OJ 2013 L 115, p. 39).

---

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/54

---

Action brought on 2 January 2020 – M. I. Industries v EUIPO – Natural Instinct (INSTINCT)

(Case T-1/20)

(2020/C 68/62)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: M. I. Industries, Inc. (Lincoln, Nebraska, United States) (represented by: M. Montañá Mora and S. Sebe Marin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Natural Instinct Ltd (Camberley, 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 INSTINCT – European Union trade mark No 5 208 418

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 October 2019 in Case R 178/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and – if applicable – the Cancellation Applicant to jointly and severally pay all the costs of these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and – if applicable – the Cancellation Applicant to jointly and severally pay all the costs of these proceedings.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Articles 58(1)(a) and 18 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and the case law from the Court of Justice of the European Union in relation to the assessment of the proof of use. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 58(1)(a) and 18 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and the case law from the Court of Justice of the European Union in relation to the assessment of the proof of use.

---

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/55

---

Action brought on 3 January 2020 – Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO – Bio-tec Biologische Naturverpackungen (BIOPLAST BIOPLASTICS FOR A BETTER LIFE)

(Case T-2/20)

(2020/C 68/63)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bio-tec Biologische Naturverpackungen GmbH & Co. KG (Emmerich, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark BIOPLAST BIOPLASTICS FOR A BETTER LIFE – International registration designating the European Union No 1 202 538

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 October 2019 in Case R 418/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | revoke the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

revoke the contested decision;

| — | order the defendant and, in case Bio-tec Biologische Naturverpackungen GmbH & Co. KG decides to intervene in the present proccedings, Bio-tec Biologische Naturverpackungen GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant and, in case Bio-tec Biologische Naturverpackungen GmbH & Co. KG decides to intervene in the present proccedings, Bio-tec Biologische Naturverpackungen GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/56

---

Action brought on 6 January 2020 — CP v Parliament

(Case T-5/20)

(2020/C 68/64)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

declare the present action admissible and well founded;

accordingly:

| — | annul the applicant’s 2016 staff report, signed by the secretary general on 16 November 2018; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the applicant’s 2016 staff report, signed by the secretary general on 16 November 2018;

| — | in so far as necessary, annul the decision of the president of 25 September 2019 rejecting the complaint; |
| --- | --- |

—

in so far as necessary, annul the decision of the president of 25 September 2019 rejecting the complaint;

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

—

order the defendant to pay all 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 failure to comply with the obligation to state reasons and infringement of Article 25(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union in so far as, first of all, the applicant’s appraisal was incomplete since no assessment was given under the heading ‘sense of responsibility and work ethic’ under ‘conduct’ in the final version of the staff report. Second, there was a sufficiently clear discrepancy between his 2016 staff report and his earlier staff reports, in particular that of 2015, and adequate reasons for that discrepancy were not given. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging failure to comply with the obligation to state reasons and infringement of Article 25(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union in so far as, first of all, the applicant’s appraisal was incomplete since no assessment was given under the heading ‘sense of responsibility and work ethic’ under ‘conduct’ in the final version of the staff report. Second, there was a sufficiently clear discrepancy between his 2016 staff report and his earlier staff reports, in particular that of 2015, and adequate reasons for that discrepancy were not given.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging failure to take into account in the assessments the fact that the applicant’s unit was understaffed and the applicant’s ancillary activities. In that regard the applicant takes the view that, in 2016, his performance was influenced by several factors which were not properly taken into consideration by the defendant when drawing up his staff report, namely the fact that the unit was understaffed, his participation in the Staff Committee and his involvement in the implementation of a new evacuation concept which had become a priority for Directorate B of DG SAFE, the ‘PPP’. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging failure to take into account in the assessments the fact that the applicant’s unit was understaffed and the applicant’s ancillary activities. In that regard the applicant takes the view that, in 2016, his performance was influenced by several factors which were not properly taken into consideration by the defendant when drawing up his staff report, namely the fact that the unit was understaffed, his participation in the Staff Committee and his involvement in the implementation of a new evacuation concept which had become a priority for Directorate B of DG SAFE, the ‘PPP’.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in so far as the assessments in the 2016 staff report, marked by a clear deterioration of performance compared to 2015, is manifestly incorrect and does not take into account the applicant’s full dedication to his activities and the results achieved, despite the particularly difficult circumstances. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in so far as the assessments in the 2016 staff report, marked by a clear deterioration of performance compared to 2015, is manifestly incorrect and does not take into account the applicant’s full dedication to his activities and the results achieved, despite the particularly difficult circumstances.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging lack of a quiet environment during the assessment interviews and infringement of the right to be heard and of Article 6.2 of the internal rules on staff reports, in so far as the interview with the first reporting officer and, in particular, the interview with the last reporting officer did not take place in a quiet environment as required by Article 6.2 of the internal rules and did not allow the applicant to present effectively his observations on the negative remarks in his staff report. The report also remained largely unchanged after those interviews. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging lack of a quiet environment during the assessment interviews and infringement of the right to be heard and of Article 6.2 of the internal rules on staff reports, in so far as the interview with the first reporting officer and, in particular, the interview with the last reporting officer did not take place in a quiet environment as required by Article 6.2 of the internal rules and did not allow the applicant to present effectively his observations on the negative remarks in his staff report. The report also remained largely unchanged after those interviews.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging failure to observe the principles of objectivity and impartiality; harassment; infringement of Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; failure to observe the principle that an employer owes a duty of care to his employees; and misuse of power. In that regard, the applicant considers that the lack of sufficient, relevant and well-founded justification for the negative comments or comments with negative connotations in his 2016 staff report leads the applicant to take the view that the report is unfair and is marked by a patent lack of objectivity and impartiality, coming down, rather, to a settling of scores by the final reporting officer, with the help of the first reporting officer. Each element of the assessment was rated lower than in earlier years, particularly 2015, for no reason. It contained nothing positive. Most of the results achieved by the applicant in 2016 were ignored; all the work completed was denied. The report is marked by misuse of power since it had the sole objective of harming the applicant by presenting a truncated version of the reality of his performance, protected, apparently, by the broad discretion given to the reporting officers. This abusive approach, consisting in misusing the appraisal system under the pretext of broad discretion, makes it difficult for the applicant to defend himself since he finds himself apparently faced with value judgments with limited mechanisms for review. Lastly, the defendant failed to comply with its duty of care since the applicant’s interests were manifestly not taken into consideration. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging failure to observe the principles of objectivity and impartiality; harassment; infringement of Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; failure to observe the principle that an employer owes a duty of care to his employees; and misuse of power. In that regard, the applicant considers that the lack of sufficient, relevant and well-founded justification for the negative comments or comments with negative connotations in his 2016 staff report leads the applicant to take the view that the report is unfair and is marked by a patent lack of objectivity and impartiality, coming down, rather, to a settling of scores by the final reporting officer, with the help of the first reporting officer. Each element of the assessment was rated lower than in earlier years, particularly 2015, for no reason. It contained nothing positive. Most of the results achieved by the applicant in 2016 were ignored; all the work completed was denied. The report is marked by misuse of power since it had the sole objective of harming the applicant by presenting a truncated version of the reality of his performance, protected, apparently, by the broad discretion given to the reporting officers. This abusive approach, consisting in misusing the appraisal system under the pretext of broad discretion, makes it difficult for the applicant to defend himself since he finds himself apparently faced with value judgments with limited mechanisms for review. Lastly, the defendant failed to comply with its duty of care since the applicant’s interests were manifestly not taken into consideration.

---

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/57

---

Action brought on 8 January 2020 — Dr. Spiller v EUIPO — Rausch (Alpenrausch Dr. Spiller)

(Case T-6/20)

(2020/C 68/65)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Dr. Spiller GmbH (Siegsdorf, Germany) (represented by: J. Stock and M. Geitz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Rausch AG Kreuzlingen (Kreuzlingen, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark Alpenrausch Dr. Spiller — Application for registration No 11 091 204

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 October 2019 in Case R 2206/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

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.

---

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/58

---

Action brought on 8 January 2020 — Italy v Commission

(Case T-10/20)

(2020/C 68/66)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and G. Rocchitta, C. Gerardis and E. Feola, avvocati dello Stato)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Implementing Decision C(2019)7815 of 30 October 2019, in so far as it applies, in respect of Italy, financial corrections relating to Audit Surveys AA/2016/012, AA/2016/003, AA/2016/015/IT, FV/2016/002/IT and RD1/2016/803/IT; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Implementing Decision C(2019)7815 of 30 October 2019, in so far as it applies, in respect of Italy, financial corrections relating to Audit Surveys AA/2016/012, AA/2016/003, AA/2016/015/IT, FV/2016/002/IT and RD1/2016/803/IT;

| — | in the alternative, annul that decision, in so far as it applies the flat-rate correction of EUR 143 924 279,14, relating to the 2015 and 2016 financial years (Surveys AA/2016/012, AA/2016/003 and AA/2016/015/IT), instead of the one-off correction fixed by the [Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (Italian Agricultural Payments Authority) (AGEA)] at EUR 64 860 193,65; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul that decision, in so far as it applies the flat-rate correction of EUR 143 924 279,14, relating to the 2015 and 2016 financial years (Surveys AA/2016/012, AA/2016/003 and AA/2016/015/IT), instead of the one-off correction fixed by the [Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (Italian Agricultural Payments Authority) (AGEA)] at EUR 64 860 193,65;

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

—

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

Italy challenges the decision forming the subject matter of the action, in so far as that decision has provided, in respect of Italy, for financial corrections under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD).

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

| (a) | Pleas in law concerning the correction resulting from Surveys AA/2016/012, AA/2016/003 and AA/2016/015 IT, relating to area-linked aid:






  1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 637/2008 and Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, (1) with regard to the definition of ‘permanent grassland’ adopted at national level pursuant to [Decree No 6513 of the Italian Minister for Agricultural, Food and Forestry Policy] of 18 November 2014. |
| --- | --- | --- |

(a)

Pleas in law concerning the correction resulting from Surveys AA/2016/012, AA/2016/003 and AA/2016/015 IT, relating to area-linked aid:

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 637/2008 and Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, (1) with regard to the definition of ‘permanent grassland’ adopted at national level pursuant to [Decree No 6513 of the Italian Minister for Agricultural, Food and Forestry Policy] of 18 November 2014.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 52(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008, (2) and of Article 12(2) and (6) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 907/2014 of 11 March 2014 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to paying agencies and other bodies, financial management, clearance of accounts, securities and use of euro, (3) with regard to the application of a flat rate, despite the actual risk to the EU budget being calculable. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 52(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008, (2) and of Article 12(2) and (6) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 907/2014 of 11 March 2014 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to paying agencies and other bodies, financial management, clearance of accounts, securities and use of euro, (3) with regard to the application of a flat rate, despite the actual risk to the EU budget being calculable.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, with regard to the application of the general clause of ‘disproportionate effort’ used as the basis for applying the flat-rate correction. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, with regard to the application of the general clause of ‘disproportionate effort’ used as the basis for applying the flat-rate correction.

| (b) | Pleas in law concerning the correction resulting from Survey FV/2016/002/IT, relating to producer organisations and operational programmes:






  4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 26, 27 and 106 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors, (4) and of Article 155 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007, (5) with regard to the assumption that (i) there was a systematic lack of detailed information on the examination of the soundness of the estimates supplied by the producer organisations and (ii) deficient checks were carried out in relation to the recognition of those organisations. |
| --- | --- | --- |

(b)

Pleas in law concerning the correction resulting from Survey FV/2016/002/IT, relating to producer organisations and operational programmes:

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 26, 27 and 106 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors, (4) and of Article 155 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007, (5) with regard to the assumption that (i) there was a systematic lack of detailed information on the examination of the soundness of the estimates supplied by the producer organisations and (ii) deficient checks were carried out in relation to the recognition of those organisations.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 31 and 106 of Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 and of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 499/2014 of 11 March 2014 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council by amending Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 relating to the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors, (6) with regard to the assumption that deficient checks were carried out in relation to the ‘democratic accountability’ criterion. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 31 and 106 of Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 and of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 499/2014 of 11 March 2014 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council by amending Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 relating to the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors, (6) with regard to the assumption that deficient checks were carried out in relation to the ‘democratic accountability’ criterion.

| (c) | Plea in law concerning the correction resulting from Survey RD1/2016/803/IT, relating to rural development measures:






  6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging that the criticised irregularities in the public procurement procedures, with regard to the assumption that there was a failure to observe the rules on public procurement in two cases considered, do not exist. |
| --- | --- | --- |

(c)

Plea in law concerning the correction resulting from Survey RD1/2016/803/IT, relating to rural development measures:

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the criticised irregularities in the public procurement procedures, with regard to the assumption that there was a failure to observe the rules on public procurement in two cases considered, do not exist.

---

(1)  OJ 2013 L 347, p. 608.

(2)  OJ 2013 L 347, p. 549.

(3)  OJ 2014 L 255, p. 18.

(4)  OJ 2011 L 157, p. 1.

(5)  OJ 2013 L 347, p. 671.

(6)  OJ 2014 L 145, p. 5.

---

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/59

---

Action brought on 9 January 2020 — Paravan v EUIPO — paragon (Paragon)

(Case T-11/20)

(2020/C 68/67)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

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

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: paragon GmbH & Co. KGaA (Delbrück, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark Paragon — EU trade mark No 3 705 051

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 October 2019 in Case R 28/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and uphold the decision of the Cancellation Division of EUIPO of 10 December 2018 in cancellation proceedings No 14 618 C concerning EU trade mark Paragon No 3 705 051; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and uphold the decision of the Cancellation Division of EUIPO of 10 December 2018 in cancellation proceedings No 14 618 C concerning EU trade mark Paragon No 3 705 051;

alternatively,

| — | amend the contested decision by annulling the decision of the Cancellation Division of EUIPO of 10 December 2018 in cancellation proceedings No 14 618 C in so far as the EU trade mark Paragon No 3 705 051 was revoked, with effect from 14 March 2017, for ‘carriage body parts for the tuning of motor vehicles for locomotion by land; microphones for hands-free kits for cell phones for motor vehicles for locomotion by land; clocks for motor vehicles for locomotion by land’; |
| --- | --- |

—

amend the contested decision by annulling the decision of the Cancellation Division of EUIPO of 10 December 2018 in cancellation proceedings No 14 618 C in so far as the EU trade mark Paragon No 3 705 051 was revoked, with effect from 14 March 2017, for ‘carriage body parts for the tuning of motor vehicles for locomotion by land; microphones for hands-free kits for cell phones for motor vehicles for locomotion by land; clocks for motor vehicles for locomotion by land’;

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

—

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

Pleas in law

| — | infringement of Article 58(1)(a) and 58(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

infringement of Article 58(1)(a) and 58(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | alternatively, infringement of Article 58(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

alternatively, infringement of Article 58(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/60

---

Action brought on 9 January 2020 — Schneider v EUIPO — Frutaria Comercial de Frutas y Hortalizas (Frutaria.)

(Case T-12/20)

(2020/C 68/68)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Markus Schneider (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: M. Bergermann and D. Graetsch, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Frutaria Comercial de Frutas y Hortalizas, SL (Zaragoza, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark Frutaria. in green (Pantone 363) — EU trade mark No 5 922 885

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 October 2019 in Case R 284/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision, in so far as it upholds the registration of EU trade mark No 5 922 885 for the following goods:






  — | Class 29: Dried fruits |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision, in so far as it upholds the registration of EU trade mark No 5 922 885 for the following goods:

—

Class 29: Dried fruits

| — | Class 31: Fresh fruits and fresh vegetables |
| --- | --- |

—

Class 31: Fresh fruits and fresh vegetables

| — | Class 35: Export of fresh fruits; |
| --- | --- |

—

Class 35: Export of fresh fruits;

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

—

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

Plea in law

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

---

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/61

---

Action brought on 11 January 2020 – adp Gauselmann v EUIPO – Gameloft (GAMELAND)

(Case T-17/20)

(2020/C 68/69)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: adp Gauselmann GmbH (Espelkamp, Germany) (represented by: K. Mandel, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Gameloft SE (Paris, France)

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 GAMELAND – Application for registration No 15 722 648

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5th November 2019 in Case R 2502/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | admit the claim; |
| --- | --- |

—

admit the claim;

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order to accept the European Union Trademark Application No. 15 722 648; |
| --- | --- |

—

order to accept the European Union Trademark Application No. 15 722 648;

| — | order EUIPO and the opposing party to bear the fees and costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the opposing party to bear the fees and costs.

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.

---

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/62

---

Action brought on 13 January 2020 — sprd.net v EUIPO — Shirtlabor (I love)

(Case T-19/20)

(2020/C 68/70)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: sprd.net AG (Leipzig, Germany) (represented by: J. Hellenbrand, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Shirtlabor GmbH (Münster, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘I love’ in black and red — European Union trade mark No 10 023 067

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation procedure

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 October 2019 in Case R 5/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 16(1)(a) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 16(1)(a) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;

| — | Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 97(1) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 97(1) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of the principle of non-arbitrariness. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the principle of non-arbitrariness.

---

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/63 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/63

---

Action brought on 14 January 2020 – LG Electronics v EUIPO – Staszewski (K7)

(Case T-21/20)

(2020/C 68/71)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: LG Electronics, Inc. (Seoul, South Korea) (represented by: R. Schiffer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Miłosz Staszewski (Wrocław, Poland)

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 K7 – Application for registration No 14 641 849

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 October 2019 in Case R 401/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

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.

---

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/64 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/64

---

Action brought on 13 January 2020 — IB v EUIPO

(Case T-22/20)

(2020/C 68/72)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: IB (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the revocation decision of the appointing authority of 14 March 2019; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the revocation decision of the appointing authority of 14 March 2019;

| — | 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 the following pleas in law.

| — | Grounds for annulment concerning the definitive closure of the invalidity procedure. The applicant alleges, in this regard, misuse of power, maladministration and breach of the duties of impartiality, objectivity and neutrality. |
| --- | --- |

—

Grounds for annulment concerning the definitive closure of the invalidity procedure. The applicant alleges, in this regard, misuse of power, maladministration and breach of the duties of impartiality, objectivity and neutrality.

| — | Grounds for annulment concerning the disciplinary measure imposed. The applicant alleges, in this regard, procedural irregularity, infringement of Article 22 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, misuse of power, failure to respect the confidentiality of the OLAF report for the points of enquiry closed without further action, upholding the allegations despite closure without further action and breach of the presumption of innocence. The applicant also alleges infringement of Article 10 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations, breach of the rights of defence, manifest error of assessment of the criteria set out in Article 10 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations and failure to state reasons. |
| --- | --- |

—

Grounds for annulment concerning the disciplinary measure imposed. The applicant alleges, in this regard, procedural irregularity, infringement of Article 22 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, misuse of power, failure to respect the confidentiality of the OLAF report for the points of enquiry closed without further action, upholding the allegations despite closure without further action and breach of the presumption of innocence. The applicant also alleges infringement of Article 10 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations, breach of the rights of defence, manifest error of assessment of the criteria set out in Article 10 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations and failure to state reasons.

---

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/65 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/65

---

Action brought on 15 January 2020 — FF IP v EUIPO — Seven (the DoubleF)

(Case T-23/20)

(2020/C 68/73)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

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

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Seven SpA (Leini, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark the DoubleF — Application for registration No 15 780 001

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 October 2019 in Case R 2588/2018-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | declare the trade mark the DoubleF registrable as an EU trade mark in respect of all the goods in Classes 18 and 35, as set out in application for registration No 15 780 001; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the trade mark the DoubleF registrable as an EU trade mark in respect of all the goods in Classes 18 and 35, as set out in application for registration No 15 780 001;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/66 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/66

---

Action brought on 17 January 2020 — Junqueras i Vies v Parliament

(Case T-24/20)

(2020/C 68/74)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Oriol Junqueras i Vies (Sant Joan de Vilatorrada, Spain) (represented by: A. Van den Eynde Adroer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant requests the General Court to declare that the application bringing an action against the contested measures, together with the documents annexed thereto, was submitted in good time, to admit the application and, on the merits, to declare the contested measures, which are the subject of the present proceedings, null and void, and also to order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is brought against (i) the decision of the European Parliament announced by President Sassoli in the plenary session of 13 January 2020, that, taking into account the decision of the Junta Electoral Central (Central Electoral Commission, Spain) of 3 January 2020 and pursuant to the decision of the Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court, Spain) of 9 January 2020, the parliamentary seat of Mr Oriol Junqueras i Vies is vacant with effect from 3 January 2020, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, and against (ii) the rejection, by that decision, of the urgent request to protect the immunity of Mr Junqueras i Vies, submitted on his behalf on 20 December 2019 (20.12.2019) by Ms Riba i Giner (MEP).

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41(1) and (2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), on the basis that Article 13(3) of the European Electoral Act (1976) and Rule 4(7) of the European Parliament’s Rules of Procedure are to be interpreted as meaning that there must be a procedure in accordance with those rights which allows the objections to the declaration that Mr Oriol Junqueras i Vies’ parliamentary seat is vacant to be put forward and challenged. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41(1) and (2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), on the basis that Article 13(3) of the European Electoral Act (1976) and Rule 4(7) of the European Parliament’s Rules of Procedure are to be interpreted as meaning that there must be a procedure in accordance with those rights which allows the objections to the declaration that Mr Oriol Junqueras i Vies’ parliamentary seat is vacant to be put forward and challenged.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 39(1) and (2) of the Charter, Article 14(3) TEU, Article 1(3) of the European Electoral Act (1976), the principle of sincere cooperation in Article 4(3) TEU (in this case by the Tribunal Supremo), the principle of the primacy of EU law, Article 9(2) of Protocol 7 on Privileges and Immunities and Article 6 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, on the ground that no practical effect has been given to the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 19 December 2019 in Case C-502/19 concerning Mr Oriol Junqueras i Vies, which required waiver (lifting of immunity) to be sought from the European Parliament. In the alternative, it is submitted that Article 13(3) of the European Electoral Act and Rule 4(7) of the European Parliament’s Rules of Procedure must be interpreted as meaning that the European Parliament may uphold the objections to the vacancy of the parliamentary seat laid down in those provisions where it is possible to consider the plea without engaging in any assessment of the Member State’s domestic law. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 39(1) and (2) of the Charter, Article 14(3) TEU, Article 1(3) of the European Electoral Act (1976), the principle of sincere cooperation in Article 4(3) TEU (in this case by the Tribunal Supremo), the principle of the primacy of EU law, Article 9(2) of Protocol 7 on Privileges and Immunities and Article 6 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, on the ground that no practical effect has been given to the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 19 December 2019 in Case C-502/19 concerning Mr Oriol Junqueras i Vies, which required waiver (lifting of immunity) to be sought from the European Parliament. In the alternative, it is submitted that Article 13(3) of the European Electoral Act and Rule 4(7) of the European Parliament’s Rules of Procedure must be interpreted as meaning that the European Parliament may uphold the objections to the vacancy of the parliamentary seat laid down in those provisions where it is possible to consider the plea without engaging in any assessment of the Member State’s domestic law.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 39(1) and (2) of the Charter and Rule 4(7) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, as the Member State’s decisions on which the declaration that the seat is vacant is based are not final decisions. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 39(1) and (2) of the Charter and Rule 4(7) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, as the Member State’s decisions on which the declaration that the seat is vacant is based are not final decisions.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 39(1) and (2) of the Charter, Article 3 of the First Protocol to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), Article 9 (first paragraph at (a) and (b)) of Protocol 7 on Privileges and Immunities and Rule 6 of the Parliament’s Rules of Procedure, by unlawfully impeding the effectiveness, as regards Mr Oriol Junqueras i Vies, of the immunities to which he is entitled. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 39(1) and (2) of the Charter, Article 3 of the First Protocol to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), Article 9 (first paragraph at (a) and (b)) of Protocol 7 on Privileges and Immunities and Rule 6 of the Parliament’s Rules of Procedure, by unlawfully impeding the effectiveness, as regards Mr Oriol Junqueras i Vies, of the immunities to which he is entitled.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 9 (first paragraph at (a)) of Protocol 7 on Privileges and Immunities, Article 39(1) and (2) of the Charter, Article 3, First Protocol, ECHR, Rule 6 of the European Parliament’s Rules of Procedure and Article 13(3) of the European Electoral Act (1976), since the Spanish legislation requires a prior petition for waiver of immunity before proceedings may be brought against elected members of Parliament, the Tribunal Supremo’s case-law to the contrary being contra legem and established ad hoc and ad hominen, without there being any precedent, as the Tribunal Supremo itself recognises. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 9 (first paragraph at (a)) of Protocol 7 on Privileges and Immunities, Article 39(1) and (2) of the Charter, Article 3, First Protocol, ECHR, Rule 6 of the European Parliament’s Rules of Procedure and Article 13(3) of the European Electoral Act (1976), since the Spanish legislation requires a prior petition for waiver of immunity before proceedings may be brought against elected members of Parliament, the Tribunal Supremo’s case-law to the contrary being contra legem and established ad hoc and ad hominen, without there being any precedent, as the Tribunal Supremo itself recognises.

---

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/67 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/67

---

Action brought on 17 January 2020 – Deutsche Post v EUIPO – Pošta Slovenije (Representation of a device of a horn)

(Case T-25/20)

(2020/C 68/75)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Deutsche Post AG (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: M. Viefhues, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Pošta Slovenije d.o.o. (Maribor, Slovenia)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark (Representation of a device of a horn) – Application for registration No 17 088 361

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 November 2019 in Case R 994/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order the EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/68 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/68

---

Action brought on 16 January 2020 – Forex Bank v EUIPO – Coino UK (FOREX)

(Case T-26/20)

(2020/C 68/76)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Forex Bank AB (Stockholm, Sweden) (represented by: A. Jute, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Coino UK 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 FOREX – European Union trade mark No 4 871 836

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 October 2019 in Case R 2460/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | annul the Cancellation Division’s decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Cancellation Division’s decision;

| — | order that the European Union trade mark No 4 871 836 remains in force; |
| --- | --- |

—

order that the European Union trade mark No 4 871 836 remains in force;

| — | order the EUIPO to bear the applicant’s costs of the proceedings before the Cancellation Division, the Boards of Appeal, as well as the General Court with an amount to be specified later. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the EUIPO to bear the applicant’s costs of the proceedings before the Cancellation Division, the Boards of Appeal, as well as the General Court with an amount to be specified later.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/69 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/69

---

Action brought on 20 January 2020 – Promed v EUIPO – Centrumelektroniki (Promed)

(Case T-30/20)

(2020/C 68/77)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Promed GmbH kosmetische Erzeugnisse (Farchant, Germany) (represented by: B. Reinisch and B. Sorg, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Centrumelektroniki sp.j. (Tarnowskie Góry, Poland)

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 Promed – European Union trade mark No 6 206 718

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 November 2019 in Case R 614/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | as regards the applicant’s request for reimbursement of the appeal fee, alter the contested decision so that the appeal fee is reimbursed; |
| --- | --- |

—

as regards the applicant’s request for reimbursement of the appeal fee, alter the contested decision so that the appeal fee is reimbursed;

| — | annul the decision of the Cancellation Division of EUIPO of 22 February 2019 (Cancellation Proceedings No 15 428 C) as far as mentioned decision has declared invalid the European Union trade mark No 6 206 718 for the goods:






  — | Class 5: Test strips for medical purposes; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Cancellation Division of EUIPO of 22 February 2019 (Cancellation Proceedings No 15 428 C) as far as mentioned decision has declared invalid the European Union trade mark No 6 206 718 for the goods:

—

Class 5: Test strips for medical purposes;

| — | Class 9: Apparatus for measuring body temperature and functions; |
| --- | --- |

—

Class 9: Apparatus for measuring body temperature and functions;

| — | Class 10: Surgical, medical, dental and veterinary instruments and apparatus, in particular pain therapy apparatus, electrodes for electric therapy apparatus, orthopaedic articles, in particular orthopaedic shoes and shoe inserts, ankle bandages, body bandages; orthopaedic stockings; insulin pens; foot massagers, massage apparatus; apparatus for radiotherapy, in particular heat and light therapy; |
| --- | --- |

—

Class 10: Surgical, medical, dental and veterinary instruments and apparatus, in particular pain therapy apparatus, electrodes for electric therapy apparatus, orthopaedic articles, in particular orthopaedic shoes and shoe inserts, ankle bandages, body bandages; orthopaedic stockings; insulin pens; foot massagers, massage apparatus; apparatus for radiotherapy, in particular heat and light therapy;

| — | as far as it has ordered the trademark proprietor (applicant) to bear costs; |
| --- | --- |

—

as far as it has ordered the trademark proprietor (applicant) to bear costs;

| — | reject the request for cancellation of the European Union trade mark No 6 206 718 Promed entirely; |
| --- | --- |

—

reject the request for cancellation of the European Union trade mark No 6 206 718 Promed entirely;

| — | order EUIPO to bear the costs (this includes the costs of applicant, the costs of EUIPO and as soon as the other party becomes intervener, the costs of intervener). |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to bear the costs (this includes the costs of applicant, the costs of EUIPO and as soon as the other party becomes intervener, the costs of intervener).

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 95(1) sentence 3 in conjunction with Article 59(1)(a), Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 95(1) sentence 3 in conjunction with Article 59(1)(a), Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

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

—

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

---

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/70 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/70

---

Action brought on 20 January 2020 – Monster Energy v EUIPO – Nanjing aisiyou Clothing (Device of a claw-like scratch)

(Case T-35/20)

(2020/C 68/78)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Monster Energy Company (Corona, California, United States) (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nanjing aisiyou Clothing Co. Ltd (Nanjing City, China)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark representing a device of a claw-like scratch – Application for registration No 17 634 478

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 November 2019 in Case R 1104/2019-5

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 21 March 2019 in Opposition B 3050458; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Opposition Division of 21 March 2019 in Opposition B 3050458;

| — | reject the opposed mark for the contested goods and services, being all goods and services covered by the application; |
| --- | --- |

—

reject the opposed mark for the contested goods and services, being all goods and services covered by the application;

| — | order the defendant to bear its own costs of the proceedings and pay those of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to bear its own costs of the proceedings and pay those of the applicant.

Pleas in law

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

—

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

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

—

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

| — | Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/71 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/71

---

Order of the General Court of 18 December 2019 — Sumitomo Chemical and Tenka Best v Commission

(Case T-734/18) (1)

(2020/C 68/79)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 72, 25.2.2019.

---

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/71 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/71

---

Order of the General Court of 23 December 2019 — Mersinis v ESMA

(Case T-163/19) (1)

(2020/C 68/80)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 164, 13.5.2019.

---