# Official Journal C 171/25 A

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 171 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6525 April 2022 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 171

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6525 April 2022

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2022/C 171/01 | Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union | 1 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

2022/C 171/01

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

Official Journal of the European Union

1

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2022/C 171/02 | Joined Cases C-167/19 P and C-171/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 March 2022 — European Commission v Freistaat Bayern and Others (Appeal — State aid — Aid in favour of the German dairy sector — Financing of milk quality tests — Article 108(2) TFUE — Decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure — Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 — Article 6(1) — Obligation for the European Commission to summarise the relevant issues of fact and law in that decision — Scope — Rights of interested parties to be involved in the administrative procedure — Breach of an essential procedural requirement — Consequences for the lawfulness of the final decision) | 2 |
| 2022/C 171/03 | Case C-213/19: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 March 2022 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 4(3) TEU — Article 310(6) and Article 325 TFEU — Own resources — Customs duties — Value added tax (VAT) — Protection of the financial interests of the European Union — Combating fraud — Principle of effectiveness — Obligation for Member States to make own resources available to the European Commission — Financial liability of Member States in the event of losses of own resources — Imports of textiles and footwear from China — Large-scale and systematic fraud — Organised crime — Missing importers — Customs value — Undervaluation — Taxable amount for VAT purposes — Lack of systematic customs controls based on risk analysis and carried out prior to the release of the goods concerned — No systematic provision of security — Method used to estimate the amount of traditional own resources losses in respect of imports presenting a significant risk of undervaluation — Statistical method based on the average price determined at EU level — Whether permissible) | 3 |
| 2022/C 171/04 | Case C-162/20 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 3 March 2022 — WV v European External Action Service (EEAS) (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union — Article 60, first paragraph — Unauthorised absence — Scope — Deduction from annual leave — Withholding of salary — Official who has failed to fulfil his or her obligations under Articles 21 and 55 of the Staff Regulations) | 4 |
| 2022/C 171/05 | Case C-171/20 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 3 March 2022 — WV v European External Action Service (EEAS) (Appeal — Civil Service — Request for assistance — Claim for damages — Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union — Article 24, paragraphs 1 and 2 — Article 90(1) and (2) — Review of an administrative measure which has become final) | 5 |
| 2022/C 171/06 | Case C-172/20 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 3 March 2022 — WV v European External Action Service (EEAS) (Appeal — Civil service — Request for assistance — Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union — Article 90(1) and (2) — Date on which the request was made — Implied decision refusing the request — Complaint — Submission — Time period — Excusable error) | 5 |
| 2022/C 171/07 | Case C-177/20: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 March 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Győri Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Grossmania Mezőgazdasági Termelő és Szolgáltató Kft. v Vas Megyei Kormányhivatal (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Principles of EU law — Primacy — Direct effect — Sincere cooperation — Article 4(3) TEU — Article 63 TFEU — Obligations of a Member State as a result of a preliminary ruling — Interpretation of a provision of EU law given by the Court in a preliminary ruling — Obligation to give full effect to EU law — Obligation for a national court to disapply national legislation which contravenes EU law as interpreted by the Court — Administrative decision which became final in the absence of a challenge before the courts — Principles of equivalence and effectiveness — Liability of the Member State) | 6 |
| 2022/C 171/08 | Case C-205/20: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 March 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark — Austria) — NE v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Hartberg-Fürstenfeld (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom to provide services — Posting of workers — Directive 2014/67/EU — Article 20 — Penalties — Proportionality — Direct effect — Principle of primacy of EU law) | 6 |
| 2022/C 171/09 | Case C-247/20: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 March 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Social Security Appeal Tribunal (Northern Ireland) — United Kingdom) — VI v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States — Article 21 TFEU — Directive 2004/38/EC — Article 7(1)(b) and Article 16 — Child who is a national of a Member State staying in another Member State — Right of residence derived from the parent who is the primary carer of that child — Requirement of comprehensive sickness insurance cover — Child having a permanent right of residence for part of the periods concerned) | 7 |
| 2022/C 171/10 | Case C-275/20: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 1 March 2022 — European Commission v Council of the European Union (Action for annulment — Decision (EU) 2020/470 — Extension of the period of entitlement for audiovisual co-productions as provided for in Article 5 of the Protocol on Cultural Cooperation to the Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Korea, of the other part — Procedural legal basis — Article 218(7) TFEU — Applicable procedure and voting rule) | 8 |
| 2022/C 171/11 | Case C-349/20: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 March 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) — United Kingdom) — NB, AB v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common policy on asylum and immigration — Standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection — Directive 2004/83/EU — Article 12 — Exclusion from being a refugee — Stateless person of Palestinian origin registered with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (for Palestine Refugees in the Near East) (UNRWA) — Conditions to be entitled ipso facto to the benefits of Directive 2004/83/EC — Cessation of UNRWA’s protection or assistance) | 9 |
| 2022/C 171/12 | Case C-409/20: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 March 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo no 1 de Pontevedra — Spain) — UN v Subdelegación del Gobierno en Pontevedra (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Directive 2008/115/EC — Common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals — Article 6(1) and Article 8(1) — National legislation providing for the imposition, in the event of illegal stay, of a fine together with an obligation to leave the territory — Possibility of regularising the stay within a prescribed period — Article 7(1) and (2) — Period for voluntary departure) | 10 |
| 2022/C 171/13 | Case C-421/20: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 March 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Acacia Srl v Bayerische Motoren Werke AG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual property — Community designs — Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Article 82(5) — Action brought before the courts of the Member State in which an act of infringement has been committed or threatened — Claims supplementary to the action for infringement — Applicable law — Article 88(2) — Article 89(1)(d) — Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 — Law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II) — Article 8(2) — Country in which the intellectual property right was infringed) | 11 |
| 2022/C 171/14 | Case C-498/20: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 March 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Midden-Nederland — Netherlands) — ZK, in his capacity as successor to JM, liquidator in the bankruptcy of BMA Nederland BV v BMA Braunschweigische Maschinenbauanstalt AG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Point 2 of Article 7 — Jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict — Claim made by a liquidator against a third party for the benefit of the creditors — Place where the damage occurred — Point 2 of Article 8 — Application for leave to intervene by a protector of collective interests — Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 — Scope — General rule) | 11 |
| 2022/C 171/15 | Case C-519/20: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 March 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover — Germany) — Proceedings against K (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Immigration policy — Directive 2008/115/EC — Detention for the purpose of removal — Article 16(1) — Direct effect — Specialised detention facility — Concept — Detention in prison accommodation — Conditions — Article 18 — Emergency situation — Concept — Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Effective judicial review) | 12 |
| 2022/C 171/16 | Case C-634/20: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 March 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Proceedings brought by A (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Recognition of professional qualifications — Directive 2005/36/EC — Scope — Conditions for obtaining authorisation to pursue the profession of doctor independently in the host Member State — Diploma issued in the home Member State — Right to pursue the profession of doctor limited to a period of three years — Supervision of a licensed doctor and concomitant completion of three years of special training in general medical practice — Articles 45 and 49 TFEU) | 13 |
| 2022/C 171/17 | Case C-60/21: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 March 2022 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 45 TFEU — Article 28 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area — Free movement of workers — Direct taxation — Income tax — Deductions — Maintenance annuities — Equal treatment — Discrimination between resident and non-resident taxpayers) | 14 |
| 2022/C 171/18 | Case C-183/21: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 10 March 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Saarbrücken — Germany) — Maxxus Group GmbH & Co. KG v Globus Holding GmbH & Co. KG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Trade marks — Directive (EU) 2015/2436 — Article 19 — Genuine use of a trade mark — Burden of proof — Application to revoke for non-use — National procedural rule obliging the applicant to carry out market research concerning use of the mark) | 14 |
| 2022/C 171/19 | Case C-821/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 2 de Fuengirola (Spain) lodged on 24 December 2021 — NM v Club La Costa (UK) PLC, sucursal en España, CLC Resort Management LTD, Midmark 2 LTD, CLC Resort Development LTD and European Resorts & Hotels, S.L. | 15 |
| 2022/C 171/20 | Case C-35/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Málaga (Spain) lodged on 17 January 2022 — Cajasur Banco, S. A. v JO and IM | 16 |
| 2022/C 171/21 | Case C-42/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 19 January 2022 — Global, Companhia de Seguros, S.A. v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira | 17 |
| 2022/C 171/22 | Case C-69/22: Action brought on 2 February 2022 — European Commission v Romania | 17 |
| 2022/C 171/23 | Case C-72/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 4 February 2022 — M.A. v Valstybės sienos apsaugos tarnyba | 18 |
| 2022/C 171/24 | Case C-104/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Markkinaoikeus (Finland) lodged on 15 February 2022 — Lännen MCE Oy v Berky GmbH, Senwatec GmbH & Co. KG | 19 |
| 2022/C 171/25 | Case C-119/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Markkinaoikeus (Finland) lodged on 17 February 2022 — Teva B.V. and Teva Finland Oy v Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. | 19 |
| 2022/C 171/26 | Case C-135/22 P: Appeal brought on 25 February 2022 by Patrick Breyer against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 15 December 2021 in Case T-158/19, Breyer v European Research Executive Agency | 20 |
| 2022/C 171/27 | Case C-136/22 P: Appeal brought on 25 February 2022 by Debrégeas et associés Pharma (D & A Pharma) against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 22 December 2021 in Case T-381/21, Debrégeas & associés Pharma v EMA | 21 |
| 2022/C 171/28 | Case C-197/22: Action brought on 11 March 2022 — European Commission v Italian Republic | 22 |
| | General Court |
| 2022/C 171/29 | Case T-834/17: Judgment of the General Court of 23 February 2022 — United Parcel Service v Commission (Non-contractual liability — Competition — Markets for international express small package delivery services in the EEA — Concentration — Decision declaring the concentration incompatible with the internal market — Annulment of the decision by a judgment of the Court — Rights of the defence — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals — Causal link) | 24 |
| 2022/C 171/30 | Case T-540/18: Judgment of the General Court of 23 February 2022 — ASL Aviation Holdings and ASL Airlines (Ireland) v Commission (Non-contractual liability — Competition — Markets for international express small package delivery services in the EEA — Concentration — Decision declaring the concentration incompatible with the internal market — Annulment of the decision by a judgment of the Court — General reference to other documents — Pleas in law or complaints raised by a third party in another case — Evidence submitted in the reply — No justification for the delay — Inadmissibility — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals) | 24 |
| 2022/C 171/31 | Case T-636/19: Judgment of the General Court of 23 February 2022 — Chemours Netherlands v ECHA (REACH — Substances of very high concern — Establishment of a candidate list of substances for eventual inclusion in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 — Decision identifying 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoro-2-(heptafluoropropoxy)propionic acid, its salts and its acyl halides as a substance fulfilling the criteria laid down for inclusion in the list — Article 57 of Regulation No 1907/2006 — Manifest error of assessment — Proportionality) | 25 |
| 2022/C 171/32 | Case T-806/19: Judgment of the General Court of 23 February 2022 — Govern d’Andorra v EUIPO (Andorra) (European Union trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark Andorra — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 26 |
| 2022/C 171/33 | Case T-134/20: Judgment of the General Court of 2 March 2022 — Huhtamaki v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to a State aid investigation — Advance tax agreements — Refusal of access — Exception relating to the protection of the commercial interests of a third party — Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits — General presumption of confidentiality — Not irrebuttable — Obligation to state reasons) | 26 |
| 2022/C 171/34 | Case T-669/20: Judgment of the General Court of 2 March 2022 — Pluscard Service v EUIPO — (PLUSCARD) (EU trade mark — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark PLUSCARD — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 27 |
| 2022/C 171/35 | Case T-671/20: Judgment of the General Court of 23 February 2022 — OA v EESC (Civil service — Officials — Psychological harassment — Disciplinary procedure — Disciplinary penalty — Written warning — Rights of the defence — Error of assessment — Liability) | 28 |
| 2022/C 171/36 | Case T-715/20: Judgment of the General Court of 2 March 2022 — Degode- v EUIPO — Leo Pharma (Skinovea) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark Skinovea — Earlier national word mark SKINOREN — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 28 |
| 2022/C 171/37 | Case T-1/21: Judgment of the General Court of 2 March 2022 — Fabryki Mebli Forte v EUIPO — Bog-Fran (Furniture) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing an item of furniture — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — Article 6(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Disclosure of the earlier design — Article 7(1) of Regulation No 6/2002 — Decision adopted following the annulment by the General Court of an earlier decision — Res judicata) | 29 |
| 2022/C 171/38 | Case T-86/21: Judgment of the General Court of 2 March 2022 — Distintiva Solutions v EUIPO — Makeblock (Makeblock) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark Makeblock — Absolute grounds for refusal — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — No descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Mark not of such a nature as to mislead the public — Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation 2017/1001)) | 30 |
| 2022/C 171/39 | Case T-125/21: Judgment of the General Court of 2 March 2022 — Banco de Investimento Global v EUIPO — Banco BIC Português (EUROBIC) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark EUROBIC — Earlier EU figurative marks BiG, BANCO BiG and BiGlobal TRADE — Earlier national word marks BANCO BIG and earlier national figurative mark BANCO BiG — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 30 |
| 2022/C 171/40 | Case T-149/21: Judgment of the General Court of 2 March 2022 — UGA Nutraceuticals v EUIPO — Vitae Health Innovation (VITADHA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark VITADHA — Earlier Spanish word mark VITANADH — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 31 |
| 2022/C 171/41 | Case T-171/21: Judgment of the General Court of 2 March 2022 — Ubisoft Entertainment v EUIPO — Huawei Technologies (FOR HONOR) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark FOR HONOR — Earlier EU word mark HONOR — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 32 |
| 2022/C 171/42 | Case T-184/21: Judgment of the General Court of 23 February 2022 — Lackmann Fleisch- und Feinkostfabrik v EUIPO — Schuju (Хозяин) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark Хозяин — Earlier national figurative mark хозяюшка — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 32 |
| 2022/C 171/43 | Case T-185/21: Judgment of the General Court of 23 February 2022 — Lackmann Fleisch- und Feinkostfabrik v EUIPO — Schuju (Хозяйка) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark Хозяйка — Earlier national figurative mark хозяюшка — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 33 |
| 2022/C 171/44 | Case T-192/21: Judgment of the General Court of 2 March 2022 — Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — Beta Sports (META) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark META — Earlier national word mark METALGIAL — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 34 |
| 2022/C 171/45 | Case T-198/21: Judgment of the General Court of 23 February 2022 — Ancor Group v EUIPO — Cody’s Drinks International (CODE-X) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — EU word mark CODE-X — Earlier national word and figurative marks Cody’s — Earlier international figurative mark Cody’s — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 34 |
| 2022/C 171/46 | Case T-209/21: Judgment of the General Court of 23 February 2022 — Ignacio Carrasco v EUIPO (La Hoja del Carrasco) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark La Hoja del Carrasco — Earlier national figurative mark CARRASCO, Guijuelo — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Dominant and distinctive elements of the marks at issue) | 35 |
| 2022/C 171/47 | Case T-161/15: Order of the General Court of 22 February 2022 — Brinkmann (Steel Trading) and Others v Commission and ECB (Action for damages — Economic and monetary policy — Stability support programme for Cyprus — Memorandum of Understanding of 26 April 2013 on Specific Economic Policy Conditionality concluded between Cyprus and the European Stability Mechanism — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals — Equal treatment — Principle of proportionality — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law) | 36 |
| 2022/C 171/48 | Case T-295/21: Order of the General Court of 15 February 2022 — eSlovensko v Commission (Action for annulment — Financial provisions — EU programme on promoting safer use of the internet — Failure to comply with procedural requirements — Inadmissibility) | 36 |
| 2022/C 171/49 | Case T-304/21: Order of the General Court of 15 February 2022 — eSlovensko Bratislava v Commission (Action for annulment — Financial provisions — EU programme on promoting safer use of the internet — Designation of the defendant — Inadmissibility) | 37 |
| 2022/C 171/50 | Case T-425/21: Order of the General Court of 15 February 2022 — eSlovensko Bratislava v Commission (Action for annulment — Financial provisions — EU programme on promoting safer use of the internet — Failure to comply with procedural requirements — Inadmissibility) | 37 |
| 2022/C 171/51 | Case T-442/21: Judgment of the General Court of 24 February 2022 — Thomas and Julien v Council (Action for annulment — Area of freedom, security and justice — Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and Euratom, of the one part, and the United Kingdom, of the other part — Council decision on the conclusion of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement — Act not of individual concern — Non-regulatory act — Inadmissibility) | 38 |
| 2022/C 171/52 | Case T-503/21: Order of the General Court of 14 February 2022 — Lagardére, unité médico-sociale v Commission (Action for annulment — Regulation (EU) 2021/953 — EU Digital Covid-19 Certificate — Freedom of movement for persons — Restrictions — Incorrect designation of the defendant — Inadmissibility) | 39 |
| 2022/C 171/53 | Case T-603/21 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 23 February 2022 — WO v European Public Prosecutor’s Office (Application for interim measures — Law governing the institutions — Enhanced cooperation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office — Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 — Appointment of the European Delegated Prosecutors of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office — Appointment of one of the candidates nominated by Lithuania — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Failure to comply with procedural requirements — Inadmissibility) | 39 |
| 2022/C 171/54 | Case T-635/21: Order of the General Court of 21 February 2022 — Carlings v EUIPO — Margarete Steiff (STUHF) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate) | 40 |
| 2022/C 171/55 | Case T-46/22 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 3 March 2022 — Esedra v Parliament (Interim measures — Public service contracts — Early childhood care services — Application for interim measures — Lack of urgency) | 40 |
| 2022/C 171/56 | Case T-72/22: Action brought on 4 February 2022 — Interneto žiniasklaidos asociacija and Others v Commission | 41 |
| 2022/C 171/57 | Case T-115/22: Action brought on 2 March 2022 — Belshyna v Council | 42 |
| 2022/C 171/58 | Case T-116/22: Action brought on 3 March 2022 — Belavia v Council | 42 |
| 2022/C 171/59 | Case T-126/22: Action brought on 7 March 2022 — Coinbase v EUIPO — Coinbase Global (coinbase) | 43 |
| 2022/C 171/60 | Case T-129/22: Action brought on 7 March 2022 — Simba Toys v EUIPO — Master Gift Import (BIMBA TOYS) | 44 |
| 2022/C 171/61 | Case T-130/22: Action brought on 7 March 2022 — Biologische Heilmittel Heel v EUIPO — Esi (TRAUMGEL) | 44 |
| 2022/C 171/62 | Case T-133/22: Action brought on 10 March 2022 — Katjes Fassin v EUIPO (THE FUTURE IS PLANT-BASED) | 45 |
| 2022/C 171/63 | Case T-695/20: Order of the General Court of 23 February 2022 — OG v EIB | 46 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2022/C 171/02

Joined Cases C-167/19 P and C-171/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 March 2022 — European Commission v Freistaat Bayern and Others (Appeal — State aid — Aid in favour of the German dairy sector — Financing of milk quality tests — Article 108(2) TFUE — Decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure — Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 — Article 6(1) — Obligation for the European Commission to summarise the relevant issues of fact and law in that decision — Scope — Rights of interested parties to be involved in the administrative procedure — Breach of an essential procedural requirement — Consequences for the lawfulness of the final decision)

2

2022/C 171/03

Case C-213/19: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 March 2022 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 4(3) TEU — Article 310(6) and Article 325 TFEU — Own resources — Customs duties — Value added tax (VAT) — Protection of the financial interests of the European Union — Combating fraud — Principle of effectiveness — Obligation for Member States to make own resources available to the European Commission — Financial liability of Member States in the event of losses of own resources — Imports of textiles and footwear from China — Large-scale and systematic fraud — Organised crime — Missing importers — Customs value — Undervaluation — Taxable amount for VAT purposes — Lack of systematic customs controls based on risk analysis and carried out prior to the release of the goods concerned — No systematic provision of security — Method used to estimate the amount of traditional own resources losses in respect of imports presenting a significant risk of undervaluation — Statistical method based on the average price determined at EU level — Whether permissible)

3

2022/C 171/04

Case C-162/20 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 3 March 2022 — WV v European External Action Service (EEAS) (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union — Article 60, first paragraph — Unauthorised absence — Scope — Deduction from annual leave — Withholding of salary — Official who has failed to fulfil his or her obligations under Articles 21 and 55 of the Staff Regulations)

4

2022/C 171/05

Case C-171/20 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 3 March 2022 — WV v European External Action Service (EEAS) (Appeal — Civil Service — Request for assistance — Claim for damages — Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union — Article 24, paragraphs 1 and 2 — Article 90(1) and (2) — Review of an administrative measure which has become final)

5

2022/C 171/06

Case C-172/20 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 3 March 2022 — WV v European External Action Service (EEAS) (Appeal — Civil service — Request for assistance — Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union — Article 90(1) and (2) — Date on which the request was made — Implied decision refusing the request — Complaint — Submission — Time period — Excusable error)

5

2022/C 171/07

Case C-177/20: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 March 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Győri Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Grossmania Mezőgazdasági Termelő és Szolgáltató Kft. v Vas Megyei Kormányhivatal (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Principles of EU law — Primacy — Direct effect — Sincere cooperation — Article 4(3) TEU — Article 63 TFEU — Obligations of a Member State as a result of a preliminary ruling — Interpretation of a provision of EU law given by the Court in a preliminary ruling — Obligation to give full effect to EU law — Obligation for a national court to disapply national legislation which contravenes EU law as interpreted by the Court — Administrative decision which became final in the absence of a challenge before the courts — Principles of equivalence and effectiveness — Liability of the Member State)

6

2022/C 171/08

Case C-205/20: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 March 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark — Austria) — NE v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Hartberg-Fürstenfeld (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom to provide services — Posting of workers — Directive 2014/67/EU — Article 20 — Penalties — Proportionality — Direct effect — Principle of primacy of EU law)

6

2022/C 171/09

Case C-247/20: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 March 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Social Security Appeal Tribunal (Northern Ireland) — United Kingdom) — VI v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States — Article 21 TFEU — Directive 2004/38/EC — Article 7(1)(b) and Article 16 — Child who is a national of a Member State staying in another Member State — Right of residence derived from the parent who is the primary carer of that child — Requirement of comprehensive sickness insurance cover — Child having a permanent right of residence for part of the periods concerned)

7

2022/C 171/10

Case C-275/20: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 1 March 2022 — European Commission v Council of the European Union (Action for annulment — Decision (EU) 2020/470 — Extension of the period of entitlement for audiovisual co-productions as provided for in Article 5 of the Protocol on Cultural Cooperation to the Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Korea, of the other part — Procedural legal basis — Article 218(7) TFEU — Applicable procedure and voting rule)

8

2022/C 171/11

Case C-349/20: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 March 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) — United Kingdom) — NB, AB v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common policy on asylum and immigration — Standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection — Directive 2004/83/EU — Article 12 — Exclusion from being a refugee — Stateless person of Palestinian origin registered with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (for Palestine Refugees in the Near East) (UNRWA) — Conditions to be entitled ipso facto to the benefits of Directive 2004/83/EC — Cessation of UNRWA’s protection or assistance)

9

2022/C 171/12

Case C-409/20: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 March 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo no 1 de Pontevedra — Spain) — UN v Subdelegación del Gobierno en Pontevedra (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Directive 2008/115/EC — Common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals — Article 6(1) and Article 8(1) — National legislation providing for the imposition, in the event of illegal stay, of a fine together with an obligation to leave the territory — Possibility of regularising the stay within a prescribed period — Article 7(1) and (2) — Period for voluntary departure)

10

2022/C 171/13

Case C-421/20: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 March 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Acacia Srl v Bayerische Motoren Werke AG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual property — Community designs — Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Article 82(5) — Action brought before the courts of the Member State in which an act of infringement has been committed or threatened — Claims supplementary to the action for infringement — Applicable law — Article 88(2) — Article 89(1)(d) — Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 — Law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II) — Article 8(2) — Country in which the intellectual property right was infringed)

11

2022/C 171/14

Case C-498/20: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 March 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Midden-Nederland — Netherlands) — ZK, in his capacity as successor to JM, liquidator in the bankruptcy of BMA Nederland BV v BMA Braunschweigische Maschinenbauanstalt AG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Point 2 of Article 7 — Jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict — Claim made by a liquidator against a third party for the benefit of the creditors — Place where the damage occurred — Point 2 of Article 8 — Application for leave to intervene by a protector of collective interests — Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 — Scope — General rule)

11

2022/C 171/15

Case C-519/20: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 March 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover — Germany) — Proceedings against K (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Immigration policy — Directive 2008/115/EC — Detention for the purpose of removal — Article 16(1) — Direct effect — Specialised detention facility — Concept — Detention in prison accommodation — Conditions — Article 18 — Emergency situation — Concept — Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Effective judicial review)

12

2022/C 171/16

Case C-634/20: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 March 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Proceedings brought by A (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Recognition of professional qualifications — Directive 2005/36/EC — Scope — Conditions for obtaining authorisation to pursue the profession of doctor independently in the host Member State — Diploma issued in the home Member State — Right to pursue the profession of doctor limited to a period of three years — Supervision of a licensed doctor and concomitant completion of three years of special training in general medical practice — Articles 45 and 49 TFEU)

13

2022/C 171/17

Case C-60/21: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 March 2022 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 45 TFEU — Article 28 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area — Free movement of workers — Direct taxation — Income tax — Deductions — Maintenance annuities — Equal treatment — Discrimination between resident and non-resident taxpayers)

14

2022/C 171/18

Case C-183/21: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 10 March 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Saarbrücken — Germany) — Maxxus Group GmbH & Co. KG v Globus Holding GmbH & Co. KG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Trade marks — Directive (EU) 2015/2436 — Article 19 — Genuine use of a trade mark — Burden of proof — Application to revoke for non-use — National procedural rule obliging the applicant to carry out market research concerning use of the mark)

14

2022/C 171/19

Case C-821/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 2 de Fuengirola (Spain) lodged on 24 December 2021 — NM v Club La Costa (UK) PLC, sucursal en España, CLC Resort Management LTD, Midmark 2 LTD, CLC Resort Development LTD and European Resorts & Hotels, S.L.

15

2022/C 171/20

Case C-35/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Málaga (Spain) lodged on 17 January 2022 — Cajasur Banco, S. A. v JO and IM

16

2022/C 171/21

Case C-42/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 19 January 2022 — Global, Companhia de Seguros, S.A. v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

17

2022/C 171/22

Case C-69/22: Action brought on 2 February 2022 — European Commission v Romania

17

2022/C 171/23

Case C-72/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 4 February 2022 — M.A. v Valstybės sienos apsaugos tarnyba

18

2022/C 171/24

Case C-104/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Markkinaoikeus (Finland) lodged on 15 February 2022 — Lännen MCE Oy v Berky GmbH, Senwatec GmbH & Co. KG

19

2022/C 171/25

Case C-119/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Markkinaoikeus (Finland) lodged on 17 February 2022 — Teva B.V. and Teva Finland Oy v Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.

19

2022/C 171/26

Case C-135/22 P: Appeal brought on 25 February 2022 by Patrick Breyer against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 15 December 2021 in Case T-158/19, Breyer v European Research Executive Agency

20

2022/C 171/27

Case C-136/22 P: Appeal brought on 25 February 2022 by Debrégeas et associés Pharma (D & A Pharma) against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 22 December 2021 in Case T-381/21, Debrégeas & associés Pharma v EMA

21

2022/C 171/28

Case C-197/22: Action brought on 11 March 2022 — European Commission v Italian Republic

22

General Court

2022/C 171/29

Case T-834/17: Judgment of the General Court of 23 February 2022 — United Parcel Service v Commission (Non-contractual liability — Competition — Markets for international express small package delivery services in the EEA — Concentration — Decision declaring the concentration incompatible with the internal market — Annulment of the decision by a judgment of the Court — Rights of the defence — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals — Causal link)

24

2022/C 171/30

Case T-540/18: Judgment of the General Court of 23 February 2022 — ASL Aviation Holdings and ASL Airlines (Ireland) v Commission (Non-contractual liability — Competition — Markets for international express small package delivery services in the EEA — Concentration — Decision declaring the concentration incompatible with the internal market — Annulment of the decision by a judgment of the Court — General reference to other documents — Pleas in law or complaints raised by a third party in another case — Evidence submitted in the reply — No justification for the delay — Inadmissibility — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals)

24

2022/C 171/31

Case T-636/19: Judgment of the General Court of 23 February 2022 — Chemours Netherlands v ECHA (REACH — Substances of very high concern — Establishment of a candidate list of substances for eventual inclusion in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 — Decision identifying 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoro-2-(heptafluoropropoxy)propionic acid, its salts and its acyl halides as a substance fulfilling the criteria laid down for inclusion in the list — Article 57 of Regulation No 1907/2006 — Manifest error of assessment — Proportionality)

25

2022/C 171/32

Case T-806/19: Judgment of the General Court of 23 February 2022 — Govern d’Andorra v EUIPO (Andorra) (European Union trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark Andorra — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

26

2022/C 171/33

Case T-134/20: Judgment of the General Court of 2 March 2022 — Huhtamaki v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to a State aid investigation — Advance tax agreements — Refusal of access — Exception relating to the protection of the commercial interests of a third party — Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits — General presumption of confidentiality — Not irrebuttable — Obligation to state reasons)

26

2022/C 171/34

Case T-669/20: Judgment of the General Court of 2 March 2022 — Pluscard Service v EUIPO — (PLUSCARD) (EU trade mark — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark PLUSCARD — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

27

2022/C 171/35

Case T-671/20: Judgment of the General Court of 23 February 2022 — OA v EESC (Civil service — Officials — Psychological harassment — Disciplinary procedure — Disciplinary penalty — Written warning — Rights of the defence — Error of assessment — Liability)

28

2022/C 171/36

Case T-715/20: Judgment of the General Court of 2 March 2022 — Degode- v EUIPO — Leo Pharma (Skinovea) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark Skinovea — Earlier national word mark SKINOREN — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

28

2022/C 171/37

Case T-1/21: Judgment of the General Court of 2 March 2022 — Fabryki Mebli Forte v EUIPO — Bog-Fran (Furniture) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing an item of furniture — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — Article 6(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Disclosure of the earlier design — Article 7(1) of Regulation No 6/2002 — Decision adopted following the annulment by the General Court of an earlier decision — Res judicata)

29

2022/C 171/38

Case T-86/21: Judgment of the General Court of 2 March 2022 — Distintiva Solutions v EUIPO — Makeblock (Makeblock) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark Makeblock — Absolute grounds for refusal — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — No descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Mark not of such a nature as to mislead the public — Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation 2017/1001))

30

2022/C 171/39

Case T-125/21: Judgment of the General Court of 2 March 2022 — Banco de Investimento Global v EUIPO — Banco BIC Português (EUROBIC) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark EUROBIC — Earlier EU figurative marks BiG, BANCO BiG and BiGlobal TRADE — Earlier national word marks BANCO BIG and earlier national figurative mark BANCO BiG — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

30

2022/C 171/40

Case T-149/21: Judgment of the General Court of 2 March 2022 — UGA Nutraceuticals v EUIPO — Vitae Health Innovation (VITADHA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark VITADHA — Earlier Spanish word mark VITANADH — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

31

2022/C 171/41

Case T-171/21: Judgment of the General Court of 2 March 2022 — Ubisoft Entertainment v EUIPO — Huawei Technologies (FOR HONOR) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark FOR HONOR — Earlier EU word mark HONOR — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

32

2022/C 171/42

Case T-184/21: Judgment of the General Court of 23 February 2022 — Lackmann Fleisch- und Feinkostfabrik v EUIPO — Schuju (Хозяин) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark Хозяин — Earlier national figurative mark хозяюшка — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

32

2022/C 171/43

Case T-185/21: Judgment of the General Court of 23 February 2022 — Lackmann Fleisch- und Feinkostfabrik v EUIPO — Schuju (Хозяйка) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark Хозяйка — Earlier national figurative mark хозяюшка — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

33

2022/C 171/44

Case T-192/21: Judgment of the General Court of 2 March 2022 — Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — Beta Sports (META) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark META — Earlier national word mark METALGIAL — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

34

2022/C 171/45

Case T-198/21: Judgment of the General Court of 23 February 2022 — Ancor Group v EUIPO — Cody’s Drinks International (CODE-X) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — EU word mark CODE-X — Earlier national word and figurative marks Cody’s — Earlier international figurative mark Cody’s — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

34

2022/C 171/46

Case T-209/21: Judgment of the General Court of 23 February 2022 — Ignacio Carrasco v EUIPO (La Hoja del Carrasco) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark La Hoja del Carrasco — Earlier national figurative mark CARRASCO, Guijuelo — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Dominant and distinctive elements of the marks at issue)

35

2022/C 171/47

Case T-161/15: Order of the General Court of 22 February 2022 — Brinkmann (Steel Trading) and Others v Commission and ECB (Action for damages — Economic and monetary policy — Stability support programme for Cyprus — Memorandum of Understanding of 26 April 2013 on Specific Economic Policy Conditionality concluded between Cyprus and the European Stability Mechanism — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals — Equal treatment — Principle of proportionality — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

36

2022/C 171/48

Case T-295/21: Order of the General Court of 15 February 2022 — eSlovensko v Commission (Action for annulment — Financial provisions — EU programme on promoting safer use of the internet — Failure to comply with procedural requirements — Inadmissibility)

36

2022/C 171/49

Case T-304/21: Order of the General Court of 15 February 2022 — eSlovensko Bratislava v Commission (Action for annulment — Financial provisions — EU programme on promoting safer use of the internet — Designation of the defendant — Inadmissibility)

37

2022/C 171/50

Case T-425/21: Order of the General Court of 15 February 2022 — eSlovensko Bratislava v Commission (Action for annulment — Financial provisions — EU programme on promoting safer use of the internet — Failure to comply with procedural requirements — Inadmissibility)

37

2022/C 171/51

Case T-442/21: Judgment of the General Court of 24 February 2022 — Thomas and Julien v Council (Action for annulment — Area of freedom, security and justice — Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and Euratom, of the one part, and the United Kingdom, of the other part — Council decision on the conclusion of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement — Act not of individual concern — Non-regulatory act — Inadmissibility)

38

2022/C 171/52

Case T-503/21: Order of the General Court of 14 February 2022 — Lagardére, unité médico-sociale v Commission (Action for annulment — Regulation (EU) 2021/953 — EU Digital Covid-19 Certificate — Freedom of movement for persons — Restrictions — Incorrect designation of the defendant — Inadmissibility)

39

2022/C 171/53

Case T-603/21 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 23 February 2022 — WO v European Public Prosecutor’s Office (Application for interim measures — Law governing the institutions — Enhanced cooperation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office — Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 — Appointment of the European Delegated Prosecutors of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office — Appointment of one of the candidates nominated by Lithuania — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Failure to comply with procedural requirements — Inadmissibility)

39

2022/C 171/54

Case T-635/21: Order of the General Court of 21 February 2022 — Carlings v EUIPO — Margarete Steiff (STUHF) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)

40

2022/C 171/55

Case T-46/22 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 3 March 2022 — Esedra v Parliament (Interim measures — Public service contracts — Early childhood care services — Application for interim measures — Lack of urgency)

40

2022/C 171/56

Case T-72/22: Action brought on 4 February 2022 — Interneto žiniasklaidos asociacija and Others v Commission

41

2022/C 171/57

Case T-115/22: Action brought on 2 March 2022 — Belshyna v Council

42

2022/C 171/58

Case T-116/22: Action brought on 3 March 2022 — Belavia v Council

42

2022/C 171/59

Case T-126/22: Action brought on 7 March 2022 — Coinbase v EUIPO — Coinbase Global (coinbase)

43

2022/C 171/60

Case T-129/22: Action brought on 7 March 2022 — Simba Toys v EUIPO — Master Gift Import (BIMBA TOYS)

44

2022/C 171/61

Case T-130/22: Action brought on 7 March 2022 — Biologische Heilmittel Heel v EUIPO — Esi (TRAUMGEL)

44

2022/C 171/62

Case T-133/22: Action brought on 10 March 2022 — Katjes Fassin v EUIPO (THE FUTURE IS PLANT-BASED)

45

2022/C 171/63

Case T-695/20: Order of the General Court of 23 February 2022 — OG v EIB

46

---

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 25.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/1

---

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

(2022/C 171/01)

Last publication

OJ C 165, 19.4.2022

Past publications

OJ C 158, 11.4.2022

OJ C 148, 4.4.2022

OJ C 138, 28.3.2022

OJ C 128, 21.3.2022

OJ C 119, 14.3.2022

OJ C 109, 7.3.2022

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 25.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 March 2022 — European Commission v Freistaat Bayern and Others

(Joined Cases C-167/19 P and C-171/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Aid in favour of the German dairy sector - Financing of milk quality tests - Article 108(2) TFUE - Decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Article 6(1) - Obligation for the European Commission to summarise the relevant issues of fact and law in that decision - Scope - Rights of interested parties to be involved in the administrative procedure - Breach of an essential procedural requirement - Consequences for the lawfulness of the final decision)

(2022/C 171/02)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: K. Herrmann, P. Němečková and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Freistaat Bayern (Germany) (represented by: U. Soltész and H. Weiß, Rechtsanwälte) (C-167/19 P), Interessengemeinschaft privater Milchverarbeiter Bayerns eV, Genossenschaftsverband Bayern eV, Verband der Bayerischen Privaten Milchwirtschaft eV (represented by: C. Bittner and N. Langhans, Rechtsanwälte) (C-171/19 P)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeals; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeals;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 131, 8.4.2019.

---

| 25.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 March 2022 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-213/19) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 4(3) TEU - Article 310(6) and Article 325 TFEU - Own resources - Customs duties - Value added tax (VAT) - Protection of the financial interests of the European Union - Combating fraud - Principle of effectiveness - Obligation for Member States to make own resources available to the European Commission - Financial liability of Member States in the event of losses of own resources - Imports of textiles and footwear from China - Large-scale and systematic fraud - Organised crime - Missing importers - Customs value - Undervaluation - Taxable amount for VAT purposes - Lack of systematic customs controls based on risk analysis and carried out prior to the release of the goods concerned - No systematic provision of security - Method used to estimate the amount of traditional own resources losses in respect of imports presenting a significant risk of undervaluation - Statistical method based on the average price determined at EU level - Whether permissible)

(2022/C 171/03)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, acting as Agents)

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented: initially by F. Shibli, S. Brandon, Z. Lavery and S. McCrory, subsequently by F. Shibli and S. McCrory, acting as Agents, and by J. Eadie QC and I. Rogers QC, and by S. Pritchard, T. Sebastian and R. Hill, Barristers)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: J.-C. Halleux, P. Cottin and S. Baeyens, acting as Agents), Republic of Estonia (represented by: N. Grünberg, acting as Agent), Hellenic Republic (represented by: M. Tassopoulou, acting as Agent), Republic of Latvia (represented: initially by K. Pommere, V. Soņeca and I. Kucina, and subsequently by K. Pommere, acting as Agents), Portuguese Republic (represented by: P. Barros da Costa, S. Jaulino, L. Inez Fernandes and P. Rocha, acting as Agents), Slovak Republic (represented by: B. Ricziová, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to enter in the accounts the correct amounts of customs duties and to make available the correct amount of traditional own resources in respect of certain imports of textiles and footwear from China, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2 and 8 of Council Decision 2014/335/EU, Euratom of 26 May 2014 on the system of own resources of the European Union, Articles 2 and 8 of Council Decision 2007/436/EC, Euratom of 7 June 2007 on the system of the European Communities’ own resources, Articles 2, 6, 9, 10, 12 and 13 of Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 609/2014 of 26 May 2014 on the methods and procedure for making available the traditional, VAT and GNI-based own resources and on the measures to meet cash requirements, as amended by Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2016/804 of 17 May 2016, Articles 2, 6, 9, 10, 11 and 17 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources, as well as Article 105(3) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code, and Article 220(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 648/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 2005, as a consequence of its failure to fulfil its obligations under Article 325 TFEU, Article 46 of Regulation No 952/2013, Article 13 of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 648/2005, Article 248(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 3254/1994 of 19 December 1994, Article 244 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 of 24 November 2015 laying down detailed rules for implementing certain provisions of Regulation No 952/2013, and Article 2(1)(d) and Articles 85 to 87 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2009/69/EC of 25 June 2009;
  and by failing to provide the European Commission with all the information necessary to determine the amount of traditional own resources losses, and by not providing as requested the reasons for the decisions cancelling the customs debts established, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(3) TEU; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to enter in the accounts the correct amounts of customs duties and to make available the correct amount of traditional own resources in respect of certain imports of textiles and footwear from China, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2 and 8 of Council Decision 2014/335/EU, Euratom of 26 May 2014 on the system of own resources of the European Union, Articles 2 and 8 of Council Decision 2007/436/EC, Euratom of 7 June 2007 on the system of the European Communities’ own resources, Articles 2, 6, 9, 10, 12 and 13 of Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 609/2014 of 26 May 2014 on the methods and procedure for making available the traditional, VAT and GNI-based own resources and on the measures to meet cash requirements, as amended by Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2016/804 of 17 May 2016, Articles 2, 6, 9, 10, 11 and 17 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources, as well as Article 105(3) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code, and Article 220(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 648/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 2005, as a consequence of its failure to fulfil its obligations under Article 325 TFEU, Article 46 of Regulation No 952/2013, Article 13 of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 648/2005, Article 248(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 3254/1994 of 19 December 1994, Article 244 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 of 24 November 2015 laying down detailed rules for implementing certain provisions of Regulation No 952/2013, and Article 2(1)(d) and Articles 85 to 87 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2009/69/EC of 25 June 2009;

and by failing to provide the European Commission with all the information necessary to determine the amount of traditional own resources losses, and by not providing as requested the reasons for the decisions cancelling the customs debts established, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(3) TEU;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs and to pay four fifths of the costs incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs and to pay four fifths of the costs incurred by the European Commission;

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

4.

Orders the European Commission to bear one fifth of its own costs;

| 5. | Orders the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Estonia, the Hellenic Republic, the Republic of Latvia, the Portuguese Republic and the Slovak Republic to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Orders the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Estonia, the Hellenic Republic, the Republic of Latvia, the Portuguese Republic and the Slovak Republic to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 164, 13.5.2019.

---

| 25.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 3 March 2022 — WV v European External Action Service (EEAS)

(Case C-162/20 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union - Article 60, first paragraph - Unauthorised absence - Scope - Deduction from annual leave - Withholding of salary - Official who has failed to fulfil his or her obligations under Articles 21 and 55 of the Staff Regulations)

(2022/C 171/04)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: WV (represented by: É. Boigelot, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European External Action Service (EEAS) (represented by: S. Marquardt and R. Spáč, acting as Agents, and by M. Troncoso Ferrer, abogado, and F.-M. Hislaire, avocat)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 29 January 2020, WV v EEAS (T-471/18, not published, EU:T:2020:26); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 29 January 2020, WV v EEAS (T-471/18, not published, EU:T:2020:26);

| 2. | Annuls the decision of the European External Action Service (EEAS) of 27 November 2017 to impose a deduction from salary amounting to 72 calendar days and the decision of the EEAS of 2 May 2018 rejecting the appellant’s complaint lodged on 3 January 2018; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Annuls the decision of the European External Action Service (EEAS) of 27 November 2017 to impose a deduction from salary amounting to 72 calendar days and the decision of the EEAS of 2 May 2018 rejecting the appellant’s complaint lodged on 3 January 2018;

| 3. | Orders the EEAS to repay to the appellant the amounts wrongly deducted from her remuneration, amounting to 71,5 days, together with interest at the rate of 5 % per annum from the date on which they were deducted; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the EEAS to repay to the appellant the amounts wrongly deducted from her remuneration, amounting to 71,5 days, together with interest at the rate of 5 % per annum from the date on which they were deducted;

| 4. | Orders the EEAS to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by WV at first instance and in the present appeal. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the EEAS to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by WV at first instance and in the present appeal.

---

(1)  OJ C 320, 28.9.2020.

---

| 25.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 3 March 2022 — WV v European External Action Service (EEAS)

(Case C-171/20 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil Service - Request for assistance - Claim for damages - Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union - Article 24, paragraphs 1 and 2 - Article 90(1) and (2) - Review of an administrative measure which has become final)

(2022/C 171/05)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: WV (represented by: É. Boigelot, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European External Action Service (EEAS) (represented by: S. Marquardt and R. Spáč, acting as Agents, and by M. Troncoso Ferrer, abogado, and F.-M. Hislaire, avocat)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

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

2.

Orders WV to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 320, 28.9.2020.

---

| 25.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 3 March 2022 — WV v European External Action Service (EEAS)

(Case C-172/20 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Request for assistance - Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union - Article 90(1) and (2) - Date on which the request was made - Implied decision refusing the request - Complaint - Submission - Time period - Excusable error)

(2022/C 171/06)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: WV (represented by: É. Boigelot, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European External Action Service (EEAS) (represented by: S. Marquardt and R. Spáč, acting as Agents, and by M. Troncoso Ferrer, abogado, and F.-M. Hislaire, avocat)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

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

2.

Orders WV to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 320, 28.9.2020.

---

| 25.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 March 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Győri Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — ‘Grossmania’ Mezőgazdasági Termelő és Szolgáltató Kft. v Vas Megyei Kormányhivatal

(Case C-177/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Principles of EU law - Primacy - Direct effect - Sincere cooperation - Article 4(3) TEU - Article 63 TFEU - Obligations of a Member State as a result of a preliminary ruling - Interpretation of a provision of EU law given by the Court in a preliminary ruling - Obligation to give full effect to EU law - Obligation for a national court to disapply national legislation which contravenes EU law as interpreted by the Court - Administrative decision which became final in the absence of a challenge before the courts - Principles of equivalence and effectiveness - Liability of the Member State)

(2022/C 171/07)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Győri Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘Grossmania’ Mezőgazdasági Termelő és Szolgáltató Kft.

Defendant: Vas Megyei Kormányhivatal

Operative part of the judgment

EU law, in particular Article 4(3) TEU and Article 267 TFEU, must be interpreted as meaning that a national court hearing an action against a decision rejecting a request for reinstatement of rights of usufruct which have been extinguished by operation of law and deleted from the land register pursuant to national legislation which is incompatible with Article 63 TFEU, as interpreted by the Court in a preliminary ruling, is required:

| — | to disapply that legislation; and |
| --- | --- |

—

to disapply that legislation; and

| — | in the absence of objective and legitimate obstacles, in particular those of a legal nature, to order the competent administrative authority to reinstate the rights of usufruct, even though the deletion of those rights has not been contested before the courts within the legal time limits and has consequently become final in accordance with national law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in the absence of objective and legitimate obstacles, in particular those of a legal nature, to order the competent administrative authority to reinstate the rights of usufruct, even though the deletion of those rights has not been contested before the courts within the legal time limits and has consequently become final in accordance with national law.

---

(1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2020.

---

| 25.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 March 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark — Austria) — NE v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Hartberg-Fürstenfeld

(Case C-205/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom to provide services - Posting of workers - Directive 2014/67/EU - Article 20 - Penalties - Proportionality - Direct effect - Principle of primacy of EU law)

(2022/C 171/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: NE

Defendant: Bezirkshauptmannschaft Hartberg-Fürstenfeld

Intervener: Finanzpolizei Team 91

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | 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’), in so far as it requires the penalties provided for therein to be proportionate, has direct effect and may thus be relied on by individuals before national courts against a Member State which has transposed it incorrectly. |
| --- | --- |

1.

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’), in so far as it requires the penalties provided for therein to be proportionate, has direct effect and may thus be relied on by individuals before national courts against a Member State which has transposed it incorrectly.

| 2. | The principle of the primacy of EU law must be interpreted as imposing on national authorities the obligation to disapply national legislation of which a part is contrary to the requirement of proportionality of penalties laid down in Article 20 of Directive 2014/67 only to the extent necessary to enable the imposition of proportionate penalties. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The principle of the primacy of EU law must be interpreted as imposing on national authorities the obligation to disapply national legislation of which a part is contrary to the requirement of proportionality of penalties laid down in Article 20 of Directive 2014/67 only to the extent necessary to enable the imposition of proportionate penalties.

---

(1)  OJ C 348, 19.10.2020.

---

| 25.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 March 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Social Security Appeal Tribunal (Northern Ireland) — United Kingdom) — VI v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

(Case C-247/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States - Article 21 TFEU - Directive 2004/38/EC - Article 7(1)(b) and Article 16 - Child who is a national of a Member State staying in another Member State - Right of residence derived from the parent who is the primary carer of that child - Requirement of comprehensive sickness insurance cover - Child having a permanent right of residence for part of the periods concerned)

(2022/C 171/09)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Social Security Appeal Tribunal (Northern Ireland)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: VI

Defendant: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 21 TFEU and Article 16(1) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that neither a child, a Union citizen, who has acquired a right of permanent residence, nor the parent who is the primary carer of that child is required to have comprehensive sickness insurance cover, within the meaning of Article 7(1)(b) of that directive, in order to retain their right of residence in the host State; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 21 TFEU and Article 16(1) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that neither a child, a Union citizen, who has acquired a right of permanent residence, nor the parent who is the primary carer of that child is required to have comprehensive sickness insurance cover, within the meaning of Article 7(1)(b) of that directive, in order to retain their right of residence in the host State;

| 2. | Article 21 TFEU and Article 7(1)(b) of Directive 2004/38 must be interpreted as meaning that, as regards periods before a child, a Union citizen, has acquired a right of permanent residence in the host State, both that child, where a right of residence is claimed for him or her on the basis of that Article 7(1)(b), and the parent who is the primary carer of that child must have comprehensive sickness insurance cover within the meaning of that directive. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 21 TFEU and Article 7(1)(b) of Directive 2004/38 must be interpreted as meaning that, as regards periods before a child, a Union citizen, has acquired a right of permanent residence in the host State, both that child, where a right of residence is claimed for him or her on the basis of that Article 7(1)(b), and the parent who is the primary carer of that child must have comprehensive sickness insurance cover within the meaning of that directive.

---

(1)  OJ C 313, 21.9.2020.

---

| 25.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 1 March 2022 — European Commission v Council of the European Union

(Case C-275/20) (1)

(Action for annulment - Decision (EU) 2020/470 - Extension of the period of entitlement for audiovisual co-productions as provided for in Article 5 of the Protocol on Cultural Cooperation to the Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Korea, of the other part - Procedural legal basis - Article 218(7) TFEU - Applicable procedure and voting rule)

(2022/C 171/10)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J.F. Brakeland, M. Afonso and D. Schaffrin, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: P. Plaza García and B. Driessen, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: French Republic (represented by: J.-L. Carré, T. Stehelin, E. de Moustier and A. Daniel, acting as Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M.K. Bulterman, C.S. Schillemans and J. Langer, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Council Decision (EU) 2020/470 of 25 March 2020 as regards the extension of the period of entitlement for audiovisual co-productions as provided for in Article 5 of the Protocol on Cultural Cooperation to the Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Korea, of the other part; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Council Decision (EU) 2020/470 of 25 March 2020 as regards the extension of the period of entitlement for audiovisual co-productions as provided for in Article 5 of the Protocol on Cultural Cooperation to the Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Korea, of the other part;

| 2. | Orders that the effects of Decision 2020/470 be maintained in force until the grounds for annulment established have been remedied; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders that the effects of Decision 2020/470 be maintained in force until the grounds for annulment established have been remedied;

| 3. | Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs;

| 4. | Orders the French Republic and the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the French Republic and the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2020.

---

| 25.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 March 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) — United Kingdom) — NB, AB v Secretary of State for the Home Department

(Case C-349/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common policy on asylum and immigration - Standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection - Directive 2004/83/EU - Article 12 - Exclusion from being a refugee - Stateless person of Palestinian origin registered with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (for Palestine Refugees in the Near East) (UNRWA) - Conditions to be entitled ipso facto to the benefits of Directive 2004/83/EC - Cessation of UNRWA’s protection or assistance)

(2022/C 171/11)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: NB, AB

Defendant: Secretary of State for the Home Department

Intervening party: United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UK)

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The second sentence of Article 12(1)(a) of Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to assess whether the protection or assistance from the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (for Palestine Refugees in the Near East) (UNRWA) has ceased, so that a person may claim ipso facto ‘refugee status’ for the purposes of that provision, account must be taken, in the context of an assessment carried out on an individual basis, of the relevant circumstances as they exist not only at the time of that person’s departure from the UNRWA area of operations, but also at the time when the competent administrative authorities consider an application for refugee status or the judicial authorities concerned rule on the appeal against a decision refusing to grant such status. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The second sentence of Article 12(1)(a) of Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to assess whether the protection or assistance from the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (for Palestine Refugees in the Near East) (UNRWA) has ceased, so that a person may claim ipso facto ‘refugee status’ for the purposes of that provision, account must be taken, in the context of an assessment carried out on an individual basis, of the relevant circumstances as they exist not only at the time of that person’s departure from the UNRWA area of operations, but also at the time when the competent administrative authorities consider an application for refugee status or the judicial authorities concerned rule on the appeal against a decision refusing to grant such status.

| 2. | The second sentence of Article 12(1)(a) of Directive 2004/83 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of the analysis of whether the protection or assistance from the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (for Palestine Refugees in the Near East) (UNRWA) has ceased, so that a person may claim ipso facto ‘refugee status’ for the purposes of that provision, where the person concerned establishes that he or she has been forced to leave the UNRWA area of operations for reasons beyond his or her control and independent of his or her volition, it is for the Member State, if it considers that the person is now in a position to return to that area and receive that protection or assistance there, to establish that that is the case. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The second sentence of Article 12(1)(a) of Directive 2004/83 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of the analysis of whether the protection or assistance from the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (for Palestine Refugees in the Near East) (UNRWA) has ceased, so that a person may claim ipso facto ‘refugee status’ for the purposes of that provision, where the person concerned establishes that he or she has been forced to leave the UNRWA area of operations for reasons beyond his or her control and independent of his or her volition, it is for the Member State, if it considers that the person is now in a position to return to that area and receive that protection or assistance there, to establish that that is the case.

| 3. | The second sentence of Article 12(1)(a) of Directive 2004/83 must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to determine whether the protection or assistance from the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (for Palestine Refugees in the Near East) (UNRWA) has ceased, within the meaning of that provision, so that a person who has applied for international protection has been forced to leave that body’s area of operations, it is not necessary to establish that UNRWA or the State in whose territory it operates intended to inflict harm on that person or to deprive him or her of assistance, by act or omission. For the purposes of that provision, it is sufficient to establish that UNRWA’s assistance or protection has in fact ceased for any reason, so that that body is no longer in a position, for objective reasons or reasons relating to the person’s individual situation, to guarantee him or her living conditions commensurate with its mission. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The second sentence of Article 12(1)(a) of Directive 2004/83 must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to determine whether the protection or assistance from the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (for Palestine Refugees in the Near East) (UNRWA) has ceased, within the meaning of that provision, so that a person who has applied for international protection has been forced to leave that body’s area of operations, it is not necessary to establish that UNRWA or the State in whose territory it operates intended to inflict harm on that person or to deprive him or her of assistance, by act or omission. For the purposes of that provision, it is sufficient to establish that UNRWA’s assistance or protection has in fact ceased for any reason, so that that body is no longer in a position, for objective reasons or reasons relating to the person’s individual situation, to guarantee him or her living conditions commensurate with its mission.

| 4. | The second sentence of Article 12(1)(a) of Directive 2004/83, read in conjunction with Article 1(D) of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, signed in Geneva on 28 July 1951, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of the assessment of the conditions required to determine whether the protection or assistance from the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (for Palestine Refugees in the Near East) (UNRWA) has ceased, so that a person may claim ipso facto ‘refugee status’ for the purposes of that provision of Directive 2004/83, account must be taken of the assistance provided to that person by civil society actors, such as non-governmental organisations, provided that UNRWA has a formal relationship of cooperation with them, of a stable nature, in which they assist UNRWA in carrying out its mandate. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The second sentence of Article 12(1)(a) of Directive 2004/83, read in conjunction with Article 1(D) of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, signed in Geneva on 28 July 1951, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of the assessment of the conditions required to determine whether the protection or assistance from the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (for Palestine Refugees in the Near East) (UNRWA) has ceased, so that a person may claim ipso facto ‘refugee status’ for the purposes of that provision of Directive 2004/83, account must be taken of the assistance provided to that person by civil society actors, such as non-governmental organisations, provided that UNRWA has a formal relationship of cooperation with them, of a stable nature, in which they assist UNRWA in carrying out its mandate.

---

(1)  OJ C 62, 22.2.2021.

---

| 25.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 March 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo no 1 de Pontevedra — Spain) — UN v Subdelegación del Gobierno en Pontevedra

(Case C-409/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Directive 2008/115/EC - Common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals - Article 6(1) and Article 8(1) - National legislation providing for the imposition, in the event of illegal stay, of a fine together with an obligation to leave the territory - Possibility of regularising the stay within a prescribed period - Article 7(1) and (2) - Period for voluntary departure)

(2022/C 171/12)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo no 1 de Pontevedra

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: UN

Defendant: Subdelegación del Gobierno en Pontevedra

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals, in particular Article 6(1) and Article 8(1) of that directive, read in conjunction with Article 6(4), and Article 7(1) and (2) of that directive, must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State which penalises a third-country national staying illegally in the territory of that Member State, in the absence of aggravating circumstances, initially by a fine together with an obligation to leave the territory of that Member State within a prescribed period unless, before the expiry of that period, that third-country national’s stay is regularised and, subsequently, if that third-country national’s stay is not regularised, by a decision ordering his or her compulsory removal, provided that that period is set in accordance with the requirements laid down in Article 7(1) and (2) of that directive.

---

(1)  OJ C 53, 15.2.2021.

---

| 25.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 March 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Acacia Srl v Bayerische Motoren Werke AG

(Case C-421/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual property - Community designs - Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Article 82(5) - Action brought before the courts of the Member State in which an act of infringement has been committed or threatened - Claims supplementary to the action for infringement - Applicable law - Article 88(2) - Article 89(1)(d) - Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 - Law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II) - Article 8(2) - Country in which the intellectual property right was infringed)

(2022/C 171/13)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Acacia Srl

Defendant: Bayerische Motoren Werke AG

Operative part of the judgment

Article 88(2) and Article 89(1)(d) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 of Community designs, and Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II) must be interpreted as meaning that the Community design courts before which an action for infringement pursuant to Article 82(5) of Regulation No 6/2002 is brought concerning acts of infringement committed or threatened within a single Member State must examine the claims supplementary to that action, seeking the award of damages, the submission of information, documents and accounts and the handing over of the infringing products with a view to their being destroyed, on the basis of the law of the Member State in which the acts allegedly infringing the Community design relied upon are committed or are threatened, which is the same, in the circumstances of an action brought pursuant to that Article 82(5), as the law of the Member State in which those courts are situated.

---

(1)  OJ C 433, 14.12.2020.

---

| 25.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 March 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Midden-Nederland — Netherlands) — ZK, in his capacity as successor to JM, liquidator in the bankruptcy of BMA Nederland BV v BMA Braunschweigische Maschinenbauanstalt AG

(Case C-498/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Point 2 of Article 7 - Jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict - Claim made by a liquidator against a third party for the benefit of the creditors - Place where the damage occurred - Point 2 of Article 8 - Application for leave to intervene by a protector of collective interests - Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 - Scope - General rule)

(2022/C 171/14)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Midden-Nederland

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ZK, in his capacity as successor to JM, liquidator in the bankruptcy of BMA Nederland BV

Defendant: BMA Braunschweigische Maschinenbauanstalt AG

Intervener: Stichting Belangbehartiging Crediteuren BMA Nederland

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Point 2 of 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 the court for the place of establishment of a company whose debts have become irrecoverable because the ‘grandparent’ company of that company has breached its duty of care towards that company’s creditors has jurisdiction to hear and determine a collective claim for damages in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict which the liquidator in the bankruptcy of that company has made by virtue of his statutory duty to wind up the estate for the benefit of, but not on behalf of, the general body of creditors. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Point 2 of 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 the court for the place of establishment of a company whose debts have become irrecoverable because the ‘grandparent’ company of that company has breached its duty of care towards that company’s creditors has jurisdiction to hear and determine a collective claim for damages in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict which the liquidator in the bankruptcy of that company has made by virtue of his statutory duty to wind up the estate for the benefit of, but not on behalf of, the general body of creditors.

| 2. | The answer to the first question referred for a preliminary ruling is no different if account is taken of the fact that, in the case in main proceedings, a foundation is acting to protect the collective interests of the creditors and that the claim made for that purpose does not take account of the individual circumstances of the creditors. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The answer to the first question referred for a preliminary ruling is no different if account is taken of the fact that, in the case in main proceedings, a foundation is acting to protect the collective interests of the creditors and that the claim made for that purpose does not take account of the individual circumstances of the creditors.

| 3. | Point 2 of Article 8 of Regulation No 1215/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that, if the court seised of the original proceedings reverses its decision that it has jurisdiction in respect of those proceedings, such a reversal also automatically excludes its jurisdiction in respect of the claims made by the intervening third party. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Point 2 of Article 8 of Regulation No 1215/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that, if the court seised of the original proceedings reverses its decision that it has jurisdiction in respect of those proceedings, such a reversal also automatically excludes its jurisdiction in respect of the claims made by the intervening third party.

| 4. | Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II) must be interpreted as meaning that the law applicable to an obligation to redress in connection with the duty of care of the ‘grandparent’ company of a company declared bankrupt is, in principle, that of the country in which the latter has its registered office, although the fact that there is a pre-existing financing agreement between those two companies, together with a jurisdiction clause, is a circumstance which may establish a manifestly closer connection with another country within the meaning of paragraph 3 of that article. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II) must be interpreted as meaning that the law applicable to an obligation to redress in connection with the duty of care of the ‘grandparent’ company of a company declared bankrupt is, in principle, that of the country in which the latter has its registered office, although the fact that there is a pre-existing financing agreement between those two companies, together with a jurisdiction clause, is a circumstance which may establish a manifestly closer connection with another country within the meaning of paragraph 3 of that article.

---

(1)  OJ C 443, 21.12.2020.

---

| 25.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 March 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover — Germany) — Proceedings against K

(Case C-519/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Immigration policy - Directive 2008/115/EC - Detention for the purpose of removal - Article 16(1) - Direct effect - Specialised detention facility - Concept - Detention in prison accommodation - Conditions - Article 18 - Emergency situation - Concept - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Effective judicial review)

(2022/C 171/15)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hannover

Parties to the main proceedings

Person concerned: K

Other party to the proceedings: Landkreis Gifhorn

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 16(1) of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals must be interpreted as meaning that a specific division of a prison facility which, first, while having its own director, is subject to the management of that establishment and is subject to the authority of the minister who has authority over prison facilities and in which, second, third-country nationals are detained, for the purpose of removal, in specific buildings which have their own facilities and are isolated from other buildings in that division in which those with a criminal conviction are held, may be regarded as a ‘specialised detention facility’ within the meaning of that provision, provided that the conditions of detention applicable to those nationals avoid, as much as possible, that detention resembling detention in a prison environment and provided that they are designed in such a way that the rights guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the rights enshrined in Article 16(2) to (5) and Article 17 of that directive are respected. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 16(1) of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals must be interpreted as meaning that a specific division of a prison facility which, first, while having its own director, is subject to the management of that establishment and is subject to the authority of the minister who has authority over prison facilities and in which, second, third-country nationals are detained, for the purpose of removal, in specific buildings which have their own facilities and are isolated from other buildings in that division in which those with a criminal conviction are held, may be regarded as a ‘specialised detention facility’ within the meaning of that provision, provided that the conditions of detention applicable to those nationals avoid, as much as possible, that detention resembling detention in a prison environment and provided that they are designed in such a way that the rights guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the rights enshrined in Article 16(2) to (5) and Article 17 of that directive are respected.

| 2. | Article 18 of Directive 2008/115, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, must be interpreted as meaning that a national court which is called upon, in the exercise of its jurisdiction, to order the detention or an extension of the detention, in a prison facility, of a third-country national for the purpose of removal must be able to verify compliance with the conditions laid down in Article 18 of that directive under which it is possible for a Member State to provide that that national is to be detained in a prison facility. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 18 of Directive 2008/115, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, must be interpreted as meaning that a national court which is called upon, in the exercise of its jurisdiction, to order the detention or an extension of the detention, in a prison facility, of a third-country national for the purpose of removal must be able to verify compliance with the conditions laid down in Article 18 of that directive under which it is possible for a Member State to provide that that national is to be detained in a prison facility.

| 3. | Article 16(1) of Directive 2008/115, read in conjunction with the principle of primacy of EU law, must be interpreted as meaning that a national court must disapply legislation of a Member State which makes it possible, on a temporary basis, for illegally staying third-country nationals to be detained, for the purpose of their removal, in prison accommodation, separated from ordinary prisoners, where the conditions laid down in Article 18(1) and the second sentence of Article 16(1) of that directive for such national legislation to comply with EU law are not or are no longer satisfied. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 16(1) of Directive 2008/115, read in conjunction with the principle of primacy of EU law, must be interpreted as meaning that a national court must disapply legislation of a Member State which makes it possible, on a temporary basis, for illegally staying third-country nationals to be detained, for the purpose of their removal, in prison accommodation, separated from ordinary prisoners, where the conditions laid down in Article 18(1) and the second sentence of Article 16(1) of that directive for such national legislation to comply with EU law are not or are no longer satisfied.

---

(1)  OJ C 19, 18.1.2021.

---

| 25.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 March 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Proceedings brought by A

(Case C-634/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Recognition of professional qualifications - Directive 2005/36/EC - Scope - Conditions for obtaining authorisation to pursue the profession of doctor independently in the host Member State - Diploma issued in the home Member State - Right to pursue the profession of doctor limited to a period of three years - Supervision of a licensed doctor and concomitant completion of three years of special training in general medical practice - Articles 45 and 49 TFEU)

(2022/C 171/16)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: A

Other party: Sosiaali- ja terveysalan lupa- ja valvontavirasto

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 45 and 49 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding the competent authority of the host Member State from granting, on the basis of national legislation, a person a right to pursue the profession of doctor which is limited to a period of three years and subject to the twofold condition, first, that the person concerned may practise only under the direction and supervision of a licensed doctor and, second, that he or she must successfully complete three years of special training in general medical practice during the same period in order to obtain authorisation to pursue the profession of doctor independently in the host Member State, taking account of the fact that the person concerned, who has obtained an undergraduate degree in medicine in the home Member State, holds the evidence of formal qualifications, with regard to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, referred to in point 5.1.1 of Annex V to Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, as amended by Directive 2013/55/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2013, but not the certificate referred to therein attesting to the completion of a professional traineeship of one year’s duration, which is required as a further condition for obtaining the professional qualification in the home Member State.

---

(1)  OJ C 44, 8.2.2021.

---

| 25.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 March 2022 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-60/21) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 45 TFEU - Article 28 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area - Free movement of workers - Direct taxation - Income tax - Deductions - Maintenance annuities - Equal treatment - Discrimination between resident and non-resident taxpayers)

(2022/C 171/17)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: W. Roels and V. Uher, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: C. Pochet, P. Cottin and S. Baeyens, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by refusing the deduction of maintenance annuities or capital sums in lieu of such annuities and supplementary annuities from taxable income to debenture holders who are not resident in Belgium and who receive less than 75 % of their professional income there and who cannot benefit from the same deduction in their Member State of residence on the basis of the small amount of their taxable income in that State, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 45 TFEU and Article 28 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by refusing the deduction of maintenance annuities or capital sums in lieu of such annuities and supplementary annuities from taxable income to debenture holders who are not resident in Belgium and who receive less than 75 % of their professional income there and who cannot benefit from the same deduction in their Member State of residence on the basis of the small amount of their taxable income in that State, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 45 TFEU and Article 28 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992;

| 2. | Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 98, 22.3.2021.

---

| 25.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 10 March 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Saarbrücken — Germany) — Maxxus Group GmbH & Co. KG v Globus Holding GmbH & Co. KG

(Case C-183/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Trade marks - Directive (EU) 2015/2436 - Article 19 - Genuine use of a trade mark - Burden of proof - Application to revoke for non-use - National procedural rule obliging the applicant to carry out market research concerning use of the mark)

(2022/C 171/18)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Saarbrücken

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Maxxus Group GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: Globus Holding GmbH & Co. KG

Operative part of the judgment

Article 19 of Directive (EU) 2015/2436 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as precluding a procedural rule of a Member State which, in proceedings concerning an application for revocation of a trade mark for non-use, requires the applicant to carry out market research concerning the possible use of that mark by its proprietor and to make in that regard, to the extent possible, substantiated submissions in support of its application.

---

(1)  OJ C 228, 14.6.2021.

---

| 25.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/15

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 2 de Fuengirola (Spain) lodged on 24 December 2021 — NM v Club La Costa (UK) PLC, sucursal en España, CLC Resort Management LTD, Midmark 2 LTD, CLC Resort Development LTD and European Resorts & Hotels, S.L.

(Case C-821/21)

(2022/C 171/19)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 2 de Fuengirola

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: NM

Defendants: Club La Costa (UK) PLC, sucursal en España, CLC Resort Management LTD, Midmark 2 LTD, CLC Resort Development LTD and European Resorts & Hotels, S.L.

Questions referred

In relation to Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012:

| 1. | In the case of consumer contracts to which Article 18(1) of the Brussels I Regulation is applicable, is it compatible with that regulation to interpret the term ‘the other party to a contract’ used in that provision as encompassing only a person who signed the contract, such that it cannot include natural or legal persons other than those who actually signed the contract? |
| --- | --- |

1.

In the case of consumer contracts to which Article 18(1) of the Brussels I Regulation is applicable, is it compatible with that regulation to interpret the term ‘the other party to a contract’ used in that provision as encompassing only a person who signed the contract, such that it cannot include natural or legal persons other than those who actually signed the contract?

| 2. | If the term ‘the other party to a contract’ is interpreted as encompassing only a person who actually signed the contract, in situations in which both the consumer and ‘the other party to a contract’ are domiciled outside Spain, is it compatible with Article 18(1) of the Brussels I Regulation to conclude that the international jurisdiction of the Spanish courts cannot be determined by the fact that the group of undertakings to which ‘the other party to a contract’belongs includes companies that are domiciled in Spain but did not sign the contract or signed different contracts other than that in respect of which a declaration of nullity is sought? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the term ‘the other party to a contract’ is interpreted as encompassing only a person who actually signed the contract, in situations in which both the consumer and ‘the other party to a contract’ are domiciled outside Spain, is it compatible with Article 18(1) of the Brussels I Regulation to conclude that the international jurisdiction of the Spanish courts cannot be determined by the fact that the group of undertakings to which ‘the other party to a contract’belongs includes companies that are domiciled in Spain but did not sign the contract or signed different contracts other than that in respect of which a declaration of nullity is sought?

| 3. | If ‘the other party to a contract’, as referred to in Article 18(1) of the Brussels I Regulation, provides evidence that its domicile is established in the United Kingdom in accordance with Article 63(2) of the regulation, is it compatible with that provision to conclude that a domicile so established delimits the option that can be exercised under Article 18(1)? And, in addition to that, is it compatible with that provision to conclude that it does not simply establish a mere ‘presumption of fact’, or that that presumption is overturned if ‘the other party to a contract’ carries on business outside the jurisdiction of its domicile, or that the onus is on ‘the other party to a contract’ to demonstrate that its domicile, as determined in accordance with the provision cited, is the same as the place where it carries on its business? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If ‘the other party to a contract’, as referred to in Article 18(1) of the Brussels I Regulation, provides evidence that its domicile is established in the United Kingdom in accordance with Article 63(2) of the regulation, is it compatible with that provision to conclude that a domicile so established delimits the option that can be exercised under Article 18(1)? And, in addition to that, is it compatible with that provision to conclude that it does not simply establish a mere ‘presumption of fact’, or that that presumption is overturned if ‘the other party to a contract’ carries on business outside the jurisdiction of its domicile, or that the onus is on ‘the other party to a contract’ to demonstrate that its domicile, as determined in accordance with the provision cited, is the same as the place where it carries on its business?

In relation to Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008:

| 4. | In the case of consumer contracts to which the Rome I Regulation is applicable, is it compatible with Article 3 of that regulation to conclude that clauses determining the applicable law, which are included in the ‘general conditions’ of the contract signed by the parties or which are included in a separate document which is expressly referred to in the contract and is shown to have been provided to the consumer, are valid and applicable? |
| --- | --- |

4.

In the case of consumer contracts to which the Rome I Regulation is applicable, is it compatible with Article 3 of that regulation to conclude that clauses determining the applicable law, which are included in the ‘general conditions’ of the contract signed by the parties or which are included in a separate document which is expressly referred to in the contract and is shown to have been provided to the consumer, are valid and applicable?

| 5. | In the case of consumer contracts to which the Rome I Regulation is applicable, is it compatible with Article 6(1) of that regulation to conclude that it can be relied on by a consumer and by the other party to a contract? |
| --- | --- |

5.

In the case of consumer contracts to which the Rome I Regulation is applicable, is it compatible with Article 6(1) of that regulation to conclude that it can be relied on by a consumer and by the other party to a contract?

| 6. | In the case of consumer contracts to which the Rome I Regulation is applicable, is it compatible with Article 6(1) of that regulation to conclude that, if the conditions laid down therein are satisfied, the law indicated in that provision will in all cases be applied in preference to that indicated in Article 6(3), even though the latter may be more favourable to the consumer in the particular case? |
| --- | --- |

6.

In the case of consumer contracts to which the Rome I Regulation is applicable, is it compatible with Article 6(1) of that regulation to conclude that, if the conditions laid down therein are satisfied, the law indicated in that provision will in all cases be applied in preference to that indicated in Article 6(3), even though the latter may be more favourable to the consumer in the particular case?

---

(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. 1–32).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) (OJ 2008 L 177, p. 6–16).

---

| 25.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/16

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Málaga (Spain) lodged on 17 January 2022 — Cajasur Banco, S. A. v JO and IM

(Case C-35/22)

(2022/C 171/20)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de Málaga

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Cajasur Banco, S. A.

Respondents: JO and IM

Questions referred

| 1. | Is it contrary to the right to effective judicial protection and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to require that, before instituting legal proceedings, the consumer must first have issued an out-of-court demand for payment in order for the declaration as to the invalidity of a particular general condition of contract on grounds of unfairness to give rise to all of the compensatory effects (including the costs of the legal proceedings) associated with such invalidity, pursuant to Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts? (1) |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is it contrary to the right to effective judicial protection and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to require that, before instituting legal proceedings, the consumer must first have issued an out-of-court demand for payment in order for the declaration as to the invalidity of a particular general condition of contract on grounds of unfairness to give rise to all of the compensatory effects (including the costs of the legal proceedings) associated with such invalidity, pursuant to Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts? (1)

| 2. | Is it compatible with the right to full compensation and the effectiveness of European Union law and Article 6(1) of the aforementioned directive to make the imposition of costs (including legal fees) subject to a condition based on the existence of a prior out-of-court demand for payment issued by the consumer to the financial institution with a view to the removal of that term? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is it compatible with the right to full compensation and the effectiveness of European Union law and Article 6(1) of the aforementioned directive to make the imposition of costs (including legal fees) subject to a condition based on the existence of a prior out-of-court demand for payment issued by the consumer to the financial institution with a view to the removal of that term?

---

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

---

| 25.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/17

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 19 January 2022 — Global, Companhia de Seguros, S.A. v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

(Case C-42/22)

(2022/C 171/21)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Global, Companhia de Seguros, S.A.

Respondent: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Questions referred

| A. | Must Article 13(B)(a) of the Sixth VAT Directive, (1) and, therefore, the current Article 135(1)(a) of the VAT Directive, (2) be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘insurance and reinsurance transactions’ includes, for the purposes of exemption from VAT, related or supplementary activities such as the purchase and sale of parts from written-off vehicles? |
| --- | --- |

A.

Must Article 13(B)(a) of the Sixth VAT Directive, (1) and, therefore, the current Article 135(1)(a) of the VAT Directive, (2) be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘insurance and reinsurance transactions’ includes, for the purposes of exemption from VAT, related or supplementary activities such as the purchase and sale of parts from written-off vehicles?

| B. | Must Article 13(B)(c) of the Sixth VAT Directive, and, therefore, the later Article 136(a) of the VAT Directive, be interpreted as meaning that parts from written-off vehicles are regarded as being purchased and sold solely for an exempt entity, where those goods have not given rise to the right to deduction of VAT? |
| --- | --- |

B.

Must Article 13(B)(c) of the Sixth VAT Directive, and, therefore, the later Article 136(a) of the VAT Directive, be interpreted as meaning that parts from written-off vehicles are regarded as being purchased and sold solely for an exempt entity, where those goods have not given rise to the right to deduction of VAT?

| C. | Is it contrary to the principle of VAT neutrality for the sale of parts from written-off vehicles by insurance companies not to be exempt from VAT where there was no right to deduction of VAT? |
| --- | --- |

C.

Is it contrary to the principle of VAT neutrality for the sale of parts from written-off vehicles by insurance companies not to be exempt from VAT where there was no right to deduction of VAT?

---

(1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1, Portuguese special edition: Chapter 09 Volume 001 P. 54).

(2)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).

---

| 25.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/17

---

Action brought on 2 February 2022 — European Commission v Romania

(Case C-69/22)

(2022/C 171/22)

Language of the case: Romanian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Noll-Ehlers and M. Ioan, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Romania

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by failing to adopt and notify to the European Commission a National Air Pollution Control Programme, Romania has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(1) and Article 10(1) of Directive (EU) 2016/2284 of the European Parliament and of the Council [of 14 December 2016] on the reduction of national emissions of certain atmospheric pollutants, amending Directive 2003/35/EC and repealing Directive 2001/81/EC; (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to adopt and notify to the European Commission a National Air Pollution Control Programme, Romania has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(1) and Article 10(1) of Directive (EU) 2016/2284 of the European Parliament and of the Council [of 14 December 2016] on the reduction of national emissions of certain atmospheric pollutants, amending Directive 2003/35/EC and repealing Directive 2001/81/EC; (1)

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

—

order Romania to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission submits that, by Directive (EU) 2016/2284 on the reduction of national emissions of certain atmospheric pollutants, commitments have been made to reduce emissions of five key atmospheric pollutants for the period 2020-2029, beginning in 2030. With a view to honouring those commitments to reduce emissions and in order to contribute to the achievement of the Union’s air quality objectives, Member States are requested, by Article 6(1) of that directive, to adopt a National Air Pollution Control Programme (NAPCP).

Under Article 10(1) of Directive (EU) 2016/2284, Romania was required to notify the Commission of its NAPCP by 1 April 2019 at the latest, and any planned actions by the Romanian authorities should have been commenced before that date.

Therefore, the Commission submits that, by failing to adopt and notify the Commission of its NAPCP before the date of the present application, Romania has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(1) and Article 10(1) of Directive (EU) 2016/2284.

---

(1)  OJ 2016 L 344, p. 1.

---

| 25.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/18

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 4 February 2022 — M.A. v Valstybės sienos apsaugos tarnyba

(Case C-72/22)

(2022/C 171/23)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: M.A.

Other party to the appeal proceedings: Valstybės sienos apsaugos tarnyba

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 7(1) of Directive 2013/32/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection, read in conjunction with Article 4(1) of Directive 2011/95/EU (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13. December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted, be interpreted as precluding rules of national law, such as those applicable in the present case, which, in the event of a declaration of martial law, a state of emergency or also a declaration of an emergency due to a mass influx of foreigners, do not in principle allow a foreigner who has entered and remains unlawfully in the territory of a Member State to lodge an application for international protection? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 7(1) of Directive 2013/32/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection, read in conjunction with Article 4(1) of Directive 2011/95/EU (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13. December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted, be interpreted as precluding rules of national law, such as those applicable in the present case, which, in the event of a declaration of martial law, a state of emergency or also a declaration of an emergency due to a mass influx of foreigners, do not in principle allow a foreigner who has entered and remains unlawfully in the territory of a Member State to lodge an application for international protection?

| 2. | If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative: must Article 8(2) and (3) of Directive 2013/33/EU (3) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection be interpreted as precluding rules of national law under which, in the event of a declaration of martial law, a state of emergency or also a declaration of an emergency due to a mass influx of foreigners, an asylum applicant may be detained merely because he or she entered the territory of the Republic of Lithuania by crossing the State border of the Republic of Lithuania unlawfully? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative: must Article 8(2) and (3) of Directive 2013/33/EU (3) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection be interpreted as precluding rules of national law under which, in the event of a declaration of martial law, a state of emergency or also a declaration of an emergency due to a mass influx of foreigners, an asylum applicant may be detained merely because he or she entered the territory of the Republic of Lithuania by crossing the State border of the Republic of Lithuania unlawfully?

---

(1)  OJ 2013 L 180, p. 60.

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

(3)  OJ 2013 L 180, p. 96.

---

| 25.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/19

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Markkinaoikeus (Finland) lodged on 15 February 2022 — Lännen MCE Oy v Berky GmbH, Senwatec GmbH & Co. KG

(Case C-104/22)

(2022/C 171/24)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Markkinaoikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Lännen MCE Oy

Defendants: Berky GmbH, Senwatec GmbH & Co. KG

Questions referred

Company A is established in Member State X, where it has its registered office, and has used on a website a sign identical to an EU trade mark belonging to Company B, in advertising or as a keyword.

| 1. | In the situation described above, may it be concluded that the advertising is directed at consumers or traders in Member State Y, where Company B has its registered office, and does an EU trade mark court in Member State Y have jurisdiction to hear an action for infringement of an EU trade mark (1) under Article 125(5) of the EU Trade Mark Regulation where, in the advertising published electronically or on an advertiser’s website connected to that advertising via a link, the geographical area where the goods are to be supplied is not specified, at least not expressly, or no individual Member State is expressly excluded from that area? May the nature of the goods to which the advertising relates and the fact that the market for Company A’s products is allegedly global and thus covers the entire territory of the European Union, including Member State Y, be taken into account in that respect? |
| --- | --- |

1.

In the situation described above, may it be concluded that the advertising is directed at consumers or traders in Member State Y, where Company B has its registered office, and does an EU trade mark court in Member State Y have jurisdiction to hear an action for infringement of an EU trade mark (1) under Article 125(5) of the EU Trade Mark Regulation where, in the advertising published electronically or on an advertiser’s website connected to that advertising via a link, the geographical area where the goods are to be supplied is not specified, at least not expressly, or no individual Member State is expressly excluded from that area? May the nature of the goods to which the advertising relates and the fact that the market for Company A’s products is allegedly global and thus covers the entire territory of the European Union, including Member State Y, be taken into account in that respect?

| 2. | May it be concluded that the above advertising is directed at consumers or traders in Member State Y if it appears on a search engine website operated under the national top-level domain of Member State Y? |
| --- | --- |

2.

May it be concluded that the above advertising is directed at consumers or traders in Member State Y if it appears on a search engine website operated under the national top-level domain of Member State Y?

| 3. | If Question 1 or 2 is answered in the affirmative, what other factors, if any, should be taken into account in determining whether the advertisement is directed at consumers or traders in Member State Y? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If Question 1 or 2 is answered in the affirmative, what other factors, if any, should be taken into account in determining whether the advertisement is directed at consumers or traders in Member State Y?

---

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

---

| 25.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/19

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Markkinaoikeus (Finland) lodged on 17 February 2022 — Teva B.V. and Teva Finland Oy v Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.

(Case C-119/22)

(2022/C 171/25)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Markkinaoikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Teva B.V. and Teva Finland Oy

Defendant: Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.

Questions referred

| 1. | What criteria must be applied to determine when a product has not already been granted a supplementary protection certificate within the meaning of Article 3(c) of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products (‘SPC Regulation’)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

What criteria must be applied to determine when a product has not already been granted a supplementary protection certificate within the meaning of Article 3(c) of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products (‘SPC Regulation’)?

| 2. | Must the assessment of the condition set out in Article 3(c) of the SPC Regulation be regarded as being different from the assessment of the condition set out in Article 3(a) of that regulation, and if so, in what way? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must the assessment of the condition set out in Article 3(c) of the SPC Regulation be regarded as being different from the assessment of the condition set out in Article 3(a) of that regulation, and if so, in what way?

| 3. | Must the statements on the interpretation of Article 3(a) of the SPC Regulation in the judgments of the Court in Case C-121/17 (2) and Case C-650/17 (3) be regarded as relevant to the assessment of the condition in Article 3(c) of the SPC Regulation and, if so, in what way? In that connection, particular attention should be paid to the statements made in those judgments regarding Article 3(a) of the SPC Regulation, specifically:






  — | the essential meaning of patent claims; and |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Must the statements on the interpretation of Article 3(a) of the SPC Regulation in the judgments of the Court in Case C-121/17 (2) and Case C-650/17 (3) be regarded as relevant to the assessment of the condition in Article 3(c) of the SPC Regulation and, if so, in what way? In that connection, particular attention should be paid to the statements made in those judgments regarding Article 3(a) of the SPC Regulation, specifically:

—

the essential meaning of patent claims; and

| — | the assessment of the case from the point of view of a person skilled in the art and in the light of the prior art at the filing date or priority date of the basic patent. |
| --- | --- |

—

the assessment of the case from the point of view of a person skilled in the art and in the light of the prior art at the filing date or priority date of the basic patent.

| 4. | Are the concepts ‘core inventive advance’, ‘central inventive step’ and/or ‘subject matter of the invention’ of the basic patent relevant to the interpretation of Article 3(c) of the SPC Regulation and, if any or all of those concepts are relevant, how are they to be understood for purposes of interpreting Article 3(c) of the SPC Regulation? For the purposes of applying those concepts, does it make any difference whether the product in question consists of a single active ingredient (‘mono-product’) or a combination of active ingredients (‘combination product’) and, if so, in what way? How is the latter question to be assessed in a case in which the basic patent contains, on the one hand, a patent claim for a mono-product and, on the other hand, a patent claim for a combination product, the latter patent claim relating to a combination of active ingredients consisting of the active ingredient of the mono-product plus one or more active ingredients from the known prior art? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Are the concepts ‘core inventive advance’, ‘central inventive step’ and/or ‘subject matter of the invention’ of the basic patent relevant to the interpretation of Article 3(c) of the SPC Regulation and, if any or all of those concepts are relevant, how are they to be understood for purposes of interpreting Article 3(c) of the SPC Regulation? For the purposes of applying those concepts, does it make any difference whether the product in question consists of a single active ingredient (‘mono-product’) or a combination of active ingredients (‘combination product’) and, if so, in what way? How is the latter question to be assessed in a case in which the basic patent contains, on the one hand, a patent claim for a mono-product and, on the other hand, a patent claim for a combination product, the latter patent claim relating to a combination of active ingredients consisting of the active ingredient of the mono-product plus one or more active ingredients from the known prior art?

---

(1)  OJ 2009 L 152, p. 1.

(2)  Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (Case C-121/17 Teva UK Ltd and Others v Gilead Sciences Inc., EU:C:2018:585).

(3)  Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 30 April 2020 (Case C-650/17 Royalty Pharma Collection Trust v Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt, EU:C:2020:327).

---

| 25.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/20

---

Appeal brought on 25 February 2022 by Patrick Breyer against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 15 December 2021 in Case T-158/19, Breyer v European Research Executive Agency

(Case C-135/22 P)

(2022/C 171/26)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Patrick Breyer (represented by: J. Breyer, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Research Executive Agency

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| 1. | set aside the judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2021 in Case T-158/19, Breyer v REA, and annul the decision of the European Research Executive Agency (REA) of 17 January 2019 (ARES [2019] 266593) in its entirety; and |
| --- | --- |

1.

set aside the judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2021 in Case T-158/19, Breyer v REA, and annul the decision of the European Research Executive Agency (REA) of 17 January 2019 (ARES [2019] 266593) in its entirety; and

| 2. | order the respondent to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the respondent to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In summary, the appellant claims, on the basis of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, (1) to have a right to full access to documents concerning the implementation of the Horizon 2020 research project ‘iBorderCtrl: Intelligent Portable Border Control System’. The public interest in disclosure with regard to the publicly funded development of AI systems which are intended to be used by authorities responsible for border control as polygraphs or to asses a risk posed by persons seeking to enter the country, outweighs private commercial interests.

Due to the ethical, social and human rights implications of the high-risk technology in question, the public interest in access to information arises already at the beginning of the research phase and cannot legitimately be deferred to the phase after completion of the research project.

The system for the dissemination of results provided for in Regulation No 1290/2013 (2) and the grant agreement is not capable of satisfying academic interest, media interest and the interest of the public in general in the project.

---

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

(2)  Regulation (EU) No 1290/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 laying down the rules for participation and dissemination in ‘Horizon 2020 — the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020)’ and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1906/2006 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 81).

---

| 25.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/21

---

Appeal brought on 25 February 2022 by Debrégeas et associés Pharma (D & A Pharma) against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 22 December 2021 in Case T-381/21, Debrégeas & associés Pharma v EMA

(Case C-136/22 P)

(2022/C 171/27)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Debregeas et associés Pharma (D & A Pharma) (represented by: N. Viguié, avocat, D. Krzich, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: European Medicines Agency

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should

| — | annul the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 22 December 2021 in Case T-381/21 Debrégeas & Associés Pharma v EMA; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 22 December 2021 in Case T-381/21 Debrégeas & Associés Pharma v EMA;

Accordingly

| — | refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union for the EMA to adduce its observations on the substance and for the General Court to rule on the substance. |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union for the EMA to adduce its observations on the substance and for the General Court to rule on the substance.

If the Court were to hold that the case file was ready and to decide not to refer that case file back to the General Court

| — | grant the forms of order sought by the applicant at first instance. |
| --- | --- |

—

grant the forms of order sought by the applicant at first instance.

| — | annul the decision by which the European Medicines Agency (EMA) abolished the ‘Scientific Advisory Group on Psychiatry’ of the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP), as revealed by the public call for expression of interest for experts to become members of the EMA’s scientific advisory groups (SAGs) of 5 May 2021 and the EMA press release of 5 May 2021; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision by which the European Medicines Agency (EMA) abolished the ‘Scientific Advisory Group on Psychiatry’ of the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP), as revealed by the public call for expression of interest for experts to become members of the EMA’s scientific advisory groups (SAGs) of 5 May 2021 and the EMA press release of 5 May 2021;

In any event,

| — | order the EMA to pay the costs of the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the EMA to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its first ground of appeal, the applicant maintains that the General Court was not entitled to find, without committing an error of law, compounded by a manifest error of assessment, that D & A would have no legal interest in bringing proceedings in respect of the contested decision, on the ground that any annulment of the contested decision would procure it no advantage, whereas the failure to have due regard to D & A’s situation and in particular its procedural rights is already certain, as is the benefit it would derive from the contested decision being annulled, to the extent that:

| — | D & A brought an action against the decision of 6 July 2020 which rejected its application for a marketing authorisation on the grounds, in particular, of the irregularity of the procedure which led to the decision of the CHMP on account of the failure to consult the SAG on Psychiatry during the review procedure (Req. No T-556-20); |
| --- | --- |

—

D & A brought an action against the decision of 6 July 2020 which rejected its application for a marketing authorisation on the grounds, in particular, of the irregularity of the procedure which led to the decision of the CHMP on account of the failure to consult the SAG on Psychiatry during the review procedure (Req. No T-556-20);

| — | The abolition of the SAG on Psychiatry deprives D & A of a procedural guarantee as an applicant for a marketing authorisation for a psychiatric medicine. |
| --- | --- |

—

The abolition of the SAG on Psychiatry deprives D & A of a procedural guarantee as an applicant for a marketing authorisation for a psychiatric medicine.

By its second ground of appeal, the applicant argues that the General Court was not entitled to find, without committing an error of law, compounded by a manifest error of assessment, that D & A’s legal interest in bringing proceedings is not present and certain, but only future and hypothetical, whereas D & A brought an action against the decision of 6 July 2020 which rejected its application for marketing authorisation on the grounds, in particular, of the irregularity of the procedure which led to the decision of the CHMP on account of the failure to consult the SAG on Psychiatry during the review procedure (Req. No T-556-20).

---

| 25.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/22

---

Action brought on 11 March 2022 — European Commission v Italian Republic

(Case C-197/22)

(2022/C 171/28)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara and E. Sanfrutos Cano, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Italian Republic

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court should:

| 1) | find that, in failing to adopt measures apt to ensure observance of the values set out in Part B of Annex I to Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended for human consumption (OJ 1998 L 330, p. 32)






  — | as regards the concentration level of arsenic in the Comune di Bagnoregio (Italy) from 2018 onwards, in the Comune di Civitella d’Agliano (Italy) in the first half of 2018, the second half of 2019 and from 2020 onwards with the exception of the second half of 2021, in the Comune di Fabrica di Roma (Italy) in 2013 and from 2015 onwards, in the Comune di Farnese (Italy) in 2013 and then from 2018 onwards, in the Comune di Ronciglione (Italy) in 2013, the first half of 2018, the first half of 2019 and from 2020 onwards, and in the Comune di Tuscania (Italy) from 2018 onwards with the exception of the first half of 2019; and |
| --- | --- | --- |

1)

find that, in failing to adopt measures apt to ensure observance of the values set out in Part B of Annex I to Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended for human consumption (OJ 1998 L 330, p. 32)

—

as regards the concentration level of arsenic in the Comune di Bagnoregio (Italy) from 2018 onwards, in the Comune di Civitella d’Agliano (Italy) in the first half of 2018, the second half of 2019 and from 2020 onwards with the exception of the second half of 2021, in the Comune di Fabrica di Roma (Italy) in 2013 and from 2015 onwards, in the Comune di Farnese (Italy) in 2013 and then from 2018 onwards, in the Comune di Ronciglione (Italy) in 2013, the first half of 2018, the first half of 2019 and from 2020 onwards, and in the Comune di Tuscania (Italy) from 2018 onwards with the exception of the first half of 2019; and

| — | as regards the concentration level of fluoride in the Comune di Bagnoregio from 2018 to the first half of 2019 and in the Comune di Fabrica di Roma in 2018, the first half of 2019 and the second half of 2021, |
| --- | --- |

—

as regards the concentration level of fluoride in the Comune di Bagnoregio from 2018 to the first half of 2019 and in the Comune di Fabrica di Roma in 2018, the first half of 2019 and the second half of 2021,

the Italian Republic failed to meet its obligations under Article 4(1) of Directive 98/83/EC in combination with Part B of Annex I thereto;

| 2) | and that, in failing to adopt at an earlier stage the measures necessary to restore the water quality in the Comune di Bagnoregio, the Comune di Civitella d’Agliano, the Comune di Fabrica di Roma, the Comune di Farnese, the Comune di Ronciglione and the Comune di Tuscania as regards the concentration level of arsenic and in the Comune di Bagnoregio and the Comune di Fabrica di Roma as regards the concentration level of fluoride, the Italian Republic failed to meet the obligation incumbent on it under Article 8(2) of Directive 98/83/EC; |
| --- | --- |

2)

and that, in failing to adopt at an earlier stage the measures necessary to restore the water quality in the Comune di Bagnoregio, the Comune di Civitella d’Agliano, the Comune di Fabrica di Roma, the Comune di Farnese, the Comune di Ronciglione and the Comune di Tuscania as regards the concentration level of arsenic and in the Comune di Bagnoregio and the Comune di Fabrica di Roma as regards the concentration level of fluoride, the Italian Republic failed to meet the obligation incumbent on it under Article 8(2) of Directive 98/83/EC;

| 3) | order the Italian Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3)

order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the first plea of its action, the Commission claims that, by failing to ensure observance of the values set out in Part B of Annex I to the directive as regards arsenic and fluoride, the Italian Republic failed to meet its obligation under Article 4(1) of Directive 98/83/EC in combination with Annex I thereto. Specifically, the infringement relating to the concentration level of arsenic concerns the Comune di Bagnoregio from 2018 onwards, the Comune di Civitella d’Agliano in the first half of 2018, the second half of 2019 and from 2020 onwards with the exception of the second half of 2021, the Comune di Fabrica di Roma in 2013 and from 2015 onwards, the Comune di Farnese in 2013 and then from 2018 onwards, the Comune di Ronciglione in 2013, the first half of 2018, the first half of 2019 and from 2020 onwards, and the Comune di Tuscania from 2018 until today with the exception of the first half of 2019. Those infringements are ongoing to this day. As regards the concentration levels of fluoride, the infringement of the obligation under Article 4(1) and Annex I concern the Comune di Bagnoregio from 2018 to the first half of 2019 and the Comune di Fabrica di Roma in 2018, the first half of 2019 and the second half of 2021.

In the second plea, the Commission argues that, by failing to adopt at an earlier stage the measures necessary to restore the water quality in the Comune di Bagnoregio, the Comune di Civitella d’Agliano, the Comune di Fabrica di Roma, the Comune di Farnese, the Comune di Ronciglione and the Comune di Tuscania as regards the concentration level of arsenic and in the Comune di Bagnoregio and the Comune di Fabrica di Roma as concerns the concentration level of fluoride, the Italian Republic failed to meet the obligations incumbent on it under Article 8(2) of the directive.

---

General Court

| 25.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 23 February 2022 — United Parcel Service v Commission

(Case T-834/17) (1)

(Non-contractual liability - Competition - Markets for international express small package delivery services in the EEA - Concentration - Decision declaring the concentration incompatible with the internal market - Annulment of the decision by a judgment of the Court - Rights of the defence - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals - Causal link)

(2022/C 171/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: United Parcel Service, Inc. (Atlanta, Georgia, United States) (represented by: A. Ryan, Solicitor, F. Hoseinian, W. Knibbeler, A. Pliego Selie and F. Roscam Abbing, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: N. Khan, P. Berghe, M. Farley and R. Leupold Henning, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 268 TFEU for compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the unlawfulness of Commission Decision C(2013) 431 of 30 January 2013 declaring a concentration incompatible with the internal market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/M.6570 — UPS/TNT Express).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay one third of the costs incurred by United Parcel Service, Inc.; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay one third of the costs incurred by United Parcel Service, Inc.;

| 3. | Orders United Parcel Service to bear two thirds of its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders United Parcel Service to bear two thirds of its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 72, 26.2.2018.

---

| 25.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 23 February 2022 — ASL Aviation Holdings and ASL Airlines (Ireland) v Commission

(Case T-540/18) (1)

(Non-contractual liability - Competition - Markets for international express small package delivery services in the EEA - Concentration - Decision declaring the concentration incompatible with the internal market - Annulment of the decision by a judgment of the Court - General reference to other documents - Pleas in law or complaints raised by a third party in another case - Evidence submitted in the reply - No justification for the delay - Inadmissibility - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals)

(2022/C 171/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: ASL Aviation Holdings DAC (Swords, Ireland), ASL Airlines (Ireland) Ltd (Swords) (represented by: N. Travers, Senior Counsel, H. Kelly, K. McKenna and R. Scanlan, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: N. Khan, P. Berghe, M. Farley and R. Leupold Henning, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 268 TFEU for compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicants as a result of the unlawfulness of Commission Decision C(2013) 431 of 30 January 2013 declaring a concentration incompatible with the internal market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/M.6570 — UPS/TNT Express).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders ASL Aviation Holdings DAC and ASL Airlines (Ireland) Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders ASL Aviation Holdings DAC and ASL Airlines (Ireland) Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 399, 5.11.2018.

---

| 25.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 23 February 2022 — Chemours Netherlands v ECHA

(Case T-636/19) (1)

(REACH - Substances of very high concern - Establishment of a candidate list of substances for eventual inclusion in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 - Decision identifying 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoro-2-(heptafluoropropoxy)propionic acid, its salts and its acyl halides as a substance fulfilling the criteria laid down for inclusion in the list - Article 57 of Regulation No 1907/2006 - Manifest error of assessment - Proportionality)

(2022/C 171/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Chemours Netherlands BV (Dordrecht, Netherlands) (represented by: R. Cana and E. Mullier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (represented by: W. Broere, N. Herbatschek and M. Heikkilä, acting as Agents, and by S. Raes, lawyer)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M. Bulterman, J. Langer and C. Schillemans, acting as Agents), ClientEarth AISBL (Brussels, Belgium), ClientEarth (London, United Kingdom), CHEM Trust Europe eV (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: N. Angelet, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of ECHA’s decision ED/71/2019 of 4 July 2019, which came into force on 16 July 2019, in so far as it includes 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoro-2-(heptafluoropropoxy)propionic acid, its salts and its acyl halides (and their isomers and combinations thereof) in the list of substances identified for eventual inclusion in Annex XIV to 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, corrigendum OJ 2007 L 136, p. 3).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Chemours Netherlands BV to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) and ClientEarth AISBL, ClientEarth and CHEM Trust Europe Ev; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Chemours Netherlands BV to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) and ClientEarth AISBL, ClientEarth and CHEM Trust Europe Ev;

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

3.

Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 399, 25.11.2019.

---

| 25.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 23 February 2022 — Govern d’Andorra v EUIPO (Andorra)

(Case T-806/19) (1)

(European Union trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark Andorra - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2022/C 171/32)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Govern d’Andorra (Andorra la Vella, Andorra) (represented by: P. González Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo and A. Crawcour, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 August 2019 (Case R 737/2018-2), concerning an application for registration of figurative sign Andorra as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Govern d’Andorra to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Govern d’Andorra to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 27, 27.1.2020.

---

| 25.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 2 March 2022 — Huhtamaki v Commission

(Case T-134/20) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to a State aid investigation - Advance tax agreements - Refusal of access - Exception relating to the protection of the commercial interests of a third party - Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits - General presumption of confidentiality - Not irrebuttable - Obligation to state reasons)

(2022/C 171/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Huhtamaki Sàrl (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) (represented by: M. Struys and F. Pili, lawyers)

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

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2019) 9417 final of 18 December 2019 rejecting the confirmatory application for access to documents relating to a State aid investigation made by the applicant pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision C(2019) 9417 final of 18 December 2019 rejecting the confirmatory application for access to documents relating to a State aid investigation made by Huhtamaki Sàrl pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision C(2019) 9417 final of 18 December 2019 rejecting the confirmatory application for access to documents relating to a State aid investigation made by Huhtamaki Sàrl pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

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

3.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 161, 11.5.2020.

---

| 25.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 2 March 2022 — Pluscard Service v EUIPO — (PLUSCARD)

(Case T-669/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark PLUSCARD - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 171/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Pluscard Service-Gesellschaft für Kreditkarten-Processing mbH (Saarbrücken, Germany) (represented by: M. Dury, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: R. Raponi and J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 September 2020 (Case R 638/2020-4), relating to the international registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark PLUSCARD.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Pluscard Service-Gesellschaft für Kreditkarten-Processing mbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Pluscard Service-Gesellschaft für Kreditkarten-Processing mbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 28, 25.1.2021.

---

| 25.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 23 February 2022 — OA v EESC

(Case T-671/20) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Psychological harassment - Disciplinary procedure - Disciplinary penalty - Written warning - Rights of the defence - Error of assessment - Liability)

(2022/C 171/35)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: OA (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld and M. Aboudi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Social and Economic Committee (represented by: M. Pascua Mateo, K. Gambino, X. Chamodraka, A. Carvajal García-Valdecasas and L. Camarena Januzec, acting as Agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of Decision No 293/19 of the EESC of 5 December 2019 imposing the penalty of a written warning on the applicant and, second, compensation for the material and non-material damage which the applicant allegedly suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Decision No 293/19 of the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) of 5 December 2019 imposing the penalty of a written warning on OA; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Decision No 293/19 of the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) of 5 December 2019 imposing the penalty of a written warning on OA;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

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

3.

Orders the EESC to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 9, 11.1.2021.

---

| 25.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 2 March 2022 — Degode- v EUIPO — Leo Pharma (Skinovea)

(Case T-715/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark Skinovea - Earlier national word mark SKINOREN - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 171/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Degode-Dermago Development GmbH (Strausberg, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch and N. Willich, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Leo Pharma A/S (Ballerup, Denmark)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 September 2020 (Case R 337/2020 5) relating to opposition proceedings between Leo Pharma and Degode-Dermago Development.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Degode-Dermago Development GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Degode-Dermago Development GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 35, 1.2.2021.

---

| 25.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 2 March 2022 — Fabryki Mebli ‘Forte’ v EUIPO — Bog-Fran (Furniture)

(Case T-1/21) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing an item of furniture - Ground for invalidity - No individual character - Article 6(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Disclosure of the earlier design - Article 7(1) of Regulation No 6/2002 - Decision adopted following the annulment by the General Court of an earlier decision - Res judicata)

(2022/C 171/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Fabryki Mebli ‘Forte’ S.A. (Ostrów Mazowiecka, Poland) (represented by: H. Basiński, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Bog-Fran sp. z o.o. sp.k. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: M. Mikosza and E. Guissart, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 October 2020 (Case R 595/2020-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Bog-Fran and Fabryki Mebli ‘Forte’.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Fabryki Mebli ‘Forte’ S.A. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Bog-Fran sp. z o.o. sp.k.. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Fabryki Mebli ‘Forte’ S.A. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Bog-Fran sp. z o.o. sp.k..

---

(1)  OJ C 62, 22.2.2021.

---

| 25.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 2 March 2022 — Distintiva Solutions v EUIPO — Makeblock (Makeblock)

(Case T-86/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark Makeblock - Absolute grounds for refusal - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - No descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Mark not of such a nature as to mislead the public - Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation 2017/1001))

(2022/C 171/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Distintiva Solutions S. Coop. Pequeña (Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain) (represented by: M. Sanmartín, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Makeblock Co. Ltd (Shenzhen, China) (represented by: C. Sueiras Villalobos, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 November 2020 (Case R 988/2020-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between Distintiva Solutions and Makeblock.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Distintiva Solutions S. Coop. Pequeña to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Distintiva Solutions S. Coop. Pequeña to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 110, 29.3.2021.

---

| 25.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 2 March 2022 — Banco de Investimento Global v EUIPO — Banco BIC Português (EUROBIC)

(Case T-125/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark EUROBIC - Earlier EU figurative marks BiG, BANCO BiG and BiGlobal TRADE - Earlier national word marks BANCO BIG and earlier national figurative mark BANCO BiG - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2022/C 171/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Banco de Investimento Global, SA (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: N. Lucas, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Banco BIC Português, SA (Lisbon) (represented by: P. Sousa e Silva, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 November 2020 (Case R 607/2019-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Banco de Investimento Global and Banco BIC Português.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Banco de Investimento Global, SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Banco de Investimento Global, SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 148, 26.4.2021.

---

| 25.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 2 March 2022 — UGA Nutraceuticals v EUIPO — Vitae Health Innovation (VITADHA)

(Case T-149/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark VITADHA - Earlier Spanish word mark VITANADH - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2022/C 171/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: UGA Nutraceuticals Srl (Gubbio, Italy) (represented by: M. Riva, J. Graffer and A. Ottolini, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Vitae Health Innovation, SL (Montmeló, Spain) (represented by: E. Torner Lasalle, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 January 2021 (Case R 2719/2019-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Vitae Health Innovation and UGA Nutraceuticals.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders UGA Nutraceuticals Srl to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders UGA Nutraceuticals Srl to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 182, 10.5.2021.

---

| 25.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 2 March 2022 — Ubisoft Entertainment v EUIPO — Huawei Technologies (FOR HONOR)

(Case T-171/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark FOR HONOR - Earlier EU word mark HONOR - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2022/C 171/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ubisoft Entertainment (Carentoir, France) (represented by: J.B. Bourgeois, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd (Shenzhen, China)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 January 2021 (Case R 1297/2020-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Huawei Technologies and Ubisoft Entertainment.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Ubisoft Entertainment to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ubisoft Entertainment to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 228, 14.6.2021.

---

| 25.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 23 February 2022 — Lackmann Fleisch- und Feinkostfabrik v EUIPO — Schuju (Хозяин)

(Case T-184/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark Хозяин - Earlier national figurative mark хозяюшка - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 171/42)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Lackmann Fleisch- und Feinkostfabrik GmbH (Bühl, Germany) (represented by: A. Lingenfelser, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Peter Schuju (Borchen, Germany) (represented by: K. Borstel, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 December 2020 (Case R 2729/2019-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Mr Schuju and Lackmann Fleisch- und Feinkostfabrik.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Lackmann Fleisch- und Feinkostfabrik GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Lackmann Fleisch- und Feinkostfabrik GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 242, 21.6.2021.

---

| 25.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 23 February 2022 — Lackmann Fleisch- und Feinkostfabrik v EUIPO — Schuju (Хозяйка)

(Case T-185/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark Хозяйка - Earlier national figurative mark хозяюшка - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 171/43)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Lackmann Fleisch- und Feinkostfabrik GmbH (Bühl, Germany) (represented by: A. Lingenfelser, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Peter Schuju (Borchen, Germany) (represented by: K. Borstel, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 November 2020 (Case R 2717/2019-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Mr Schuju and Lackmann Fleisch- und Feinkostfabrik.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Lackmann Fleisch- und Feinkostfabrik GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Lackmann Fleisch- und Feinkostfabrik GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 242, 21.6.2021.

---

| 25.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 2 March 2022 — Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — Beta Sports (META)

(Case T-192/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark META - Earlier national word mark METALGIAL - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 171/44)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Laboratorios Ern, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: T. González Martínez, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Beta Sports LLC (Coconut Creek, Florida, United States)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 January 2021 (Case R 1152/2020-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Laboratorios Ern and Beta Sports.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Laboratorios Ern, SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Laboratorios Ern, SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 217, 7.6.2021.

---

| 25.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 23 February 2022 — Ancor Group v EUIPO — Cody’s Drinks International (CODE-X)

(Case T-198/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - EU word mark CODE-X - Earlier national word and figurative marks Cody’s - Earlier international figurative mark Cody’s - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 171/45)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Ancor Group GmbH (Igersheim, Germany) (represented by: J. Wachsmuth and W. Berlit, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Eberl and E. Markakis, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Cody’s Drinks International GmbH (Bremen, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 February 2021 (Case R 208/2020-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Cody’s Drinks International and Ancor Group.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 4 February 2021 (Case R 208/2020-5); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 4 February 2021 (Case R 208/2020-5);

| 2. | Rejects the opposition brought by Cody’s Drinks International GmbH; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Rejects the opposition brought by Cody’s Drinks International GmbH;

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

3.

Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 217, 7.6.2021.

---

| 25.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/35

---

Judgment of the General Court of 23 February 2022 — Ignacio Carrasco v EUIPO (La Hoja del Carrasco)

(Case T-209/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark La Hoja del Carrasco - Earlier national figurative mark CARRASCO, Guijuelo - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Dominant and distinctive elements of the marks at issue)

(2022/C 171/46)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Ignacio Carrasco SL (Guijuelo, Spain) (represented by: J. Donoso Romero, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Santos Carrasco Manzano SA (Guijuelo) (represented by: F. Marín Riaño, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 February 2021 (Case R 175/2020-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Santos Carrasco Manzano and Ignacio Carrasco.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Ignacio Carrasco SL to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ignacio Carrasco SL to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 217, 7.6.2021.

---

| 25.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/36

---

Order of the General Court of 22 February 2022 — Brinkmann (Steel Trading) and Others v Commission and ECB

(Case T-161/15) (1)

(Action for damages - Economic and monetary policy - Stability support programme for Cyprus - Memorandum of Understanding of 26 April 2013 on Specific Economic Policy Conditionality concluded between Cyprus and the European Stability Mechanism - Jurisdiction of the General Court - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals - Equal treatment - Principle of proportionality - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

(2022/C 171/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Brinkmann (Steel Trading) Ltd (London, United Kingdom) and the 18 other applicants whose names appear in the annex to the order (represented by: R. Nowinski, lawyer)

Defendants: European Commission (represented by: J.-P. Keppenne, M. Konstantinidis and S. Delaude, acting as Agents), European Central Bank (represented by: K. Laurinavičius and M. Szablewska, acting as Agents, and by H.-G. Kamann, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicants as a result of the decision of the Commission and the ECB to subject to certain conditions the grant of a financial assistance facility to the Republic of Cyprus.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Brinkmann (Steel Trading) Ltd and the other applicants whose names are set out in the annex shall pay, in addition to their own costs, those incurred by the European Commission and by the European Central Bank (ECB). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Brinkmann (Steel Trading) Ltd and the other applicants whose names are set out in the annex shall pay, in addition to their own costs, those incurred by the European Commission and by the European Central Bank (ECB).

---

(1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.

---

| 25.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/36

---

Order of the General Court of 15 February 2022 — eSlovensko v Commission

(Case T-295/21) (1)

(Action for annulment - Financial provisions - EU programme on promoting safer use of the internet - Failure to comply with procedural requirements - Inadmissibility)

(2022/C 171/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: eSlovensko (Lučenec, Slovakia) (represented by: B. Fridrich, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Estrada de Solà and S. Romoli, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision Ares(2021) 1955613 of 18 March 2021 concerning a recovery order for project SI 2010 SIC 1231002 (‘Safer Internet SK SIC’).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | eSlovensko shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

eSlovensko shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 320, 9.8.2021.

---

| 25.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/37

---

Order of the General Court of 15 February 2022 — eSlovensko Bratislava v Commission

(Case T-304/21) (1)

(Action for annulment - Financial provisions - EU programme on promoting safer use of the internet - Designation of the defendant - Inadmissibility)

(2022/C 171/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: eSlovensko Bratislava (Bratislava, Slovakia) (represented by: B. Fridrich, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Estrada de Solà and S. Romoli, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision Ares(2021) 1953853 of 30 March 2021 to terminate the grant agreement concluded with the applicant concerning project 2015 SK IA 0038 (‘Slovak Safer Internet Centre IV’).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | eSlovensko Bratislava is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

eSlovensko Bratislava is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 320, 9.8.2021.

---

| 25.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/37

---

Order of the General Court of 15 February 2022 — eSlovensko Bratislava v Commission

(Case T-425/21) (1)

(Action for annulment - Financial provisions - EU programme on promoting safer use of the internet - Failure to comply with procedural requirements - Inadmissibility)

(2022/C 171/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: eSlovensko Bratislava (Bratislava, Slovakia) (represented by: B. Fridrich, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Estrada de Solà and S. Romoli, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Implementing Decision C(2020) 7415 final of 21 October 2020 amending Implementing Decision C(2018) 6712 on the selection and award of grants under the Connecting Europe Facility in the sector of Telecommunication.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | eSlovensko Bratislava is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

eSlovensko Bratislava is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 431, 25.10.2021.

---

| 25.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/38

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 February 2022 — Thomas and Julien v Council

(Case T-442/21) (1)

(Action for annulment - Area of freedom, security and justice - Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and Euratom, of the one part, and the United Kingdom, of the other part - Council decision on the conclusion of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement - Act not of individual concern - Non-regulatory act - Inadmissibility)

(2022/C 171/51)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Rhiannon Thomas (London, United Kingdom), Michaël Julien (Weybridge, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Fouchet, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer, J. Ciantar and R. Meyer, acting as Agents)

Re:

By their action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicants, who are United Kingdom nationals residing in the United Kingdom, seek partial annulment, first, of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, of the one part, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of the other part (OJ 2021 L 149, p. 10) and, second, of Council Decision (EU) 2021/689 of 29 April 2021 on the conclusion, on behalf of the Union, of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, of the one part, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of the other part, and of the Agreement between the European Union and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland concerning security procedures for exchanging and protecting classified information (OJ 2021 L 149, p. 2).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

| 2. | Declares that there is no longer any need to rule on the application to intervene of the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that there is no longer any need to rule on the application to intervene of the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders Ms Rhiannon Thomas and Mr Michaël Julien to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union, with the exception of those relating to the application to intervene; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Ms Rhiannon Thomas and Mr Michaël Julien to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union, with the exception of those relating to the application to intervene;

| 4. | Orders Ms Thomas, Mr Julien, the Council and the Commission each to bear their own costs relating to the application to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Ms Thomas, Mr Julien, the Council and the Commission each to bear their own costs relating to the application to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 412, 11.10.2021.

---

| 25.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/39

---

Order of the General Court of 14 February 2022 — Lagardére, unité médico-sociale v Commission

(Case T-503/21) (1)

(Action for annulment - Regulation (EU) 2021/953 - EU Digital Covid-19 Certificate - Freedom of movement for persons - Restrictions - Incorrect designation of the defendant - Inadmissibility)

(2022/C 171/52)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: E. Montaguti, agent)

Re:

By its action, expressly directed against the European Commission and based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of Regulation (EU) 2021/953 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2021 on a framework for the issuance, verification and acceptance of interoperable COVID-19 vaccination, test and recovery certificates (EU Digital COVID Certificate) to facilitate free movement during the COVID-19 pandemic (OJ 2021 L 211, p. 1).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene submitted by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene submitted by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union.

| 3. | Lagardère, unité médico-sociale, shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Lagardère, unité médico-sociale, shall pay the costs.

| 4. | The Parliament and the Council are to bear their own costs relating to their application to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Parliament and the Council are to bear their own costs relating to their application to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 422, 18.10.2021.

---

| 25.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/39

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 23 February 2022 — WO v European Public Prosecutor’s Office

(Case T-603/21 R)

(Application for interim measures - Law governing the institutions - Enhanced cooperation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office - Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 - Appointment of the European Delegated Prosecutors of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office - Appointment of one of the candidates nominated by Lithuania - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Failure to comply with procedural requirements - Inadmissibility)

(2022/C 171/53)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: WO (represented by: V. Vitkovskis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Public Prosecutor’s Office

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU for suspension of operation of Decision No 28/2021 of the College of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office of 21 April 2021 rejecting the applicant’s candidacy for the position of European Delegated Public Prosecutor.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

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

2.

The costs are reserved.

---

| 25.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/40

---

Order of the General Court of 21 February 2022 — Carlings v EUIPO — Margarete Steiff (STUHF)

(Case T-635/21) (1)

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

(2022/C 171/54)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Carlings AS (Billingstad, Norway) (represented by: V. Töbelmann and J. Haesemann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Bosse and D. Hanf, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Margarete Steiff GmbH (Giengen/Brenz, Germany) (represented by: U. Hildebrandt, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 July 2021 (Case R 2024/2020-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Margarete Steiff and Carlings.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

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

| 2. | Carlings AS and Margarete Steiff GmbH shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Carlings AS and Margarete Steiff GmbH shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 471, 22.11.2021.

---

| 25.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/40

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 3 March 2022 — Esedra v Parliament

(Case T-46/22 R)

(Interim measures - Public service contracts - Early childhood care services - Application for interim measures - Lack of urgency)

(2022/C 171/55)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Esedra SRL (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Vastmans, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: M. Pencheva and M. Kazek, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU for, first, a suspension of operation of the decision of the Parliament of 26 November 2021 to award the public service contract for the ‘Full management of the early childhood care facility of the European Parliament at Rue Wayenberg in Brussels’ to another tenderer and to reject the applicant’s tender and, second, an order requiring the Parliament to take the measures necessary to suspend the effects of the award decision or of the contract entered into following that decision.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

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

2.

The costs are reserved.

---

| 25.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/41

---

Action brought on 4 February 2022 — Interneto žiniasklaidos asociacija and Others v Commission

(Case T-72/22)

(2022/C 171/56)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Interneto žiniasklaidos asociacija (Vilnius, Lithuania), All Media Lithuania UAB (Vilnius), All Media Radijas UAB (Vilnius) (represented by: K. Kačerauskas, lawyer)

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, in its entirety, the contested Letter; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, in its entirety, the contested Letter;

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

—

order the Commission to pay all the costs.

Plea in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging improper assessment of information provided by the applicants and failure to investigate circumstances described in the complaint, that on 21 June 2020 was submitted by the applicants to the Commission concerning illegal state aid provided to the Lithuanian public service broadcaster — VšĮ ‘Lietuvos Nacionalinis Radijas ir Televizija’, with due diligence, which resulted in complete disregard of factual situation and errors of law in the Letter adopted by the Commission. Such failure amounted to infringement of an essential procedural requirement and substantive provisions regulating state aid control mechanism established in Articles 107(1) and 108(3) of TFEU. In particular, the Commission’s improper assessment is evidenced by the following flaws that vitiate the Letter:






  (i) | the Commission failed to consider and compare compatibility of scheme existing prior 10 December 1994 with the scheme existing after 2015 and 2020 changes of the Law on Lithuanian National Radio and Television of the Republic of Lithuania (hereinafter ‘Law on LRT’) with the required due diligence and required legal standard and, hence, made an essential procedural infringement; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging improper assessment of information provided by the applicants and failure to investigate circumstances described in the complaint, that on 21 June 2020 was submitted by the applicants to the Commission concerning illegal state aid provided to the Lithuanian public service broadcaster — VšĮ ‘Lietuvos Nacionalinis Radijas ir Televizija’, with due diligence, which resulted in complete disregard of factual situation and errors of law in the Letter adopted by the Commission. Such failure amounted to infringement of an essential procedural requirement and substantive provisions regulating state aid control mechanism established in Articles 107(1) and 108(3) of TFEU. In particular, the Commission’s improper assessment is evidenced by the following flaws that vitiate the Letter:

(i)

the Commission failed to consider and compare compatibility of scheme existing prior 10 December 1994 with the scheme existing after 2015 and 2020 changes of the Law on Lithuanian National Radio and Television of the Republic of Lithuania (hereinafter ‘Law on LRT’) with the required due diligence and required legal standard and, hence, made an essential procedural infringement;

| (ii) | the Commission breached Articles 107(1) and 108(3) TFEU by failing to recognise that 2015 and 2020 changes of the Law on LRT constitute alterations to state aid measure, which should be coordinated with the Commission; |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

the Commission breached Articles 107(1) and 108(3) TFEU by failing to recognise that 2015 and 2020 changes of the Law on LRT constitute alterations to state aid measure, which should be coordinated with the Commission;

| (iii) | the Commission breached Articles 107(1) and 108(3) TFEU by failing to recognise that 2020 changes of the Law on LRT constitute alterations to state aid measure, which should be coordinated with the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

(iii)

the Commission breached Articles 107(1) and 108(3) TFEU by failing to recognise that 2020 changes of the Law on LRT constitute alterations to state aid measure, which should be coordinated with the Commission.

---

| 25.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/42

---

Action brought on 2 March 2022 — Belshyna v Council

(Case T-115/22)

(2022/C 171/57)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Belshyna AAT (Bobruisk, Belarus) (represented by: N. Tuominen and L. Engelen, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2021/2125 of 2 December 2021 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus (1), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2124 of 2 December 2021 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (2) (the Contested Measures); and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2021/2125 of 2 December 2021 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus (1), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2124 of 2 December 2021 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (2) (the Contested Measures); and

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

—

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that by including the applicant in the annexes to the Contested Measures, the Council made a manifest error of assessment. Namely, the applicant claims that the Contested Measures provide unsubstantiated, factually incorrect and unfounded reasons for his designation. Further, the deficient reasons provided do not demonstrate a sufficiently substantive link to the scope of the measures. |
| --- | --- |

1.

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

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Contested Measures do not meet the standard of proof required for adopting individual sanctions. By attempting to use individual measures in order to achieve the objective of restricting business activities and profits of a foreign state-owned enterprise, the Council applied an unlawful type of measure. |
| --- | --- |

2.

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

---

(1)  OJ L 430 I, p. 16.

(2)  OJ L 430 I, p. 1.

---

| 25.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/42

---

Action brought on 3 March 2022 — Belavia v Council

(Case T-116/22)

(2022/C 171/58)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Belavia — Belarusian Airlines AAT (Minsk, Belarus) (represented by: N. Tuominen and L. Engelen, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2021/2125 of 2 December 2021 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus (1), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2124 of 2 December 2021 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (2) (the Contested Measures); and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2021/2125 of 2 December 2021 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus (1), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2124 of 2 December 2021 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (2) (the Contested Measures); and

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

—

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that by relying on the factually incorrect reasons provided in the Contested Measures to designate the applicant, the Council committed a manifest error of assessment. This is strengthened by the fact that the applicant in fact itself provided the Council with detailed information rebutting the reasons underlying its designation prior thereto, as it became aware of false news reports containing such information being published. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that by relying on the factually incorrect reasons provided in the Contested Measures to designate the applicant, the Council committed a manifest error of assessment. This is strengthened by the fact that the applicant in fact itself provided the Council with detailed information rebutting the reasons underlying its designation prior thereto, as it became aware of false news reports containing such information being published.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Contested Measures do not meet the standard of proof required for adopting individual sanctions. By attempting to use individual measures in order to achieve the objective of restricting business activities and profits of a foreign state-owned enterprise, the Council applied an unlawful type of measure. |
| --- | --- |

2.

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

---

(1)  OJ L 430 I, p. 16.

(2)  OJ L 430 I, p. 1.

---

| 25.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/43

---

Action brought on 7 March 2022 — Coinbase v EUIPO — Coinbase Global (coinbase)

(Case T-126/22)

(2022/C 171/59)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Coinbase, Inc. (San Francisco, California, United States) (represented by: A. Nordemann, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Coinbase Global OÜ (Tallinn, Estonia)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark coinbase — Application for registration No 18 090 762

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 December 2021 in Case R 1097/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 25.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/44

---

Action brought on 7 March 2022 — Simba Toys v EUIPO — Master Gift Import (BIMBA TOYS)

(Case T-129/22)

(2022/C 171/60)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Simba Toys GmbH & Co. KG (Fürth, Germany) (represented by: O. Ruhl, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Master Gift Import, SLU (Ronda, Spain)

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 BIMBA TOYS — Application for registration No 17 846 486

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 December 2021 in Case R 629/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

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(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.

---

| 25.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/44

---

Action brought on 7 March 2022 — Biologische Heilmittel Heel v EUIPO — Esi (TRAUMGEL)

(Case T-130/22)

(2022/C 171/61)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Biologische Heilmittel Heel GmbH (Baden-Baden, Germany) (represented by: J. Künzel, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Esi Srl (Albisola Superiore, Italy)

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 TRAUMGEL — Application for registration No 16 289 712

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 December 2021 in Case R 813/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the order No. 3 of the contested decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal — R 813/2021-4 of 20 December 2021; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the order No. 3 of the contested decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal — R 813/2021-4 of 20 December 2021;

| — | alter the order No. 1 of the contested decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal -R 813/2021-4 of 20 December 2021; |
| --- | --- |

—

alter the order No. 1 of the contested decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal -R 813/2021-4 of 20 December 2021;

| — | annul the decision of the Opposition Division of 6 April 2021 beyond the goods contained in the order No. 1 insofar as the opposition was rejected for goods in Class 3; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Opposition Division of 6 April 2021 beyond the goods contained in the order No. 1 insofar as the opposition was rejected for goods in Class 3;

| — | order the other party to the proceedings before EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the other party to the proceedings before 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.

---

| 25.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/45

---

Action brought on 10 March 2022 — Katjes Fassin v EUIPO (THE FUTURE IS PLANT-BASED)

(Case T-133/22)

(2022/C 171/62)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Katjes Fassin GmbH & Co. KG (Emmerich am Rhein, Germany) (represented by: T. Schmitz and S. Stolzenburg-Wiemer, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark THE FUTURE IS PLANT-BASED — Application No 18 310 582

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 December 2021 in Case R 1023/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, read in conjunction with Article 7(2) thereof.

---

| 25.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/46

---

Order of the General Court of 23 February 2022 — OG v EIB

(Case T-695/20) (1)

(2022/C 171/63)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 35, 1.2.2021.

---