# Official Journal C 513/20 D

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 513 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6420 December 2021 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 513

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6420 December 2021

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2021/C 513/01 | Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union | 1 |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2021/C 513/02 | Taking of the oath by new Members of the Court | 2 |
| 2021/C 513/03 | Election of the President of the Court | 2 |
| 2021/C 513/04 | Election of the Vice-President of the Court | 2 |
| 2021/C 513/05 | Election of the Presidents of the Chambers of five Judges | 2 |
| 2021/C 513/06 | Election of the First Advocate General | 3 |
| 2021/C 513/07 | Election of the Presidents of the Chambers of three Judges | 3 |
| 2021/C 513/08 | Designation of the Chamber responsible for cases of the kind referred to in Article 107 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court | 3 |
| 2021/C 513/09 | Assignment of Judges to Chambers | 3 |
| 2021/C 513/10 | Lists for the purposes of determining the composition of the formations of the Court | 4 |
| 2021/C 513/11 | Election of the Registrar | 6 |
| | General Court |
| 2021/C 513/12 | Taking of the oath by new Members of the General Court | 7 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

2021/C 513/01

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

Court of Justice

2021/C 513/02

Taking of the oath by new Members of the Court

2

2021/C 513/03

Election of the President of the Court

2

2021/C 513/04

Election of the Vice-President of the Court

2

2021/C 513/05

Election of the Presidents of the Chambers of five Judges

2

2021/C 513/06

Election of the First Advocate General

3

2021/C 513/07

Election of the Presidents of the Chambers of three Judges

3

2021/C 513/08

Designation of the Chamber responsible for cases of the kind referred to in Article 107 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court

3

2021/C 513/09

Assignment of Judges to Chambers

3

2021/C 513/10

Lists for the purposes of determining the composition of the formations of the Court

4

2021/C 513/11

Election of the Registrar

6

General Court

2021/C 513/12

Taking of the oath by new Members of the General Court

7

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2021/C 513/13 | Joined Cases C-845/19 and C-863/19: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 October 2021 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Apelativen sad — Varna — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against DR (C-845/19), TS (C-863/19) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Directive 2014/42/EU — Freezing and confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime in the European Union — Scope — Confiscation of illegally obtained assets — Economic benefit derived from a criminal offence which has not been the subject of a conviction — Article 4 — Confiscation — Article 5 — Extended confiscation — Article 6 — Confiscation from a third party — Conditions — Confiscation of money allegedly belonging to a third party — Third party having no right to appear as a party in the confiscation proceedings — Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union) | 8 |
| 2021/C 513/14 | Case C-866/19: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Poland) — SC v Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych I Oddział w Warszawie (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social security for migrant workers — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Article 52(1)(b) — Worker who has been employed in two Member States — Minimum period required by national law for acquisition of entitlement to a retirement pension — Account taken of the contribution period completed under the legislation of another Member State — Aggregation — Calculation of the amount of the retirement benefit to be paid) | 9 |
| 2021/C 513/15 | Case C-894/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 October 2021 — European Parliament v UZ (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Disciplinary proceedings — Disciplinary penalty — Administrative enquiry — Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Requirement for objective impartiality — Cross-appeal — Rejection of a request for assistance — Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Right to be heard) | 9 |
| 2021/C 513/16 | Case C-80/20: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Bucureşti — Romania) — Wilo Salmson France SAS v Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Bucureşti, Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Bucureşti –- Administraţia Fiscală pentru Contribuabili Nerezidenţi (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 167 to 171 and Article 178(a) — Right to deduct VAT — Refund of VAT to taxable persons established in a Member State other than the Member State of refund — Possession of an invoice — Directive 2008/9/EC — Rejection of a refund application — Cancellation of the invoice by the supplier — Issuing of a new invoice — New refund application — Rejection) | 10 |
| 2021/C 513/17 | Case C-282/20: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against ZX (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Directive 2012/13/EU — Right to information in criminal proceedings — Article 6(3) — Rights of suspects or accused persons to be informed of their rights — Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — National law not providing for a procedural mechanism for remedying errors and omissions in the content of the indictment) | 11 |
| 2021/C 513/18 | Case C-393/20: Judgment of the Court (Eight Chamber), 21 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Krakowa-Śródmieścia w Krakowie, Poland) — T.B. and D. sp. z. o. o. v G. I. A/S (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Jurisdiction in insurance matters — Article 11(1)(b) — Article 12 — Article 13(2) — Scope ratione personae — Concept of injured party — Professional — Special jurisdiction — Article 7(2)) | 12 |
| 2021/C 513/19 | Case C-396/20: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — CHEP Equipment Pooling NV v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Detailed rules for the refund of VAT to taxable persons not established in the Member State of refund — Directive 2008/9/EC — Article 20(1) — Request for additional information by the Member State of refund — Details which may be the subject of a request for additional information — Discrepancy between the amount entered on the refund application and the amount appearing on the invoices submitted — Principle of sound administration — Principle of the neutrality of VAT — Limitation period — Consequences for correcting the taxable person’s error) | 13 |
| 2021/C 513/20 | Case C-402/20 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 21 October 2021 — Lípidos Santiga SA v European Commission (Appeal — Energy — Directive (EU) 2018/2001 — Promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources — Limit on use of biofuels produced from food and feed crops — Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/807 — Definition of high indirect land-use change (ILUC) risk feedstock — Palm oil — Action for annulment — Condition that a natural or legal person must be directly concerned — Inadmissibility) | 13 |
| 2021/C 513/21 | Case C-23/21: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 23 September 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gericht Erster Instanz Eupen — Belgium) — IO v Wallonische Region (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Article 49 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Road traffic — Driver resident in one Member State — Vehicle registered in another Member State — Vehicle made available to the partner and manager of an undertaking established in that other Member State — Registration obligation in the first Member State) | 14 |
| 2021/C 513/22 | Case C-30/21: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 September 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Lennestadt — Germany) — Nemzeti Útdíjfizetési Szolgáltató Zrt. v NW (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Article 1(1) — Substantive scope — Concept of civil and commercial matters — Proceedings seeking to recover a charge relating to the use of a toll road) | 15 |
| 2021/C 513/23 | Case C-510/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 19 August 2021 — DB v Austrian Airlines AG | 15 |
| 2021/C 513/24 | Case C-519/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Romania) lodged on 24 August 2021 — ASA v DGRFP Cluj | 16 |
| 2021/C 513/25 | Case C-522/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Pfälzisches Oberlandesgericht (Germany) lodged on 24 August 2021 — MS v Saatgut Treuhandverwaltungs GmbH | 17 |
| 2021/C 513/26 | Case C-524/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București (Romania) lodged on 24 August 2021 — I.G. v Agenția Județeană de Ocupare a Forței de Muncă Ilfov | 17 |
| 2021/C 513/27 | Case C-525/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București (Romania) lodged on 24 August 2021 — Agenția Municipală pentru Ocuparea Forței de Muncă București v I.M. | 18 |
| 2021/C 513/28 | Case C-555/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 9 September 2021 — UniCredit Bank Austria AG v Verein für Konsumenteninformation | 19 |
| 2021/C 513/29 | Case C-577/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 20 September 2021 — LM and NO v HUK-COBURG-Allgemeine Versicherung AG | 20 |
| 2021/C 513/30 | Case C-596/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Nürnberg (Germany) lodged on 28 September 2021 — A v Finanzamt M | 20 |
| 2021/C 513/31 | Case C-603/21 P: Appeal brought on 28 September 2021 by Unie van Professionele Transporteurs en Logistieke Ondernemers (UPTR) against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 28 July 2021 in Case T-634/20, UPTR v Parliament and Council | 21 |
| 2021/C 513/32 | Case C-605/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Městský soud v Praze (Czech Republic) lodged on 30 September 2021 — Heureka Group a.s. v Google LLC | 22 |
| 2021/C 513/33 | Case C-606/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Paris (France) lodged on 30 September 2021 — Doctipharma SAS v Union des Groupements de pharmaciens d’officine (UDGPO), Pictime SAS operating under the name Coreyre | 23 |
| 2021/C 513/34 | Case C-633/21: Action brought on 14 October 2021 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic | 24 |
| 2021/C 513/35 | Case C-258/20: Order of the President of the Court of 24 September 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 1 de Barcelona — Spain) — HV v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS) | 25 |
| 2021/C 513/36 | Case C-689/20: Order of the President of the Court of 21 September 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad — Bulgaria) — Banka DSK EAD v RP | 25 |
| 2021/C 513/37 | Case C-336/21: Order of the President of the Court of 20 September 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg — Austria) — L GmbH v F GmbH, BW, SW | 25 |
| | General Court |
| 2021/C 513/38 | Case T-503/20: Judgment of the General Court of 22 September 2021 — T i D kontrolni sistemi v EUIPO –Sigmatron (Signalling apparatuses and devices) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing signalling apparatuses and devices — Earlier Community design — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — Declaration of invalidity of a prior design — No effect — Disclosure of the earlier design — Informed user — Degree of freedom of the designer — No different overall impression — Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002) | 26 |
| 2021/C 513/39 | Case T-201/18: Order of the General Court of 28 October 2021 — Diusa Rendering and Assograssi v Commission (Public health — Rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies — Ban on exporting organic fertilisers and soil improvers derived from Category 2 material — Failure by the Commission to initiate the procedure for re-examining the ban — Action for failure to act — Proposal of draft measures putting an end to the failure to act — No need to adjudicate) | 26 |
| 2021/C 513/40 | Case T-329/20: Order of the General Court of 25 October 2021 — 4B Company v EUIPO — Deenz (Pendant (jewellery)) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a pendant (jewellery) — Maintenance of the Community design in an amended form — Article 25(6) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility) | 27 |
| 2021/C 513/41 | Case T-510/20: Order of the General Court of 22 October 2021 — Fachverband Spielhallen and LM v Commission (State aid — Tax treatment of operators of public casinos in Germany — Complaint — Preliminary examination stage — Commission decision finding that there is no State aid — Conditions for initiating a formal investigation procedure — Serious difficulties — Concept of State aid — Levy on the profits — Advantage — Selectivity — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law) | 28 |
| 2021/C 513/42 | Case T-22/21: Order of the General Court of 22 October 2021 — Equinoccio-Compañía de Comercio Exterior v Commission (Action for annulment — Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance — Non-member State — National public procurement — Termination of the contract by the contracting authority — Request for enforcement by the contracting authority of a bank guarantee — Countersignature by the Head of the EU Delegation in the Non-member State or his deputy — Lack of jurisdiction) | 28 |
| 2021/C 513/43 | Case T-297/21 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 25 October 2021 — Troy Chemical Company and Troy v Commission (Interim measures — Biocidal products — Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/348 — Approval of carbendazim as an existing active substance for use in biocidal products of product-types 7 (film preservatives) and 10 (masonry preservatives) — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency) | 29 |
| 2021/C 513/44 | Case T-603/21: Action brought on 14 September 2021 — WO v EPPO | 29 |
| 2021/C 513/45 | Case T-631/21: Action brought on 27 September 2021 — BZ v ECB | 30 |
| 2021/C 513/46 | Case T-686/21: Action brought on 25 October 2021 — energy cake v EUIPO — Foodtastic (ENERGY CAKE) | 32 |
| 2021/C 513/47 | Case T-688/21: Action brought on 25 October 2021 — BNP Paribas Public Sector v SRB | 32 |
| 2021/C 513/48 | Case T-689/21: Action brought on 22 October 2021 — Auken and Others v Commission | 34 |
| 2021/C 513/49 | Case T-690/21: Action brought on 25 October 2021 — LW Capital v Commission | 35 |
| 2021/C 513/50 | Case T-691/21: Action brought on 27 October 2021 — Alcogroup and Alcodis v Commission | 35 |
| 2021/C 513/51 | Case T-473/19: Order of the General Court of 20 October 2021 — Diageo and Others v Commission | 36 |
| 2021/C 513/52 | Case T-476/19: Order of the General Court of 20 October 2021 — AstraZeneca and Others v Commission | 36 |
| 2021/C 513/53 | Case T-628/19: Order of the General Court of 27 October 2021 — Teva v Commission and EMA | 36 |
| 2021/C 513/54 | Case T-515/20: Order of the General Court of 26 October 2021 — Puma v EUIPO — Caterpillar (SPEEDCAT) | 37 |
| 2021/C 513/55 | Case T-708/20: Order of the General Court of 28 October 2021 — TrekStor v EUIPO (e.Gear) | 37 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2021/C 513/13

Joined Cases C-845/19 and C-863/19: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 October 2021 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Apelativen sad — Varna — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against DR (C-845/19), TS (C-863/19) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Directive 2014/42/EU — Freezing and confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime in the European Union — Scope — Confiscation of illegally obtained assets — Economic benefit derived from a criminal offence which has not been the subject of a conviction — Article 4 — Confiscation — Article 5 — Extended confiscation — Article 6 — Confiscation from a third party — Conditions — Confiscation of money allegedly belonging to a third party — Third party having no right to appear as a party in the confiscation proceedings — Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)

8

2021/C 513/14

Case C-866/19: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Poland) — SC v Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych I Oddział w Warszawie (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social security for migrant workers — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Article 52(1)(b) — Worker who has been employed in two Member States — Minimum period required by national law for acquisition of entitlement to a retirement pension — Account taken of the contribution period completed under the legislation of another Member State — Aggregation — Calculation of the amount of the retirement benefit to be paid)

9

2021/C 513/15

Case C-894/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 October 2021 — European Parliament v UZ (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Disciplinary proceedings — Disciplinary penalty — Administrative enquiry — Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Requirement for objective impartiality — Cross-appeal — Rejection of a request for assistance — Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Right to be heard)

9

2021/C 513/16

Case C-80/20: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Bucureşti — Romania) — Wilo Salmson France SAS v Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Bucureşti, Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Bucureşti –- Administraţia Fiscală pentru Contribuabili Nerezidenţi (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 167 to 171 and Article 178(a) — Right to deduct VAT — Refund of VAT to taxable persons established in a Member State other than the Member State of refund — Possession of an invoice — Directive 2008/9/EC — Rejection of a refund application — Cancellation of the invoice by the supplier — Issuing of a new invoice — New refund application — Rejection)

10

2021/C 513/17

Case C-282/20: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against ZX (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Directive 2012/13/EU — Right to information in criminal proceedings — Article 6(3) — Rights of suspects or accused persons to be informed of their rights — Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — National law not providing for a procedural mechanism for remedying errors and omissions in the content of the indictment)

11

2021/C 513/18

Case C-393/20: Judgment of the Court (Eight Chamber), 21 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Krakowa-Śródmieścia w Krakowie, Poland) — T.B. and D. sp. z. o. o. v G. I. A/S (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Jurisdiction in insurance matters — Article 11(1)(b) — Article 12 — Article 13(2) — Scope ratione personae — Concept of injured party — Professional — Special jurisdiction — Article 7(2))

12

2021/C 513/19

Case C-396/20: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — CHEP Equipment Pooling NV v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Detailed rules for the refund of VAT to taxable persons not established in the Member State of refund — Directive 2008/9/EC — Article 20(1) — Request for additional information by the Member State of refund — Details which may be the subject of a request for additional information — Discrepancy between the amount entered on the refund application and the amount appearing on the invoices submitted — Principle of sound administration — Principle of the neutrality of VAT — Limitation period — Consequences for correcting the taxable person’s error)

13

2021/C 513/20

Case C-402/20 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 21 October 2021 — Lípidos Santiga SA v European Commission (Appeal — Energy — Directive (EU) 2018/2001 — Promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources — Limit on use of biofuels produced from food and feed crops — Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/807 — Definition of high indirect land-use change (ILUC) risk feedstock — Palm oil — Action for annulment — Condition that a natural or legal person must be directly concerned — Inadmissibility)

13

2021/C 513/21

Case C-23/21: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 23 September 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gericht Erster Instanz Eupen — Belgium) — IO v Wallonische Region (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Article 49 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Road traffic — Driver resident in one Member State — Vehicle registered in another Member State — Vehicle made available to the partner and manager of an undertaking established in that other Member State — Registration obligation in the first Member State)

14

2021/C 513/22

Case C-30/21: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 September 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Lennestadt — Germany) — Nemzeti Útdíjfizetési Szolgáltató Zrt. v NW (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Article 1(1) — Substantive scope — Concept of civil and commercial matters — Proceedings seeking to recover a charge relating to the use of a toll road)

15

2021/C 513/23

Case C-510/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 19 August 2021 — DB v Austrian Airlines AG

15

2021/C 513/24

Case C-519/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Romania) lodged on 24 August 2021 — ASA v DGRFP Cluj

16

2021/C 513/25

Case C-522/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Pfälzisches Oberlandesgericht (Germany) lodged on 24 August 2021 — MS v Saatgut Treuhandverwaltungs GmbH

17

2021/C 513/26

Case C-524/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București (Romania) lodged on 24 August 2021 — I.G. v Agenția Județeană de Ocupare a Forței de Muncă Ilfov

17

2021/C 513/27

Case C-525/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București (Romania) lodged on 24 August 2021 — Agenția Municipală pentru Ocuparea Forței de Muncă București v I.M.

18

2021/C 513/28

Case C-555/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 9 September 2021 — UniCredit Bank Austria AG v Verein für Konsumenteninformation

19

2021/C 513/29

Case C-577/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 20 September 2021 — LM and NO v HUK-COBURG-Allgemeine Versicherung AG

20

2021/C 513/30

Case C-596/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Nürnberg (Germany) lodged on 28 September 2021 — A v Finanzamt M

20

2021/C 513/31

Case C-603/21 P: Appeal brought on 28 September 2021 by Unie van Professionele Transporteurs en Logistieke Ondernemers (UPTR) against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 28 July 2021 in Case T-634/20, UPTR v Parliament and Council

UPTR

Parliament and Council

21

2021/C 513/32

Case C-605/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Městský soud v Praze (Czech Republic) lodged on 30 September 2021 — Heureka Group a.s. v Google LLC

22

2021/C 513/33

Case C-606/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Paris (France) lodged on 30 September 2021 — Doctipharma SAS v Union des Groupements de pharmaciens d’officine (UDGPO), Pictime SAS operating under the name Coreyre

23

2021/C 513/34

Case C-633/21: Action brought on 14 October 2021 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

24

2021/C 513/35

Case C-258/20: Order of the President of the Court of 24 September 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 1 de Barcelona — Spain) — HV v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS)

25

2021/C 513/36

Case C-689/20: Order of the President of the Court of 21 September 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad — Bulgaria) — Banka DSK EAD v RP

25

2021/C 513/37

Case C-336/21: Order of the President of the Court of 20 September 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg — Austria) — L GmbH v F GmbH, BW, SW

25

General Court

2021/C 513/38

Case T-503/20: Judgment of the General Court of 22 September 2021 — T i D kontrolni sistemi v EUIPO –Sigmatron (Signalling apparatuses and devices) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing signalling apparatuses and devices — Earlier Community design — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — Declaration of invalidity of a prior design — No effect — Disclosure of the earlier design — Informed user — Degree of freedom of the designer — No different overall impression — Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

26

2021/C 513/39

Case T-201/18: Order of the General Court of 28 October 2021 — Diusa Rendering and Assograssi v Commission (Public health — Rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies — Ban on exporting organic fertilisers and soil improvers derived from Category 2 material — Failure by the Commission to initiate the procedure for re-examining the ban — Action for failure to act — Proposal of draft measures putting an end to the failure to act — No need to adjudicate)

26

2021/C 513/40

Case T-329/20: Order of the General Court of 25 October 2021 — 4B Company v EUIPO — Deenz (Pendant (jewellery)) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a pendant (jewellery) — Maintenance of the Community design in an amended form — Article 25(6) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility)

27

2021/C 513/41

Case T-510/20: Order of the General Court of 22 October 2021 — Fachverband Spielhallen and LM v Commission (State aid — Tax treatment of operators of public casinos in Germany — Complaint — Preliminary examination stage — Commission decision finding that there is no State aid — Conditions for initiating a formal investigation procedure — Serious difficulties — Concept of State aid — Levy on the profits — Advantage — Selectivity — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

28

2021/C 513/42

Case T-22/21: Order of the General Court of 22 October 2021 — Equinoccio-Compañía de Comercio Exterior v Commission (Action for annulment — Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance — Non-member State — National public procurement — Termination of the contract by the contracting authority — Request for enforcement by the contracting authority of a bank guarantee — Countersignature by the Head of the EU Delegation in the Non-member State or his deputy — Lack of jurisdiction)

28

2021/C 513/43

Case T-297/21 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 25 October 2021 — Troy Chemical Company and Troy v Commission (Interim measures — Biocidal products — Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/348 — Approval of carbendazim as an existing active substance for use in biocidal products of product-types 7 (film preservatives) and 10 (masonry preservatives) — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency)

29

2021/C 513/44

Case T-603/21: Action brought on 14 September 2021 — WO v EPPO

29

2021/C 513/45

Case T-631/21: Action brought on 27 September 2021 — BZ v ECB

30

2021/C 513/46

Case T-686/21: Action brought on 25 October 2021 — energy cake v EUIPO — Foodtastic (ENERGY CAKE)

32

2021/C 513/47

Case T-688/21: Action brought on 25 October 2021 — BNP Paribas Public Sector v SRB

32

2021/C 513/48

Case T-689/21: Action brought on 22 October 2021 — Auken and Others v Commission

34

2021/C 513/49

Case T-690/21: Action brought on 25 October 2021 — LW Capital v Commission

35

2021/C 513/50

Case T-691/21: Action brought on 27 October 2021 — Alcogroup and Alcodis v Commission

35

2021/C 513/51

Case T-473/19: Order of the General Court of 20 October 2021 — Diageo and Others v Commission

36

2021/C 513/52

Case T-476/19: Order of the General Court of 20 October 2021 — AstraZeneca and Others v Commission

36

2021/C 513/53

Case T-628/19: Order of the General Court of 27 October 2021 — Teva v Commission and EMA

36

2021/C 513/54

Case T-515/20: Order of the General Court of 26 October 2021 — Puma v EUIPO — Caterpillar (SPEEDCAT)

37

2021/C 513/55

Case T-708/20: Order of the General Court of 28 October 2021 — TrekStor v EUIPO (e.Gear)

37

---

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 20.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 513/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 513/1

---

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

(2021/C 513/01)

Last publication

OJ C 502, 13.12.2021

Past publications

OJ C 490, 6.12.2021

OJ C 481, 29.11.2021

OJ C 471, 22.11.2021

OJ C 462, 15.11.2021

OJ C 452, 8.11.2021

OJ C 431, 25.10.2021

These texts are available on:

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

---

Court of Justice

| 20.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 513/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 513/2

---

Taking of the oath by new Members of the Court

(2021/C 513/02)

Following their appointment as Judges at the Court of Justice for the period from 7 October 2021 to 6 October 2027 by decisions of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of the European Union of 19 February 2021 (1), 21 April 2021 (2), 2 June 2021 (3) and 7 July 2021 (4), Mr Gavalec, Ms Spineanu-Matei, Mr Gratsias, Mr Csehi and Ms Arastey Sahún took the oath before the Court of Justice on 7 October 2021.

Following their appointment as Advocates General at the Court of Justice for the period from 7 October 2021 to 6 October 2027 by decisions of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of the European Union of 21 April 2021 2, 7 July 2021 4 and 8 September 2021 (5), Mr Emiliou, Ms Ćapeta and Ms Medina took the oath before the Court of Justice on 7 October 2021.

Following his appointment as Advocate General at the Court of Justice for the period from 7 October 2021 to 6 October 2024 by decision of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of the European Union of 8 September 2021 5, Mr Collins took the oath before the Court of Justice on 7 October 2021.

---

(1)  OJ L 64, 24.2.2021, p. 4.

(2)  OJ L 176, 19.5.2021, p. 3.

(3)  OJ L 201, 8.6.2021, p. 28.

(4)  OJ L 243, 9.7.2021, p. 45.

(5)  OJ L 319, 10.9.2021, p. 4.

---

| 20.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 513/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 513/2

---

Election of the President of the Court

(2021/C 513/03)

At a meeting on 8 October 2021, the Judges of the Court of Justice elected, pursuant to Article 8(1) of the Rules of Procedure, Mr Lenaerts as President of the Court for the period from 8 October 2021 to 6 October 2024.

---

| 20.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 513/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 513/2

---

Election of the Vice-President of the Court

(2021/C 513/04)

At a meeting on 8 October 2021, the Judges of the Court of Justice elected, pursuant to Article 8(4) of the Rules of Procedure, Mr Bay Larsen as Vice-President of the Court for the period from 8 October 2021 to 6 October 2024.

---

| 20.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 513/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 513/2

---

Election of the Presidents of the Chambers of five Judges

(2021/C 513/05)

At a meeting on 8 October 2021, the Judges of the Court of Justice elected, pursuant to Article 12(1) of the Rules of Procedure, Mr Arabadjiev as President of the First Chamber, Ms Prechal as President of the Second Chamber, Ms Jürimäe as President of the Third Chamber, Mr Lycourgos as President of the Fourth Chamber and Mr Regan as President of the Fifth Chamber for the period from 8 October 2021 to 6 October 2024.

---

| 20.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 513/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 513/3

---

Election of the First Advocate General

(2021/C 513/06)

At a meeting on 8 October 2021, the Advocates General elected, pursuant to Article 14(1) of the Rules of Procedure, Mr Szpunar as First Advocate General for the period from 8 October 2021 to 6 October 2024.

---

| 20.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 513/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 513/3

---

Election of the Presidents of the Chambers of three Judges

(2021/C 513/07)

At a meeting on 11 October 2021, the Judges of the Court of Justice elected, pursuant to Article 12(2) of the Rules of Procedure, Ms Ziemele as President of the Sixth Chamber, Mr Passer as President of the Seventh Chamber, Mr Jääskinen as President of the Eighth Chamber, Mr Rodin as President of the Ninth Chamber and Mr Jarukaitis as President of the Tenth Chamber for the period from 11 October 2021 to 6 October 2022.

---

| 20.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 513/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 513/3

---

Designation of the Chamber responsible for cases of the kind referred to in Article 107 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court

(2021/C 513/08)

At its General Meeting on 11 October 2021, the Court designated the First and Second Chambers as the Chambers that are, in accordance with Article 11(2) of the Rules of Procedure, responsible for cases of the kind referred to in Article 107 of those Rules, for the period from 11 October 2021 to 6 October 2022.

---

| 20.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 513/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 513/3

---

Assignment of Judges to Chambers

(2021/C 513/09)

At its General Meeting on 11 October 2021, the Court decided to assign Judges to the Chambers of five Judges as follows:

First Chamber

Mr Arabadjiev, President,

Mr von Danwitz, Mr Xuereb, Mr Kumin and Ms Ziemele, Judges

Second Chamber

Ms Prechal, President,

Mr Biltgen, Mr Wahl, Mr Passer and Ms Arastey Sahún, Judges

Third Chamber

Ms Jürimäe, President,

Mr Safjan, Mr Piçarra, Mr Jääskinen and Mr Gavalec, Judges

Fourth Chamber

Mr Lycourgos, President,

Mr Bonichot, Mr Rodin, Ms Rossi and Ms Spineanu-Matei, Judges

Fifth Chamber

Mr Regan, President,

Mr Ilešič, Mr Jarukaitis, Mr Gratsias and Mr Csehi, Judges

At its General Meeting on 11 October 2021, the Court decided to assign Judges to the Chambers of three Judges as follows:

Sixth Chamber

Ms Ziemele, President,

Mr von Danwitz, Mr Xuereb and Mr Kumin, Judges

Seventh Chamber

Mr Passer, President,

Mr Biltgen, Mr Wahl and Ms Arastey Sahún, Judges

Eighth Chamber

Mr Jääskinen, President,

Mr Safjan, Mr Piçarra and Mr Gavalec, Judges

Ninth Chamber

Mr Rodin, President,

Mr Bonichot, Ms Rossi and Ms Spineanu-Matei, Judges

Tenth Chamber

Mr Jarukaitis, President,

Mr Ilešič, Mr Gratsias and Mr Csehi, Judges

At its General Meeting on 11 October 2021, the Court also decided to assign the Vice-President to the First Chamber and the Sixth Chamber for the purposes of the cases in which he is to act as Judge-Rapporteur and which will be assigned by the Court to a Chamber of five Judges or a Chamber of three Judges, respectively.

The Court also decided to assign the Presidents of the Chambers of five Judges to a Chamber of three Judges for all cases in which they are to act as Judge-Rapporteur and which will be assigned by the Court to such a chamber. Accordingly, the Court decides to assign Mr Arabadjiev to the Sixth Chamber, Ms Prechal to the Seventh Chamber, Ms Jürimäe to the Eighth Chamber, Mr Lycourgos to the Ninth Chamber and Mr Regan to the Tenth Chamber.

---

| 20.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 513/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 513/4

---

Lists for the purposes of determining the composition of the formations of the Court

(2021/C 513/10)

At its General Meeting on 13 October 2021, the Court drew up the list for determining the composition of the Grand Chamber as follows:

Mr Ilešič

Ms Spineanu-Matei

Mr Bonichot

Mr Csehi

Mr von Danwitz

Mr Gavalec

Mr Safjan

Ms Arastey Sahún

Mr Rodin

Mr Gratsias

Mr Biltgen

Mr Passer

Mr Xuereb

Ms Ziemele

Mr Piçarra

Mr Wahl

Ms Rossi

Mr Jääskinen

Mr Jarukaitis

Mr Kumin

At its General Meeting on 13 October 2021, the Court drew up the list for determining the composition of the Chambers of five Judges as follows:

First Chamber:

Mr von Danwitz

Ms Ziemele

Mr Xuereb

Mr Kumin

Second Chamber:

Mr Biltgen

Ms Arastey Sahún

Mr Wahl

Mr Passer

Third Chamber:

Mr Safjan

Mr Gavalec

Mr Piçarra

Mr Jääskinen

Fourth Chamber:

Mr Bonichot

Ms Spineanu-Matei

Mr Rodin

Ms Rossi

Fifth Chamber:

Mr Ilešič

Mr Csehi

Mr Jarukaitis

Mr Gratsias

At its General Meeting on 13 October 2021, the Court drew up the list for determining the composition of the Chambers of three Judges as follows:

Sixth Chamber

Mr von Danwitz

Mr Xuereb

Mr Kumin

Seventh Chamber

Mr Biltgen

Mr Wahl

Ms Arastey Sahún

Eighth Chamber

Mr Safjan

Mr Piçarra

Mr Gavalec

Ninth Chamber

Mr Bonichot

Ms Rossi

Ms Spineanu-Matei

Tenth Chamber

Mr Ilešič

Mr Gratsias

Mr Csehi

---

| 20.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 513/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 513/6

---

Election of the Registrar

(2021/C 513/11)

At a meeting on 26 October 2021, the Judges and Advocates General of the Court of Justice decided, pursuant to Article 18(4) of the Rules of Procedure, to reappoint Mr Calot Escobar as Registrar of the Court of Justice for the period from 7 October 2022 to 6 October 2028.

---

General Court

| 20.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 513/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 513/7

---

Taking of the oath by new Members of the General Court

(2021/C 513/12)

Following her appointment as Judge at the General Court for the period from 10 June 2021 to 31 August 2025 by decision of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of the European Union of 2 June 2021, (1) Ms Brkan took the oath before the Court of Justice on 6 July 2021.

Following his appointment as Judge at the General Court for the period from 10 September 2021 to 31 August 2025 by decision of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of the European Union of 8 September 2021, (2) Mr Zilgalvis took the oath before the Court of Justice on 27 September 2021.

Following their appointment as Judges at the General Court for the period from 18 October 2021 to 31 August 2022 by decision of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of the European Union of 13 October 2021, (3) Mr Kecsmár and Mr Gâlea took the oath before the Court of Justice on 27 October 2021.

---

(1)  OJ L 203, 9.6. 2021, p. 16.

(2)  OJ L 319, 10.9.2021, p. 5.

(3)  OJ L 368, 18.10.2021, p. 4.

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 20.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 513/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 513/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 October 2021 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Apelativen sad — Varna — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against DR (C-845/19), TS (C-863/19)

(Joined Cases C-845/19 and C-863/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Directive 2014/42/EU - Freezing and confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime in the European Union - Scope - Confiscation of illegally obtained assets - Economic benefit derived from a criminal offence which has not been the subject of a conviction - Article 4 - Confiscation - Article 5 - Extended confiscation - Article 6 - Confiscation from a third party - Conditions - Confiscation of money allegedly belonging to a third party - Third party having no right to appear as a party in the confiscation proceedings - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)

(2021/C 513/13)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Apelativen sad — Varna

Parties in the main proceedings

DR (C-845/19), TS (C-863/19)

Interested party: Okrazhna prokuratura — Varna

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Directive 2014/42/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the freezing and confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime in the European Union must be interpreted as meaning that the possession of narcotics for the purposes of their distribution comes within its scope, even though all the elements inherent in the commission of that offence are confined within a single Member State. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Directive 2014/42/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the freezing and confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime in the European Union must be interpreted as meaning that the possession of narcotics for the purposes of their distribution comes within its scope, even though all the elements inherent in the commission of that offence are confined within a single Member State.

| 2. | Directive 2014/42 must be interpreted as meaning that it not only provides for the confiscation of property constituting an economic benefit derived from the criminal offence in respect of which the perpetrator has been convicted, but also provides for the confiscation of property belonging to that perpetrator in respect of which the national court hearing the case is satisfied that it derives from other criminal conduct, in compliance with the safeguards provided for in Article 8(8) of that directive and on condition that the offence in respect of which its perpetrator has been convicted is among those listed in Article 5(2) of that directive and that that offence is liable to give rise, directly or indirectly, to economic benefit within the meaning of the same directive. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Directive 2014/42 must be interpreted as meaning that it not only provides for the confiscation of property constituting an economic benefit derived from the criminal offence in respect of which the perpetrator has been convicted, but also provides for the confiscation of property belonging to that perpetrator in respect of which the national court hearing the case is satisfied that it derives from other criminal conduct, in compliance with the safeguards provided for in Article 8(8) of that directive and on condition that the offence in respect of which its perpetrator has been convicted is among those listed in Article 5(2) of that directive and that that offence is liable to give rise, directly or indirectly, to economic benefit within the meaning of the same directive.

| 3. | Article 8(1), (7) and (9) of Directive 2014/42, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which allows for the confiscation, in favour of the State, of property which is claimed to belong to a person other than the perpetrator of the criminal offence, without that person having the right to appear as a party in the confiscation proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 8(1), (7) and (9) of Directive 2014/42, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which allows for the confiscation, in favour of the State, of property which is claimed to belong to a person other than the perpetrator of the criminal offence, without that person having the right to appear as a party in the confiscation proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 68, 2.3.2020.

---

| 20.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 513/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 513/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Poland) — SC v Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych I Oddział w Warszawie

(Case C-866/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security for migrant workers - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Article 52(1)(b) - Worker who has been employed in two Member States - Minimum period required by national law for acquisition of entitlement to a retirement pension - Account taken of the contribution period completed under the legislation of another Member State - Aggregation - Calculation of the amount of the retirement benefit to be paid)

(2021/C 513/14)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SC

Defendant: Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych I Oddział w Warszawie

Operative part of the judgment

Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of determining the limit which non-contribution periods may not exceed in relation to contribution periods, as provided for by the national legislation, the competent institution of the Member State concerned must take into consideration, when calculating the theoretical amount of the benefit referred to in point (i) of that provision, all the periods of insurance, including those periods of insurance completed under the legislation of other Member States, whereas the calculation of the actual amount of the benefit referred to in point (ii) of that provision is made having regard solely to the periods of insurance completed under the legislation of the Member State concerned.

---

(1)  OJ C 61, 24.2.2020.

---

| 20.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 513/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 513/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 October 2021 — European Parliament v UZ

(Case C-894/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Disciplinary proceedings - Disciplinary penalty - Administrative enquiry - Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Requirement for objective impartiality - Cross-appeal - Rejection of a request for assistance - Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Right to be heard)

(2021/C 513/15)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: European Parliament (represented by: V. Montebello-Demogeot and I. Lázaro Betancor, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: UZ (represented by: J.-N. Louis, avocat)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the main appeal and the cross-appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the main appeal and the cross-appeal;

| 2. | Orders the European Parliament to pay the costs relating to the main appeal; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Parliament to pay the costs relating to the main appeal;

| 3. | Orders UZ to pay the costs relating to the cross-appeal. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders UZ to pay the costs relating to the cross-appeal.

---

(1)  OJ C 77, 9.3.2020.

---

| 20.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 513/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 513/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Bucureşti — Romania) — Wilo Salmson France SAS v Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Bucureşti, Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Bucureşti –- Administraţia Fiscală pentru Contribuabili Nerezidenţi

(Case C-80/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 167 to 171 and Article 178(a) - Right to deduct VAT - Refund of VAT to taxable persons established in a Member State other than the Member State of refund - Possession of an invoice - Directive 2008/9/EC - Rejection of a refund application - ‘Cancellation’ of the invoice by the supplier - Issuing of a new invoice - New refund application - Rejection)

(2021/C 513/16)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Bucureşti

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Wilo Salmson France SAS

Defendants: Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Bucureşti, Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Bucureşti –- Administraţia Fiscală pentru Contribuabili Nerezidenţi

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Articles 167 to 171 and 178 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2010/45/EU of 13 July 2010 and Council Directive 2008/9/EC of 12 February 2008 laying down detailed rules for the refund of value added tax, provided for in Directive 2006/112, to taxable persons not established in the Member State of refund but established in another Member State must be interpreted as meaning that the right to a refund of value added tax (VAT) charged on a supply of goods cannot be exercised by a taxable person established not in the Member State of refund but in another Member State, if that taxable person does not hold an invoice, within the meaning of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2010/45, relating to the purchase of the goods concerned. Only if a document is so flawed as to deprive the national tax administration of the information necessary to support a refund claim can such a document be considered not to be an ‘invoice’ within the meaning of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2010/45. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Articles 167 to 171 and 178 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2010/45/EU of 13 July 2010 and Council Directive 2008/9/EC of 12 February 2008 laying down detailed rules for the refund of value added tax, provided for in Directive 2006/112, to taxable persons not established in the Member State of refund but established in another Member State must be interpreted as meaning that the right to a refund of value added tax (VAT) charged on a supply of goods cannot be exercised by a taxable person established not in the Member State of refund but in another Member State, if that taxable person does not hold an invoice, within the meaning of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2010/45, relating to the purchase of the goods concerned. Only if a document is so flawed as to deprive the national tax administration of the information necessary to support a refund claim can such a document be considered not to be an ‘invoice’ within the meaning of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2010/45.

| 2. | Articles 167 to 171 and 178 of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2010/45, and the first of the situations referred to in Article 14(1)(a) of Directive 2008/9 must be interpreted as meaning that they preclude the rejection of an application for a refund of value added tax (VAT) relating to a given refund period solely on the ground that that VAT became chargeable during an earlier refund period, even though it was invoiced only during that given period. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Articles 167 to 171 and 178 of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2010/45, and the first of the situations referred to in Article 14(1)(a) of Directive 2008/9 must be interpreted as meaning that they preclude the rejection of an application for a refund of value added tax (VAT) relating to a given refund period solely on the ground that that VAT became chargeable during an earlier refund period, even though it was invoiced only during that given period.

| 3. | Articles 167 to 171 and 178 of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2010/45 and Directive 2008/9 must be interpreted as meaning that the unilateral cancellation of an invoice by a supplier, after the adoption by the Member State of refund of a decision rejecting the application for a refund of value added tax (VAT), which was based on that invoice, and when that decision has already become final, followed by the issuing by that supplier, during a subsequent refund period, of a new invoice relating to the same supplies, without those supplies being called into question, has no bearing on the existence of the right to a refund of VAT which has already been exercised or on the period in respect of which that right must be exercised. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Articles 167 to 171 and 178 of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2010/45 and Directive 2008/9 must be interpreted as meaning that the unilateral cancellation of an invoice by a supplier, after the adoption by the Member State of refund of a decision rejecting the application for a refund of value added tax (VAT), which was based on that invoice, and when that decision has already become final, followed by the issuing by that supplier, during a subsequent refund period, of a new invoice relating to the same supplies, without those supplies being called into question, has no bearing on the existence of the right to a refund of VAT which has already been exercised or on the period in respect of which that right must be exercised.

---

(1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2020.

---

| 20.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 513/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 513/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against ZX

(Case C-282/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Directive 2012/13/EU - Right to information in criminal proceedings - Article 6(3) - Rights of suspects or accused persons to be informed of their rights - Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - National law not providing for a procedural mechanism for remedying errors and omissions in the content of the indictment)

(2021/C 513/17)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

Party in the main proceedings

ZX

other party to the proceedings: Spetsializirana prokuratura

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 6(3) of Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which does not provide for a procedural means of remedying, errors and deficiencies in the indictment which prejudice the right of the accused person to be provided with detailed information about the charges following the pre-trial hearing in a criminal case; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 6(3) of Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which does not provide for a procedural means of remedying, errors and deficiencies in the indictment which prejudice the right of the accused person to be provided with detailed information about the charges following the pre-trial hearing in a criminal case;

| 2. | Article 6(3) of Directive 2012/13 and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as requiring the referring court to give an interpretation of the national rules on the amendment of the charges, as far as possible in a manner consistent with that law, so as to enable the prosecutor to remedy errors and omissions in the content of the indictment at the trial, while at the same time actively and genuinely safeguarding the rights of the defence of the accused person. Only if the referring court considers that such an interpretation is not possible should it disregard the national provision prohibiting the suspension of court proceedings and refer the case back to the public prosecutor in order for the latter to draw up a new indictment. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 6(3) of Directive 2012/13 and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as requiring the referring court to give an interpretation of the national rules on the amendment of the charges, as far as possible in a manner consistent with that law, so as to enable the prosecutor to remedy errors and omissions in the content of the indictment at the trial, while at the same time actively and genuinely safeguarding the rights of the defence of the accused person. Only if the referring court considers that such an interpretation is not possible should it disregard the national provision prohibiting the suspension of court proceedings and refer the case back to the public prosecutor in order for the latter to draw up a new indictment.

---

(1)  OJ C 287, 31.8.2020.

---

| 20.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 513/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 513/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Eight Chamber), 21 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Krakowa-Śródmieścia w Krakowie, Poland) — T.B. and D. sp. z. o. o. v G. I. A/S

(Case C-393/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Jurisdiction in insurance matters - Article 11(1)(b) - Article 12 - Article 13(2) - Scope ratione personae - Concept of ‘injured party’ - Professional - Special jurisdiction - Article 7(2))

(2021/C 513/18)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy dla Krakowa-Śródmieścia w Krakowie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: T.B. and D. sp. z. o. o.

Defendant: G. I. A/S

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 13(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, read in conjunction with Article 11(1)(b) of that regulation, must be interpreted as meaning that it cannot be relied on by a company that, in consideration for services that it provided to a party directly injured in a road accident in connection with the damage caused, has acquired a claim for compensation, but does not carry out the professional activity of recovering insurance indemnity claims against insurance companies and who brought an action, in the court for the place where it is established, against the third-party liability insurer of the party responsible for that accident. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 13(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, read in conjunction with Article 11(1)(b) of that regulation, must be interpreted as meaning that it cannot be relied on by a company that, in consideration for services that it provided to a party directly injured in a road accident in connection with the damage caused, has acquired a claim for compensation, but does not carry out the professional activity of recovering insurance indemnity claims against insurance companies and who brought an action, in the court for the place where it is established, against the third-party liability insurer of the party responsible for that accident.

| 2. | Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that it may be relied on by a professional who acquired, under an assignment agreement, a claim from a party injured in a road accident in order to bring a civil-liability action before a court of the Member State in which the accident occurred against the insurer of the party responsible for that accident, which insurer has its seat in a Member State other than the Member State in which the accident occurred, provided that the conditions for the application of this provision are met, which it is for the referring court to determine. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that it may be relied on by a professional who acquired, under an assignment agreement, a claim from a party injured in a road accident in order to bring a civil-liability action before a court of the Member State in which the accident occurred against the insurer of the party responsible for that accident, which insurer has its seat in a Member State other than the Member State in which the accident occurred, provided that the conditions for the application of this provision are met, which it is for the referring court to determine.

---

(1)  OJ C 423, 7.12.2020.

---

| 20.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 513/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 513/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — CHEP Equipment Pooling NV v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

(Case C-396/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Detailed rules for the refund of VAT to taxable persons not established in the Member State of refund - Directive 2008/9/EC - Article 20(1) - Request for additional information by the Member State of refund - Details which may be the subject of a request for additional information - Discrepancy between the amount entered on the refund application and the amount appearing on the invoices submitted - Principle of sound administration - Principle of the neutrality of VAT - Limitation period - Consequences for correcting the taxable person’s error)

(2021/C 513/19)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Kúria

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: CHEP Equipment Pooling NV

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

Operative part of the judgment

Article 20(1) of Council Directive 2008/9/EC of 12 February 2008 laying down detailed rules for the refund of value added tax, provided for in Directive 2006/112/EC, to taxable persons not established in the Member State of refund but established in another Member State, read in the light of the principles of fiscal neutrality and sound administration, must be interpreted as precluding the tax authority of the Member State of refund, where that authority is satisfied, if necessary on the basis of the additional information provided by the taxable person, that the amount of input value added tax actually paid, as set out on the invoice attached to the refund application, is higher than the amount entered in that application, from refunding only that latter amount of value added tax, without first asking the taxable person, promptly and by the means which it deems the most appropriate, to correct the refund application by an application which is to be considered as having been submitted on the date of the initial application.

---

(1)  OJ C 423, 7.12.2020.

---

| 20.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 513/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 513/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 21 October 2021 — Lípidos Santiga SA v European Commission

(Case C-402/20 P) (1)

(Appeal - Energy - Directive (EU) 2018/2001 - Promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources - Limit on use of biofuels produced from food and feed crops - Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/807 - Definition of high indirect land-use change (ILUC) risk feedstock - Palm oil - Action for annulment - Condition that a natural or legal person must be directly concerned - Inadmissibility)

(2021/C 513/20)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Lípidos Santiga SA (represented by: P. Muñiz Fernández, abogado)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: B. De Meester and K. Talabér-Ritz, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Lípidos Santiga SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Lípidos Santiga SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 348, 19.10.2020.

---

| 20.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 513/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 513/14

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 23 September 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gericht Erster Instanz Eupen — Belgium) — IO v Wallonische Region

(Case C-23/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Article 49 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Road traffic - Driver resident in one Member State - Vehicle registered in another Member State - Vehicle made available to the partner and manager of an undertaking established in that other Member State - Registration obligation in the first Member State)

(2021/C 513/21)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Gericht Erster Instanz Eupen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: IO

Defendant: Wallonische Region

Operative part of the order

| 1. | Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State pursuant to which a manager of an undertaking or a freelancer, resident in that Member State, may rely on an exception to the obligation to register, in that Member State, a vehicle registered in another Member State and made available to him or her by an undertaking, with or without legal personality, established in that other Member State, only if the documents attesting that the person in question meets the conditions for the exception are at all times carried in that vehicle. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State pursuant to which a manager of an undertaking or a freelancer, resident in that Member State, may rely on an exception to the obligation to register, in that Member State, a vehicle registered in another Member State and made available to him or her by an undertaking, with or without legal personality, established in that other Member State, only if the documents attesting that the person in question meets the conditions for the exception are at all times carried in that vehicle.

| 2. | Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which requires a partner and manager of an undertaking, resident in that Member State, who does not receive a salary or income from that undertaking, established in another Member State, to register a vehicle made available to him or her by the undertaking, without having the possibility of proving the role he or she has within the undertaking, provided that that vehicle is neither intended to be used essentially in the first Member State on a permanent basis nor in fact used in that manner. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which requires a partner and manager of an undertaking, resident in that Member State, who does not receive a salary or income from that undertaking, established in another Member State, to register a vehicle made available to him or her by the undertaking, without having the possibility of proving the role he or she has within the undertaking, provided that that vehicle is neither intended to be used essentially in the first Member State on a permanent basis nor in fact used in that manner.

---

(1)  OJ C 128, 12.4.2021.

---

| 20.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 513/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 513/15

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 September 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Lennestadt — Germany) — Nemzeti Útdíjfizetési Szolgáltató Zrt. v NW

(Case C-30/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Article 1(1) - Substantive scope - Concept of ‘civil and commercial matters’ - Proceedings seeking to recover a charge relating to the use of a toll road)

(2021/C 513/22)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Lennestadt

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Nemzeti Útdíjfizetési Szolgáltató Zrt.

Defendant: NW

Operative part of the order

Article 1(1) 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 concept of ‘civil and commercial matters’, within the meaning of that provision, covers an action to recover, through legal proceedings, a charge relating to the use of a toll road, brought by a company authorised in accordance with the law, which classifies the relationship arising from that usage as being governed by private law.

---

(1)  OJ C 148, 26.4.2021.

---

| 20.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 513/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 513/15

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 19 August 2021 — DB v Austrian Airlines AG

(Case C-510/21)

(2021/C 513/23)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: DB

Defendant: Austrian Airlines AG

Questions referred

| 1. | Is first aid which is administered on board an aircraft following an accident within the meaning of Article 17(1) of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, signed by the European Community on 9 December 1999 and approved on its behalf by Council Decision 2001/539/EC of 5 April 2001 (1) and which leads to further bodily injury to the passenger which can be distinguished from the actual consequences of the accident to be regarded, together with the triggering event, as a single accident? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is first aid which is administered on board an aircraft following an accident within the meaning of Article 17(1) of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, signed by the European Community on 9 December 1999 and approved on its behalf by Council Decision 2001/539/EC of 5 April 2001 (1) and which leads to further bodily injury to the passenger which can be distinguished from the actual consequences of the accident to be regarded, together with the triggering event, as a single accident?

| 2. | If Question 1 is answered in the negative:
  Does Article 29 of that convention preclude a claim for compensation for damage caused by the administration of first aid where that claim is brought within the limitation period under national law but outside the period for bringing actions which is laid down in Article 35 of the convention? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If Question 1 is answered in the negative:

Does Article 29 of that convention preclude a claim for compensation for damage caused by the administration of first aid where that claim is brought within the limitation period under national law but outside the period for bringing actions which is laid down in Article 35 of the convention?

---

(1)  Council Decision 2001/539/EC of 5 April 2001 on the conclusion by the European Community of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air (the Montreal Convention) (OJ 2001 L 194, p. 38).

---

| 20.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 513/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 513/16

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Romania) lodged on 24 August 2021 — ASA v DGRFP Cluj

(Case C-519/21)

(2021/C 513/24)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: ASA

Respondent: DGRFP Cluj

Parties joined as guarantors: BP, MB

Questions referred

| 1. | Can VAT Directive 2006/[1]12 (1) in general, and Articles 9, 12, 14, 62, 63, 65, 73 and 78 in particular, be interpreted, in a specific context such as that of the dispute in the main proceedings, as meaning [that]:






  — | as regards the occurrence of the chargeable event in the case of taxable transactions involving the supply of immovable property and the method for determining the relevant taxable amount, natural persons who are parties to a contract relating to an association without legal personality [concluded] with the taxable person liable for tax on output transactions which he should have collected, also have the status of taxable person since the association contract was not registered with the tax authorities before the activity commenced but was presented to them before the administrative acts relating to taxation were issued? |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Can VAT Directive 2006/[1]12 (1) in general, and Articles 9, 12, 14, 62, 63, 65, 73 and 78 in particular, be interpreted, in a specific context such as that of the dispute in the main proceedings, as meaning [that]:

—

as regards the occurrence of the chargeable event in the case of taxable transactions involving the supply of immovable property and the method for determining the relevant taxable amount, natural persons who are parties to a contract relating to an association without legal personality [concluded] with the taxable person liable for tax on output transactions which he should have collected, also have the status of taxable person since the association contract was not registered with the tax authorities before the activity commenced but was presented to them before the administrative acts relating to taxation were issued?

| 2. | Can VAT Directive 2006/112 in general, and Articles 167, 168(a), 178(a) and 179 in particular, and the principles of proportionality and neutrality, be interpreted, in a specific context such as that of the dispute in the main proceedings, as:






  (a) | recognising the possibility of conferring the right of deduction on a taxable person, where he does not owe tax or has not paid personally the input VAT on goods and services used in connection with the taxable transactions, and the VAT is due/paid at the preceding stage by natural persons in respect of whom the status of taxable person has not been established, but who are parties to a contract relating to an association without legal personality [concluded] with the taxable person liable for tax on output transactions which he should have collected, since the association contract was not registered with the tax authorities before the activity commenced? |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Can VAT Directive 2006/112 in general, and Articles 167, 168(a), 178(a) and 179 in particular, and the principles of proportionality and neutrality, be interpreted, in a specific context such as that of the dispute in the main proceedings, as:

(a)

recognising the possibility of conferring the right of deduction on a taxable person, where he does not owe tax or has not paid personally the input VAT on goods and services used in connection with the taxable transactions, and the VAT is due/paid at the preceding stage by natural persons in respect of whom the status of taxable person has not been established, but who are parties to a contract relating to an association without legal personality [concluded] with the taxable person liable for tax on output transactions which he should have collected, since the association contract was not registered with the tax authorities before the activity commenced?

| (b) | recognising the possibility of conferring the right of deduction on a taxable person, in a specific context such as that of the dispute in the main proceedings, where he does not owe tax or has not paid personally the input VAT on goods and services used in connection with the taxable transactions, and the VAT is due/paid at the preceding stage by a natural person in respect of whom the status of taxable person has been established, who is party to a contract relating to an association without legal personality and who, together with the taxable person, intends also to exercise, or could exercise, his own right of deduction, and the latter are liable for tax on output transactions which they should have collected, since the association contract was not registered with the tax authorities before the activity commenced? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

recognising the possibility of conferring the right of deduction on a taxable person, in a specific context such as that of the dispute in the main proceedings, where he does not owe tax or has not paid personally the input VAT on goods and services used in connection with the taxable transactions, and the VAT is due/paid at the preceding stage by a natural person in respect of whom the status of taxable person has been established, who is party to a contract relating to an association without legal personality and who, together with the taxable person, intends also to exercise, or could exercise, his own right of deduction, and the latter are liable for tax on output transactions which they should have collected, since the association contract was not registered with the tax authorities before the activity commenced?

| 3. | In the event that that the answer to the questions is in the negative and/or in the light of the principle of legal certainty:
  is a claim by the taxable person, who is liable for VAT and related charges, admissible against natural persons in respect of whom the status of taxable person has not been established and who are parties to a contract relating to an association without legal personality [concluded] with the taxable person liable for tax on output transactions which he should have collected, since the association contract was not registered with the tax authorities before the activity commenced, in order to obtain the proportion [of tax] which was laid down for the distribution of profits accruing to those persons under the association contract in relation to the liability for VAT and related charges imposed on the taxable person? |
| --- | --- |

3.

In the event that that the answer to the questions is in the negative and/or in the light of the principle of legal certainty:

is a claim by the taxable person, who is liable for VAT and related charges, admissible against natural persons in respect of whom the status of taxable person has not been established and who are parties to a contract relating to an association without legal personality [concluded] with the taxable person liable for tax on output transactions which he should have collected, since the association contract was not registered with the tax authorities before the activity commenced, in order to obtain the proportion [of tax] which was laid down for the distribution of profits accruing to those persons under the association contract in relation to the liability for VAT and related charges imposed on the taxable person?

---

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

---

| 20.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 513/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 513/17

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Pfälzisches Oberlandesgericht (Germany) lodged on 24 August 2021 — MS v Saatgut Treuhandverwaltungs GmbH

(Case C-522/21)

(2021/C 513/25)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Pfälzisches Oberlandesgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Defendant and appellant: MS

Applicant and respondent: Saatgut Treuhandverwaltungs GmbH

Question referred

Is Article 18(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1768/95 of 24 July 1995 implementing rules on the agricultural exemption provided for in Article 14(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 on Community plant variety rights, (1) in so far as a minimum level of compensation of quadruple the licence fee can be claimed under the conditions laid down therein, compatible with Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 of 27 July 1994 on Community plant variety rights (‘the Basic Regulation’), (2) in particular with the first sentence of Article 94(2) of that regulation?

---

(1)  OJ 1995 L 173, p. 14.

(2)  OJ 1994 L 227, p. 1.

---

| 20.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 513/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 513/17

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București (Romania) lodged on 24 August 2021 — I.G. v Agenția Județeană de Ocupare a Forței de Muncă Ilfov

(Case C-524/21)

(2021/C 513/26)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel București

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant/appellant: I.G.

Defendant/respondent: Agenția Județeană de Ocupare a Forței de Muncă Ilfov

Questions referred

| 1. | Having regard to the autonomous concept of a ‘state of insolvency’, are Articles 1(1) and 2(1) of Directive 2008/94 (1) to be interpreted as precluding national legislation transposing the directive — Article 15(1) and (2) of Legea nr. 200/2006 privind constituirea și utilizarea Fondului de garantare pentru plata creanțelor salariale (Law No 200/2006 on the establishment and use of the Guarantee Fund for the Payment of Salary Claims), in conjunction with Article 7 of the Normele metodologice de aplicare a Legii nr. 200/2006 (Methodological rules for the application of Law No 200/2006) — as interpreted by the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție, Completul pentru dezlegarea unor chestiuni de drept (High Court of Cassation and Justice, Section for the resolution of questions of law), in Decision No 16/2018, according to which the period of three months for which the Guarantee Fund may take over and pay the salary debts of an insolvent employer refers exclusively to the date on which the insolvency proceedings are opened? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Having regard to the autonomous concept of a ‘state of insolvency’, are Articles 1(1) and 2(1) of Directive 2008/94 (1) to be interpreted as precluding national legislation transposing the directive — Article 15(1) and (2) of Legea nr. 200/2006 privind constituirea și utilizarea Fondului de garantare pentru plata creanțelor salariale (Law No 200/2006 on the establishment and use of the Guarantee Fund for the Payment of Salary Claims), in conjunction with Article 7 of the Normele metodologice de aplicare a Legii nr. 200/2006 (Methodological rules for the application of Law No 200/2006) — as interpreted by the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție, Completul pentru dezlegarea unor chestiuni de drept (High Court of Cassation and Justice, Section for the resolution of questions of law), in Decision No 16/2018, according to which the period of three months for which the Guarantee Fund may take over and pay the salary debts of an insolvent employer refers exclusively to the date on which the insolvency proceedings are opened?

| 2. | Are [the second paragraph of] Article 3 and Article 4(2) of Directive 2008/94 to be interpreted as precluding Article 15(1) and (2) of Law No 200/2006 on the establishment and use of the Guarantee Fund for the Payment of Salary Claims, as interpreted by the High Court of Cassation and Justice in Decision No 16/2018, according to which the maximum period of three months for which the Guarantee Fund may take over and pay the salary debts of an insolvent employer falls within the reference period spanning the three months immediately preceding the opening of the insolvency proceedings and the three months immediately after the opening of the insolvency proceedings? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Are [the second paragraph of] Article 3 and Article 4(2) of Directive 2008/94 to be interpreted as precluding Article 15(1) and (2) of Law No 200/2006 on the establishment and use of the Guarantee Fund for the Payment of Salary Claims, as interpreted by the High Court of Cassation and Justice in Decision No 16/2018, according to which the maximum period of three months for which the Guarantee Fund may take over and pay the salary debts of an insolvent employer falls within the reference period spanning the three months immediately preceding the opening of the insolvency proceedings and the three months immediately after the opening of the insolvency proceedings?

| 3. | Is it consistent with the social objective of Directive 2008/94 and with Article 12(a) thereof for a national administrative practice to rely on a decision of the Curtea de Conturi (Court of Auditors) and, in the absence of any specific national rules requiring restitution by the employee, to recover from the employee sums allegedly paid in respect of periods not covered by the legislation or which were claimed after expiry of the limitation period? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is it consistent with the social objective of Directive 2008/94 and with Article 12(a) thereof for a national administrative practice to rely on a decision of the Curtea de Conturi (Court of Auditors) and, in the absence of any specific national rules requiring restitution by the employee, to recover from the employee sums allegedly paid in respect of periods not covered by the legislation or which were claimed after expiry of the limitation period?

| 4. | In the interpretation of the concept of ‘abuse’ in Article 12(a) of Directive 2008/94, does the act of recovering from the employee, with the stated aim of complying with the general limitation period, salary entitlements paid by the Fund through the intermediary of the liquidator constitute a sufficient, objective justification? |
| --- | --- |

4.

In the interpretation of the concept of ‘abuse’ in Article 12(a) of Directive 2008/94, does the act of recovering from the employee, with the stated aim of complying with the general limitation period, salary entitlements paid by the Fund through the intermediary of the liquidator constitute a sufficient, objective justification?

| 5. | Are an interpretation and a national administrative practice whereby salary debts which an employee is required to repay are treated like tax debts, bearing interest and late-payment penalties, consistent with the provisions and objective of the directive? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Are an interpretation and a national administrative practice whereby salary debts which an employee is required to repay are treated like tax debts, bearing interest and late-payment penalties, consistent with the provisions and objective of the directive?

---

(1)  Directive 2008/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (OJ 2008 L 283, p. 36).

---

| 20.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 513/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 513/18

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București (Romania) lodged on 24 August 2021 — Agenția Municipală pentru Ocuparea Forței de Muncă București v I.M.

(Case C-525/21)

(2021/C 513/27)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel București

Parties to the main proceedings

Defendant/appellant: Agenția Municipală pentru Ocuparea Forței de Muncă București

Applicant/respondent: I.M.

Questions referred

| 1. | Having regard to the autonomous concept of a ‘state of insolvency’, are Articles 1(1) and 2(1) of Directive 2008/94 (1) to be interpreted as precluding national legislation transposing the directive — Article 15(1) and (2) of Legea nr. 200/2006 privind constituirea și utilizarea Fondului de garantare pentru plata creanțelor salariale (Law No 200/2006 on the establishment and use of the Guarantee Fund for the Payment of Salary Claims), in conjunction with Article 7 of the Normele metodologice de aplicare a Legii nr. 200/2006 (Methodological rules for the application of Law No 200/2006) — as interpreted by the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție, Completul pentru dezlegarea unor chestiuni de drept (High Court of Cassation and Justice, Section for the resolution of questions of law), in Decision No 16/2018, according to which the period of three months for which the Guarantee Fund may take over and pay the salary debts of an insolvent employer refers exclusively to the date on which the insolvency proceedings are opened? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Having regard to the autonomous concept of a ‘state of insolvency’, are Articles 1(1) and 2(1) of Directive 2008/94 (1) to be interpreted as precluding national legislation transposing the directive — Article 15(1) and (2) of Legea nr. 200/2006 privind constituirea și utilizarea Fondului de garantare pentru plata creanțelor salariale (Law No 200/2006 on the establishment and use of the Guarantee Fund for the Payment of Salary Claims), in conjunction with Article 7 of the Normele metodologice de aplicare a Legii nr. 200/2006 (Methodological rules for the application of Law No 200/2006) — as interpreted by the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție, Completul pentru dezlegarea unor chestiuni de drept (High Court of Cassation and Justice, Section for the resolution of questions of law), in Decision No 16/2018, according to which the period of three months for which the Guarantee Fund may take over and pay the salary debts of an insolvent employer refers exclusively to the date on which the insolvency proceedings are opened?

| 2. | Are [the second paragraph of] Article 3 and Article 4(2) of Directive 2008/94 to be interpreted as precluding Article 15(1) and (2) of Law No 200/2006 on the establishment and use of the Guarantee Fund for the Payment of Salary Claims, as interpreted by the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție, Completul pentru dezlegarea unor chestiuni de drept, in Decision No 16/2018, according to which the maximum period of three months for which the Guarantee Fund may take over and pay the salary debts of an insolvent employer falls within the reference period spanning the three months immediately preceding the opening of the insolvency proceedings and the three months immediately after the opening of the insolvency proceedings? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Are [the second paragraph of] Article 3 and Article 4(2) of Directive 2008/94 to be interpreted as precluding Article 15(1) and (2) of Law No 200/2006 on the establishment and use of the Guarantee Fund for the Payment of Salary Claims, as interpreted by the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție, Completul pentru dezlegarea unor chestiuni de drept, in Decision No 16/2018, according to which the maximum period of three months for which the Guarantee Fund may take over and pay the salary debts of an insolvent employer falls within the reference period spanning the three months immediately preceding the opening of the insolvency proceedings and the three months immediately after the opening of the insolvency proceedings?

| 3. | Is it consistent with the social objective of Directive 2008/94 and with Article 12(a) of the directive for a national administrative practice to rely on a decision of the Curtea de Conturi (Court of Auditors) and, in the absence of any specific national rules requiring restitution by the employee, to recover from the employee sums allegedly paid in respect of periods not covered by the legislation or which were claimed after expiry of the limitation period? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is it consistent with the social objective of Directive 2008/94 and with Article 12(a) of the directive for a national administrative practice to rely on a decision of the Curtea de Conturi (Court of Auditors) and, in the absence of any specific national rules requiring restitution by the employee, to recover from the employee sums allegedly paid in respect of periods not covered by the legislation or which were claimed after expiry of the limitation period?

| 4. | In the interpretation of the concept of ‘abuse’ in Article 12(a) of Directive 2008/94, does the act of recovering from the employee, with the stated aim of complying with the general limitation period, salary entitlements paid by the Fund through the intermediary of the liquidator constitute a sufficient, objective justification? |
| --- | --- |

4.

In the interpretation of the concept of ‘abuse’ in Article 12(a) of Directive 2008/94, does the act of recovering from the employee, with the stated aim of complying with the general limitation period, salary entitlements paid by the Fund through the intermediary of the liquidator constitute a sufficient, objective justification?

| 5. | Are an interpretation and a national administrative practice whereby salary debts which an employee is required to repay are treated like tax debts, bearing interest and late-payment penalties, consistent with the provisions and objective of the directive? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Are an interpretation and a national administrative practice whereby salary debts which an employee is required to repay are treated like tax debts, bearing interest and late-payment penalties, consistent with the provisions and objective of the directive?

---

(1)  Directive 2008/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (OJ 2008 L 283, p. 36).

---

| 20.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 513/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 513/19

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 9 September 2021 — UniCredit Bank Austria AG v Verein für Konsumenteninformation

(Case C-555/21)

(2021/C 513/28)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant in the appeal on a point of law: UniCredit Bank Austria AG

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Verein für Konsumenteninformation

Question referred

Is Article 25(1) of Directive 2014/17/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 February 2014 on credit agreements for consumers relating to residential immovable property and amending Directives 2008/48/EC and 2013/36/EU and Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (1) to be interpreted as precluding national legislation that provides for the sum of interest to be paid by the borrower and the costs that are dependent on the duration of the agreement to be proportionally reduced in the event that the borrower exercises the right to repay the amount of credit, either fully or partially, prior to the expiry of the agreed term, with no corresponding rule for costs that are not dependent on the duration of the agreement?

---

(1)  OJ 2014 L 60, p. 34.

---

| 20.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 513/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 513/20

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 20 September 2021 — LM and NO v HUK-COBURG-Allgemeine Versicherung AG

(Case C-577/21)

(2021/C 513/29)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski gradski sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: LM and NO

Defendant: HUK-COBURG-Allgemeine Versicherung AG

Questions referred

| 1. | Is it contrary to Article 1(1) of Directive 84/5/EEC for the notion of ‘personal injuries’ to be interpreted as meaning that such injury exists in the case of psychological pain and suffering caused to a child by the death of a parent as a result of a road traffic accident only where that pain and suffering has resulted in pathological damage to the child’s health? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is it contrary to Article 1(1) of Directive 84/5/EEC for the notion of ‘personal injuries’ to be interpreted as meaning that such injury exists in the case of psychological pain and suffering caused to a child by the death of a parent as a result of a road traffic accident only where that pain and suffering has resulted in pathological damage to the child’s health?

| 2. | Does the principle that a national court is to interpret national law in conformity with EU law apply where the national court applies not its own national law but that of another Member State of the European Union? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the principle that a national court is to interpret national law in conformity with EU law apply where the national court applies not its own national law but that of another Member State of the European Union?

---

| 20.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 513/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 513/20

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Nürnberg (Germany) lodged on 28 September 2021 — A v Finanzamt M

(Case C-596/21)

(2021/C 513/30)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Nürnberg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: A

Defendant: Finanzamt M

Questions referred (1)

| 1. | Can the second purchaser of a good be refused the right of deduction in respect of the purchase because he or she should have known that the original seller had evaded value added tax (VAT) in the first sale, even though the first purchaser had known that the original seller had evaded VAT in the first sale? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can the second purchaser of a good be refused the right of deduction in respect of the purchase because he or she should have known that the original seller had evaded value added tax (VAT) in the first sale, even though the first purchaser had known that the original seller had evaded VAT in the first sale?

| 2. | If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, is the refusal of the right of deduction in the case of the second purchaser limited in terms of amount to the shortfall in tax revenue caused by the evasion? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, is the refusal of the right of deduction in the case of the second purchaser limited in terms of amount to the shortfall in tax revenue caused by the evasion?

| 3. | If Question 2 is answered in the affirmative, is the shortfall in tax revenue calculated






  a. | by comparing the tax lawfully payable in the supply chain with the tax actually assessed, |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

If Question 2 is answered in the affirmative, is the shortfall in tax revenue calculated

a.

by comparing the tax lawfully payable in the supply chain with the tax actually assessed,

| b. | by comparing the tax lawfully payable in the supply chain with the tax actually paid, or |
| --- | --- |

b.

by comparing the tax lawfully payable in the supply chain with the tax actually paid, or

| c. | in another way, and, if so, what way? |
| --- | --- |

c.

in another way, and, if so, what way?

---

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

---

| 20.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 513/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 513/21

---

Appeal brought on 28 September 2021 by Unie van Professionele Transporteurs en Logistieke Ondernemers (UPTR) against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 28 July 2021 in Case T-634/20, UPTR v Parliament and Council

(Case C-603/21 P)

(2021/C 513/31)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Appellant: Unie van Professionele Transporteurs en Logistieke Ondernemers (UPTR) (represented by: F. Vanden Bogaerde, advocaat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Parliament, Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

| — | First ground: Declare the appeal admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

First ground: Declare the appeal admissible;

| — | Second ground: Annul Article 2(4) of Regulation (1) (EU) 2020/1055 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2020 amending Regulations (EC) No 1071/2009, (EC) No 1072/2009 and (EU) No 1024/2012 with a view to adapting them to developments in the road transport sector. The basis for this is Article 263 of the consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, together with the grounds of appeal summarised below; |
| --- | --- |

—

Second ground: Annul Article 2(4) of Regulation (1) (EU) 2020/1055 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2020 amending Regulations (EC) No 1071/2009, (EC) No 1072/2009 and (EU) No 1024/2012 with a view to adapting them to developments in the road transport sector. The basis for this is Article 263 of the consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, together with the grounds of appeal summarised below;

| — | Third ground: Reserve the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Third ground: Reserve the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

First ground: admissibility of the initial application

The appellant’s members should be able to enjoy effective legal protection. In order to be able to enjoy effective legal protection, a restrictive interpretation of the concept of ‘direct and individual concern’ cannot be adopted in the present case, given the specific criminal/sanctioning context, in which the appellant’s members do not have a subjective right, which prevents them from having direct access to the courts.

It can hardly be regarded as effective legal protection if the appellant’s members have to place themselves in an illegal situation and then depend on the supervisory authorities, which would have the option to prosecute or impose penalties, without being obliged to do so. Moreover, effective legal protection is not guaranteed, since a national court is not always required to refer a question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.

Second ground: breach of the single market

Article 3(3) of the Treaty on European Union aims to establish a European internal market. This European internal market is created on the basis of the principle of free movement of services, amongst others.

In the transport field, the free movement of services is regulated by the provisions of Title VI of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

It follows that, with regard to road transport and specifically cabotage, efforts should be made to pursue gradual liberalisation.

Historically, this liberalisation within the transport market was actually achieved. However, the liberalisation achieved in the transport market, and the removal of restrictions therein, have been scaled back. The contested provision means that the liberalisation achieved is being scaled back even further, since it contains a very far-reaching restriction, which is detrimental to hauliers which are members of the appellant.

However, the reasons which actually underlie this restriction are covered by the other legislative provisions of the Mobility Package.

The contested provision infringes Article 3(3) TEU and the principle of free movement of services under Title VI TFEU and should thus be annulled.

Third ground: breach of the principle of proportionality

The impact assessment relating to the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulations (EC) No 1071/2009 and (EC) No 1072/2009 with a view to adapting them to developments in the road transport sector was drawn up for the purpose of the further liberalisation of cabotage operations within the European Union.

This impact assessment did not take account of a possible cooling-off period, which was presented only later in the legislative process. It can only be assumed that the introduction of a cooling-off period of four days after the completion of the last cabotage operation will have a significant impact on the number of cabotage operations within the European Union. However, the effects of this cooling-off period were not assessed in an impact assessment during the legislative process.

Given that this amendment to the rules governing cabotage operations significantly reduces the level of liberalisation already achieved, due to the introduction of a cooling-off period of four days after the last cabotage operation, it is not possible to maintain that there is no ‘substantial’ amendment. Consequently, an impact assessment should be considered necessary for the legislative process to continue.

The European Parliament and the Council did not consider that an update of the impact assessment was appropriate or necessary for the legislative process.

The failure to carry out an update of the impact assessment should therefore be considered a breach of the principle of proportionality by which the European Parliament and the Council are bound.

---

(1)  OJ 2020 L 249, p. 17.

---

| 20.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 513/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 513/22

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Městský soud v Praze (Czech Republic) lodged on 30 September 2021 — Heureka Group a.s. v Google LLC

(Case C-605/21)

(2021/C 513/32)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Městský soud v Praze

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Heureka Group a.s.

Defendant: Google LLC

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 21(1) of Directive 2014/104 (1) and general principles of EU law be interpreted such that Directive 2014/104, in particular Article 10 thereof, will apply, directly or indirectly, to the present dispute seeking compensation in respect of all harm caused by a breach of Article 102 TFEU, which commenced before the date on which Directive 2014/104 entered into force and ended after the expiry of the transposition period for its implementation, in a situation when the action seeking compensation in respect of harm was also lodged after the expiry of the transposition period, or such that Article 10 of Directive 2014/104 will apply only to the part of the conduct (and the ensuing part of harm) occurring after the date on which Directive 2014/104 entered into force or, as the case may be, after the expiry of the deadline for its transposition? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 21(1) of Directive 2014/104 (1) and general principles of EU law be interpreted such that Directive 2014/104, in particular Article 10 thereof, will apply, directly or indirectly, to the present dispute seeking compensation in respect of all harm caused by a breach of Article 102 TFEU, which commenced before the date on which Directive 2014/104 entered into force and ended after the expiry of the transposition period for its implementation, in a situation when the action seeking compensation in respect of harm was also lodged after the expiry of the transposition period, or such that Article 10 of Directive 2014/104 will apply only to the part of the conduct (and the ensuing part of harm) occurring after the date on which Directive 2014/104 entered into force or, as the case may be, after the expiry of the deadline for its transposition?

| 2. | Do the meaning and purpose of Directive 2014/104 and/or Article 102 TFEU and the principle of effectiveness require Article 22(2) of Directive 2014/104 to be interpreted such that the ‘national measures adopted pursuant to Article 21, other than those referred to in [Article 22,] paragraph 1’ are those provisions of national legislation through which Article 10 of Directive 2014/104 was implemented, in other words, do Article 10 of Directive 2014/104 and the rules on limitation fall within the first or the second paragraph of Article 22 of Directive 2014/104? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Do the meaning and purpose of Directive 2014/104 and/or Article 102 TFEU and the principle of effectiveness require Article 22(2) of Directive 2014/104 to be interpreted such that the ‘national measures adopted pursuant to Article 21, other than those referred to in [Article 22,] paragraph 1’ are those provisions of national legislation through which Article 10 of Directive 2014/104 was implemented, in other words, do Article 10 of Directive 2014/104 and the rules on limitation fall within the first or the second paragraph of Article 22 of Directive 2014/104?

| 3. | Is national legislation and its interpretation in line with Article 10(2) of Directive 2014/104 and/or with Article 102 TFEU and with the principle of effectiveness if it links ‘knowledge of the fact that harm was caused’ — relevant to the commencement of the subjective limitation period — to the awareness of the injured party ‘of individual partial [occurrences of] harm’, which occur over time in the course of continuous or continuing anticompetitive conduct (as case-law is based on the assumption that the claim in question for compensation in respect of harm is, in its entirety, divisible) and in relation to which separate subjective limitation periods start to run regardless of the knowledge of the injured party of the full extent of the harm caused by the entire infringement of Article 102 TFEU, that is, national legislation and its interpretation that allow the limitation period for a claim for compensation in respect of harm caused by anti-competitive conduct to begin to run before the point at which ceased that conduct consisting of more favourable placement and display of one’s own price comparison engine in breach of Article 102 TFEU? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is national legislation and its interpretation in line with Article 10(2) of Directive 2014/104 and/or with Article 102 TFEU and with the principle of effectiveness if it links ‘knowledge of the fact that harm was caused’ — relevant to the commencement of the subjective limitation period — to the awareness of the injured party ‘of individual partial [occurrences of] harm’, which occur over time in the course of continuous or continuing anticompetitive conduct (as case-law is based on the assumption that the claim in question for compensation in respect of harm is, in its entirety, divisible) and in relation to which separate subjective limitation periods start to run regardless of the knowledge of the injured party of the full extent of the harm caused by the entire infringement of Article 102 TFEU, that is, national legislation and its interpretation that allow the limitation period for a claim for compensation in respect of harm caused by anti-competitive conduct to begin to run before the point at which ceased that conduct consisting of more favourable placement and display of one’s own price comparison engine in breach of Article 102 TFEU?

| 4. | Do Article 10(2), (3), and (4) of Directive 2014/104 and/or Article 102 TFEU and the principle of effectiveness preclude national legislation that provides that a subjective limitation period, in the case of actions seeking compensation in respect of harm, is three years and starts to run on the day when the injured party learned or could have learned of partial harm and of the person obliged to compensate for it, but does not take into account (i) the point at which the infringement ceased; (ii) the knowledge of the injured party that the conduct constitutes an infringement of the competition rules and that, at the same time (iii) does not suspend or interrupt the three-year limitation period during the proceedings before the Commission concerning the ongoing infringement of Article 102 TFEU; and (iv) does not contain the rule that the suspension of the limitation period will end no earlier than one year after the decision concerning the infringement has become final? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Do Article 10(2), (3), and (4) of Directive 2014/104 and/or Article 102 TFEU and the principle of effectiveness preclude national legislation that provides that a subjective limitation period, in the case of actions seeking compensation in respect of harm, is three years and starts to run on the day when the injured party learned or could have learned of partial harm and of the person obliged to compensate for it, but does not take into account (i) the point at which the infringement ceased; (ii) the knowledge of the injured party that the conduct constitutes an infringement of the competition rules and that, at the same time (iii) does not suspend or interrupt the three-year limitation period during the proceedings before the Commission concerning the ongoing infringement of Article 102 TFEU; and (iv) does not contain the rule that the suspension of the limitation period will end no earlier than one year after the decision concerning the infringement has become final?

---

(1)  Directive 2014/104/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 November 2014 on certain rules governing actions for damages under national law for infringements of the competition law provisions of the Member States and of the European Union (OJ 2014 L 349, p. 1).

---

| 20.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 513/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 513/23

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Paris (France) lodged on 30 September 2021 — Doctipharma SAS v Union des Groupements de pharmaciens d’officine (UDGPO), Pictime SAS operating under the name ‘Coreyre’

(Case C-606/21)

(2021/C 513/33)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Paris

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Doctipharma SAS

Defendants: Union des Groupements de pharmaciens d’officine (UDGPO), Pictime SAS operating under the name ‘Coreyre’

Questions referred

| — | Is Doctipharma’s activity which is conducted on and from its website www.doctipharma.fr, to be regarded as an ‘information society service’ within the meaning of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998? (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

Is Doctipharma’s activity which is conducted on and from its website www.doctipharma.fr, to be regarded as an ‘information society service’ within the meaning of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998? (1)

| — | If so, does Doctipharma’s activity, which is conducted on and from its website www.doctipharma.fr, fall within the scope of Article 85c of the European Directive of 6 November 2011, (2) as amended by the Directive of 8 June 2011? |
| --- | --- |

—

If so, does Doctipharma’s activity, which is conducted on and from its website www.doctipharma.fr, fall within the scope of Article 85c of the European Directive of 6 November 2011, (2) as amended by the Directive of 8 June 2011?

| — | Is Article 85c of the Directive of 6 November 2001, as amended by the Directive of 8 June 2011, to be interpreted as meaning that the prohibition, based on an interpretation of Articles L. 5125-25 and L. 5125-26 of the Public Health Code, of Doctipharma’s activity, which is conducted on and from its website www.doctipharma.fr, constitutes a restriction justified by public health protection? |
| --- | --- |

—

Is Article 85c of the Directive of 6 November 2001, as amended by the Directive of 8 June 2011, to be interpreted as meaning that the prohibition, based on an interpretation of Articles L. 5125-25 and L. 5125-26 of the Public Health Code, of Doctipharma’s activity, which is conducted on and from its website www.doctipharma.fr, constitutes a restriction justified by public health protection?

| — | If not, is Article 85c of the Directive of 6 November 2011, as amended by the Directive of 8 June 2011, to be interpreted as meaning that it allows Doctipharma’s activity, which is conducted on and from its website www.doctipharma.fr? |
| --- | --- |

—

If not, is Article 85c of the Directive of 6 November 2011, as amended by the Directive of 8 June 2011, to be interpreted as meaning that it allows Doctipharma’s activity, which is conducted on and from its website www.doctipharma.fr?

| — | In that situation, is the prohibition of Doctipharma’s activity, based on the interpretation by the Cour de cassation (Court of Cassation) of Articles L. 5125-25 and L. 5125-26 of the Public Health Code, justified by public health protection within the meaning of Article 85c of the Directive of 6 November 2001, as amended by the Directive of 8 June 2011? |
| --- | --- |

—

In that situation, is the prohibition of Doctipharma’s activity, based on the interpretation by the Cour de cassation (Court of Cassation) of Articles L. 5125-25 and L. 5125-26 of the Public Health Code, justified by public health protection within the meaning of Article 85c of the Directive of 6 November 2001, as amended by the Directive of 8 June 2011?

| — | If not, is Article 85c of the Directive of 6 November 2001, as amended by the Directive of 8 June 2011, to be interpreted as allowing the activity of an ‘information society service’ offered by Doctipharma? |
| --- | --- |

—

If not, is Article 85c of the Directive of 6 November 2001, as amended by the Directive of 8 June 2011, to be interpreted as allowing the activity of an ‘information society service’ offered by Doctipharma?

---

(1)  Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations (OJ 1998 L 204, p. 37).

(2)  Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67).

---

| 20.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 513/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 513/24

---

Action brought on 14 October 2021 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-633/21)

(2021/C 513/34)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Konstantinidis and M. Noll-Ehlers)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| (A) | Declare that the Hellenic Republic:






  — | first, by systematically and consistently exceeding the yearly limit values for nitrogen dioxide with regard to the agglomeration of Athens (EL0003) since 2010, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13 of Directive 2008/50/ΕC, (1) read in conjunction with Annex XI to the directive, |
| --- | --- | --- |

(A)

Declare that the Hellenic Republic:

—

first, by systematically and consistently exceeding the yearly limit values for nitrogen dioxide with regard to the agglomeration of Athens (EL0003) since 2010, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13 of Directive 2008/50/ΕC, (1) read in conjunction with Annex XI to the directive,

| — | second, by failing to adopt, from 11 June 2010, appropriate measures to ensure compliance with the yearly limit value for NO2 in the agglomeration of Athens (EL0003), the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 23(1) of Directive 2008/50/EC (in conjunction with Section A of Annex XV to that directive), and in particular the obligation, laid down in the second subparagraph of Article 23(1) of that directive, to take the necessary measures so that that the duration of the exceedance of limit values is as short as possible. |
| --- | --- |

—

second, by failing to adopt, from 11 June 2010, appropriate measures to ensure compliance with the yearly limit value for NO2 in the agglomeration of Athens (EL0003), the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 23(1) of Directive 2008/50/EC (in conjunction with Section A of Annex XV to that directive), and in particular the obligation, laid down in the second subparagraph of Article 23(1) of that directive, to take the necessary measures so that that the duration of the exceedance of limit values is as short as possible.

| (B) | Order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

(B)

Order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its first plea in law, the Commission submits that Directive 2008/50/EC on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe requires that Member States limit the exposure of citizens to nitrogen dioxide (NO2). The Commission claims that since 2005, when compliance with daily and annual limit values for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) became mandatory, pursuant to Article 13 of Directive 2008/50/EC, the Hellenic Republic, on the basis of the annual air quality reports submitted by it, has failed consistently to ensure compliance with daily limit values in the agglomeration of Athens (EL0003).

By its second plea in law, the Commission claims that the second subparagraph of Article 23(1) of Directive 2008/50/EC imposes a clear and urgent obligation on Member States in the event that limit values are exceeded to adopt air quality plans setting out appropriate measures to ensure that the duration of any exceedance is as short as possible. The Commission submits that the Hellenic Republic failed to draw up an appropriate air quality plan with regard to nitrogen dioxide covering the agglomeration of Athens (EL0003), in breach of its obligation under Article 23(1) of Directive 2008/50/EC.

---

(1)  Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe (OJ 2008 L 152, p. 1).

---

| 20.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 513/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 513/25

---

Order of the President of the Court of 24 September 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 1 de Barcelona — Spain) — HV v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS)

(Case C-258/20) (1)

(2021/C 513/35)

Language of the case: Spanish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 320, 28.9.2020.

---

| 20.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 513/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 513/25

---

Order of the President of the Court of 21 September 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad — Bulgaria) — ‘Banka DSK’ EAD v RP

(Case C-689/20) (1)

(2021/C 513/36)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 88, 15.3.2021.

---

| 20.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 513/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 513/25

---

Order of the President of the Court of 20 September 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg — Austria) — L GmbH v F GmbH, BW, SW

(Case C-336/21) (1)

(2021/C 513/37)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 349, 30.8.2021.

---

General Court

| 20.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 513/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 513/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 September 2021 — T i D kontrolni sistemi v EUIPO –Sigmatron (Signalling apparatuses and devices)

(Case T-503/20) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing signalling apparatuses and devices - Earlier Community design - Ground for invalidity - No individual character - Declaration of invalidity of a prior design - No effect - Disclosure of the earlier design - Informed user - Degree of freedom of the designer - No different overall impression - Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

(2021/C 513/38)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Applicant: T i D kontrolni sistemi EOOD (Varna, Bulgaria) (represented by: P. Priparzhenski, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Sigmatron EOOD (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: A. Kostov, lawyer).

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 April 2020 (Case R 956/2019-3) relating to invalidity proceedings between Sigmatron and T i D kontrolni sistemi.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders T i D kontrolni sistemi EOOD to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders T i D kontrolni sistemi EOOD to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 329, 5.10.2020.

---

| 20.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 513/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 513/26

---

Order of the General Court of 28 October 2021 — Diusa Rendering and Assograssi v Commission

(Case T-201/18) (1)

(Public health - Rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies - Ban on exporting organic fertilisers and soil improvers derived from Category 2 material - Failure by the Commission to initiate the procedure for re-examining the ban - Action for failure to act - Proposal of draft measures putting an end to the failure to act - No need to adjudicate)

(2021/C 513/39)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Diusa Rendering Srl (Piacenza, Italy) and Assograssi — Associazione Nazionale Produttori Grassi e Proteine Animali (Buccinasco, Italy) (represented by: M. Moretto, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Bianchi, W. Farrell and B. Eggers, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 265 TFEU seeking a finding that the Commission unlawfully failed to initiate the procedure provided for in Article 5a of Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission (OJ 1999 L 184, p. 23) so as to re-examine the ban on exporting organic fertilisers and soil improvers derived from Category 2 material laid down by Article 43(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 laying down health rules as regards animal by-products and derived products not intended for human consumption and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 (Animal by-products Regulation) (OJ 2009 L 300, p. 1).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no need to adjudicate on this action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on this action.

| 2. | The European Commission shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Diusa Rendering Srl and Assograssi — Associazione Nazionale Produttori Grassi e Proteine Animali. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Commission shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Diusa Rendering Srl and Assograssi — Associazione Nazionale Produttori Grassi e Proteine Animali.

---

(1)  OJ C 166, 14.5.2018.

---

| 20.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 513/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 513/27

---

Order of the General Court of 25 October 2021 — 4B Company v EUIPO — Deenz (Pendant (jewellery))

(Case T-329/20) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a pendant (jewellery) - Maintenance of the Community design in an amended form - Article 25(6) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility)

(2021/C 513/40)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: 4B Company Srl (Montegiorgio, Italy) (represented by: G. Brogi, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Deenz Holding Ltd (Dubai, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: N. Alberti, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 March 2020 (Case R 2449/2018-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between 4B Company and Deenz Holding.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | 4B Company Srl shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

4B Company Srl shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 247, 27.7.2020.

---

| 20.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 513/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 513/28

---

Order of the General Court of 22 October 2021 — Fachverband Spielhallen and LM v Commission

(Case T-510/20) (1)

(State aid - Tax treatment of operators of public casinos in Germany - Complaint - Preliminary examination stage - Commission decision finding that there is no State aid - Conditions for initiating a formal investigation procedure - Serious difficulties - Concept of ‘State aid’ - Levy on the profits - Advantage - Selectivity - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

(2021/C 513/41)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Fachverband Spielhallen eV (Berlin, Germany) and LM (represented by: A. Bartosch and R. Schmidt, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky and K. Blanck, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: R Kanitz and S. Costanzo, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2019) 8819 final of 9 December 2019 on State aid SA.44944 (2019/C ex 2019/FC) — Tax treatment of public casinos operators in Germany and SA.53552 (2019/C ex 2019/FC) — Alleged guarantee for public casinos operators in Germany (Wirtschaftlichkeitsgarantie), inasmuch as it rejects the complaint lodged by the applicants against the fact that the sums paid by operators of public casinos to the Land of North Rhine-Westphalia (Germany) as a levy on the profits were deductible from the tax bases for the trade tax and the income or corporation tax.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Fachverband Spielhallen eV and LM shall pay, in addition to their own costs, those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Fachverband Spielhallen eV and LM shall pay, in addition to their own costs, those incurred by the European Commission.

| 3. | The Federal Republic of Germany shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Federal Republic of Germany shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 329, 5.10.2020.

---

| 20.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 513/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 513/28

---

Order of the General Court of 22 October 2021 — Equinoccio-Compañía de Comercio Exterior v Commission

(Case T-22/21) (1)

(Action for annulment - Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance - Non-member State - National public procurement - Termination of the contract by the contracting authority - Request for enforcement by the contracting authority of a bank guarantee - Countersignature by the Head of the EU Delegation in the Non-member State or his deputy - Lack of jurisdiction)

(2021/C 513/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Equinoccio-Compañía de Comercio Exterior, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: D. Luff and R. Sciaudone, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Bianchi and T. Van Noyen, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the Commission’s letter of 5 November 2020, with reference GK/Regio.ddg.d. 1(2020)6793282, concerning the enforcement of the bank guarantee requested by the Turkish Ministry of Science, Industry and Technology.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Equinoccio-Compañía de Comercio Exterior, SL shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Equinoccio-Compañía de Comercio Exterior, SL shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 128, 12.4.2021.

---

| 20.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 513/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 513/29

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 25 October 2021 — Troy Chemical Company and Troy v Commission

(Case T-297/21 R)

(Interim measures - Biocidal products - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/348 - Approval of carbendazim as an existing active substance for use in biocidal products of product-types 7 (film preservatives) and 10 (masonry preservatives) - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency)

(2021/C 513/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Troy Chemical Company BV (Delft, Netherlands), Troy Corp. (Florham Park, New Jersey, United States) (represented by: D. Abrahams, H. Widemann and L. Gorywoda, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lindenthal and M. Farley, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking, first, suspension of operation of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/348 of 25 February 2021 approving carbendazim as an existing active substance for use in biocidal products of product-types 7 and 10 (OJ 2021 L 68, p. 174), and, second, the grant of any other interim measures which the General Court considers appropriate.

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.

---

| 20.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 513/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 513/29

---

Action brought on 14 September 2021 — WO v EPPO

(Case T-603/21)

(2021/C 513/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | under Article 270 TFEU, annul the unfounded and illegal decision 028/2021 of the EPPO College on the rejection of the applicant’s candidacy for the function of European Delegated Prosecutor; |
| --- | --- |

—

under Article 270 TFEU, annul the unfounded and illegal decision 028/2021 of the EPPO College on the rejection of the applicant’s candidacy for the function of European Delegated Prosecutor;

| — | order the EPPO to pay the applicant compensation for the violation of his personal data protection, the unfair appointment proceedings and the illegal decision to reject his candidacy to the post of European Delegated Prosecutor. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the EPPO to pay the applicant compensation for the violation of his personal data protection, the unfair appointment proceedings and the illegal decision to reject his candidacy to the post of European Delegated Prosecutor.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is based only on presumptions and lacks proper reasoning. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is based only on presumptions and lacks proper reasoning.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that fictitious information concerning the applicant is contained in the contested decision. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that fictitious information concerning the applicant is contained in the contested decision.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is based on illegally obtained personal data relating to the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is based on illegally obtained personal data relating to the applicant.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s personal data have been violated by the EPPO, including in relation to some data in the decision. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s personal data have been violated by the EPPO, including in relation to some data in the decision.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is linked to and based upon the disciplinary sanction, applied to the applicant more than fifteen years ago. There is no legal system and/or act in the European Union that allows administrative offences/disciplinary misconduct to be considered as relevant after fifteen years have passed. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is linked to and based upon the disciplinary sanction, applied to the applicant more than fifteen years ago. There is no legal system and/or act in the European Union that allows administrative offences/disciplinary misconduct to be considered as relevant after fifteen years have passed.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging that none of the arguments provided by the applicant were taken into account. They were ignored. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that none of the arguments provided by the applicant were taken into account. They were ignored.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging that the appointment procedure has been violated by applying to the applicant additional criteria and by assessing him over a longer period, compared to the other nominees. Thus, the principle of the equal treatment of all nominees was violated. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging that the appointment procedure has been violated by applying to the applicant additional criteria and by assessing him over a longer period, compared to the other nominees. Thus, the principle of the equal treatment of all nominees was violated.

| 8. | Eighth plea in law, alleging that a non-existing legal act was applied to the applicant in the context of the rejection of his candidacy. |
| --- | --- |

8.

Eighth plea in law, alleging that a non-existing legal act was applied to the applicant in the context of the rejection of his candidacy.

| 9. | Ninth plea in law, alleging that the principle of sincere cooperation between the Member State and the EU institution was also violated by the EPPO. The opinion of the Member State institution that nominated the person to the post of the European Delegated Prosecutor was ignored. The EPPO, it is argued, also improperly reassessed the nominated person’s eligibility criteria. |
| --- | --- |

9.

Ninth plea in law, alleging that the principle of sincere cooperation between the Member State and the EU institution was also violated by the EPPO. The opinion of the Member State institution that nominated the person to the post of the European Delegated Prosecutor was ignored. The EPPO, it is argued, also improperly reassessed the nominated person’s eligibility criteria.

---

| 20.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 513/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 513/30

---

Action brought on 27 September 2021 — BZ v ECB

(Case T-631/21)

(2021/C 513/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: BZ (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decisions of the Executive Board of the ECB of 16 March 2021 and 13 July 2021, since they respectively: a) reassessed the applicant’s situation and granted her compensation, ex aequo et bono, of EUR 50 000 to compensate for the harm (including all damages inflicted by the wrongdoings identified in the DG-HR letter of 12 January 2021) caused to her, and b) rejected the special appeal submitted by her on 18 May 2021 against the Executive Board decision of 16 March 2021; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decisions of the Executive Board of the ECB of 16 March 2021 and 13 July 2021, since they respectively: a) reassessed the applicant’s situation and granted her compensation, ex aequo et bono, of EUR 50 000 to compensate for the harm (including all damages inflicted by the wrongdoings identified in the DG-HR letter of 12 January 2021) caused to her, and b) rejected the special appeal submitted by her on 18 May 2021 against the Executive Board decision of 16 March 2021;

| — | order the ECB to pay the applicant:






  — | for violation of Article 8 ECHR regarding the disrespect of the applicant’s private life in its aspects of dignity and professional integrity, compensation of EUR 200 000; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

order the ECB to pay the applicant:

—

for violation of Article 8 ECHR regarding the disrespect of the applicant’s private life in its aspects of dignity and professional integrity, compensation of EUR 200 000;

| — | for violation of Article 8 ECHR regarding the disrespect of the applicant’s private life in its aspects of her right to health, compensation of EUR 130 000; |
| --- | --- |

—

for violation of Article 8 ECHR regarding the disrespect of the applicant’s private life in its aspects of her right to health, compensation of EUR 130 000;

| — | for use of the flawed inquiry report and the annulled ruling in Case F-43/10 by sending these documents to [confidential], moral compensation of EUR 20 000; |
| --- | --- |

—

for use of the flawed inquiry report and the annulled ruling in Case F-43/10 by sending these documents to [confidential], moral compensation of EUR 20 000;

| — | for income loss, the amount to be calculated following the result of the pending Case T-500/16; |
| --- | --- |

—

for income loss, the amount to be calculated following the result of the pending Case T-500/16;

| — | for destruction of the inquiry files, moral compensation of EUR 20 000; |
| --- | --- |

—

for destruction of the inquiry files, moral compensation of EUR 20 000;

| — | for the delay in her appraisal and in the Annual Salary and Bonus Review (ASBR) procedure decision for the year 2007, covering the period from 2007 to 2021, moral compensation of EUR 52 000; |
| --- | --- |

—

for the delay in her appraisal and in the Annual Salary and Bonus Review (ASBR) procedure decision for the year 2007, covering the period from 2007 to 2021, moral compensation of EUR 52 000;

| — | for the moral and material damage resulting from the lack of appraisal and of an ASBR decision, compensation of EUR 150 000; |
| --- | --- |

—

for the moral and material damage resulting from the lack of appraisal and of an ASBR decision, compensation of EUR 150 000;

| — | for the definitive loss of chance resulting from the lack of a new inquiry (moral and material damages), compensation of EUR 700 000. |
| --- | --- |

—

for the definitive loss of chance resulting from the lack of a new inquiry (moral and material damages), compensation of EUR 700 000.

| — | order the ECB to pay its costs as well as the applicant’s costs for the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the ECB to pay its costs as well as the applicant’s costs for the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Executive Board decision of 16 March 2021 is vitiated by a number of errors in fact and in law and that Article 8.2.1 of the ECB Staff Rules and Article 42 of the ECB Conditions of Employment were distorted and misapplied. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Executive Board decision of 16 March 2021 is vitiated by a number of errors in fact and in law and that Article 8.2.1 of the ECB Staff Rules and Article 42 of the ECB Conditions of Employment were distorted and misapplied.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging violation of Article 266 TFEU, including the failure to: a) provide due compensation of the damages suffered and not compensation defined by equity (notably ex aequo et bono); b) compensate the applicant duly for all disadvantages/damages, including compensation for the loss of chance caused by the fact that the ECB is unable to redo the inquiry and also according to the principle of proportionality and non-discrimination; and c) remedy the past effects of the annulled decisions. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging violation of Article 266 TFEU, including the failure to: a) provide due compensation of the damages suffered and not compensation defined by equity (notably ex aequo et bono); b) compensate the applicant duly for all disadvantages/damages, including compensation for the loss of chance caused by the fact that the ECB is unable to redo the inquiry and also according to the principle of proportionality and non-discrimination; and c) remedy the past effects of the annulled decisions.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging breach of the principles of transparency and good administration and of Articles 41, 42 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and a violation of the principles of legal certainty and right to action. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging breach of the principles of transparency and good administration and of Articles 41, 42 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and a violation of the principles of legal certainty and right to action.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the duty of care, staff welfare and of Articles 21 and 31 of Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the duty of care, staff welfare and of Articles 21 and 31 of Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the statement of reasons is not well founded. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the statement of reasons is not well founded.

---

| 20.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 513/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 513/32

---

Action brought on 25 October 2021 — energy cake v EUIPO — Foodtastic (ENERGY CAKE)

(Case T-686/21)

(2021/C 513/46)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: energy cake GmbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: A. Bernegger, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Foodtastic GmbH (Dortmund, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘ENERGY CAKE’ — European Union trade mark No 14 808 935

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 August 2021 in Case R 2324/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 59(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 59(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

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

---

| 20.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 513/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 513/32

---

Action brought on 25 October 2021 — BNP Paribas Public Sector v SRB

(Case T-688/21)

(2021/C 513/47)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: BNP Paribas Public Sector SA (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Champsaur and A. Delors, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul, on the basis of Articles 256 and 263 TFEU, the SRB’s decision of 13 August 2021 bearing the reference srb.e.e4.co(2021)570897, in so far as it refused to return the sums corresponding to the cash collateral relating to the irrevocable payment commitments for the years 2015 to 2021, in breach of Article 7(3) of Implementing Regulation 2015/81; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, on the basis of Articles 256 and 263 TFEU, the SRB’s decision of 13 August 2021 bearing the reference srb.e.e4.co(2021)570897, in so far as it refused to return the sums corresponding to the cash collateral relating to the irrevocable payment commitments for the years 2015 to 2021, in breach of Article 7(3) of Implementing Regulation 2015/81;

| — | under the 2016-2021 contracts and on the basis of Articles 272 and 340 TFEU:






  — | declare that the SRB has, by refusing to return the sums corresponding to the cash collateral relating to the irrevocable payment commitments for the years 2016 (inclusive) to 2021 (inclusive), breached its restitution obligation under Clause 12.5 of the Contracts for the contribution periods 2016 to 2021, which expressly provides for applying Article 7(3) of Implementing Regulation 2015/81, and |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

under the 2016-2021 contracts and on the basis of Articles 272 and 340 TFEU:

—

declare that the SRB has, by refusing to return the sums corresponding to the cash collateral relating to the irrevocable payment commitments for the years 2016 (inclusive) to 2021 (inclusive), breached its restitution obligation under Clause 12.5 of the Contracts for the contribution periods 2016 to 2021, which expressly provides for applying Article 7(3) of Implementing Regulation 2015/81, and

| — | order the SRB to return to the applicant the sums corresponding to the cash collateral retained by the SRB in breach of its contractual obligations, together with all costs, default interest and incidental expenses of any kind (or, in the alternative, to pay the applicant such sums by way of damages for breach of those contracts); |
| --- | --- |

—

order the SRB to return to the applicant the sums corresponding to the cash collateral retained by the SRB in breach of its contractual obligations, together with all costs, default interest and incidental expenses of any kind (or, in the alternative, to pay the applicant such sums by way of damages for breach of those contracts);

| — | principally, in respect of the 2015 contract and, in the alternative, in respect of the 2016-2021 contracts, on the basis of the SRB’s non-contractual liability and Article 340 TFEU:






  — | declare that the SRB’s refusal to return the sums corresponding to the cash collateral relating to the irrevocable payment commitments for the years 2015 to 2021 (inclusive) constitutes unjust enrichment, and |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

principally, in respect of the 2015 contract and, in the alternative, in respect of the 2016-2021 contracts, on the basis of the SRB’s non-contractual liability and Article 340 TFEU:

—

declare that the SRB’s refusal to return the sums corresponding to the cash collateral relating to the irrevocable payment commitments for the years 2015 to 2021 (inclusive) constitutes unjust enrichment, and

| — | order the SRB to return to the applicant those sums, unlawfully retained by the SRB, together with all related costs, default interest and incidental expenses; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the SRB to return to the applicant those sums, unlawfully retained by the SRB, together with all related costs, default interest and incidental expenses;

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

—

order the SRB to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 7(3) of Implementing Regulation No 2015/81 (1) and the SRM Regulation, on the ground that the SRB’s decision infringes Article 7(3) of Implementing Regulation No 2015/81, which expressly provides that the irrevocable payment commitments of institutions that no longer fall within the scope of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 (2) are cancelled and collateral backing those commitments is returned. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 7(3) of Implementing Regulation No 2015/81 (1) and the SRM Regulation, on the ground that the SRB’s decision infringes Article 7(3) of Implementing Regulation No 2015/81, which expressly provides that the irrevocable payment commitments of institutions that no longer fall within the scope of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 (2) are cancelled and collateral backing those commitments is returned.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the SRB erred in law by purporting to apply Article 70(4) of the MRU Regulation to irrevocable payment commitments, even though that article relates solely to ex ante cash contributions, and that the SRB confuses cash contributions with cash collateral relating to irrevocable payment commitments. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the SRB erred in law by purporting to apply Article 70(4) of the MRU Regulation to irrevocable payment commitments, even though that article relates solely to ex ante cash contributions, and that the SRB confuses cash contributions with cash collateral relating to irrevocable payment commitments.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the contractual provisions binding the applicant to the SRB, which renders the latter contractually liable. The applicant submits that the SRB’s refusal to return the sums corresponding to the cash collateral relating to the irrevocable payment commitments for the years 2016 to 2021 constitutes a breach of that contract.
  The applicant also raises a plea in law in the alternative in respect of the 2016-2021 contracts. In that regard, it submits that the SRB’s refusal to return the sums corresponding to the cash collateral relating to the irrevocable payment commitments for the years 2015 to 2021 constitutes unjust enrichment of the SRB. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the contractual provisions binding the applicant to the SRB, which renders the latter contractually liable. The applicant submits that the SRB’s refusal to return the sums corresponding to the cash collateral relating to the irrevocable payment commitments for the years 2016 to 2021 constitutes a breach of that contract.

The applicant also raises a plea in law in the alternative in respect of the 2016-2021 contracts. In that regard, it submits that the SRB’s refusal to return the sums corresponding to the cash collateral relating to the irrevocable payment commitments for the years 2015 to 2021 constitutes unjust enrichment of the SRB.

---

(1)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/81 of 19 December 2014 specifying uniform conditions of application of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (OJ 2015 L 15, p. 1).

(2)  Regulation EU No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ 2014 L 225, p. 1).

---

| 20.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 513/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 513/34

---

Action brought on 22 October 2021 — Auken and Others v Commission

(Case T-689/21)

(2021/C 513/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Margrete Auken, Tilly Metz, Jutta Paulus, Michèle Rivasi and Kimberly van Sparrentak (represented by: B. Kloostra, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul the defendant’s implied rejection decision of 13 August 2021 following their confirmatory application of 30 June 2021 against the decision of 9 June 2021 to partially deny access to the documents requested by the applicants; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the defendant’s implied rejection decision of 13 August 2021 following their confirmatory application of 30 June 2021 against the decision of 9 June 2021 to partially deny access to the documents requested by the applicants; and

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the defendant unlawfully applied the exceptions provided for in the first indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1). |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant unlawfully applied the exceptions provided for in the first indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1).

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant has failed to justify the application of exceptions under Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and therefore violated Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 as no strict interpretation and application of the first indent of Article 4(2) and of Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) 1049/2001 was followed by the defendant. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant has failed to justify the application of exceptions under Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and therefore violated Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 as no strict interpretation and application of the first indent of Article 4(2) and of Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) 1049/2001 was followed by the defendant.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant incoherently applied the exceptions provided for in the first indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant incoherently applied the exceptions provided for in the first indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant did not take into account that there is an overriding public interest in the disclosure of the requested information. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant did not take into account that there is an overriding public interest in the disclosure of the requested information.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates Article 52(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and Article 10(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates Article 52(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and Article 10(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

---

(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. 43-48).

---

| 20.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 513/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 513/35

---

Action brought on 25 October 2021 — LW Capital v Commission

(Case T-690/21)

(2021/C 513/49)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: LW Capital (Munich, Germany) (represented by: C. Ziegler, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | partially annul the Commission’s Decision of 3 June 2021 on State aid SA.56826 (2020/N) — Germany — [2020 reform of support for cogeneration] (Reform of the German Combined Heat and Power Generation Act 2020 (‘KWKG’)) and State aid SA.53308 (2019/N) — Germany — Change of support to existing CHP plants 2019 (§ 13 KWKG) (OJ 2021 C 306, pp. 1 and 2), to the extent that it does not raise concerns in respect of (i) the support of CHP electricity generation in new, modernised and retrofitted high-efficiency CHP installations and (ii) the support of CHP electricity generation in existing highly efficient gas-fired CHP installations in the district heating sector; |
| --- | --- |

—

partially annul the Commission’s Decision of 3 June 2021 on State aid SA.56826 (2020/N) — Germany — [2020 reform of support for cogeneration] (Reform of the German Combined Heat and Power Generation Act 2020 (‘KWKG’)) and State aid SA.53308 (2019/N) — Germany — Change of support to existing CHP plants 2019 (§ 13 KWKG) (OJ 2021 C 306, pp. 1 and 2), to the extent that it does not raise concerns in respect of (i) the support of CHP electricity generation in new, modernised and retrofitted high-efficiency CHP installations and (ii) the support of CHP electricity generation in existing highly efficient gas-fired CHP installations in the district heating sector;

| — | order the Commission to bear its own costs and, in addition, to pay the costs incurred by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to bear its own costs and, in addition, to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

By its single plea, the applicant challenges the decision at issue for ‘infringement of the Treaties or of any rule of law relating to their application’ within the meaning of the fourth paragraph read in conjunction with the second paragraph of Article 263 TFEU. That infringement consists in the fact that the Commission should have had concerns in relation to the compatibility of the KWKG 2020 aid scheme proposed by Germany and would therefore have been under an obligation to open the formal investigation procedure in accordance with Article 108(2) TFEU. As the Commission failed to act, it infringed the procedural rights of the applicant.

The applicant alleges the infringement of procedural rights under Article 108(2) in conjunction with the infringement of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU and infringements of the principles of non-discrimination, proportionality and legitimate expectations, as well as an error of assessment of the facts.

---

| 20.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 513/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 513/35

---

Action brought on 27 October 2021 — Alcogroup and Alcodis v Commission

(Case T-691/21)

(2021/C 513/50)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Alcogroup (Brussels, Belgium) and Alcodis (Brussels) (represented by: P. de Bandt, C. Binet and M. Nuytten, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order the Commission to pay all the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action against the Commission’s decision of 17 September 2021, requesting the applicants to reinitiate, under certain conditions, the settlement procedure in Case AT.40054 — Ethanol Benchmarks, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of the rules applicable to settlements. The applicants claim in that regard that, by adopting the contested decision requesting the applicants to reinitiate a settlement procedure under certain conditions, the Commission infringed the rules applicable to settlements. The applicable rules do not allow the Commission, on the one hand, to reopen a settlement procedure at that stage of the procedure and, on the other hand, to do so by requiring the applicants to cease all discussions as to the facts alleged against them. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the rules applicable to settlements. The applicants claim in that regard that, by adopting the contested decision requesting the applicants to reinitiate a settlement procedure under certain conditions, the Commission infringed the rules applicable to settlements. The applicable rules do not allow the Commission, on the one hand, to reopen a settlement procedure at that stage of the procedure and, on the other hand, to do so by requiring the applicants to cease all discussions as to the facts alleged against them.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence. The applicants submit that the Commission cannot make the opening of a new settlement procedure subject to the condition that they abandon the arguments made by them in the ordinary procedure following the failure of the first settlement procedure. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence. The applicants submit that the Commission cannot make the opening of a new settlement procedure subject to the condition that they abandon the arguments made by them in the ordinary procedure following the failure of the first settlement procedure.

---

| 20.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 513/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 513/36

---

Order of the General Court of 20 October 2021 — Diageo and Others v Commission

(Case T-473/19) (1)

(2021/C 513/51)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 312, 16.9.2019.

---

| 20.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 513/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 513/36

---

Order of the General Court of 20 October 2021 — AstraZeneca and Others v Commission

(Case T-476/19) (1)

(2021/C 513/52)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 312, 16.9.2019.

---

| 20.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 513/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 513/36

---

Order of the General Court of 27 October 2021 — Teva v Commission and EMA

(Case T-628/19) (1)

(2021/C 513/53)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 383, 11.11.2019.

---

| 20.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 513/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 513/37

---

Order of the General Court of 26 October 2021 — Puma v EUIPO — Caterpillar (SPEEDCAT)

(Case T-515/20) (1)

(2021/C 513/54)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 329, 5.10.2020.

---

| 20.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 513/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 513/37

---

Order of the General Court of 28 October 2021 — TrekStor v EUIPO (e.Gear)

(Case T-708/20) (1)

(2021/C 513/55)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 28, 25.1.2021.

---