# Official Journal C 297/7 Se

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 297 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 637 September 2020 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 297

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 637 September 2020

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2020/C 297/01 | Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union | 1 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

2020/C 297/01

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

Official Journal of the European Union

1

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2020/C 297/02 | Case C-378/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 July 2020 — Inclusion Alliance for Europe GEIE v European Commission (Appeal — Arbitration clause — Grant agreements concluded in the context of the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) and of the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (2007-2013) — MARE, Senior and ECRN projects — Commission decision to recover sums unduly paid — Jurisdiction of the EU judicature) | 2 |
| 2020/C 297/03 | Case C-517/17: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Milkiyas Addis v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Asylum policy — Common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection — Directive 2013/32/EU — Articles 14 and 34 — Obligation to give applicants for international protection the opportunity of a personal interview before the adoption of a decision declaring the application to be inadmissible — Failure to comply with that obligation in the procedure at first instance — Consequences) | 2 |
| 2020/C 297/04 | Case C-584/17 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 July 2020 — ADR Center SpA v European Commission (Appeal — Arbitration clause — Grant agreements concluded in the context of the Specific Programme Civil Justice for the period 2007-2013 — Audit reports questioning the eligibility of certain costs — European Commission decision to recover unduly paid sums — Article 299 TFEU — Power of the Commission to adopt an enforceable decision within contractual relationships — Jurisdiction of the EU judicature — Effective judicial protection) | 3 |
| 2020/C 297/05 | Case C-311/18: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) — Ireland) — Data Protection Commissioner v Facebook Ireland Ltd, Maximillian Schrems (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Articles 7, 8 and 47 — Regulation (EU) 2016/679 — Article 2(2) — Scope — Transfers of personal data to third countries for commercial purposes — Article 45 — Commission adequacy decision — Article 46 — Transfers subject to appropriate safeguards — Article 58 — Powers of the supervisory authorities — Processing of the data transferred by the public authorities of a third country for national security purposes — Assessment of the adequacy of the level of protection in the third country — Decision 2010/87/EU — Protective standard clauses on the transfer of personal data to third countries — Suitable safeguards provided by the data controller — Validity — Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/1250 — Adequacy of the protection provided by the EU-US Privacy Shield — Validity — Complaint by a natural person whose data was transferred from the European Union to the United States) | 4 |
| 2020/C 297/06 | Case C-549/18: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 July 2020 — European Commission v Romania (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 258 TFEU — Prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing — Directive (EU) 2015/849 — Failure to transpose and/or to notify transposition measures — Article 260(3) TFEU — Application for an order to pay a lump sum) | 5 |
| 2020/C 297/07 | Case C-550/18: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 July 2020 — European Commission v Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 258 TFEU — Prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing — Directive (EU) 2015/849 — Failure to transpose and/or to notify transposition measures — Article 260(3) TFEU — Application for an order to pay a lump sum) | 6 |
| 2020/C 297/08 | Case C-606/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 July 2020 — Nexans France SAS, Nexans SA v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Cartels — European market for submarine and underground power cables — Market allocation in connection with projects — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 20 — European Commission’s powers of inspection in cartel proceedings — Power to copy data without a prior examination and to examine the data subsequently at the Commission’s premises — Fines — Unlimited jurisdiction) | 6 |
| 2020/C 297/09 | Case C-610/18: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep — Netherlands) — AFMB Ltd and Others v Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Migrant workers — Social security — Legislation applicable — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Article 14(2)(a) — Concept of person who is a member of the travelling personnel of an undertaking — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Article 13(1)(b) — Concept of employer — Long-distance lorry drivers normally employed in one or more Member States or States of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) — Long distance lorry drivers who have entered into an employment contract with one undertaking but are in fact subject to the authority of another undertaking established in the Member State where those drivers reside — Determination of which undertaking is the employer) | 7 |
| 2020/C 297/10 | Case C-658/18: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di pace di Bologna — Italy) — UX v Governo della Repubblica italiana (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Article 267 TFEU — Definition of court or tribunal of a Member State — Criteria — Social policy — Directive 2003/88/EC — Scope — Article 7 — Paid annual leave — Directive 1999/70/EC — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Clauses 2 and 3 — Concept of fixed-term worker — Magistrates and ordinary judges — Difference in treatment — Clause 4 — Principle of non-discrimination — Concept of objective grounds) | 8 |
| 2020/C 297/11 | Case C-686/18: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — OC and Others, Adusbef, Federconsumatori, PB and Others, QA and Others v Banca d’Italia, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Article 63 et seq. TFEU — Free movement of capital — Article 107 et seq. TFEU — State aid — Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Freedom to conduct a business — Right to property — Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 — Prudential requirements applicable to credit institutions and investment firms — Article 29 — Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 — Article 6(4) — Prudential supervision of credit institutions — Conferral of specific tasks on the European Central Bank (ECB) — Delegated Regulation (EU) No 241/2014 — Regulatory technical standards for Own Funds requirements for institutions — National regulation imposing an asset threshold on people’s banks established as cooperative societies and allowing the right to redeem shares by the withdrawing shareholder to be limited) | 9 |
| 2020/C 297/12 | Case C-714/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 July 2020 — ACTC GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Taiga AB (Appeal — EU trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Application for registration of EU word mark tigha — Opposition filed by the proprietor of the earlier EU trade mark TAIGA — Partial dismissal of the application for registration — Article 8(1)(b) — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Assessment of the conceptual similarity of the signs at issue — Article 42(2) — Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark — Proof of use in relation to part ... of the goods or services — Determination of an independent subcategory of goods) | 10 |
| 2020/C 297/13 | Case C-771/18: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 16 July 2020 — European Commission v Hungary (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Internal markets in electricity and natural gas — Electricity and natural gas transmission systems — Conditions for access — Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 — Article 14(1) — Regulation (EC) No 715/2009 — Article 13(1) — Costs — Setting the charges for network access — Directive 2009/72/EC — Article 37(17) — Directive 2009/73/EC — Article 41(17) — Domestic remedies — Principle of effective judicial protection) | 10 |
| 2020/C 297/14 | Case C-73/19: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Belgische Staat, represented by the Minister van Werk, Economie en Consumenten, belast met de Buitenlandse handel, and by the Directeur-Generaal van de Algemene Directie Controle en Bemiddeling van de FOD Economie, K.M.O., Middenstand en Energie, now Algemene Directie Economische Inspectie, Directeur-Generaal van de Algemene Directie Controle en Bemiddeling van de FOD Economie, K.M.O., Middenstand en Energie, now Algemene Directie Economische Inspectie v Movic BV, Events Belgium BV, Leisure Tickets & Activities International BV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Article 1(1) — Scope — Concept of civil and commercial matters — Action for the cessation of unfair commercial practices brought by a public authority to protect the interests of consumers) | 11 |
| 2020/C 297/15 | Case C-80/19: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas — Lithuania) — Proceedings brought by E. E. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 — Scope — Definition of succession with cross-border implications — Definition of habitual residence of the deceased — Article 3(2) — Definition of court — Whether notaries are subject to the rules of international jurisdiction — Article 3(1)(g) and (i) — Definitions of decision and authentic instrument — Articles 5, 7 and 22 — Agreement on the choice of court and the law applicable to the succession — Article 83(2) and (4) — Transitional provisions) | 12 |
| 2020/C 297/16 | Case C-97/19: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finance Court Düsseldorf — Germany) — Pfeifer & Langen GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt Köln (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs Code — Customs declarations — Article 78 of that code — Revision of the customs declaration — Name of the declarant — Amendment of information relating to the identity of the declarant seeking to show that there is a relationship of indirect representation — Indirect representation of the person who has obtained an import licence) | 13 |
| 2020/C 297/17 | Case C-129/19: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri v BV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2004/80/EC — Article 12(2) — National schemes on compensation to victims of violent intentional crime guaranteeing fair and appropriate compensation — Scope — Victim residing in the Member State in which the violent intentional crime was committed — Obligation for the national compensation scheme to cover that victim — Concept of fair and appropriate compensation — Liability of Member States in the event of a breach of EU law) | 13 |
| 2020/C 297/18 | Joined Cases C-133/19, C-136/19 and C-137/19: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 July 2020 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — Belgium) — B. M. M. (C-133/19 and C-136/19), B. S. (C-133/19), B. M. (C-136/19), B. M. O. (C-137/19) v État belge (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Immigration policy — Right to family reunification — Directive 2003/86/EC — Article 4(1) — Concept of a minor child — Article 24(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Best interests of the child — Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Right to an effective remedy — Children of the sponsor who have reached majority during the decision-making procedure or court proceedings against the decision refusing the family reunification application) | 14 |
| 2020/C 297/19 | Joined Cases C-224/19 and C-259/19: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 July 2020 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 17 de Palma de Mallorca, Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción de Ceuta — Spain) — CY v Caixabank SA (C-224/19), LG, PK v Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria SA (C-259/19) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Articles 6 and 7 — Consumer contracts — Mortgage loans — Unfair terms — Term charging all of the costs of creating and cancelling a mortgage to the borrower — Effects of a declaration that those terms are void — Powers of the national court when dealing with a term considered to be unfair — Award of costs — Application of national supplementary provisions — Article 3(1) — Assessment of the unfairness of contractual terms — Article 4(2) — Exclusion of terms relating to the main subject matter of the contract or the adequacy of the price and the remuneration — Condition — Article 5 — Obligation to draft contractual terms in plain, intelligible language — Costs — Limitation — Principle of effectiveness) | 15 |
| 2020/C 297/20 | Case C-249/19: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul București — Romania) — JE v KF (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EU) No 1259/2010 — Enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation — Uniform rules — Article 10 — Application of the law of the forum) | 16 |
| 2020/C 297/21 | Case C-253/19: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 16 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Guimarães — Portugal) — MH, NI v OJ, Novo Banco SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Insolvency proceedings — Regulation (UE) 2015/848 — Article 3 — International jurisdiction — Centre of a debtor’s main interests — Individual not exercising an independent business or professional activity — Rebuttable presumption that the centre of that person’s main interests is his or her habitual residence — Rebuttal of the presumption — Situation in which the debtor’s sole immovable asset is located outside the Member State of habitual residence) | 16 |
| 2020/C 297/22 | Case C-411/19: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — WWF Italia o.n.l.u.s. and Others v Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Azienda Nazionale Autonoma Strade SpA (ANAS) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Directive 92/43/EEC — Article 6 — Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora — Special areas of conservation — Construction of a road section — Assessment of the impact of that project on the special area of conservation concerned — Authorisation — Imperative reasons of overriding public interest) | 17 |
| 2020/C 297/23 | Case C-424/19: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București — Romania) — Cabinet de avocat UR v Administraţia Sector 3 a Finanţelor Publice prin Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Bucureşti, Administraţia Sector 3 a Finanţelor Publice, MJ, NK (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2006/112/EC — Value added tax (VAT) — Article 9(1) — Concept of taxable person — Person practising the profession of lawyer — Final judicial decision — Principle of res judicata — Scope of that principle if that decision is incompatible with EU law) | 18 |
| 2020/C 297/24 | Case C-496/19: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria regionale della Campania — Italy) — Antonio Capaldo SpA v Agenzia delle dogane e dei monopoli — Ufficio delle dogane di Salerno (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs Union — Community Customs Code — Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 — Examination of goods — Application for revision of a customs declaration — Post-clearance examination) | 19 |
| 2020/C 297/25 | Case C-686/19: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) — Latvia) — SIA Soho Group v Patērētāju tiesību aizsardzības centrs (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Credit agreements for consumers — Directive 2008/48/EC — Concept of total cost of the credit to the consumer — Costs for extending the credit) | 19 |
| 2020/C 297/26 | Case C-436/19 P: Appeal brought on 6 June 2019 by Abaco Energy SA and Others against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 25 March 2019 in Case T-186/18, Abaco Energy and Others v Commission | 20 |
| 2020/C 297/27 | Case C-176/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia (Romania) lodged on 7 April 2020 — SC Avio Lucos SRL v Agenția de Plăți și Intervenție pentru Agricultură — Centrul Județean Dolj, Agenția de Plăți și Intervenție pentru Agricultură (APIA) — Aparat Central | 20 |
| 2020/C 297/28 | Case C-179/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București (Romania) lodged on 7 April 2020 — Fondul Proprietatea SA v Guvernul României, SC Complexul Energetic Hunedoara SA, in liquidation, Compania Națională de Transport al Energiei Electrice Transelectrica SA, SC Complexul Energetic Oltenia SA | 21 |
| 2020/C 297/29 | Case C-182/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Suceava (Romania) lodged on 23 April 2020 — BE, DT v Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Suceava, Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Iași, Accer Ipurl Suceva — lichidator judiciar al BE, EP | 22 |
| 2020/C 297/30 | Case C-217/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Overijssel (Netherlands) lodged on 25 May 2020 — XXXX v Staatssecretaris van Financiën | 22 |
| 2020/C 297/31 | Case C-218/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from Tribunalul Mureș (Romania) lodged on 27 May 2020 — Sindicatul Lucrătorilor din Transporturi, TD v SC Samidani Trans SRL | 23 |
| 2020/C 297/32 | Case C-225/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Constanța (Romania) lodged on 29 May 2020 — Euro Delta Danube SRL v Agenția de Plăți și Intervenție pentru Agricultură — Centrul Județean Tulcea | 23 |
| 2020/C 297/33 | Case C-233/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 4 June 2020 — WD v job-medium GmbH in liquidation | 24 |
| 2020/C 297/34 | Case C-237/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 5 June 2020 — Federatie Nederlandse Vakbeweging v Heiploeg Seafood International BV, Heitrans International BV | 25 |
| 2020/C 297/35 | Case C-241/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance du Luxembourg (Belgium) lodged on 5 June 2020 — BJ v État belge | 26 |
| 2020/C 297/36 | Case C-245/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the rechtbank Midden-Nederland (Netherlands) lodged on 29 May 2020 — X, Z v Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens | 27 |
| 2020/C 297/37 | Case C-246/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg Oost-Vlaanderen, afdeling Gent (Belgium) lodged on 3 June 2020 — Openbaar Ministerie v EA | 28 |
| 2020/C 297/38 | Case C-251/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 10 June 2020 — Gtflix Tv v DR | 28 |
| 2020/C 297/39 | Case C-253/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 9 June 2020 — Impexeco NV v Novartis AG | 29 |
| 2020/C 297/40 | Case C-254/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 9 June 2020 — PI Pharma NV v Novartis AG, Novartis Pharma NV | 29 |
| 2020/C 297/41 | Case C-269/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 18 June 2020 — Finanzamt T v S | 30 |
| 2020/C 297/42 | Case C-274/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di pace di Massa (Italy) lodged on 19 June 2020 — GN and WX v Prefettura di Massa Carrara — Ufficio Territoriale del Governo di Massa Carrara | 31 |
| 2020/C 297/43 | Case C-283/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail francophone de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 25 June 2020 — CO, ME, GC and 42 Others v MJ, European Commission, European External Action Service, Council of the European Union, Eulex Kosovo | 32 |
| 2020/C 297/44 | Case C-288/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judiciaire — Bobigny (France) lodged on 30 June 2020 — BNP Paribas Personal Finance SA v ZD | 32 |
| 2020/C 297/45 | Case C-289/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Paris (France) lodged on 30 June 2020 — IB v FA | 34 |
| 2020/C 297/46 | Case C-290/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Satversmes tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 30 June 2020 — AS Latvijas Gāze v Latvijas Republikas Saeima, Sabiedrisko pakalpojumu regulēšanas komisija | 34 |
| 2020/C 297/47 | Case C-299/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 6 July 2020 — Icade Promotion Logement SAS v Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes Publiques | 35 |
| 2020/C 297/48 | Case C-328/20: Action brought on 22 July 2020 — European Commission v Republic of Austria | 36 |
| 2020/C 297/49 | Case C-331/20 P: Appeal brought on 22 July 2020 by Volotea, SA against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 13 May 2020 in Case T-607/17, Volotea v Commission | 37 |
| 2020/C 297/50 | Case C-343/20 P: Appeal brought on 23 July 2020 by easyJet Airline Co. Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 13 May 2020 in Case T-8/18, easyJet Airline v Commission | 38 |
| | General Court |
| 2020/C 297/51 | Case T-371/20: Action brought on 15 June 2020 — Pollinis France v Commission | 39 |
| 2020/C 297/52 | Case T-381/20: Action brought on 20 June 2020 — Datax v REA | 39 |
| 2020/C 297/53 | Case T-392/20: Action brought on 19 June 2020 — Flašker v Commission | 40 |
| 2020/C 297/54 | Case T-404/20: Action brought on 27 June 2020 — Global Translation Solutions v Commission | 41 |
| 2020/C 297/55 | Case T-415/20: Action brought on 3 July 2020 — KT v EIB | 42 |
| 2020/C 297/56 | Case T-425/20: Action brought on 3 July 2020 — KU v EEAS | 43 |
| 2020/C 297/57 | Case T-435/20: Action brought on 7 July 2020 — JR v Commission | 44 |
| 2020/C 297/58 | Case T-440/20: Action brought on 10 July 2020 — Jindal Saw and Jindal Saw Italia v Commission | 44 |
| 2020/C 297/59 | Case T-441/20: Action brought on 10 July 2020 — Jindal Saw and Jindal Saw Italia v Commission | 45 |
| 2020/C 297/60 | Case T-442/20: Action brought on 13 July 2020 — Grangé and Van Strydonck v EUIPO — Nema (âme) | 46 |
| 2020/C 297/61 | Case T-443/20: Action brought on 13 July 2020 — Sanford v EUIPO — Avery Zweckform (Labels) | 46 |
| 2020/C 297/62 | Case T-457/20: Action brought on 13 July 2020 — VeriGraft v EASME | 47 |
| 2020/C 297/63 | Case T-464/20: Action brought on 21 July 2020 — Eggy Food v EUIPO (YOUR DAILY PROTEIN) | 48 |
| 2020/C 297/64 | Case T-474/20: Action brought on 24 July 2020 — LD v Commission | 48 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2020/C 297/02

Case C-378/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 July 2020 — Inclusion Alliance for Europe GEIE v European Commission (Appeal — Arbitration clause — Grant agreements concluded in the context of the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) and of the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (2007-2013) — MARE, Senior and ECRN projects — Commission decision to recover sums unduly paid — Jurisdiction of the EU judicature)

2

2020/C 297/03

Case C-517/17: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Milkiyas Addis v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Asylum policy — Common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection — Directive 2013/32/EU — Articles 14 and 34 — Obligation to give applicants for international protection the opportunity of a personal interview before the adoption of a decision declaring the application to be inadmissible — Failure to comply with that obligation in the procedure at first instance — Consequences)

2

2020/C 297/04

Case C-584/17 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 July 2020 — ADR Center SpA v European Commission (Appeal — Arbitration clause — Grant agreements concluded in the context of the Specific Programme Civil Justice for the period 2007-2013 — Audit reports questioning the eligibility of certain costs — European Commission decision to recover unduly paid sums — Article 299 TFEU — Power of the Commission to adopt an enforceable decision within contractual relationships — Jurisdiction of the EU judicature — Effective judicial protection)

3

2020/C 297/05

Case C-311/18: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) — Ireland) — Data Protection Commissioner v Facebook Ireland Ltd, Maximillian Schrems (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Articles 7, 8 and 47 — Regulation (EU) 2016/679 — Article 2(2) — Scope — Transfers of personal data to third countries for commercial purposes — Article 45 — Commission adequacy decision — Article 46 — Transfers subject to appropriate safeguards — Article 58 — Powers of the supervisory authorities — Processing of the data transferred by the public authorities of a third country for national security purposes — Assessment of the adequacy of the level of protection in the third country — Decision 2010/87/EU — Protective standard clauses on the transfer of personal data to third countries — Suitable safeguards provided by the data controller — Validity — Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/1250 — Adequacy of the protection provided by the EU-US Privacy Shield — Validity — Complaint by a natural person whose data was transferred from the European Union to the United States)

4

2020/C 297/06

Case C-549/18: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 July 2020 — European Commission v Romania (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 258 TFEU — Prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing — Directive (EU) 2015/849 — Failure to transpose and/or to notify transposition measures — Article 260(3) TFEU — Application for an order to pay a lump sum)

5

2020/C 297/07

Case C-550/18: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 July 2020 — European Commission v Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 258 TFEU — Prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing — Directive (EU) 2015/849 — Failure to transpose and/or to notify transposition measures — Article 260(3) TFEU — Application for an order to pay a lump sum)

6

2020/C 297/08

Case C-606/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 July 2020 — Nexans France SAS, Nexans SA v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Cartels — European market for submarine and underground power cables — Market allocation in connection with projects — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 20 — European Commission’s powers of inspection in cartel proceedings — Power to copy data without a prior examination and to examine the data subsequently at the Commission’s premises — Fines — Unlimited jurisdiction)

6

2020/C 297/09

Case C-610/18: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep — Netherlands) — AFMB Ltd and Others v Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Migrant workers — Social security — Legislation applicable — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Article 14(2)(a) — Concept of person who is a member of the travelling personnel of an undertaking — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Article 13(1)(b) — Concept of employer — Long-distance lorry drivers normally employed in one or more Member States or States of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) — Long distance lorry drivers who have entered into an employment contract with one undertaking but are in fact subject to the authority of another undertaking established in the Member State where those drivers reside — Determination of which undertaking is the employer)

7

2020/C 297/10

Case C-658/18: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di pace di Bologna — Italy) — UX v Governo della Repubblica italiana (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Article 267 TFEU — Definition of court or tribunal of a Member State — Criteria — Social policy — Directive 2003/88/EC — Scope — Article 7 — Paid annual leave — Directive 1999/70/EC — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Clauses 2 and 3 — Concept of fixed-term worker — Magistrates and ordinary judges — Difference in treatment — Clause 4 — Principle of non-discrimination — Concept of objective grounds)

8

2020/C 297/11

Case C-686/18: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — OC and Others, Adusbef, Federconsumatori, PB and Others, QA and Others v Banca d’Italia, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Article 63 et seq. TFEU — Free movement of capital — Article 107 et seq. TFEU — State aid — Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Freedom to conduct a business — Right to property — Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 — Prudential requirements applicable to credit institutions and investment firms — Article 29 — Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 — Article 6(4) — Prudential supervision of credit institutions — Conferral of specific tasks on the European Central Bank (ECB) — Delegated Regulation (EU) No 241/2014 — Regulatory technical standards for Own Funds requirements for institutions — National regulation imposing an asset threshold on people’s banks established as cooperative societies and allowing the right to redeem shares by the withdrawing shareholder to be limited)

9

2020/C 297/12

Case C-714/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 July 2020 — ACTC GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Taiga AB (Appeal — EU trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Application for registration of EU word mark tigha — Opposition filed by the proprietor of the earlier EU trade mark TAIGA — Partial dismissal of the application for registration — Article 8(1)(b) — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Assessment of the conceptual similarity of the signs at issue — Article 42(2) — Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark — Proof of use in relation to part ... of the goods or services — Determination of an independent subcategory of goods)

10

2020/C 297/13

Case C-771/18: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 16 July 2020 — European Commission v Hungary (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Internal markets in electricity and natural gas — Electricity and natural gas transmission systems — Conditions for access — Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 — Article 14(1) — Regulation (EC) No 715/2009 — Article 13(1) — Costs — Setting the charges for network access — Directive 2009/72/EC — Article 37(17) — Directive 2009/73/EC — Article 41(17) — Domestic remedies — Principle of effective judicial protection)

10

2020/C 297/14

Case C-73/19: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Belgische Staat, represented by the Minister van Werk, Economie en Consumenten, belast met de Buitenlandse handel, and by the Directeur-Generaal van de Algemene Directie Controle en Bemiddeling van de FOD Economie, K.M.O., Middenstand en Energie, now Algemene Directie Economische Inspectie, Directeur-Generaal van de Algemene Directie Controle en Bemiddeling van de FOD Economie, K.M.O., Middenstand en Energie, now Algemene Directie Economische Inspectie v Movic BV, Events Belgium BV, Leisure Tickets & Activities International BV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Article 1(1) — Scope — Concept of civil and commercial matters — Action for the cessation of unfair commercial practices brought by a public authority to protect the interests of consumers)

11

2020/C 297/15

Case C-80/19: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas — Lithuania) — Proceedings brought by E. E. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 — Scope — Definition of succession with cross-border implications — Definition of habitual residence of the deceased — Article 3(2) — Definition of court — Whether notaries are subject to the rules of international jurisdiction — Article 3(1)(g) and (i) — Definitions of decision and authentic instrument — Articles 5, 7 and 22 — Agreement on the choice of court and the law applicable to the succession — Article 83(2) and (4) — Transitional provisions)

12

2020/C 297/16

Case C-97/19: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finance Court Düsseldorf — Germany) — Pfeifer & Langen GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt Köln (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs Code — Customs declarations — Article 78 of that code — Revision of the customs declaration — Name of the declarant — Amendment of information relating to the identity of the declarant seeking to show that there is a relationship of indirect representation — Indirect representation of the person who has obtained an import licence)

13

2020/C 297/17

Case C-129/19: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri v BV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2004/80/EC — Article 12(2) — National schemes on compensation to victims of violent intentional crime guaranteeing fair and appropriate compensation — Scope — Victim residing in the Member State in which the violent intentional crime was committed — Obligation for the national compensation scheme to cover that victim — Concept of fair and appropriate compensation — Liability of Member States in the event of a breach of EU law)

13

2020/C 297/18

Joined Cases C-133/19, C-136/19 and C-137/19: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 July 2020 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — Belgium) — B. M. M. (C-133/19 and C-136/19), B. S. (C-133/19), B. M. (C-136/19), B. M. O. (C-137/19) v État belge (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Immigration policy — Right to family reunification — Directive 2003/86/EC — Article 4(1) — Concept of a minor child — Article 24(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Best interests of the child — Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Right to an effective remedy — Children of the sponsor who have reached majority during the decision-making procedure or court proceedings against the decision refusing the family reunification application)

14

2020/C 297/19

Joined Cases C-224/19 and C-259/19: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 July 2020 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 17 de Palma de Mallorca, Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción de Ceuta — Spain) — CY v Caixabank SA (C-224/19), LG, PK v Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria SA (C-259/19) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Articles 6 and 7 — Consumer contracts — Mortgage loans — Unfair terms — Term charging all of the costs of creating and cancelling a mortgage to the borrower — Effects of a declaration that those terms are void — Powers of the national court when dealing with a term considered to be unfair — Award of costs — Application of national supplementary provisions — Article 3(1) — Assessment of the unfairness of contractual terms — Article 4(2) — Exclusion of terms relating to the main subject matter of the contract or the adequacy of the price and the remuneration — Condition — Article 5 — Obligation to draft contractual terms in plain, intelligible language — Costs — Limitation — Principle of effectiveness)

15

2020/C 297/20

Case C-249/19: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul București — Romania) — JE v KF (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EU) No 1259/2010 — Enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation — Uniform rules — Article 10 — Application of the law of the forum)

16

2020/C 297/21

Case C-253/19: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 16 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Guimarães — Portugal) — MH, NI v OJ, Novo Banco SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Insolvency proceedings — Regulation (UE) 2015/848 — Article 3 — International jurisdiction — Centre of a debtor’s main interests — Individual not exercising an independent business or professional activity — Rebuttable presumption that the centre of that person’s main interests is his or her habitual residence — Rebuttal of the presumption — Situation in which the debtor’s sole immovable asset is located outside the Member State of habitual residence)

16

2020/C 297/22

Case C-411/19: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — WWF Italia o.n.l.u.s. and Others v Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Azienda Nazionale Autonoma Strade SpA (ANAS) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Directive 92/43/EEC — Article 6 — Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora — Special areas of conservation — Construction of a road section — Assessment of the impact of that project on the special area of conservation concerned — Authorisation — Imperative reasons of overriding public interest)

17

2020/C 297/23

Case C-424/19: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București — Romania) — Cabinet de avocat UR v Administraţia Sector 3 a Finanţelor Publice prin Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Bucureşti, Administraţia Sector 3 a Finanţelor Publice, MJ, NK (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2006/112/EC — Value added tax (VAT) — Article 9(1) — Concept of taxable person — Person practising the profession of lawyer — Final judicial decision — Principle of res judicata — Scope of that principle if that decision is incompatible with EU law)

18

2020/C 297/24

Case C-496/19: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria regionale della Campania — Italy) — Antonio Capaldo SpA v Agenzia delle dogane e dei monopoli — Ufficio delle dogane di Salerno (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs Union — Community Customs Code — Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 — Examination of goods — Application for revision of a customs declaration — Post-clearance examination)

19

2020/C 297/25

Case C-686/19: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) — Latvia) — SIA Soho Group v Patērētāju tiesību aizsardzības centrs (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Credit agreements for consumers — Directive 2008/48/EC — Concept of total cost of the credit to the consumer — Costs for extending the credit)

19

2020/C 297/26

Case C-436/19 P: Appeal brought on 6 June 2019 by Abaco Energy SA and Others against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 25 March 2019 in Case T-186/18, Abaco Energy and Others v Commission

20

2020/C 297/27

Case C-176/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia (Romania) lodged on 7 April 2020 — SC Avio Lucos SRL v Agenția de Plăți și Intervenție pentru Agricultură — Centrul Județean Dolj, Agenția de Plăți și Intervenție pentru Agricultură (APIA) — Aparat Central

20

2020/C 297/28

Case C-179/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București (Romania) lodged on 7 April 2020 — Fondul Proprietatea SA v Guvernul României, SC Complexul Energetic Hunedoara SA, in liquidation, Compania Națională de Transport al Energiei Electrice Transelectrica SA, SC Complexul Energetic Oltenia SA

21

2020/C 297/29

Case C-182/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Suceava (Romania) lodged on 23 April 2020 — BE, DT v Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Suceava, Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Iași, Accer Ipurl Suceva — lichidator judiciar al BE, EP

22

2020/C 297/30

Case C-217/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Overijssel (Netherlands) lodged on 25 May 2020 — XXXX v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

22

2020/C 297/31

Case C-218/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from Tribunalul Mureș (Romania) lodged on 27 May 2020 — Sindicatul Lucrătorilor din Transporturi, TD v SC Samidani Trans SRL

23

2020/C 297/32

Case C-225/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Constanța (Romania) lodged on 29 May 2020 — Euro Delta Danube SRL v Agenția de Plăți și Intervenție pentru Agricultură — Centrul Județean Tulcea

23

2020/C 297/33

Case C-233/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 4 June 2020 — WD v job-medium GmbH in liquidation

24

2020/C 297/34

Case C-237/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 5 June 2020 — Federatie Nederlandse Vakbeweging v Heiploeg Seafood International BV, Heitrans International BV

25

2020/C 297/35

Case C-241/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance du Luxembourg (Belgium) lodged on 5 June 2020 — BJ v État belge

26

2020/C 297/36

Case C-245/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the rechtbank Midden-Nederland (Netherlands) lodged on 29 May 2020 — X, Z v Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens

27

2020/C 297/37

Case C-246/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg Oost-Vlaanderen, afdeling Gent (Belgium) lodged on 3 June 2020 — Openbaar Ministerie v EA

28

2020/C 297/38

Case C-251/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 10 June 2020 — Gtflix Tv v DR

28

2020/C 297/39

Case C-253/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 9 June 2020 — Impexeco NV v Novartis AG

29

2020/C 297/40

Case C-254/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 9 June 2020 — PI Pharma NV v Novartis AG, Novartis Pharma NV

29

2020/C 297/41

Case C-269/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 18 June 2020 — Finanzamt T v S

30

2020/C 297/42

Case C-274/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di pace di Massa (Italy) lodged on 19 June 2020 — GN and WX v Prefettura di Massa Carrara — Ufficio Territoriale del Governo di Massa Carrara

31

2020/C 297/43

Case C-283/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail francophone de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 25 June 2020 — CO, ME, GC and 42 Others v MJ, European Commission, European External Action Service, Council of the European Union, Eulex Kosovo

32

2020/C 297/44

Case C-288/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judiciaire — Bobigny (France) lodged on 30 June 2020 — BNP Paribas Personal Finance SA v ZD

32

2020/C 297/45

Case C-289/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Paris (France) lodged on 30 June 2020 — IB v FA

34

2020/C 297/46

Case C-290/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Satversmes tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 30 June 2020 — AS Latvijas Gāze v Latvijas Republikas Saeima, Sabiedrisko pakalpojumu regulēšanas komisija

34

2020/C 297/47

Case C-299/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 6 July 2020 — Icade Promotion Logement SAS v Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes Publiques

35

2020/C 297/48

Case C-328/20: Action brought on 22 July 2020 — European Commission v Republic of Austria

36

2020/C 297/49

Case C-331/20 P: Appeal brought on 22 July 2020 by Volotea, SA against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 13 May 2020 in Case T-607/17, Volotea v Commission

37

2020/C 297/50

Case C-343/20 P: Appeal brought on 23 July 2020 by easyJet Airline Co. Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 13 May 2020 in Case T-8/18, easyJet Airline v Commission

38

General Court

2020/C 297/51

Case T-371/20: Action brought on 15 June 2020 — Pollinis France v Commission

39

2020/C 297/52

Case T-381/20: Action brought on 20 June 2020 — Datax v REA

39

2020/C 297/53

Case T-392/20: Action brought on 19 June 2020 — Flašker v Commission

40

2020/C 297/54

Case T-404/20: Action brought on 27 June 2020 — Global Translation Solutions v Commission

41

2020/C 297/55

Case T-415/20: Action brought on 3 July 2020 — KT v EIB

42

2020/C 297/56

Case T-425/20: Action brought on 3 July 2020 — KU v EEAS

43

2020/C 297/57

Case T-435/20: Action brought on 7 July 2020 — JR v Commission

44

2020/C 297/58

Case T-440/20: Action brought on 10 July 2020 — Jindal Saw and Jindal Saw Italia v Commission

44

2020/C 297/59

Case T-441/20: Action brought on 10 July 2020 — Jindal Saw and Jindal Saw Italia v Commission

45

2020/C 297/60

Case T-442/20: Action brought on 13 July 2020 — Grangé and Van Strydonck v EUIPO — Nema (âme)

46

2020/C 297/61

Case T-443/20: Action brought on 13 July 2020 — Sanford v EUIPO — Avery Zweckform (Labels)

46

2020/C 297/62

Case T-457/20: Action brought on 13 July 2020 — VeriGraft v EASME

47

2020/C 297/63

Case T-464/20: Action brought on 21 July 2020 — Eggy Food v EUIPO (YOUR DAILY PROTEIN)

48

2020/C 297/64

Case T-474/20: Action brought on 24 July 2020 — LD v Commission

48

---

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 7.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/1

---

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

(2020/C 297/01)

Last publication

OJ C 287, 31.8.2020

Past publications

OJ C 279, 24.8.2020

OJ C 271, 17.8.2020

OJ C 262, 10.8.2020

OJ C 255, 3.8.2020

OJ C 247, 27.7.2020

OJ C 240, 20.7.2020

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 7.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 July 2020 — Inclusion Alliance for Europe GEIE v European Commission

(Case C-378/16 P) (1)

(Appeal - Arbitration clause - Grant agreements concluded in the context of the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) and of the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (2007-2013) - MARE, Senior and ECRN projects - Commission decision to recover sums unduly paid - Jurisdiction of the EU judicature)

(2020/C 297/02)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Inclusion Alliance for Europe GEIE (represented by: A. D’Amico and S. Famiani, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented initially by F. Moro, S. Delaude and L. Di Paolo, and subsequently by F. Moro and S. Delaude, acting as Agents, and by D. Gullo, avvocato)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 21 April 2016, Inclusion Alliance for Europe v Commission (T-539/13, not published, EU:T:2016:235); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 21 April 2016, Inclusion Alliance for Europe v Commission (T-539/13, not published, EU:T:2016:235);

| 2. | Refers Case T-539/13 back to the General Court of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Refers Case T-539/13 back to the General Court of the European Union;

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

3.

Reserves the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 326, 5.9.2016.

---

| 7.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Milkiyas Addis v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-517/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Asylum policy - Common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection - Directive 2013/32/EU - Articles 14 and 34 - Obligation to give applicants for international protection the opportunity of a personal interview before the adoption of a decision declaring the application to be inadmissible - Failure to comply with that obligation in the procedure at first instance - Consequences)

(2020/C 297/03)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Milkiyas Addis

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 14 and 34 of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which failure to comply with the obligation to give an applicant for international protection the opportunity of a personal interview before the adoption of a decision on the basis of Article 33(2)(a) of that directive declaring the application to be inadmissible does not lead to that decision being annulled and the case being remitted to the determining authority, unless that legislation allows the applicant, in the appeal procedure against that decision, to set out in person all of his or her arguments against the decision in a hearing which complies with the applicable conditions and fundamental guarantees set out in Article 15 of that directive, and those arguments are not capable of altering that decision.

---

(1)  OJ C 392, 20.11.2017.

---

| 7.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 July 2020 — ADR Center SpA v European Commission

(Case C-584/17 P) (1)

(Appeal - Arbitration clause - Grant agreements concluded in the context of the Specific Programme ‘Civil Justice’ for the period 2007-2013 - Audit reports questioning the eligibility of certain costs - European Commission decision to recover unduly paid sums - Article 299 TFEU - Power of the Commission to adopt an enforceable decision within contractual relationships - Jurisdiction of the EU judicature - Effective judicial protection)

(2020/C 297/04)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: ADR Center SpA (represented by: A. Guillerme and T. Bontinck, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Estrada de Solà and A. Katsimerou, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders ADR Center SpA to bear, in addition to two thirds of its own costs, two thirds of the costs incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders ADR Center SpA to bear, in addition to two thirds of its own costs, two thirds of the costs incurred by the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to bear, in addition to one third of its own costs, one third of the costs incurred by ADR Center SpA. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear, in addition to one third of its own costs, one third of the costs incurred by ADR Center SpA.

---

(1)  OJ C 5, 8.1.2018.

---

| 7.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) — Ireland) — Data Protection Commissioner v Facebook Ireland Ltd, Maximillian Schrems

(Case C-311/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Articles 7, 8 and 47 - Regulation (EU) 2016/679 - Article 2(2) - Scope - Transfers of personal data to third countries for commercial purposes - Article 45 - Commission adequacy decision - Article 46 - Transfers subject to appropriate safeguards - Article 58 - Powers of the supervisory authorities - Processing of the data transferred by the public authorities of a third country for national security purposes - Assessment of the adequacy of the level of protection in the third country - Decision 2010/87/EU - Protective standard clauses on the transfer of personal data to third countries - Suitable safeguards provided by the data controller - Validity - Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/1250 - Adequacy of the protection provided by the EU-US Privacy Shield - Validity - Complaint by a natural person whose data was transferred from the European Union to the United States)

(2020/C 297/05)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court (Ireland)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Data Protection Commissioner

Defendants: Facebook Ireland Ltd, Maximillian Schrems

Intervening parties: The United States of America, Electronic Privacy Information Centre, BSA Business Software Alliance Inc., Digitaleurope

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 2(1) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation), must be interpreted as meaning that that regulation applies to the transfer of personal data for commercial purposes by an economic operator established in a Member State to another economic operator established in a third country, irrespective of whether, at the time of that transfer or thereafter, that data is liable to be processed by the authorities of the third country in question for the purposes of public security, defence and State security; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 2(1) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation), must be interpreted as meaning that that regulation applies to the transfer of personal data for commercial purposes by an economic operator established in a Member State to another economic operator established in a third country, irrespective of whether, at the time of that transfer or thereafter, that data is liable to be processed by the authorities of the third country in question for the purposes of public security, defence and State security;

| 2. | Article 46(1) and Article 46(2)(c) of Regulation 2016/679 must be interpreted as meaning that the appropriate safeguards, enforceable rights and effective legal remedies required by those provisions must ensure that data subjects whose personal data are transferred to a third country pursuant to standard data protection clauses are afforded a level of protection essentially equivalent to that guaranteed within the European Union by that regulation, read in the light of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. To that end, the assessment of the level of protection afforded in the context of such a transfer must, in particular, take into consideration both the contractual clauses agreed between the controller or processor established in the European Union and the recipient of the transfer established in the third country concerned and, as regards any access by the public authorities of that third country to the personal data transferred, the relevant aspects of the legal system of that third country, in particular those set out, in a non-exhaustive manner, in Article 45(2) of that regulation; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 46(1) and Article 46(2)(c) of Regulation 2016/679 must be interpreted as meaning that the appropriate safeguards, enforceable rights and effective legal remedies required by those provisions must ensure that data subjects whose personal data are transferred to a third country pursuant to standard data protection clauses are afforded a level of protection essentially equivalent to that guaranteed within the European Union by that regulation, read in the light of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. To that end, the assessment of the level of protection afforded in the context of such a transfer must, in particular, take into consideration both the contractual clauses agreed between the controller or processor established in the European Union and the recipient of the transfer established in the third country concerned and, as regards any access by the public authorities of that third country to the personal data transferred, the relevant aspects of the legal system of that third country, in particular those set out, in a non-exhaustive manner, in Article 45(2) of that regulation;

| 3. | Article 58(2)(f) and (j) of Regulation 2016/679 must be interpreted as meaning that, unless there is a valid European Commission adequacy decision, the competent supervisory authority is required to suspend or prohibit a transfer of data to a third country pursuant to standard data protection clauses adopted by the Commission, if, in the view of that supervisory authority and in the light of all the circumstances of that transfer, those clauses are not or cannot be complied with in that third country and the protection of the data transferred that is required by EU law, in particular by Articles 45 and 46 of that regulation and by the Charter of Fundamental Rights, cannot be ensured by other means, where the controller or a processor has not itself suspended or put an end to the transfer; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 58(2)(f) and (j) of Regulation 2016/679 must be interpreted as meaning that, unless there is a valid European Commission adequacy decision, the competent supervisory authority is required to suspend or prohibit a transfer of data to a third country pursuant to standard data protection clauses adopted by the Commission, if, in the view of that supervisory authority and in the light of all the circumstances of that transfer, those clauses are not or cannot be complied with in that third country and the protection of the data transferred that is required by EU law, in particular by Articles 45 and 46 of that regulation and by the Charter of Fundamental Rights, cannot be ensured by other means, where the controller or a processor has not itself suspended or put an end to the transfer;

| 4. | Examination of Commission Decision 2010/87/EU of 5 February 2010 on standard contractual clauses for the transfer of personal data to processors established in third countries under Directive 95/46/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, as amended by Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/2297 of 16 December 2016 in the light of Articles 7, 8 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights has disclosed nothing to affect the validity of that decision; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Examination of Commission Decision 2010/87/EU of 5 February 2010 on standard contractual clauses for the transfer of personal data to processors established in third countries under Directive 95/46/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, as amended by Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/2297 of 16 December 2016 in the light of Articles 7, 8 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights has disclosed nothing to affect the validity of that decision;

| 5. | Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/1250 of 12 July 2016 pursuant to Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the adequacy of the protection provided by the EU-US Privacy Shield is invalid. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/1250 of 12 July 2016 pursuant to Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the adequacy of the protection provided by the EU-US Privacy Shield is invalid.

---

(1)  OJ C 249, 16.7.2018.

---

| 7.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 July 2020 — European Commission v Romania

(Case C-549/18) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 258 TFEU - Prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing - Directive (EU) 2015/849 - Failure to transpose and/or to notify transposition measures - Article 260(3) TFEU - Application for an order to pay a lump sum)

(2020/C 297/06)

Language of the case: Romanian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: T. Scharf, L. Flynn, G. von Rintelen, L. Nicolae and L. Radu Bouyon, Agents)

Defendant: Romania (represented initially by: C.-R. Canţăr, E. Gane, L. Liţu and R.I. Haţieganu, and subsequently by E. Gane, L. Liţu and R.I. Haţieganu, Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: C. Pochet, P. Cottin and J.-C. Halleux, Agents), Republic of Estonia (represented by: N. Grünberg, Agent), French Republic (represented by: A.-L. Desjonquères, B. Fodda and J.-L. Carré, Agents), Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by having failed to adopt, on the expiry of the period prescribed in the reasoned opinion of 8 December 2017, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Directive 2006/70/EC, and, therefore, by having failed to notify those provisions to the European Commission, Romania has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 67 of Directive 2015/849; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by having failed to adopt, on the expiry of the period prescribed in the reasoned opinion of 8 December 2017, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Directive 2006/70/EC, and, therefore, by having failed to notify those provisions to the European Commission, Romania has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 67 of Directive 2015/849;

| 2. | Orders Romania to pay the European Commission a lump sum in the amount of EUR 3 000 000; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Romania to pay the European Commission a lump sum in the amount of EUR 3 000 000;

| 3. | Orders Romania to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Romania to pay the costs;

| 4. | Orders the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Estonia, the French Republic and the Republic of Poland to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Estonia, the French Republic and the Republic of Poland to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 381, 22.10.2018.

---

| 7.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 July 2020 — European Commission v Ireland

(Case C-550/18) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 258 TFEU - Prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing - Directive (EU) 2015/849 - Failure to transpose and/or to notify transposition measures - Article 260(3) TFEU - Application for an order to pay a lump sum)

(2020/C 297/07)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: T. Scharf, L. Flynn and G. von Rintelen, Agents)

Defendant: Ireland (represented by: G. Hodge, M. Browne and A. Joyce, Agents, and by P. McGarry, Senior Counsel, and G. Gilmore, Barrister at-Law)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Republic of Estonia (represented by: N. Grünberg, Agent), French Republic (represented by: A.-L. Desjonquères, B. Fodda and J.-L. Carré, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by having failed to adopt, on the expiry of the period prescribed in the reasoned opinion of 8 March 2018, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Directive 2006/70/EC, and, therefore, by having failed to notify those provisions to the European Commission, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 67 of Directive 2015/849; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by having failed to adopt, on the expiry of the period prescribed in the reasoned opinion of 8 March 2018, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Directive 2006/70/EC, and, therefore, by having failed to notify those provisions to the European Commission, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 67 of Directive 2015/849;

| 2. | Orders Ireland to pay the European Commission a lump sum in the amount of EUR 2 000 000; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ireland to pay the European Commission a lump sum in the amount of EUR 2 000 000;

| 3. | Orders Ireland to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Ireland to pay the costs;

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

4.

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

---

(1)  OJ C 436, 3.12.2018.

---

| 7.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 July 2020 — Nexans France SAS, Nexans SA v European Commission

(Case C-606/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Cartels - European market for submarine and underground power cables - Market allocation in connection with projects - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 20 - European Commission’s powers of inspection in cartel proceedings - Power to copy data without a prior examination and to examine the data subsequently at the Commission’s premises - Fines - Unlimited jurisdiction)

(2020/C 297/08)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Nexans France SAS, Nexans SA (represented by: G. Forwood, avocate, M. Powell and A. Rogers, Solicitors)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: C. Giolito, P. Rossi, C. Sjödin and F. Castilla Contreras, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Nexans France SAS and Nexans SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Nexans France SAS and Nexans SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.

---

| 7.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep — Netherlands) — AFMB Ltd and Others v Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank

(Case C-610/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Migrant workers - Social security - Legislation applicable - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Article 14(2)(a) - Concept of ‘person who is a member of the travelling personnel of an undertaking’ - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Article 13(1)(b) - Concept of ‘employer’ - Long-distance lorry drivers normally employed in one or more Member States or States of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) - Long distance lorry drivers who have entered into an employment contract with one undertaking but are in fact subject to the authority of another undertaking established in the Member State where those drivers reside - Determination of which undertaking is the ‘employer’)

(2020/C 297/09)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Centrale Raad van Beroep

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: AFMB Ltd and Others

Defendant: Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank

Operative part of the judgment

Article 14(2)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, in the version as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 631/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004, and Article 13(1)(b)(i) 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, as amended by Regulation (EU) No 465/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012, must be interpreted as meaning that the employer of an international long-distance lorry driver, for the purposes of those provisions, is the undertaking which has actual authority over that long-distance lorry driver, which bears, in reality, the costs of paying his or her wages, and which has the actual power to dismiss him or her, and not the undertaking with which that long-distance lorry driver has concluded an employment contract and which is formally named in that contract as being the employer of that driver.

---

(1)  OJ C 455, 17.12.2018.

---

| 7.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di pace di Bologna — Italy) — UX v Governo della Repubblica italiana

(Case C-658/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Admissibility - Article 267 TFEU - Definition of ‘court or tribunal of a Member State’ - Criteria - Social policy - Directive 2003/88/EC - Scope - Article 7 - Paid annual leave - Directive 1999/70/EC - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Clauses 2 and 3 - Concept of ‘fixed-term worker’ - Magistrates and ordinary judges - Difference in treatment - Clause 4 - Principle of non-discrimination - Concept of ‘objective grounds’)

(2020/C 297/10)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Giudice di pace di Bologna

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: UX

Defendant: Governo della Repubblica italiana

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 267 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that the giudice di pace (magistrate, Italy) falls within the concept of ‘court or tribunal of a Member State’ within the meaning of that article. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 267 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that the giudice di pace (magistrate, Italy) falls within the concept of ‘court or tribunal of a Member State’ within the meaning of that article.

| 2. | Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time and Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as meaning that a magistrate who, in the context of his or her duties, performs real and genuine services which are neither purely marginal nor ancillary, and for which he or she receives compensation representing remuneration, may fall within the concept of ‘worker’ within the meaning of those provisions, which it is for the referring court to verify. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time and Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as meaning that a magistrate who, in the context of his or her duties, performs real and genuine services which are neither purely marginal nor ancillary, and for which he or she receives compensation representing remuneration, may fall within the concept of ‘worker’ within the meaning of those provisions, which it is for the referring court to verify.

| 3) | Clause 2(1) of the Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, which is annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘fixed-term worker’ in that provision may encompass a magistrate appointed for a limited period, who, in the context of his or her duties, performs real and genuine services which are neither purely marginal nor ancillary, and for which he or she receives compensation representing remuneration, which it is for the referring court to verify. |
| --- | --- |

3)

Clause 2(1) of the Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, which is annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘fixed-term worker’ in that provision may encompass a magistrate appointed for a limited period, who, in the context of his or her duties, performs real and genuine services which are neither purely marginal nor ancillary, and for which he or she receives compensation representing remuneration, which it is for the referring court to verify.

| 4) | Clause 4(1) of the Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, which is annexed to Directive 1999/70, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which does not provide for an entitlement on the part of magistrates to 30 days’ paid annual leave, such as that provided for ordinary judges, where those magistrates fall within the concept of ‘fixed-term workers’ within the meaning of clause 2(1) of that framework agreement, and are in a situation comparable to that of ordinary judges, unless such a difference in treatment is justified by the differences in the qualifications required and the nature of the duties undertaken by those judges, which it is for the referring court to verify. |
| --- | --- |

4)

Clause 4(1) of the Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, which is annexed to Directive 1999/70, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which does not provide for an entitlement on the part of magistrates to 30 days’ paid annual leave, such as that provided for ordinary judges, where those magistrates fall within the concept of ‘fixed-term workers’ within the meaning of clause 2(1) of that framework agreement, and are in a situation comparable to that of ordinary judges, unless such a difference in treatment is justified by the differences in the qualifications required and the nature of the duties undertaken by those judges, which it is for the referring court to verify.

---

(1)  OJ C 25, 21.1.2019.

---

| 7.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/9

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — OC and Others, Adusbef, Federconsumatori, PB and Others, QA and Others v Banca d’Italia, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze

(Case C-686/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Admissibility - Article 63 et seq. TFEU - Free movement of capital - Article 107 et seq. TFEU - State aid - Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Freedom to conduct a business - Right to property - Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 - Prudential requirements applicable to credit institutions and investment firms - Article 29 - Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 - Article 6(4) - Prudential supervision of credit institutions - Conferral of specific tasks on the European Central Bank (ECB) - Delegated Regulation (EU) No 241/2014 - Regulatory technical standards for Own Funds requirements for institutions - National regulation imposing an asset threshold on people’s banks established as cooperative societies and allowing the right to redeem shares by the withdrawing shareholder to be limited)

(2020/C 297/11)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: OC and Others, Adusbef, Federconsumatori, PB and Others, QA and Others

Defendants: Banca d’Italia, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze

Intervening parties: Banca Popolare di Sondrio ScpA, Veneto Banca ScpA, Banco Popolare — Società Cooperativa, Coordinamento delle associazioni per la tutela dell’ambiente e dei diritti degli utenti e consumatori (Codacons), Banco BPM SpA, Unione di Banche Italiane — Ubi Banca SpA, Banca Popolare di Milano, Amber Capital Italia SGR SpA, RZ and Others, Amber Capital UK LLP, Unione di Banche Italiane — Ubi Banca ScpA, Banca Popolare di Vicenza ScpA, Banca Popolare dell’Etruria e del Lazio SC

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 29 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012, Article 10 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 241/2014 of 7 January 2014 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 with regard to regulatory technical standards for Own Funds requirements for institutions and Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State which prohibits people’s banks established in that Member State from refusing the redemption of capital instruments but which allows those banks to defer, for an unlimited period, the redemption of the shares held by the withdrawing shareholder and to limit the amount to be redeemed in full or in part, provided that the limitations on redemption imposed when exercising that option do not go beyond what is necessary, in the light of the prudential situation of the banks concerned, in order to ensure that the capital instruments they issue qualify as Common Equity Tier 1 instruments, having regard, in particular, to the matters referred to in Article 10(3) of Delegated Regulation No 241/2014, which is a matter for the referring court to ascertain; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 29 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012, Article 10 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 241/2014 of 7 January 2014 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 with regard to regulatory technical standards for Own Funds requirements for institutions and Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State which prohibits people’s banks established in that Member State from refusing the redemption of capital instruments but which allows those banks to defer, for an unlimited period, the redemption of the shares held by the withdrawing shareholder and to limit the amount to be redeemed in full or in part, provided that the limitations on redemption imposed when exercising that option do not go beyond what is necessary, in the light of the prudential situation of the banks concerned, in order to ensure that the capital instruments they issue qualify as Common Equity Tier 1 instruments, having regard, in particular, to the matters referred to in Article 10(3) of Delegated Regulation No 241/2014, which is a matter for the referring court to ascertain;

| 2. | Article 63 et seq. TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State that sets an asset threshold on the exercise of banking activities by people’s banks established in that Member State as limited liability cooperative societies above which those banks must be converted into companies limited by shares, reduce their assets to below that threshold or be liquidated, provided that that legislation is appropriate for securing attainment of the general interest objectives pursued and does not exceed what is necessary to attain them, which is a matter for the referring court to ascertain. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 63 et seq. TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State that sets an asset threshold on the exercise of banking activities by people’s banks established in that Member State as limited liability cooperative societies above which those banks must be converted into companies limited by shares, reduce their assets to below that threshold or be liquidated, provided that that legislation is appropriate for securing attainment of the general interest objectives pursued and does not exceed what is necessary to attain them, which is a matter for the referring court to ascertain.

---

(1)  OJ C 35, 28.1.2019.

---

| 7.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 July 2020 — ACTC GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Taiga AB

(Case C-714/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - EU trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Application for registration of EU word mark tigha - Opposition filed by the proprietor of the earlier EU trade mark TAIGA - Partial dismissal of the application for registration - Article 8(1)(b) - Assessment of the likelihood of confusion - Assessment of the conceptual similarity of the signs at issue - Article 42(2) - Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark - Proof of use ‘in relation to part ... of the goods or services’ - Determination of an independent subcategory of goods)

(2020/C 297/12)

Language of the case: English.

Parties

Appellant: ACTC GmbH (represented by: V. Hoene, S. Gantenbrink and D. Eickemeier, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Gája, acting as Agent), Taiga AB, represented by C. Eckhartt, A. von Mühlendahl, K. Thanbichler-Brandl and C. Fluhme, Rechtsanwälte)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders ACTC GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders ACTC GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 82, 4.3.2019.

---

| 7.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 16 July 2020 — European Commission v Hungary

(Case C-771/18) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Internal markets in electricity and natural gas - Electricity and natural gas transmission systems - Conditions for access - Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 - Article 14(1) - Regulation (EC) No 715/2009 - Article 13(1) - Costs - Setting the charges for network access - Directive 2009/72/EC - Article 37(17) - Directive 2009/73/EC - Article 41(17) - Domestic remedies - Principle of effective judicial protection)

(2020/C 297/13)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: O. Beynet and K. Talabér-Ritz, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Hungary (represented initially by Z. Fehér and Z. Wagner, and subsequently by Z. Fehér, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to safeguard the right to an effective remedy against the rules of the national regulatory authority setting the charges for network access, Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 37(17) of Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC, and Article 41(17) of Directive 2009/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 2003/55/EC; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to safeguard the right to an effective remedy against the rules of the national regulatory authority setting the charges for network access, Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 37(17) of Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC, and Article 41(17) of Directive 2009/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 2003/55/EC;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission and Hungary to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission and Hungary to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 139, 15.4.2019.

---

| 7.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/11

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Belgische Staat, represented by the Minister van Werk, Economie en Consumenten, belast met de Buitenlandse handel, and by the Directeur-Generaal van de Algemene Directie Controle en Bemiddeling van de FOD Economie, K.M.O., Middenstand en Energie, now Algemene Directie Economische Inspectie, Directeur-Generaal van de Algemene Directie Controle en Bemiddeling van de FOD Economie, K.M.O., Middenstand en Energie, now Algemene Directie Economische Inspectie v Movic BV, Events Belgium BV, Leisure Tickets & Activities International BV

(Case C-73/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Article 1(1) - Scope - Concept of ‘civil and commercial matters’ - Action for the cessation of unfair commercial practices brought by a public authority to protect the interests of consumers)

(2020/C 297/14)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Belgische Staat, represented by the Minister van Werk, Economie en Consumenten, belast met de Buitenlandse handel, and by the Directeur-Generaal van de Algemene Directie Controle en Bemiddeling van de FOD Economie, K.M.O., Middenstand en Energie, now Algemene Directie Economische Inspectie, Directeur-Generaal van de Algemene Directie Controle en Bemiddeling van de FOD Economie, K.M.O., Middenstand en Energie, now Algemene Directie Economische Inspectie

Defendants: Movic BV, Events Belgium BV, Leisure Tickets & Activities International BV

Operative part of the judgment

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 an action where the opposing parties are the authorities of a Member State and businesses established in another Member State, in which those authorities seek, primarily, findings of infringements constituting allegedly unlawful unfair commercial practices and an order for the cessation of such infringements and, as ancillary measures, an order for publicity measures and the imposition of a penalty payment, falls within the scope of the concept of ‘civil and commercial matters’ in that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 139, 15.4.2019.

---

| 7.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/12

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas — Lithuania) — Proceedings brought by E. E.

(Case C-80/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 - Scope - Definition of ‘succession with cross-border implications’ - Definition of ‘habitual residence of the deceased’ - Article 3(2) - Definition of ‘court’ - Whether notaries are subject to the rules of international jurisdiction - Article 3(1)(g) and (i) - Definitions of ‘decision’ and ‘authentic instrument’ - Articles 5, 7 and 22 - Agreement on the choice of court and the law applicable to the succession - Article 83(2) and (4) - Transitional provisions)

(2020/C 297/15)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

E. E.

Interving parties: Kauno miesto 4-ojo notaro biuro notarė Virginija Jarienė, K.-D. E.

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession and on the creation of a European Certificate of Succession must be interpreted as meaning that a situation in which the deceased, a national of one Member State, was residing in another Member State at the date of his or her death but had not cut ties with the first of those Member States, in which the assets making up his or her estate are located, while his or her successors have their residence in both of those Member States, falls within the scope of the concept of ‘succession with cross-border implications’. The last habitual residence of the deceased, within the meaning of that regulation, must be established by the authority dealing with the succession in only one of those Member States. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession and on the creation of a European Certificate of Succession must be interpreted as meaning that a situation in which the deceased, a national of one Member State, was residing in another Member State at the date of his or her death but had not cut ties with the first of those Member States, in which the assets making up his or her estate are located, while his or her successors have their residence in both of those Member States, falls within the scope of the concept of ‘succession with cross-border implications’. The last habitual residence of the deceased, within the meaning of that regulation, must be established by the authority dealing with the succession in only one of those Member States.

| 2. | Article 3(2) of Regulation No 650/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that, subject to verification by the referring court, Lithuanian notaries do not exercise judicial functions when issuing certificates of succession. However, it is for the referring court to determine whether those notaries act by delegation or under the control of a judicial authority and whether, consequently, they can be classed as ‘courts’ within the meaning of that provision. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 3(2) of Regulation No 650/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that, subject to verification by the referring court, Lithuanian notaries do not exercise judicial functions when issuing certificates of succession. However, it is for the referring court to determine whether those notaries act by delegation or under the control of a judicial authority and whether, consequently, they can be classed as ‘courts’ within the meaning of that provision.

| 3. | Article 3(1)(g) of Regulation No 650/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event that the referring court should find that Lithuanian notaries can be classed as ‘courts’ within the meaning of that regulation, certificates of succession that they deliver can be regarded as ‘decisions’ within the meaning of that provision, with the result that, for the purposes of issuing such certificates, those notaries can apply the rules of jurisdiction laid down in Chapter II of that regulation. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 3(1)(g) of Regulation No 650/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event that the referring court should find that Lithuanian notaries can be classed as ‘courts’ within the meaning of that regulation, certificates of succession that they deliver can be regarded as ‘decisions’ within the meaning of that provision, with the result that, for the purposes of issuing such certificates, those notaries can apply the rules of jurisdiction laid down in Chapter II of that regulation.

| 4. | Articles 4 and 59 of Regulation No 650/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that notaries of a Member State, who are not classed as ‘courts’ for the purposes of that regulation, can issue national certificates of succession without applying the general rules of jurisdiction laid down by that regulation. If the referring court finds that those certificates satisfy the conditions laid down in Article 3(1)(i) of that regulation and can, therefore, be regarded as ‘authentic instruments’, within the meaning of that provision, such certificates produce, in other Member States, the effects that Article 59(1) and Article 60(1) of Regulation No 650/2012 attribute to authentic instruments. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Articles 4 and 59 of Regulation No 650/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that notaries of a Member State, who are not classed as ‘courts’ for the purposes of that regulation, can issue national certificates of succession without applying the general rules of jurisdiction laid down by that regulation. If the referring court finds that those certificates satisfy the conditions laid down in Article 3(1)(i) of that regulation and can, therefore, be regarded as ‘authentic instruments’, within the meaning of that provision, such certificates produce, in other Member States, the effects that Article 59(1) and Article 60(1) of Regulation No 650/2012 attribute to authentic instruments.

| 5. | Articles 4, 5, 7 and 22, together with Article 83(2) and (4), of Regulation No 650/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that the testator’s wish and the agreement between his or her heirs can lead to the determination of a court having jurisdiction in matters of succession and the application of the law on succession of a Member State other than those which would result from the application of the criteria laid down by that regulation. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Articles 4, 5, 7 and 22, together with Article 83(2) and (4), of Regulation No 650/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that the testator’s wish and the agreement between his or her heirs can lead to the determination of a court having jurisdiction in matters of succession and the application of the law on succession of a Member State other than those which would result from the application of the criteria laid down by that regulation.

---

(1)  OJ C 148, 29.4.2019.

---

| 7.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finance Court Düsseldorf — Germany) — Pfeifer & Langen GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt Köln

(Case C-97/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs Code - Customs declarations - Article 78 of that code - Revision of the customs declaration - Name of the declarant - Amendment of information relating to the identity of the declarant seeking to show that there is a relationship of indirect representation - Indirect representation of the person who has obtained an import licence)

(2020/C 297/16)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Pfeifer & Langen GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Köln

Operative part of the judgment

Article 78(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code must be interpreted as meaning that the customs authorities may grant an application for amendment of a customs declaration seeking to show that there is a relationship of indirect representation between, on the one hand, a person in possession of a power of attorney who has mistakenly indicated that it was acting exclusively in its own name and on its own behalf, even though it has received such a power from the person holding the import licence, and, on the other hand, the person who has granted the power of attorney and on whose behalf the declaration has been made.

---

(1)  OJ C 182, 27.5.2019.

---

| 7.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri v BV

(Case C-129/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2004/80/EC - Article 12(2) - National schemes on compensation to victims of violent intentional crime guaranteeing fair and appropriate compensation - Scope - Victim residing in the Member State in which the violent intentional crime was committed - Obligation for the national compensation scheme to cover that victim - Concept of ‘fair and appropriate compensation’ - Liability of Member States in the event of a breach of EU law)

(2020/C 297/17)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri

Defendant: BV

Intervening party: Procura della Repubblica di Torino

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | EU law must be interpreted as meaning that the rules on the non-contractual liability of a Member State for damage caused by the breach of that law applies, on the ground that that Member State did not transpose, within the appropriate time, Article 12(2) of Council Directive 2004/80/EC of 29 April 2004 relating to compensation to crime victims, as regards victims residing in that Member State, on the territory of which the violent intentional crime was committed; |
| --- | --- |

1.

EU law must be interpreted as meaning that the rules on the non-contractual liability of a Member State for damage caused by the breach of that law applies, on the ground that that Member State did not transpose, within the appropriate time, Article 12(2) of Council Directive 2004/80/EC of 29 April 2004 relating to compensation to crime victims, as regards victims residing in that Member State, on the territory of which the violent intentional crime was committed;

| 2. | Article 12(2) of Directive 2004/80 must be interpreted as meaning that a fixed rate of compensation awarded to victims of sexual violence under the national scheme of compensation to victims of violent intentional crime cannot be classified as ‘fair and appropriate’, within the meaning of that provision, if it is fixed without taking into account the seriousness of the consequences, for the victims, of the crime committed and does not therefore represent an appropriate contribution to the reparation of the material and non-material harm suffered. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 12(2) of Directive 2004/80 must be interpreted as meaning that a fixed rate of compensation awarded to victims of sexual violence under the national scheme of compensation to victims of violent intentional crime cannot be classified as ‘fair and appropriate’, within the meaning of that provision, if it is fixed without taking into account the seriousness of the consequences, for the victims, of the crime committed and does not therefore represent an appropriate contribution to the reparation of the material and non-material harm suffered.

---

(1)  OJ C 182, 27.5.2019.

---

| 7.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 July 2020 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — Belgium) — B. M. M. (C-133/19 and C-136/19), B. S. (C-133/19), B. M. (C-136/19), B. M. O. (C-137/19) v État belge

(Joined Cases C-133/19, C-136/19 and C-137/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Immigration policy - Right to family reunification - Directive 2003/86/EC - Article 4(1) - Concept of a ‘minor child’ - Article 24(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Best interests of the child - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Right to an effective remedy - Children of the sponsor who have reached majority during the decision-making procedure or court proceedings against the decision refusing the family reunification application)

(2020/C 297/18)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: B. M. M. (C-133/19 and C-136/19), B. S. (C-133/19), B. M. (C-136/19), B. M. O. (C-137/19)

Defendant: État belge

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Point (c) of the first subparagraph of Article 4(1) of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification must be interpreted as meaning that the date which should be referred to for the purpose of determining whether an unmarried third-country national or refugee is a minor child, within the meaning of that provision, is that of the submission of the application for entry and residence for the purpose of family reunification for minor children, and not that of the decision on that application by the competent authorities of that Member State, as the case may be, after an action brought against a decision rejecting such an application; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Point (c) of the first subparagraph of Article 4(1) of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification must be interpreted as meaning that the date which should be referred to for the purpose of determining whether an unmarried third-country national or refugee is a minor child, within the meaning of that provision, is that of the submission of the application for entry and residence for the purpose of family reunification for minor children, and not that of the decision on that application by the competent authorities of that Member State, as the case may be, after an action brought against a decision rejecting such an application;

| 2. | Article 18 of Directive 2003/86, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as precluding an action against the rejection of an application for family reunification of a minor child from being dismissed as inadmissible on the sole ground that the child has reached majority during the court proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 18 of Directive 2003/86, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as precluding an action against the rejection of an application for family reunification of a minor child from being dismissed as inadmissible on the sole ground that the child has reached majority during the court proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 164, 13.5.2019.

---

| 7.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/15

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 July 2020 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 17 de Palma de Mallorca, Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción de Ceuta — Spain) — CY v Caixabank SA (C-224/19), LG, PK v Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria SA (C-259/19)

(Joined Cases C-224/19 and C-259/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Articles 6 and 7 - Consumer contracts - Mortgage loans - Unfair terms - Term charging all of the costs of creating and cancelling a mortgage to the borrower - Effects of a declaration that those terms are void - Powers of the national court when dealing with a term considered to be ‘unfair’ - Award of costs - Application of national supplementary provisions - Article 3(1) - Assessment of the unfairness of contractual terms - Article 4(2) - Exclusion of terms relating to the main subject matter of the contract or the adequacy of the price and the remuneration - Condition - Article 5 - Obligation to draft contractual terms in plain, intelligible language - Costs - Limitation - Principle of effectiveness)

(2020/C 297/19)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 17 de Palma de Mallorca, Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción de Ceuta

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: CY (C-224/19), LG, PK (C-259/19)

Defendants: Caixabank SA (C-224/19), Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria SA (C-259/19)

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts are to be interpreted as meaning that, in the case where an unfair contractual term requiring the consumer to pay the full costs of creating and cancelling a mortgage is void, they preclude the national court from refusing to refund to the consumer the amounts paid pursuant to that term, unless any provisions of national law that may be applicable in the absence of that term require the consumer to pay all or part of those costs; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts are to be interpreted as meaning that, in the case where an unfair contractual term requiring the consumer to pay the full costs of creating and cancelling a mortgage is void, they preclude the national court from refusing to refund to the consumer the amounts paid pursuant to that term, unless any provisions of national law that may be applicable in the absence of that term require the consumer to pay all or part of those costs;

| 2. | Articles 3, 4(2) and 5 of Directive 93/13 are to be interpreted as meaning that contractual terms falling within the concept of ‘main subject matter of the contract’ must be understood as being those that lay down the essential obligations of that contract and which, as such, characterise it. By contrast, terms ancillary to those which define the very essence of the contractual relationship cannot fall within that concept. The fact that an arrangement fee is included in the total cost of a mortgage loan does not mean that it is an essential obligation of that loan. In any event, a court of a Member State is required to review the clarity and intelligibility of a contractual term relating to the main subject matter of the contract whether or not Article 4(2) of that directive has been transposed into the legal order of that Member State; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Articles 3, 4(2) and 5 of Directive 93/13 are to be interpreted as meaning that contractual terms falling within the concept of ‘main subject matter of the contract’ must be understood as being those that lay down the essential obligations of that contract and which, as such, characterise it. By contrast, terms ancillary to those which define the very essence of the contractual relationship cannot fall within that concept. The fact that an arrangement fee is included in the total cost of a mortgage loan does not mean that it is an essential obligation of that loan. In any event, a court of a Member State is required to review the clarity and intelligibility of a contractual term relating to the main subject matter of the contract whether or not Article 4(2) of that directive has been transposed into the legal order of that Member State;

| 3. | Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that a term in a loan agreement concluded between a consumer and a financial institution which requires the consumer to pay an arrangement fee may create, to the detriment of the consumer, a significant imbalance in the rights and obligations of the parties as arising from that agreement, contrary to the requirement of good faith, where the financial institution does not demonstrate that that fee corresponds to services actually provided and to costs it has incurred, which is a matter for the referring court to verify; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that a term in a loan agreement concluded between a consumer and a financial institution which requires the consumer to pay an arrangement fee may create, to the detriment of the consumer, a significant imbalance in the rights and obligations of the parties as arising from that agreement, contrary to the requirement of good faith, where the financial institution does not demonstrate that that fee corresponds to services actually provided and to costs it has incurred, which is a matter for the referring court to verify;

| 4. | Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that it is not contrary to those provisions for the bringing of an action to enforce the restitutory effects of a finding that an unfair contractual term is void to be subject to a limitation period, provided that the starting point and duration of that period do not make it practically impossible or excessively difficult for the consumer to exercise his right to seek such a refund; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that it is not contrary to those provisions for the bringing of an action to enforce the restitutory effects of a finding that an unfair contractual term is void to be subject to a limitation period, provided that the starting point and duration of that period do not make it practically impossible or excessively difficult for the consumer to exercise his right to seek such a refund;

| 5. | Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Directive 93/13 and the principle of effectiveness must be interpreted as meaning that they preclude a system whereby the consumer may be made to bear part of the costs of proceedings depending on the level of the unduly paid sums which are refunded to him following a finding that a contractual term is void for being unfair, given that such a system creates a substantial obstacle that is likely to discourage consumers from exercising the right to an effective judicial review of the potential unfairness of contractual terms such as that conferred by Directive 93/13. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Directive 93/13 and the principle of effectiveness must be interpreted as meaning that they preclude a system whereby the consumer may be made to bear part of the costs of proceedings depending on the level of the unduly paid sums which are refunded to him following a finding that a contractual term is void for being unfair, given that such a system creates a substantial obstacle that is likely to discourage consumers from exercising the right to an effective judicial review of the potential unfairness of contractual terms such as that conferred by Directive 93/13.

---

(1)  OJ C 246, 22.7.2019.

---

| 7.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/16

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul București — Romania) — JE v KF

(Case C-249/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EU) No 1259/2010 - Enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation - Uniform rules - Article 10 - Application of the law of the forum)

(2020/C 297/20)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul București

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: JE

Defendant: KF

Operative part of the judgment

Article 10 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1259/2010 of 20 December 2010 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation must be interpreted as meaning that the expression ‘where the law applicable by virtue of Article 5 or Article 8 makes no provision for divorce’ applies only where the foreign law applicable makes no provision for divorce in any form.

---

(1)  OJ C 206, 17.6.2019.

---

| 7.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 16 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Guimarães — Portugal) — MH, NI v OJ, Novo Banco SA

(Case C-253/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Insolvency proceedings - Regulation (UE) 2015/848 - Article 3 - International jurisdiction - Centre of a debtor’s main interests - Individual not exercising an independent business or professional activity - Rebuttable presumption that the centre of that person’s main interests is his or her habitual residence - Rebuttal of the presumption - Situation in which the debtor’s sole immovable asset is located outside the Member State of habitual residence)

(2020/C 297/21)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal da Relação de Guimarães

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: MH, NI

Defendants: OJ, Novo Banco SA

Operative part of the judgment

The first and fourth subparagraphs of Article 3(1) of Regulation (EU) 2015/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on insolvency proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that the presumption established in that provision for determining international jurisdiction for the purposes of opening insolvency proceedings, according to which the centre of the main interests of an individual not exercising an independent business or professional activity is his or her habitual residence, is not rebutted solely because the only immovable property of that person is located outside the Member State of habitual residence.

---

(1)  OJ C 206, 17.6.2019.

---

| 7.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/17

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — WWF Italia o.n.l.u.s. and Others v Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Azienda Nazionale Autonoma Strade SpA (ANAS)

(Case C-411/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Directive 92/43/EEC - Article 6 - Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora - Special areas of conservation - Construction of a road section - Assessment of the impact of that project on the special area of conservation concerned - Authorisation - Imperative reasons of overriding public interest)

(2020/C 297/22)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: WWF Italia o.n.l.u.s., Lega Italiana Protezione Uccelli o.n.l.u.s., Gruppo di Intervento Giuridico o.n.l.u.s., Italia Nostra o.n.l.u.s., Forum Ambientalista, FC and Others

Defendants: Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Azienda Nazionale Autonoma Strade SpA (ANAS)

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 6 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which allows a procedure for authorisation of a plan or project, the impact of which on a special area of conservation cannot be mitigated and in respect of which the competent public authority has already expressed a negative opinion, to continue for imperative reasons of overriding public interest, unless there is an alternative solution with fewer disadvantages for the integrity of the area concerned, which it falls to the referring court to verify. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 6 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which allows a procedure for authorisation of a plan or project, the impact of which on a special area of conservation cannot be mitigated and in respect of which the competent public authority has already expressed a negative opinion, to continue for imperative reasons of overriding public interest, unless there is an alternative solution with fewer disadvantages for the integrity of the area concerned, which it falls to the referring court to verify.

| 2. | When a plan or project has, pursuant to Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43, received a negative assessment of its impact on a special area of conservation and the Member State concerned has nevertheless decided, under Article 6(4), to carry out that project for imperative reasons of overriding public interest, Article 6 of that directive must be interpreted as precluding national legislation allowing that plan or project, after its negative assessment under Article 6(3) and before its final adoption pursuant to Article 6(4), to be supplemented by measures mitigating its impact on that area and for the assessment of its impact on that area to continue. By contrast, Article 6 of Directive 92/43 does not preclude, in the same situation, national legislation allowing compensatory measures in the context of the same decision to be defined, provided that the other conditions for implementing Article 6(4) of that directive are also fulfilled. |
| --- | --- |

2.

When a plan or project has, pursuant to Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43, received a negative assessment of its impact on a special area of conservation and the Member State concerned has nevertheless decided, under Article 6(4), to carry out that project for imperative reasons of overriding public interest, Article 6 of that directive must be interpreted as precluding national legislation allowing that plan or project, after its negative assessment under Article 6(3) and before its final adoption pursuant to Article 6(4), to be supplemented by measures mitigating its impact on that area and for the assessment of its impact on that area to continue. By contrast, Article 6 of Directive 92/43 does not preclude, in the same situation, national legislation allowing compensatory measures in the context of the same decision to be defined, provided that the other conditions for implementing Article 6(4) of that directive are also fulfilled.

| 3. | Directive 92/43 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation providing that the proponent of the works must carry out an impact assessment of the plan or project in question on the special area of conservation concerned, on the basis of which the competent authority must then carry out an assessment of that impact. The directive does, by contrast, preclude national legislation allowing the proponent of the works to be tasked with taking into account, in the final plan or project, requirements, observations and recommendations in relation to landscaping and the environment, after the plan or project has received a negative assessment by the competent authority, without that plan or project, thus modified, being required to undergo a new assessment by that authority. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Directive 92/43 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation providing that the proponent of the works must carry out an impact assessment of the plan or project in question on the special area of conservation concerned, on the basis of which the competent authority must then carry out an assessment of that impact. The directive does, by contrast, preclude national legislation allowing the proponent of the works to be tasked with taking into account, in the final plan or project, requirements, observations and recommendations in relation to landscaping and the environment, after the plan or project has received a negative assessment by the competent authority, without that plan or project, thus modified, being required to undergo a new assessment by that authority.

| 4. | Directive 92/43 must be interpreted as meaning that, although it is for the Member States to designate the authority with competence to assess the impact of a plan or project on a special area of conservation in compliance with the criteria set out in the Court’s case-law, it precludes, by contrast, any authority from continuing or supplementing that assessment once that assessment has been carried out. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Directive 92/43 must be interpreted as meaning that, although it is for the Member States to designate the authority with competence to assess the impact of a plan or project on a special area of conservation in compliance with the criteria set out in the Court’s case-law, it precludes, by contrast, any authority from continuing or supplementing that assessment once that assessment has been carried out.

---

(1)  OJ C 328, 30.9.2019.

---

| 7.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/18

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București — Romania) — Cabinet de avocat UR v Administraţia Sector 3 a Finanţelor Publice prin Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Bucureşti, Administraţia Sector 3 a Finanţelor Publice, MJ, NK

(Case C-424/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2006/112/EC - Value added tax (VAT) - Article 9(1) - Concept of ‘taxable person’ - Person practising the profession of lawyer - Final judicial decision - Principle of res judicata - Scope of that principle if that decision is incompatible with EU law)

(2020/C 297/23)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel București

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Cabinet de avocat UR

Defendants: Administraţia Sector 3 a Finanţelor Publice prin Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Bucureşti, Administraţia Sector 3 a Finanţelor Publice, MJ, NK

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 9(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that a person practising the profession of a lawyer must be regarded as a ‘taxable person’ within the meaning of that provision; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 9(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that a person practising the profession of a lawyer must be regarded as a ‘taxable person’ within the meaning of that provision;

| 2. | EU law precludes a national court, in a dispute relating to value added tax (VAT), from applying the principle of res judicata where that dispute does not relate to a tax period identical to the one which was at issue in the dispute which gave rise to the judicial decision having the authority of res judicata, does not have the same subject matter as that dispute, and where the application of that principle would prevent that court from taking into account EU legislation on VAT. |
| --- | --- |

2.

EU law precludes a national court, in a dispute relating to value added tax (VAT), from applying the principle of res judicata where that dispute does not relate to a tax period identical to the one which was at issue in the dispute which gave rise to the judicial decision having the authority of res judicata, does not have the same subject matter as that dispute, and where the application of that principle would prevent that court from taking into account EU legislation on VAT.

---

(1)  OJ C 288, 26.8.2019.

---

| 7.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/19

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria regionale della Campania — Italy) — Antonio Capaldo SpA v Agenzia delle dogane e dei monopoli — Ufficio delle dogane di Salerno

(Case C-496/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs Union - Community Customs Code - Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Examination of goods - Application for revision of a customs declaration - Post-clearance examination)

(2020/C 297/24)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione tributaria regionale della Campania

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Antonio Capaldo SpA

Defendant: Agenzia delle dogane e dei monopoli — Ufficio delle dogane di Salerno

Operative part of the judgment

Article 78 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code must be interpreted as not precluding the initiation of the procedure for revision of the customs declaration provided for therein, even though the goods in question were, on a previous import, subject, without challenge, to a physical inspection confirming their tariff classification.

---

(1)  OJ C 257, 21.10.2019.

---

| 7.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/19

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) — Latvia) — SIA ‘Soho Group’ v Patērētāju tiesību aizsardzības centrs

(Case C-686/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Credit agreements for consumers - Directive 2008/48/EC - Concept of ‘total cost of the credit to the consumer’ - Costs for extending the credit)

(2020/C 297/25)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa (Senāts)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SIA ‘Soho Group’

Defendant: Patērētāju tiesību aizsardzības centrs

Operative part of the judgment

The concept of the ‘total cost of the credit to the consumer’, contained in Article 3(g) of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC, must be interpreted as meaning that that concept includes the costs for any extension of the credit, provided that, first, the actual and precise conditions for its possible extension, including the duration of that extension, form part of the terms and conditions agreed between the creditor and the borrower in the credit agreement and, second, those costs are known to the creditor.

---

(1)  OJ C 399, 25.11.2019.

---

| 7.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/20

---

Appeal brought on 6 June 2019 by Abaco Energy SA and Others against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 25 March 2019 in Case T-186/18, Abaco Energy and Others v Commission

(Case C-436/19 P)

(2020/C 297/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Abaco Energy SA and Others (represented by: P. Holtrop, abogado)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

By order of 21 July 2020, the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) held that the appeal is dismissed as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded and that the appellants shall bear their own costs.

---

| 7.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/20

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia (Romania) lodged on 7 April 2020 — SC Avio Lucos SRL v Agenția de Plăți și Intervenție pentru Agricultură — Centrul Județean Dolj, Agenția de Plăți și Intervenție pentru Agricultură (APIA) — Aparat Central

(Case C-176/20)

(2020/C 297/27)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SC Avio Lucos SRL

Defendants: Agenția de Plăți și Intervenție pentru Agricultură — Centrul Județean Dolj, Agenția de Plăți și Intervenție pentru Agricultură (APIA) — Aparat Central

Questions referred

| 1. | Does Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of 17 December 2013 establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 637/2008 and Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 (1) preclude national legislation which establishes that the minimum activity to be carried out on agricultural areas normally kept in a state suitable for grazing is to consist in grazing with animals used by a farmer? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of 17 December 2013 establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 637/2008 and Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 (1) preclude national legislation which establishes that the minimum activity to be carried out on agricultural areas normally kept in a state suitable for grazing is to consist in grazing with animals used by a farmer?

| 2. | In so far as the abovementioned law [of the European Union] does not preclude the national legislation referred to in Question 1, may the respective provisions of Article 4(1)(a) and (c), and of Article 9(1), of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of 17 December 2013 be interpreted as meaning that a legal person who has concluded a concession contract in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings and who keeps animals under loan-for-use contracts concluded with physical persons, by which the lenders entrust to the borrowers, free of charge, the animals which they keep as owners, for the purpose of use for grazing, on the pastureland made available to the borrowers and over the agreed periods of time, may be regarded as an ‘active farmer’? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In so far as the abovementioned law [of the European Union] does not preclude the national legislation referred to in Question 1, may the respective provisions of Article 4(1)(a) and (c), and of Article 9(1), of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of 17 December 2013 be interpreted as meaning that a legal person who has concluded a concession contract in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings and who keeps animals under loan-for-use contracts concluded with physical persons, by which the lenders entrust to the borrowers, free of charge, the animals which they keep as owners, for the purpose of use for grazing, on the pastureland made available to the borrowers and over the agreed periods of time, may be regarded as an ‘active farmer’?

| 3. | Must Article 60 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008 (2) be interpreted as meaning that artificial conditions also cover the case of a concession contract and loan-for-use contracts such as those at issue in the main proceedings? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Must Article 60 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008 (2) be interpreted as meaning that artificial conditions also cover the case of a concession contract and loan-for-use contracts such as those at issue in the main proceedings?

---

(1)  OJ 2013 L 347, p. 608.

(2)  OJ 2013 L 347, p. 549.

---

| 7.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/21

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București (Romania) lodged on 7 April 2020 — Fondul Proprietatea SA v Guvernul României, SC Complexul Energetic Hunedoara SA, in liquidation, Compania Națională de Transport al Energiei Electrice ‘Transelectrica’ SA, SC Complexul Energetic Oltenia SA

(Case C-179/20)

(2020/C 297/28)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel București

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Fondul Proprietatea SA

Defendants: Guvernul României, SC Complexul Energetic Hunedoara SA, in liquidation, Compania Națională de Transport al Energiei Electrice ‘Transelectrica’ SA, SC Complexul Energetic Oltenia SA

Intervener: Ministerul Economiei, Energiei și Mediului de Afaceri

Questions referred

| (a) | Does the adoption by the Romanian State of a legislative act which, for the benefit of two companies of which the State is the majority shareholder, provides for:






  a.1. | the grant of priority access to dispatching and an obligation for the transmission system operator to purchase ancillary services from those companies, and |
| --- | --- | --- |

(a)

Does the adoption by the Romanian State of a legislative act which, for the benefit of two companies of which the State is the majority shareholder, provides for:

a.1.

the grant of priority access to dispatching and an obligation for the transmission system operator to purchase ancillary services from those companies, and

| a.2. | the grant of guaranteed access to the electricity grid for the electricity produced by those two companies, such as to ensure that they can operate continuously,
  constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107 TFEU, that is to say, is it a measure funded by the State or through State resources, is it selective in nature and may it affect trade between Member States? If so, is such State aid subject to notification as provided for by Article 108(3) TFEU? |
| --- | --- |

a.2.

the grant of guaranteed access to the electricity grid for the electricity produced by those two companies, such as to ensure that they can operate continuously,

constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107 TFEU, that is to say, is it a measure funded by the State or through State resources, is it selective in nature and may it affect trade between Member States? If so, is such State aid subject to notification as provided for by Article 108(3) TFEU?

| (b) | Is the grant by the Romanian State of a right of guaranteed access to the electricity grid to two companies of which the State is the majority shareholder, such as to ensure that they can operate continuously, consistent with the provisions of Article 15(4) of Directive 2009/72/EC? (1) |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Is the grant by the Romanian State of a right of guaranteed access to the electricity grid to two companies of which the State is the majority shareholder, such as to ensure that they can operate continuously, consistent with the provisions of Article 15(4) of Directive 2009/72/EC? (1)

---

(1)  Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC (OJ 2009 L 211, p. 55).

---

| 7.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/22

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Suceava (Romania) lodged on 23 April 2020 — BE, DT v Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Suceava, Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Iași, Accer Ipurl Suceva — lichidator judiciar al BE, EP

(Case C-182/20)

(2020/C 297/29)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Suceava

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: BE, DT

Defendants: Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Suceava, Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Iași, Accer Ipurl Suceva — lichidator judiciar al BE, EP

Question referred

Do Directive 2006/112/EC (1) and the principles of fiscal neutrality, the right to deduct VAT and fiscal certainty preclude, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, national legislation which requires, once insolvency proceedings in respect of an economic operator have been initiated, automatically and without further checks, adjustment of VAT, by refusing to allow the economic operator to deduct VAT on taxable transactions that occurred prior to the declaration of insolvency and ordering the operator to pay the deductible VAT? Does the principle of proportionality preclude, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, such provisions of national law, given the economic consequences for the economic operator and the definitive nature of such an adjustment?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1, Special edition in Romanian: Chapter 09 Volume 003 P. 7).

---

| 7.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/22

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Overijssel (Netherlands) lodged on 25 May 2020 — XXXX v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-217/20)

(2020/C 297/30)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Overijssel

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: XXXX

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 17(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time be interpreted as meaning that a worker does not lose his remuneration, or part thereof, because he exercises his right to annual leave? Or should that provision be interpreted as meaning that a worker retains his remuneration while exercising his right to annual leave, irrespective of the reason for not working during the leave period? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 17(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time be interpreted as meaning that a worker does not lose his remuneration, or part thereof, because he exercises his right to annual leave? Or should that provision be interpreted as meaning that a worker retains his remuneration while exercising his right to annual leave, irrespective of the reason for not working during the leave period?

| 2. | Must Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88 ... be interpreted as precluding national provisions and practices whereby a worker who is incapacitated for work due to illness, when taking his annual leave, retains his remuneration at the level it was immediately prior to his taking annual leave, even if, on account of the long duration of his incapacity for work, that remuneration is lower than that paid in the event of full fitness for work? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88 ... be interpreted as precluding national provisions and practices whereby a worker who is incapacitated for work due to illness, when taking his annual leave, retains his remuneration at the level it was immediately prior to his taking annual leave, even if, on account of the long duration of his incapacity for work, that remuneration is lower than that paid in the event of full fitness for work?

| 3. | Must the entitlement of every worker to paid annual leave under Article 7 of Directive 2003/88 ... and under settled EU case-law be interpreted as meaning that reducing that remuneration during leave taken during incapacity for work runs counter to that entitlement? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Must the entitlement of every worker to paid annual leave under Article 7 of Directive 2003/88 ... and under settled EU case-law be interpreted as meaning that reducing that remuneration during leave taken during incapacity for work runs counter to that entitlement?

---

(1)  OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9.

---

| 7.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/23

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from Tribunalul Mureș (Romania) lodged on 27 May 2020 — Sindicatul Lucrătorilor din Transporturi, TD v SC Samidani Trans SRL

(Case C-218/20)

(2020/C 297/31)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Mureș

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Sindicatul Lucrătorilor din Transporturi, TD

Defendant: SC Samidani Trans SRL

Questions referred

| 1. | Interpretation of Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I)[:] (1) does the choice of law applicable to an individual employment contract exclude the application of the law of the country in which the employee has habitually carried out his or her work or does the fact that a choice of law has been made exclude the application of the second sentence of Article 8(1) of that regulation? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Interpretation of Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I)[:] (1) does the choice of law applicable to an individual employment contract exclude the application of the law of the country in which the employee has habitually carried out his or her work or does the fact that a choice of law has been made exclude the application of the second sentence of Article 8(1) of that regulation?

| 2. | Interpretation of Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I): is the minimum wage applicable in the country in which the employee has habitually carried out his or her work a right that falls within the scope of ‘provisions that cannot be derogated from by agreement under the law that, in the absence of choice, would have been applicable’, within the meaning of the second sentence of Article 8(1) of the regulation? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Interpretation of Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I): is the minimum wage applicable in the country in which the employee has habitually carried out his or her work a right that falls within the scope of ‘provisions that cannot be derogated from by agreement under the law that, in the absence of choice, would have been applicable’, within the meaning of the second sentence of Article 8(1) of the regulation?

| 3. | Interpretation of Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I): does the specification, in an individual employment contract, of the provisions of the Romanian Labour Code equate to a choice of Romanian law, in so far as, in Romania, it is well-known that the employer predetermines the content of the individual employment contract? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Interpretation of Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I): does the specification, in an individual employment contract, of the provisions of the Romanian Labour Code equate to a choice of Romanian law, in so far as, in Romania, it is well-known that the employer predetermines the content of the individual employment contract?

---

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

---

| 7.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/23

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Constanța (Romania) lodged on 29 May 2020 — Euro Delta Danube SRL v Agenția de Plăți și Intervenție pentru Agricultură — Centrul Județean Tulcea

(Case C-225/20)

(2020/C 297/32)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Constanța

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Euro Delta Danube SRL

Defendant: Agenția de Plăți și Intervenție pentru Agricultură — Centrul Județean Tulcea

Question referred

| 1. | Are the provisions of Article 2(23) and of Article 19 of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 640/2014 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) with regard to the integrated administration and control system and conditions for refusal or withdrawal of payments and administrative penalties applicable to direct payments, rural development support and cross compliance to be interpreted as precluding national legislation that, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, imposes administrative penalties on the farmer for over-declaration on the ground that he does not meet the eligibility criteria for the area considered over-declared, inasmuch as he cultivates an area of land with aquaculture facilities, held under a concession agreement, without providing evidence of the grantor’s consent that the land be used for agricultural purposes? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are the provisions of Article 2(23) and of Article 19 of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 640/2014 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) with regard to the integrated administration and control system and conditions for refusal or withdrawal of payments and administrative penalties applicable to direct payments, rural development support and cross compliance to be interpreted as precluding national legislation that, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, imposes administrative penalties on the farmer for over-declaration on the ground that he does not meet the eligibility criteria for the area considered over-declared, inasmuch as he cultivates an area of land with aquaculture facilities, held under a concession agreement, without providing evidence of the grantor’s consent that the land be used for agricultural purposes?

---

(1)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 640/2014 of 11 March 2014 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the integrated administration and control system and conditions for refusal or withdrawal of payments and administrative penalties applicable to direct payments, rural development support and cross compliance (OJ 2014 L 181, p. 48).

---

| 7.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/24

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 4 June 2020 — WD v job-medium GmbH in liquidation

(Case C-233/20)

(2020/C 297/33)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant and appellant in the appeal on a point of law: WD

Defendant and respondent in the appeal on a point of law: job-medium GmbH in liquidation

Questions referred

| 1 | Is a provision of national law under which no allowance in lieu of annual leave is payable in respect of the current (last) working year, where the worker unilaterally terminates (‘withdraws from’) the employment relationship early without cause, compatible with Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2010/C 83/02) and Article 7 of the Working Time Directive (Directive 2003/88/EC)? (1) |
| --- | --- |

1

Is a provision of national law under which no allowance in lieu of annual leave is payable in respect of the current (last) working year, where the worker unilaterally terminates (‘withdraws from’) the employment relationship early without cause, compatible with Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2010/C 83/02) and Article 7 of the Working Time Directive (Directive 2003/88/EC)? (1)

| 2. | If the answer to that question is in the negative:






  2.1. | Is it necessary to verify additionally if the worker was unable to use up his annual leave? |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to that question is in the negative:

2.1.

Is it necessary to verify additionally if the worker was unable to use up his annual leave?

| 2.2. | If so, what are the criteria for that verification? |
| --- | --- |

2.2.

If so, what are the criteria for that verification?

---

(1)  Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9).

---

| 7.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/25

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 5 June 2020 — Federatie Nederlandse Vakbeweging v Heiploeg Seafood International BV, Heitrans International BV

(Case C-237/20)

(2020/C 297/34)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Federatie Nederlandse Vakbeweging

Defendants: Heiploeg Seafood International BV, Heitrans International BV

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/23/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that the condition that ‘bankruptcy proceedings or any analogous insolvency proceedings ... have been instituted with a view to the liquidation of the assets of the transferor’ has been met, where






  (i) | the bankruptcy of the transferor is inevitable and the transferor is therefore effectively insolvent |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/23/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that the condition that ‘bankruptcy proceedings or any analogous insolvency proceedings ... have been instituted with a view to the liquidation of the assets of the transferor’ has been met, where

(i)

the bankruptcy of the transferor is inevitable and the transferor is therefore effectively insolvent

| (ii) | under Dutch law, the objective of the bankruptcy proceedings is to secure the highest possible return for the joint creditors by liquidating the debtor’s assets, and |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

under Dutch law, the objective of the bankruptcy proceedings is to secure the highest possible return for the joint creditors by liquidating the debtor’s assets, and

| (iii) | in a so-called pre-pack prior to the declaration of bankruptcy, preparations are made for the transfer of (part of) the undertaking but it is only carried out after the declaration of bankruptcy, in terms of which |
| --- | --- |

(iii)

in a so-called pre-pack prior to the declaration of bankruptcy, preparations are made for the transfer of (part of) the undertaking but it is only carried out after the declaration of bankruptcy, in terms of which

| (iv) | prior to the declaration of bankruptcy, the prospective insolvency administrator appointed by the Rechtbank (District Court) must be guided by the interests of the joint creditors as well as by social interests such as the importance of job preservation, and the prospective Rechter-commissaris (supervisory judge), also appointed by the Rechtbank, must exercise a supervisory function in that regard, |
| --- | --- |

(iv)

prior to the declaration of bankruptcy, the prospective insolvency administrator appointed by the Rechtbank (District Court) must be guided by the interests of the joint creditors as well as by social interests such as the importance of job preservation, and the prospective Rechter-commissaris (supervisory judge), also appointed by the Rechtbank, must exercise a supervisory function in that regard,

| (v) | the objective of the pre-pack is to enable, in the subsequent bankruptcy proceedings, a method of liquidation whereby (part of) the undertaking belonging to the assets of the transferor is sold as a going concern so as to obtain the highest possible return for the joint creditors and jobs are preserved as far as possible, and |
| --- | --- |

(v)

the objective of the pre-pack is to enable, in the subsequent bankruptcy proceedings, a method of liquidation whereby (part of) the undertaking belonging to the assets of the transferor is sold as a going concern so as to obtain the highest possible return for the joint creditors and jobs are preserved as far as possible, and

| (vi) | the structure of the procedure ensures that that objective is in fact the guiding principle? |
| --- | --- |

(vi)

the structure of the procedure ensures that that objective is in fact the guiding principle?

| 2. | Must Article 5(1) of the Directive be interpreted as meaning that the condition that ‘the bankruptcy proceedings or any analogous insolvency proceedings are under the supervision of a competent public authority’ is fulfilled if the transfer of (part of) the undertaking is prepared in a pre-pack prior to the declaration of bankruptcy and is carried out after the declaration of bankruptcy, and






  (i) | is monitored, prior to the declaration of bankruptcy, by a prospective insolvency administrator and a prospective Rechter-commissaris who have been appointed by the Rechtbank but who do not have legal powers, |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Must Article 5(1) of the Directive be interpreted as meaning that the condition that ‘the bankruptcy proceedings or any analogous insolvency proceedings are under the supervision of a competent public authority’ is fulfilled if the transfer of (part of) the undertaking is prepared in a pre-pack prior to the declaration of bankruptcy and is carried out after the declaration of bankruptcy, and

(i)

is monitored, prior to the declaration of bankruptcy, by a prospective insolvency administrator and a prospective Rechter-commissaris who have been appointed by the Rechtbank but who do not have legal powers,

| (ii) | under Dutch law, prior to the declaration of bankruptcy, the prospective insolvency administrator is obliged to be guided by the interests of the joint creditors and by other social interests, such as the preservation of jobs, and the prospective Rechter-commissaris is obliged to exercise a supervisory function in that regard, |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

under Dutch law, prior to the declaration of bankruptcy, the prospective insolvency administrator is obliged to be guided by the interests of the joint creditors and by other social interests, such as the preservation of jobs, and the prospective Rechter-commissaris is obliged to exercise a supervisory function in that regard,

| (iii) | the duties of the prospective insolvency administrator and the prospective Rechter-commissaris do not differ from those of the insolvency administrator and the Rechter-commissaris in a bankruptcy, |
| --- | --- |

(iii)

the duties of the prospective insolvency administrator and the prospective Rechter-commissaris do not differ from those of the insolvency administrator and the Rechter-commissaris in a bankruptcy,

| (iv) | the agreement on the basis of which the company is transferred and which has been prepared during a pre-pack is only concluded and executed after the bankruptcy has been declared, |
| --- | --- |

(iv)

the agreement on the basis of which the company is transferred and which has been prepared during a pre-pack is only concluded and executed after the bankruptcy has been declared,

| (v) | the Rechtbank, when declaring the bankruptcy, may proceed to appoint an insolvency administrator or a Rechter-commissaris other than the prospective insolvency administrator or the prospective Rechter-commissaris, and |
| --- | --- |

(v)

the Rechtbank, when declaring the bankruptcy, may proceed to appoint an insolvency administrator or a Rechter-commissaris other than the prospective insolvency administrator or the prospective Rechter-commissaris, and

| (vi) | the same requirements of objectivity and independence apply to the insolvency administrator and the Rechter-commissaris as apply to an insolvency administrator and a Rechter-commissaris in a bankruptcy that was not preceded by a pre-pack and, irrespective of the degree of their involvement prior to the declaration of bankruptcy, they are obliged by virtue of their statutory duty to assess whether the transfer of (part of) the undertaking prepared prior to the declaration of bankruptcy is in the interests of the joint creditors, and if they answer that question in the negative, to decide that such a transfer will not take place, while they are also always entitled to decide on other grounds, for example, because other social interests, such as the interest of employment, are opposed to it, that the transfer of (part of) the undertaking prepared prior to the declaration of bankruptcy will not take place? |
| --- | --- |

(vi)

the same requirements of objectivity and independence apply to the insolvency administrator and the Rechter-commissaris as apply to an insolvency administrator and a Rechter-commissaris in a bankruptcy that was not preceded by a pre-pack and, irrespective of the degree of their involvement prior to the declaration of bankruptcy, they are obliged by virtue of their statutory duty to assess whether the transfer of (part of) the undertaking prepared prior to the declaration of bankruptcy is in the interests of the joint creditors, and if they answer that question in the negative, to decide that such a transfer will not take place, while they are also always entitled to decide on other grounds, for example, because other social interests, such as the interest of employment, are opposed to it, that the transfer of (part of) the undertaking prepared prior to the declaration of bankruptcy will not take place?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses (OJ 2001 L 82, p. 16).

---

| 7.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/26

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance du Luxembourg (Belgium) lodged on 5 June 2020 — BJ v État belge

(Case C-241/20)

(2020/C 297/35)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance du Luxembourg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: BJ

Defendant: État belge

Questions referred

| 1. | Does Article 45 TFEU preclude rules such as those at issue in the main proceedings — irrespective of whether or not they are laid down in a convention for the avoidance of double taxation — whereby a taxpayer forfeits, in the calculation of the income tax payable by him in his State of residence, part of the tax-free amount of that income and of his other personal tax advantages (such as a tax reduction for long-term savings, that is to say, premiums paid under an individual life insurance contract, and a tax reduction for costs incurred in energy savings) because, during the year in question, he also received income in another Member State which was taxed in that State? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does Article 45 TFEU preclude rules such as those at issue in the main proceedings — irrespective of whether or not they are laid down in a convention for the avoidance of double taxation — whereby a taxpayer forfeits, in the calculation of the income tax payable by him in his State of residence, part of the tax-free amount of that income and of his other personal tax advantages (such as a tax reduction for long-term savings, that is to say, premiums paid under an individual life insurance contract, and a tax reduction for costs incurred in energy savings) because, during the year in question, he also received income in another Member State which was taxed in that State?

| 2. | If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, does that answer remain in the affirmative if the income received by the taxpayer in his State of residence is neither quantitatively nor proportionately significant but that State is nevertheless in a position to grant him those tax advantages? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, does that answer remain in the affirmative if the income received by the taxpayer in his State of residence is neither quantitatively nor proportionately significant but that State is nevertheless in a position to grant him those tax advantages?

| 3. | If the answer to the second question is in the affirmative, does that answer remain in the affirmative if, under a Convention for the avoidance of double taxation between the State of residence and the other State, the taxpayer has enjoyed in that other State, in respect of income taxable in that other State, personal tax advantages under the tax legislation of that other State but those tax advantages do not include certain tax advantages to which the taxpayer is in principle entitled in the State of residence? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the answer to the second question is in the affirmative, does that answer remain in the affirmative if, under a Convention for the avoidance of double taxation between the State of residence and the other State, the taxpayer has enjoyed in that other State, in respect of income taxable in that other State, personal tax advantages under the tax legislation of that other State but those tax advantages do not include certain tax advantages to which the taxpayer is in principle entitled in the State of residence?

| 4. | If the answer to the third question is in the affirmative, does that answer remain in the affirmative if, notwithstanding the latter difference, the taxpayer obtains in that other State a tax reduction in an amount at least equivalent to that which he has lost in his State of residence? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If the answer to the third question is in the affirmative, does that answer remain in the affirmative if, notwithstanding the latter difference, the taxpayer obtains in that other State a tax reduction in an amount at least equivalent to that which he has lost in his State of residence?

| 5. | Are the answers to the questions the same in the light of Articles 63(1) and 65(1)(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in relation to rules such as those at issue in the main proceedings — irrespective of whether or not they are laid down in a convention for the avoidance of double taxation — whereby a taxpayer forfeits, in the calculation of the income tax payable by him in his State of residence, part of the tax-free amount of that income and of his other personal tax advantages (such as a tax reduction for long-term savings, that is to say premiums paid under an individual life insurance contract, and a tax reduction for costs incurred in energy savings) because, during the year in question, he also received rental income in respect of a property owned by him in another Member State which was taxed in that State? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Are the answers to the questions the same in the light of Articles 63(1) and 65(1)(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in relation to rules such as those at issue in the main proceedings — irrespective of whether or not they are laid down in a convention for the avoidance of double taxation — whereby a taxpayer forfeits, in the calculation of the income tax payable by him in his State of residence, part of the tax-free amount of that income and of his other personal tax advantages (such as a tax reduction for long-term savings, that is to say premiums paid under an individual life insurance contract, and a tax reduction for costs incurred in energy savings) because, during the year in question, he also received rental income in respect of a property owned by him in another Member State which was taxed in that State?

---

| 7.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/27

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the rechtbank Midden-Nederland (Netherlands) lodged on 29 May 2020 — X, Z v Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens

(Case C-245/20)

(2020/C 297/36)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Midden-Nederland

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: X, Z

Defendant: Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens

Question referred

| 1. | Is Article 55(3) of the General Data Protection Regulation (1) to be interpreted as meaning that ‘processing operations of courts acting in their judicial capacity’ can be understood to mean the provision by a judicial authority of access to procedural documents containing personal data, where such access is granted by making copies of those procedural documents available to a journalist, as described in the present order for reference?






  a. | In answering that question, is it relevant whether the national supervisory authority’s supervision of that form of data processing affects independent judicial decisions in specific cases? |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 55(3) of the General Data Protection Regulation (1) to be interpreted as meaning that ‘processing operations of courts acting in their judicial capacity’ can be understood to mean the provision by a judicial authority of access to procedural documents containing personal data, where such access is granted by making copies of those procedural documents available to a journalist, as described in the present order for reference?

a.

In answering that question, is it relevant whether the national supervisory authority’s supervision of that form of data processing affects independent judicial decisions in specific cases?

| b. | In answering that question, is it relevant that, according to the judicial authority, the nature and purpose of the data processing is to inform a journalist in order to enable the journalist to better report on a public hearing in court proceedings, thereby serving the interests of openness and transparency in the administration of justice? |
| --- | --- |

b.

In answering that question, is it relevant that, according to the judicial authority, the nature and purpose of the data processing is to inform a journalist in order to enable the journalist to better report on a public hearing in court proceedings, thereby serving the interests of openness and transparency in the administration of justice?

| c. | In answering that question, is it relevant whether there is any express legal basis for such data processing under national law? |
| --- | --- |

c.

In answering that question, is it relevant whether there is any express legal basis for such data processing under national law?

---

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

---

| 7.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/28

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg Oost-Vlaanderen, afdeling Gent (Belgium) lodged on 3 June 2020 — Openbaar Ministerie v EA

(Case C-246/20)

(2020/C 297/37)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank van eerste aanleg Oost-Vlaanderen, afdeling Gent

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Openbaar Ministerie

Respondent: EA

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 2(1) of Directive 2006/126/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that a driving licence must be automatically recognised by the Member States where the issue of that document is based on the exchange of a driving licence which was registered as lost in the issuing country and had ceased to be valid in the issuing country? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 2(1) of Directive 2006/126/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that a driving licence must be automatically recognised by the Member States where the issue of that document is based on the exchange of a driving licence which was registered as lost in the issuing country and had ceased to be valid in the issuing country?

| 2. | May a Member State refuse to recognise the exchanged driving licence in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 11(4) of Directive 2006/126/EC if the exchange took place at a time when the Member State which issued the original driving licence had withdrawn the right to drive until the completion of reintegration tests? |
| --- | --- |

2.

May a Member State refuse to recognise the exchanged driving licence in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 11(4) of Directive 2006/126/EC if the exchange took place at a time when the Member State which issued the original driving licence had withdrawn the right to drive until the completion of reintegration tests?

| 3. | May a Member State in any event refuse to recognise the exchanged driving licence document if the Member State on the territory of which the question concerning the recognition of the driving licence document arises can establish, on the basis of concrete and proven facts, that the right to drive no longer existed at the time when the driving licence document was exchanged? |
| --- | --- |

3.

May a Member State in any event refuse to recognise the exchanged driving licence document if the Member State on the territory of which the question concerning the recognition of the driving licence document arises can establish, on the basis of concrete and proven facts, that the right to drive no longer existed at the time when the driving licence document was exchanged?

| 4. | May a Member State in any event refuse to recognise the exchanged driving licence document if the recognition question concerns a national of the Member State in which the question of recognition arises, and that Member State establishes that, on the basis of concrete and proven facts, the person concerned, at the time of the exchange and/or at the time of the request for recognition, did not meet the minimum standards for obtaining a driving licence in that Member State? |
| --- | --- |

4.

May a Member State in any event refuse to recognise the exchanged driving licence document if the recognition question concerns a national of the Member State in which the question of recognition arises, and that Member State establishes that, on the basis of concrete and proven facts, the person concerned, at the time of the exchange and/or at the time of the request for recognition, did not meet the minimum standards for obtaining a driving licence in that Member State?

| 5. | Must Article 2(1) of Directive 2006/126/EC be interpreted as creating an inequality between a national of a Member State whose right to drive is only restored after the completion of the reintegration tests, and a national on whom reintegration tests were also imposed, but who in the meantime acquires a foreign driving licence, whether or not he fails to comply with the residence requirement, or by means of an exchange on the basis of a driving licence which had ceased to be valid in the Member State of issue? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Must Article 2(1) of Directive 2006/126/EC be interpreted as creating an inequality between a national of a Member State whose right to drive is only restored after the completion of the reintegration tests, and a national on whom reintegration tests were also imposed, but who in the meantime acquires a foreign driving licence, whether or not he fails to comply with the residence requirement, or by means of an exchange on the basis of a driving licence which had ceased to be valid in the Member State of issue?

---

(1)  Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences (OJ 2006 L 403, p. 18).

---

| 7.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/28

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 10 June 2020 — Gtflix Tv v DR

(Case C-251/20)

(2020/C 297/38)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Gtflix Tv

Defendant: DR

Question referred

Must Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (1) be interpreted as meaning that a person who, considering that his or her rights have been infringed by the dissemination of derogatory comments on the internet, brings proceedings not only for the rectification of information and the removal of content but also for compensation for the resulting non-material and material damage, may claim, before the courts of each Member State in the territory of which content published online is or was accessible, compensation for the damage caused in the territory of that Member State, in accordance with the judgment in eDate Advertising (paragraphs 51 and 52) [judgment of the Court of 25 October 2011, Joined Cases C-509/09 and C-161/10], or whether, pursuant to the judgment in Svensk Handel (paragraph 48) [judgment of the Court of 17 October 2017, Case C-194/16], that person must make the application for compensation before the court with jurisdiction to order rectification of the information and removal of the derogatory comments?

---

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

---

| 7.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/29

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 9 June 2020 — Impexeco NV v Novartis AG

(Case C-253/20)

(2020/C 297/39)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Impexeco NV

Respondent: Novartis AG

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Articles 34 to 36 TFEU be interpreted as meaning that, where a branded medicine (reference medicine) and a generic medicine have been put on the market in the EEA by economically linked undertakings, a trade mark proprietor’s opposition to the further commercialisation of the generic medicine by a parallel importer after the repackaging of that generic medicine by the affixing to it of the trade mark of the branded medicine (reference medicine) in the country of importation may lead to an artificial partitioning of the markets of the Member States? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Articles 34 to 36 TFEU be interpreted as meaning that, where a branded medicine (reference medicine) and a generic medicine have been put on the market in the EEA by economically linked undertakings, a trade mark proprietor’s opposition to the further commercialisation of the generic medicine by a parallel importer after the repackaging of that generic medicine by the affixing to it of the trade mark of the branded medicine (reference medicine) in the country of importation may lead to an artificial partitioning of the markets of the Member States?

| 2. | If the answer to that question is in the affirmative, must the trade mark proprietor’s opposition to that rebranding be assessed by reference to the BMS conditions? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to that question is in the affirmative, must the trade mark proprietor’s opposition to that rebranding be assessed by reference to the BMS conditions?

| 3. | Is it relevant to the answer to those questions that the generic medicine and the branded medicine (reference medicine) are identical or have the same therapeutic effect as referred to in Article 3(2) of the Koninklijk besluit van 19 april 2001 inzake parallelinvoer (Royal Decree of 19 April 2001 on parallel imports)? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is it relevant to the answer to those questions that the generic medicine and the branded medicine (reference medicine) are identical or have the same therapeutic effect as referred to in Article 3(2) of the Koninklijk besluit van 19 april 2001 inzake parallelinvoer (Royal Decree of 19 April 2001 on parallel imports)?

---

| 7.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/29

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 9 June 2020 — PI Pharma NV v Novartis AG, Novartis Pharma NV

(Case C-254/20)

(2020/C 297/40)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: PI Pharma NV

Respondents: Novartis AG, Novartis Pharma NV

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Articles 34 to 36 TFEU be interpreted as meaning that, where a branded medicine (reference medicine) and a generic medicine have been put on the market in the EEA by economically linked undertakings, a trade mark proprietor’s opposition to the further commercialisation of the generic medicine by a parallel importer after the repackaging of that generic medicine by the affixing to it of the trade mark of the branded medicine (reference medicine) in the country of importation may lead to an artificial partitioning of the markets of the Member States? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Articles 34 to 36 TFEU be interpreted as meaning that, where a branded medicine (reference medicine) and a generic medicine have been put on the market in the EEA by economically linked undertakings, a trade mark proprietor’s opposition to the further commercialisation of the generic medicine by a parallel importer after the repackaging of that generic medicine by the affixing to it of the trade mark of the branded medicine (reference medicine) in the country of importation may lead to an artificial partitioning of the markets of the Member States?

| 2. | If the answer to that question is in the affirmative, must the trade mark proprietor’s opposition to that rebranding be assessed by reference to the BMS conditions? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to that question is in the affirmative, must the trade mark proprietor’s opposition to that rebranding be assessed by reference to the BMS conditions?

| 3. | Is it relevant to the answer to those questions that the generic medicine and the branded medicine (reference medicine) are identical or have the same therapeutic effect as referred to in Article 3(2) of the Koninklijk besluit van 19 april 2001 inzake parallelinvoer (Royal Decree of 19 April 2001 on parallel imports)? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is it relevant to the answer to those questions that the generic medicine and the branded medicine (reference medicine) are identical or have the same therapeutic effect as referred to in Article 3(2) of the Koninklijk besluit van 19 april 2001 inzake parallelinvoer (Royal Decree of 19 April 2001 on parallel imports)?

---

| 7.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/30

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 18 June 2020 — Finanzamt T v S

(Case C-269/20)

(2020/C 297/41)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Finanzamt T

Defendant: S

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the authorisation granted to Member States in the second subparagraph of Article 4(4) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes (1) to treat as a single taxable person persons established in their territory who, while legally independent, are closely bound to one another by financial, economic and organisational links to be exercised in such a way that:






  a) | treatment as a single taxable person is effected through one of those persons, who is the taxable person for all of the transactions performed by those persons; or in such a way that: |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Is the authorisation granted to Member States in the second subparagraph of Article 4(4) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes (1) to treat as a single taxable person persons established in their territory who, while legally independent, are closely bound to one another by financial, economic and organisational links to be exercised in such a way that:

a)

treatment as a single taxable person is effected through one of those persons, who is the taxable person for all of the transactions performed by those persons; or in such a way that:

| b) | treatment as a single taxable person must of necessity — and thus, in addition, under sufferance of substantial tax losses — lead to a VAT group separate from the persons closely bound to one another, which constitutes a fictitious entity to be set up specifically for VAT purposes? |
| --- | --- |

b)

treatment as a single taxable person must of necessity — and thus, in addition, under sufferance of substantial tax losses — lead to a VAT group separate from the persons closely bound to one another, which constitutes a fictitious entity to be set up specifically for VAT purposes?

| 2. | If the correct answer to the first question is (a): does it follow from the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning non-business purposes within the meaning of Article 6(2) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes (judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 12 February 2009 in VNLTO – C-515/07, EU:C:2009:88) that, in the case of a taxable person who






  a) | on the one hand, pursues an economic activity and, in so doing, provides services for consideration within the meaning of Article 2(1) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, and |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

If the correct answer to the first question is (a): does it follow from the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning non-business purposes within the meaning of Article 6(2) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes (judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 12 February 2009 in VNLTO – C-515/07, EU:C:2009:88) that, in the case of a taxable person who

a)

on the one hand, pursues an economic activity and, in so doing, provides services for consideration within the meaning of Article 2(1) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, and

| b) | on the other hand, pursues at the same time an activity which is incumbent upon him in the exercise of public authority (an activity he carries on in an official capacity) and in respect of which he is not considered to be a taxable person, in accordance with Article 4(5) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, |
| --- | --- |

b)

on the other hand, pursues at the same time an activity which is incumbent upon him in the exercise of public authority (an activity he carries on in an official capacity) and in respect of which he is not considered to be a taxable person, in accordance with Article 4(5) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes,

a service falling within the sphere of his economic activity which he provides free of charge for a purpose falling within the sphere of the activity he carries on in an official capacity is not subject to tax, in accordance with Article 6(2)(b) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes?

---

(1)  OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.

---

| 7.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/31

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di pace di Massa (Italy) lodged on 19 June 2020 — GN and WX v Prefettura di Massa Carrara — Ufficio Territoriale del Governo di Massa Carrara

(Case C-274/20)

(2020/C 297/42)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Giudice di pace di Massa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: GN and WX

Defendant: Prefettura di Massa Carrara — Ufficio Territoriale del Governo di Massa Carrara

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the concept of the prohibition of ‘discrimination on grounds of nationality’ under Article 18 TFEU to be interpreted as meaning that Member States are prohibited from enacting any legislation that could, indirectly, covertly and/or materially, cause difficulties for nationals of other Member States? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the concept of the prohibition of ‘discrimination on grounds of nationality’ under Article 18 TFEU to be interpreted as meaning that Member States are prohibited from enacting any legislation that could, indirectly, covertly and/or materially, cause difficulties for nationals of other Member States?

| 2. | If the first question is answered in the affirmative, could Article 93(1-bis) of the Codice della Strada (Italian Highway Code), concerning the prohibition of driving with foreign number plates (registered in anybody’s name) after 60 days of residence in Italy, cause difficulties for nationals of other Member States (who own cars with foreign number plates) and consequently be discriminatory on grounds of nationality? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the first question is answered in the affirmative, could Article 93(1-bis) of the Codice della Strada (Italian Highway Code), concerning the prohibition of driving with foreign number plates (registered in anybody’s name) after 60 days of residence in Italy, cause difficulties for nationals of other Member States (who own cars with foreign number plates) and consequently be discriminatory on grounds of nationality?

| 3. | Are the following concepts:






  a. | ‘right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States’, as referred to in Article 21 TFEU; |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Are the following concepts:

a.

‘right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States’, as referred to in Article 21 TFEU;

| b. | ‘internal market’ which ‘shall comprise an area without internal frontiers in which the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital is ensured in accordance with the provisions of the Treaties’, as referred to in Article 26 TFEU; |
| --- | --- |

b.

‘internal market’ which ‘shall comprise an area without internal frontiers in which the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital is ensured in accordance with the provisions of the Treaties’, as referred to in Article 26 TFEU;

| c. | ‘freedom of movement for workers shall be secured within the Union’, as referred to in Article 45 TFEU; |
| --- | --- |

c.

‘freedom of movement for workers shall be secured within the Union’, as referred to in Article 45 TFEU;

| d. | ‘restrictions on the freedom of establishment of nationals of a Member State in the territory of another Member State shall be prohibited’, as referred to in Articles 49 to 55 TFEU; [and] |
| --- | --- |

d.

‘restrictions on the freedom of establishment of nationals of a Member State in the territory of another Member State shall be prohibited’, as referred to in Articles 49 to 55 TFEU; [and]

| e. | ‘restrictions on freedom to provide services within the Union shall be prohibited in respect of nationals of Member States who are established in a Member State other than that of the person for whom the services are intended’, as referred to in Articles 56 to 62 TFEU |
| --- | --- |

e.

‘restrictions on freedom to provide services within the Union shall be prohibited in respect of nationals of Member States who are established in a Member State other than that of the person for whom the services are intended’, as referred to in Articles 56 to 62 TFEU

to be interpreted as meaning that national provisions that could, indirectly, covertly and/or materially, limit or hinder the ability of European citizens to exercise the right of freedom of movement and residence within the territory of the Member States, the right of freedom of movement for workers within the Union, freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services, or in any way affect those rights, are also prohibited?

| 4. | If the third question is answered in the affirmative, could Article 93(1-bis) of the Italian Highway Code, concerning the prohibition of driving with foreign number plates (registered in anybody’s name) after 60 days of residence in Italy, limit, hinder or in any way affect the exercise of the right of freedom of movement and residence in the territory of the Member States, the right of freedom of movement for workers within the Union, freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If the third question is answered in the affirmative, could Article 93(1-bis) of the Italian Highway Code, concerning the prohibition of driving with foreign number plates (registered in anybody’s name) after 60 days of residence in Italy, limit, hinder or in any way affect the exercise of the right of freedom of movement and residence in the territory of the Member States, the right of freedom of movement for workers within the Union, freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services?

---

| 7.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/32

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail francophone de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 25 June 2020 — CO, ME, GC and 42 Others v MJ, European Commission, European External Action Service, Council of the European Union, Eulex Kosovo

(Case C-283/20)

(2020/C 297/43)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal du travail francophone de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: CO, ME, GC and 42 Others

Defendants: MJ, European Commission, European External Action Service, Council of the European Union, Eulex Kosovo

Question referred

Should Articles 8.3 and 10.3 of Council Joint Action 2008/124/CFSP of 4 February 2008 on the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo, EULEX KOSOVO, (1) before its amendment by Council Decision 2014/349/CFSP of 12 June 2014, (2) where necessary in combination with any other possibly relevant provisions, be read as conferring on the Head of Mission, personally and on his or her own behalf, the status of employer of the international civilian staff members employed in the service of the EULEX KOSOVO Mission during the period before 12 June 2014 or, having regard, in particular, to Articles 8.5 and 9.3 of Joint Action 2008/124/CFSP before its amendment on 12 June 2014, as conferring the status of employer on the European Union and/or an institution of the European Union such as the European Commission, the European External Action Service, the Council of the European Union or any other institution on behalf of which the Head of Mission acted until that date by virtue of a mandate, delegation of power or any other form of representation to be determined where necessary?

---

(1)  OJ 2008 L 42, p. 92.

(2)  Council Decision 2014/349/CFSP of 12 June 2014 amending Joint Action 2008/124/CFSP on the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo, EULEX KOSOVO (OJ 2014 L 174, p. 42).

---

| 7.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/32

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judiciaire — Bobigny (France) lodged on 30 June 2020 — BNP Paribas Personal Finance SA v ZD

(Case C-288/20)

(2020/C 297/44)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal Judiciaire — Bobigny

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: BNP Paribas Personal Finance SA

Defendant: ZD

Questions referred

| 1. | Do terms such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which provide in particular that the Swiss franc is the account currency and the euro the settlement currency, and have the effect that the exchange risk is borne by the borrower, come within the main subject matter of the agreement within the meaning of Article 4(2) of Directive 93/13, (1) where there is no dispute as to the amount of the exchange charges and where there are terms providing for the possibility for the borrower, on fixed dates, to exercise an option to convert the loan into euros according to a predetermined formula? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do terms such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which provide in particular that the Swiss franc is the account currency and the euro the settlement currency, and have the effect that the exchange risk is borne by the borrower, come within the main subject matter of the agreement within the meaning of Article 4(2) of Directive 93/13, (1) where there is no dispute as to the amount of the exchange charges and where there are terms providing for the possibility for the borrower, on fixed dates, to exercise an option to convert the loan into euros according to a predetermined formula?

| 2. | Does Directive 93/13, interpreted in the light of the principle of effectivity of Community law, preclude national case-law in which a term or set of terms, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, are considered to be ‘plain [and] intelligible’ for the purposes of the directive, on the grounds that:






  — | the preliminary loan offer sets out in detail the exchange transactions carried out during the life of the credit and makes clear that the euro/Swiss franc exchange rate will be that applicable two working days before the date of the event that determines the transaction and which is published on the website of the European Central Bank; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Does Directive 93/13, interpreted in the light of the principle of effectivity of Community law, preclude national case-law in which a term or set of terms, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, are considered to be ‘plain [and] intelligible’ for the purposes of the directive, on the grounds that:

—

the preliminary loan offer sets out in detail the exchange transactions carried out during the life of the credit and makes clear that the euro/Swiss franc exchange rate will be that applicable two working days before the date of the event that determines the transaction and which is published on the website of the European Central Bank;

| — | it is stated in the offer that the borrower agrees to the Swiss franc/euro and euro/Swiss franc exchange transactions necessary for the transaction and repayment of the credit, and that the lender will convert the balance of the monthly payments after payment of the charges associated with the credit into Swiss francs; |
| --- | --- |

—

it is stated in the offer that the borrower agrees to the Swiss franc/euro and euro/Swiss franc exchange transactions necessary for the transaction and repayment of the credit, and that the lender will convert the balance of the monthly payments after payment of the charges associated with the credit into Swiss francs;

| — | the offer states that, if the exchange transaction results in a sum lower than the amount payable in Swiss francs, the amortisation of the capital will be less rapid and any unpaid capital in respect of a repayment period will be entered on the debit side of the account in Swiss francs, and that it is made clear that the amortisation of the capital of the loan will change according to upwards or downwards variations in the exchange rate applied to the monthly payments that that change may result in the extension or reduction of the loan amortisation period and, where appropriate, alter the total repayment cost; |
| --- | --- |

—

the offer states that, if the exchange transaction results in a sum lower than the amount payable in Swiss francs, the amortisation of the capital will be less rapid and any unpaid capital in respect of a repayment period will be entered on the debit side of the account in Swiss francs, and that it is made clear that the amortisation of the capital of the loan will change according to upwards or downwards variations in the exchange rate applied to the monthly payments that that change may result in the extension or reduction of the loan amortisation period and, where appropriate, alter the total repayment cost;

| — | the articles ‘internal account in euros’ and ‘internal account in Swiss francs’ describe the transactions carried out in each payment period to the credit and the debit of each account, and the contract explains in transparent terms the actual functioning of the foreign currency conversion mechanism in transparent terms; |
| --- | --- |

—

the articles ‘internal account in euros’ and ‘internal account in Swiss francs’ describe the transactions carried out in each payment period to the credit and the debit of each account, and the contract explains in transparent terms the actual functioning of the foreign currency conversion mechanism in transparent terms;

and although there is no express reference in the offer to the ‘exchange risk’ which is borne by the borrower since he or she does not receive income in the account currency, or any explicit reference to the ‘interest rate risk’?

| 3. | If the answer to the second question is in the affirmative, does Directive 93/13, interpreted in the light of the principle of effectiveness of Community law, preclude national case-law according to which a term or set of terms, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, are ‘plain [and] intelligible’ for the purposes of the directive, when in addition to the elements referred to in the [second] question there is only a simulation of a reduction of 5,27 % of the payment currency by reference to the account currency, in an agreement having an initial duration of 20 years, without any reference to terms such as ‘risk’ or ‘difficulty’? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the answer to the second question is in the affirmative, does Directive 93/13, interpreted in the light of the principle of effectiveness of Community law, preclude national case-law according to which a term or set of terms, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, are ‘plain [and] intelligible’ for the purposes of the directive, when in addition to the elements referred to in the [second] question there is only a simulation of a reduction of 5,27 % of the payment currency by reference to the account currency, in an agreement having an initial duration of 20 years, without any reference to terms such as ‘risk’ or ‘difficulty’?

| 4. | Is the burden of proving the ‘plain [and] intelligible’ nature of a term for the purposes of Directive 93/13 borne, including in respect of the circumstances attending the conclusion of the contract, by the professional party or by the consumer? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is the burden of proving the ‘plain [and] intelligible’ nature of a term for the purposes of Directive 93/13 borne, including in respect of the circumstances attending the conclusion of the contract, by the professional party or by the consumer?

| 5. | If the burden of proving the plain and intelligible nature of the term is borne by the professional party, does Directive 93/13 preclude national case-law in which it was held that, in the presence of documents relating to sales techniques, it is for the borrowers to prove, first, that they were the addressees of the information contained in those documents and, second, that it was the bank that communicated that information to them, or, conversely, does it require that that evidence constitutes a presumption that the information contained in those documents was transmitted, including orally, to borrowers, a rebuttable presumption that it is for the professional party, which must assume responsibility for the information communicated by the intermediaries which it has chosen, to rebut? |
| --- | --- |

5.

If the burden of proving the plain and intelligible nature of the term is borne by the professional party, does Directive 93/13 preclude national case-law in which it was held that, in the presence of documents relating to sales techniques, it is for the borrowers to prove, first, that they were the addressees of the information contained in those documents and, second, that it was the bank that communicated that information to them, or, conversely, does it require that that evidence constitutes a presumption that the information contained in those documents was transmitted, including orally, to borrowers, a rebuttable presumption that it is for the professional party, which must assume responsibility for the information communicated by the intermediaries which it has chosen, to rebut?

| 6. | May the existence of a significant imbalance be characterised in an agreement such as that at issue in the main proceedings in which both parties bear an exchange risk, when, first, the professional party has greater means than the consumer to foresee the exchange risk and when, second, the risk borne by the professional party is subject to an upper limit while that borne by the consumer is not? |
| --- | --- |

6.

May the existence of a significant imbalance be characterised in an agreement such as that at issue in the main proceedings in which both parties bear an exchange risk, when, first, the professional party has greater means than the consumer to foresee the exchange risk and when, second, the risk borne by the professional party is subject to an upper limit while that borne by the consumer is not?

---

(1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).

---

| 7.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/34

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Paris (France) lodged on 30 June 2020 — IB v FA

(Case C-289/20)

(2020/C 297/45)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Paris

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: IB

Respondent: FA

Question referred

Where, as in the present case, it is apparent from the factual circumstances that one of the spouses divides his time between two Member States, is it permissible to conclude, in accordance with and for the purposes of the application of Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003, (1) that he or she is habitually resident in two Member States, such that, if the conditions listed in that article are met in two Member States, the courts of those two States have equal jurisdiction to rule on the divorce?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 (OJ 2003 L 338, p. 1).

---

| 7.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/34

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Satversmes tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 30 June 2020 — AS Latvijas Gāze v Latvijas Republikas Saeima, Sabiedrisko pakalpojumu regulēšanas komisija

(Case C-290/20)

(2020/C 297/46)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Satversmes tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: AS Latvijas Gāze

Defendants: Latvijas Republikas Saeima, Sabiedrisko pakalpojumu regulēšanas komisija

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 23 and Article 32(1) of Directive 2009/73/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that Member States must adopt a regulatory framework permitting any final customer to choose which type of network — transmission or distribution — he wishes to connect to and imposing on the network operator an obligation to allow him to connect to the network in question? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 23 and Article 32(1) of Directive 2009/73/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that Member States must adopt a regulatory framework permitting any final customer to choose which type of network — transmission or distribution — he wishes to connect to and imposing on the network operator an obligation to allow him to connect to the network in question?

| 2. | Must Article 23 of Directive 2009/73/EC be interpreted as meaning that Member States have an obligation to adopt a regulatory framework permitting only a non-household final customer (that is to say, only an industrial customer) to connect to the natural gas transmission network? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must Article 23 of Directive 2009/73/EC be interpreted as meaning that Member States have an obligation to adopt a regulatory framework permitting only a non-household final customer (that is to say, only an industrial customer) to connect to the natural gas transmission network?

| 3. | Must Article 23 of Directive 2009/73/EC, in particular the concept of ‘new industrial customer’, be interpreted as meaning that that article lays down an obligation for Member States to adopt a regulatory framework permitting only a non-household final customer (that is to say, only an industrial customer) who has not previously been connected to the distribution network to connect to the natural gas transmission network? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Must Article 23 of Directive 2009/73/EC, in particular the concept of ‘new industrial customer’, be interpreted as meaning that that article lays down an obligation for Member States to adopt a regulatory framework permitting only a non-household final customer (that is to say, only an industrial customer) who has not previously been connected to the distribution network to connect to the natural gas transmission network?

| 4. | Must Article 2(3) and Article 23 of Directive 2009/73/EC be interpreted as meaning that they preclude a regulatory framework enacted by a Member State according to which the transmission of natural gas includes the transmission of natural gas directly to the final customer’s natural gas supply network? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Must Article 2(3) and Article 23 of Directive 2009/73/EC be interpreted as meaning that they preclude a regulatory framework enacted by a Member State according to which the transmission of natural gas includes the transmission of natural gas directly to the final customer’s natural gas supply network?

---

(1)  Directive 2009/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 2003/55/EC (OJ 2009 L 211, p. 94).

---

| 7.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/35

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 6 July 2020 — Icade Promotion Logement SAS v Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes Publiques

(Case C-299/20)

(2020/C 297/47)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Icade Promotion Logement SAS

Defendant: Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes Publiques

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 392 of [Council] Directive [2006/112/EC] of 28 November 2006 (1) [on the common system of value added tax] to be interpreted as reserving the application of the margin taxation scheme to transactions for the supply of immovable property the purchase of which has been subject to VAT, without the taxable person who subsequently resells the property having the right to deduct that tax, or does it permit that scheme to be applied to transactions for the supply of immovable property the purchase of which has not been subject to VAT, either because that purchase falls outside the scope of VAT or because it falls within the scope of VAT but is exempt from it? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 392 of [Council] Directive [2006/112/EC] of 28 November 2006 (1) [on the common system of value added tax] to be interpreted as reserving the application of the margin taxation scheme to transactions for the supply of immovable property the purchase of which has been subject to VAT, without the taxable person who subsequently resells the property having the right to deduct that tax, or does it permit that scheme to be applied to transactions for the supply of immovable property the purchase of which has not been subject to VAT, either because that purchase falls outside the scope of VAT or because it falls within the scope of VAT but is exempt from it?

| 2. | Is Article 392 of Directive [2006/112] to be interpreted as excluding the application of the margin taxation scheme to transactions for the supply of building land in the following two cases:






  — | where that land, purchased as land that has not been built on, becomes building land in the time between it is purchased and resold by the taxable person; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Is Article 392 of Directive [2006/112] to be interpreted as excluding the application of the margin taxation scheme to transactions for the supply of building land in the following two cases:

—

where that land, purchased as land that has not been built on, becomes building land in the time between it is purchased and resold by the taxable person;

| — | where that land, in the time between it is purchased and resold by the taxable person, is developed, in the sense that it is divided into parcels or works are carried out in order to install services (roads, drinking water, electricity, gas, sewage, telecommunications)? |
| --- | --- |

—

where that land, in the time between it is purchased and resold by the taxable person, is developed, in the sense that it is divided into parcels or works are carried out in order to install services (roads, drinking water, electricity, gas, sewage, telecommunications)?

---

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

---

| 7.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/36

---

Action brought on 22 July 2020 — European Commission v Republic of Austria

(Case C-328/20)

(2020/C 297/48)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Martin and B.-R. Killmann, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Austria

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by introducing an adjustment mechanism in relation to the family allowance and the child tax credit for workers whose children reside permanently in another Member State, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 and Article 67 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 (1) and under Article 4 of Regulation No 883/2004 and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011; (2) |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by introducing an adjustment mechanism in relation to the family allowance and the child tax credit for workers whose children reside permanently in another Member State, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 and Article 67 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 (1) and under Article 4 of Regulation No 883/2004 and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011; (2)

| — | declare that, by introducing an adjustment mechanism in relation to the Familienbonus Plus (‘Family Bonus Plus’ tax credit), the sole earner’s allowance, the single parent’s allowance and the tax credit for maintenance payments, for migrant workers whose children reside permanently in another Member State, the Republic of Austria has also failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(2) of Regulation No 492/2011; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by introducing an adjustment mechanism in relation to the Familienbonus Plus (‘Family Bonus Plus’ tax credit), the sole earner’s allowance, the single parent’s allowance and the tax credit for maintenance payments, for migrant workers whose children reside permanently in another Member State, the Republic of Austria has also failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(2) of Regulation No 492/2011;

| — | order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Austria grants to persons who work in Austria, for their children, in the form of single lump sums, the family benefit and social advantage of the family allowance and the child tax credit as well as the tax advantage of the Family Bonus Plus, the sole earner’s allowance, the single parent’s allowance and the tax credit for maintenance payments. Since 1 January 2019, Austrian rules have provided that those State benefits are to be adjusted in line with the general price level of the child’s Member State of residence.

First plea in law:

The Commission submits that the family allowance and the child tax credit are a family benefit within the meaning of Regulation No 883/2004. Article 7 and Article 67 of that regulation prohibit a Member State from making the granting and the amount of family benefits dependent on the residence of the members of the worker’s family in the Member State providing the benefits. However, by introducing the adjustment, Austria is making its treatment of family benefits for children dependent on the children’s Member State of residence. In doing so, Austria is infringing Article 7 and Article 67 of Regulation No 883/2004.

Second plea in law:

The Commission also submits that the adjustment, as introduced by Austria, places beneficiaries whose children reside in Member States with a higher price level in a better position than persons whose children reside in Austria, whereas persons whose children reside in Member States with a low price level are treated less favourably. When it introduced the adjustment, Austria, however, expected savings in its national budget, which can only mean that there are more recipients of such benefits and advantages whose children reside in Member States with a lower price level than in Austria.

By introducing the adjustment mechanism, Austria has therefore effectively established indirect discrimination against migrant workers. There is clearly no legitimate aim justifying that discrimination. Austria is therefore infringing, in relation to the family allowance and the child tax credit, the requirement of equal treatment as set out in Article 4 of Regulation No 883/2004 and in Article 7(2) of Regulation No 492/2011, and, in relation to the Family Bonus Plus, the sole earner’s allowance, the single parent’s allowance and the tax credit for maintenance payments, the requirement of equal treatment under Article 7(2) of Regulation No 492/2011.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1).

(2)  Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union (OJ 2011 L 141, p. 1).

---

| 7.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/37

---

Appeal brought on 22 July 2020 by Volotea, SA against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 13 May 2020 in Case T-607/17, Volotea v Commission

(Case C-331/20 P)

(2020/C 297/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Volotea, SA (represented by: M. Carpagnano, avvocato, M. Nordmann, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside points 1 and 2 of the operative part of the judgment under appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside points 1 and 2 of the operative part of the judgment under appeal;

| — | annul in part Article 1 (2), (3) (4) and the recovery of the decision by the Commission (1) of 29 July 2016 on State aid SA.33983 implemented by Italy for compensation to Sardinian airports for public service obligations insofar as it concerns the appellant. |
| --- | --- |

—

annul in part Article 1 (2), (3) (4) and the recovery of the decision by the Commission (1) of 29 July 2016 on State aid SA.33983 implemented by Italy for compensation to Sardinian airports for public service obligations insofar as it concerns the appellant.

In the alternative:

| — | set aside points 1 and 2 of the operative part of the judgment under appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside points 1 and 2 of the operative part of the judgment under appeal;

| — | refer the case back to the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back to the General Court.

Furthermore, the appellant claims that the Court should order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The General Court erred in the application of the notion of State aid under 107(1) TFEU. More specifically, the Court misapplied the notion of economic advantage, exceeded its jurisdiction by replacing the European Commission’s reasoning, and misjudged the criteria of selectivity, State resources and distortion of competition.

The General Court erred in justification of State aid under Article 107(3)(c) TFEU and Community Guidelines on Financing of Airports and Start-Up Aid to Airlines Departing From Regional Airports.

The General Court failed to take into account the principle of legitimate expectations in its recovery order; erred in acknowledging a violation of Article 296 (2) TFEU due to lack of adequate reasoning of the European Commission and violated the appellant`s right to effective remedy.

---

(1)  Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1861 of 29 July 2016 on State aid SA33983 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) (ex 2011/N) — Italy — Compensation to Sardinian airports for public service obligations (SGEI) (OJ 2017, L 268, p. 1).

---

| 7.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/38

---

Appeal brought on 23 July 2020 by easyJet Airline Co. Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 13 May 2020 in Case T-8/18, easyJet Airline v Commission

(Case C-343/20 P)

(2020/C 297/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: easyJet Airline Co. Ltd (represented by: J. Rivas Andrés, avocat, A. Manzaneque Valverde, abogada)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment under appeal and/or annul Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1861 (1) of 29 July 2016 on State Aid SA33983 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) (ex 2011/N) — Italy — Compensation to Sardinian airports from public service obligations (SGEI), to the extent that it concerns the appellant; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment under appeal and/or annul Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1861 (1) of 29 July 2016 on State Aid SA33983 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) (ex 2011/N) — Italy — Compensation to Sardinian airports from public service obligations (SGEI), to the extent that it concerns the appellant;

| — | in the alternative, set aside the judgment under appeal and refer the case back to the General Court for reconsideration; and |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, set aside the judgment under appeal and refer the case back to the General Court for reconsideration; and

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings and those in first instance. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings and those in first instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits that the judgment under appeal should be set aside on the following four grounds:

First, the judgment under appeal erred in law by mixing the assessment of two conditions for the existence of State aid (state resources and advantage).

Second, the judgment under appeal erred in law by considering that the MEO test could not be applied in the present case. The General Court erred in concluding that the airport operators did not contribute significant amounts of their own funds and did not act as private market economy operators. Furthermore, the reasoning in the judgment under appeal as to the non-application of the MEO test, infringed Article 345 TFUE, the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination as well as easyJet's rights of defence.

Third, the judgment under appeal erred in law by concluding that the airport operators acted as mere intermediaries of the Region of Sardinia.

Fourth, the judgment under appeal erred in law regarding the identification of: (i) the final beneficiaries of the regional scheme; (ii) the indirect advantage; and (iii) the secondary effects of the scheme.

---

(1)  OJ 2017, L 268, p. 1.

---

General Court

| 7.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/39

---

Action brought on 15 June 2020 — Pollinis France v Commission

(Case T-371/20)

(2020/C 297/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Pollinis France (Paris, France) (represented by: C. Lepage, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the implied decision of the European Commission rejecting a confirmatory application for access to documents registered under reference number GESTDEM No 2020/0498 pursuant to Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001; (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the implied decision of the European Commission rejecting a confirmatory application for access to documents registered under reference number GESTDEM No 2020/0498 pursuant to Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001; (1)

| — | order the European Commission to pay EUR 3 000 to the applicant for the costs of the procedure, in application of the Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay EUR 3 000 to the applicant for the costs of the procedure, in application of the Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging the contested decision violates the second subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, as the European Commission failed to state reasons in its application of the protection of the decision-making process exception. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging the contested decision violates the second subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, as the European Commission failed to state reasons in its application of the protection of the decision-making process exception.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging the contested decision violates the second subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, since there is an overriding public interest to disclose the documents requested and that the documents requested should benefit from the wider access granted to ‘legislative documents’. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging the contested decision violates the second subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, since there is an overriding public interest to disclose the documents requested and that the documents requested should benefit from the wider access granted to ‘legislative documents’.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging the contested decision violates Article 6(1) of the Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council, (2) since the exception stated in Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 should be interpreted and applied all the more strictly when information requested relates to emissions into the environment. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging the contested decision violates Article 6(1) of the Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council, (2) since the exception stated in Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 should be interpreted and applied all the more strictly when information requested relates to emissions into the environment.

---

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

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13).

---

| 7.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/39

---

Action brought on 20 June 2020 — Datax v REA

(Case T-381/20)

(2020/C 297/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Datax sp. z o.o. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: J. Bober, lawyer)

Defendant: Research Executive Agency

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision taken on 13 November 2019 (ARES 2019 7018535 — 13/11/2019) that refers to partial rejection of eligible costs and recovery of the EU contribution and that requires the applicant to pay liquidated damages; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision taken on 13 November 2019 (ARES 2019 7018535 — 13/11/2019) that refers to partial rejection of eligible costs and recovery of the EU contribution and that requires the applicant to pay liquidated damages;

| — | order the Research Executive Agency to pay the costs of the proceedings including costs of professional representation before the Court incurred by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Research Executive Agency to pay the costs of the proceedings including costs of professional representation before the Court incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging errors as to the established factual findings and violation of Polish labour law. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging errors as to the established factual findings and violation of Polish labour law.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging violation of the underlying principles of European Union law, in particular the rule of law. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging violation of the underlying principles of European Union law, in particular the rule of law.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging lack of irregularities by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging lack of irregularities by the applicant.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging lack of application of principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging lack of application of principle of proportionality.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging an erroneous claim of breach by the applicant of grant agreements. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging an erroneous claim of breach by the applicant of grant agreements.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, a subsidiary plea, alleging that the contested decision was erroneously issued by the REA, an executive agency of the European Union, instead of the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, a subsidiary plea, alleging that the contested decision was erroneously issued by the REA, an executive agency of the European Union, instead of the European Commission.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, a further subsidiary plea, alleging a violation of the law of the Kingdom of Belgium. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, a further subsidiary plea, alleging a violation of the law of the Kingdom of Belgium.

| 8. | Eighth plea in law, also a subsidiary plea, alleging that the defendant’s financial claims are time barred. |
| --- | --- |

8.

Eighth plea in law, also a subsidiary plea, alleging that the defendant’s financial claims are time barred.

---

| 7.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/40

---

Action brought on 19 June 2020 — Flašker v Commission

(Case T-392/20)

(2020/C 297/53)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Petra Flašker (Grosuplje, Slovenia) (represented by: K. Zdolšek, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the European Commission dated 24 March 2020 in Case SA.43546 — Alleged State aid to Lekarna Ljubljana, declaring that the measures complained of by the applicant do not constitute State aid without opening a formal investigation; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the European Commission dated 24 March 2020 in Case SA.43546 — Alleged State aid to Lekarna Ljubljana, declaring that the measures complained of by the applicant do not constitute State aid without opening a formal investigation;

| — | order the European Commission to pay its own costs and also those incurred by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay its own costs and also those incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision contains material contradictions in reasoning that amount to an infringement of the duty to state reasons prescribed by Article 296 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision contains material contradictions in reasoning that amount to an infringement of the duty to state reasons prescribed by Article 296 TFEU.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging errors in fact and in law in the Commission’s conclusion that the measures constitute existing aid.






  — | The applicant argues in that respect that the Commission’s decision is based on inaccurate and incomplete facts and on the incorrect legal categorisation of those facts that amount to the infringement of Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging errors in fact and in law in the Commission’s conclusion that the measures constitute existing aid.

—

The applicant argues in that respect that the Commission’s decision is based on inaccurate and incomplete facts and on the incorrect legal categorisation of those facts that amount to the infringement of Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the errors in fact and law described in the first two pleas reveal enough difficulties in the Commission’s assessment of this case and the insufficient examination of the relevant facts prior to adopting the decision to warrant a formal investigation procedure. These difficulties are compounded by other, procedural, difficulties presented in this third plea. In the presence of those difficulties, the Commission was required to initiate the formal investigation procedure and has, by refusing to do so, infringed the applicant’s procedural rights deriving from Article 108(2) of TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the errors in fact and law described in the first two pleas reveal enough difficulties in the Commission’s assessment of this case and the insufficient examination of the relevant facts prior to adopting the decision to warrant a formal investigation procedure. These difficulties are compounded by other, procedural, difficulties presented in this third plea. In the presence of those difficulties, the Commission was required to initiate the formal investigation procedure and has, by refusing to do so, infringed the applicant’s procedural rights deriving from Article 108(2) of TFEU.

---

| 7.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/41

---

Action brought on 27 June 2020 — Global Translation Solutions v Commission

(Case T-404/20)

(2020/C 297/54)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Global Translation Solutions ltd. (Valletta, Malta) (represented by: C. Mifsud-Bonnici, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the defendant’s decisions of 17 April 2020 (i) to award Lot 22 EN>MT in connection with procurement procedure TRAD19 to the successful bidder, and (ii) to reject the applicant’s bid submitted for Lot 22, and all related decisions of the defendant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the defendant’s decisions of 17 April 2020 (i) to award Lot 22 EN>MT in connection with procurement procedure TRAD19 to the successful bidder, and (ii) to reject the applicant’s bid submitted for Lot 22, and all related decisions of the defendant;

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

—

order the defendant to pay costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the defendant’s decisions of 17 April 2020 (i) to award Lot 22 EN>MT in connection with procurement procedure TRAD19 to the successful bidder, and (ii) to reject the applicant’s bid submitted for Lot 22, are unlawful, on the basis that they are founded on a serious and manifest error of assessment in the formulation of the standard marking grid for the evaluation of the revision test. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant’s decisions of 17 April 2020 (i) to award Lot 22 EN>MT in connection with procurement procedure TRAD19 to the successful bidder, and (ii) to reject the applicant’s bid submitted for Lot 22, are unlawful, on the basis that they are founded on a serious and manifest error of assessment in the formulation of the standard marking grid for the evaluation of the revision test.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant’s decisions of 17 April 2020 (i) to award Lot 22 EN>MT in connection with procurement procedure TRAD19 to the successful bidder, and (ii) to reject the applicant’s bid submitted for Lot 22, are unlawful, on the basis that the formulation of the standard marking grid was in breach of the law, inter alia Article 160(1) the Financial Regulation, (1) and contrary to the general principles of Union law, including, public procurement inter alia equal treatment and transparency. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant’s decisions of 17 April 2020 (i) to award Lot 22 EN>MT in connection with procurement procedure TRAD19 to the successful bidder, and (ii) to reject the applicant’s bid submitted for Lot 22, are unlawful, on the basis that the formulation of the standard marking grid was in breach of the law, inter alia Article 160(1) the Financial Regulation, (1) and contrary to the general principles of Union law, including, public procurement inter alia equal treatment and transparency.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant’s decisions of 17 April 2020 (i) to award Lot 22 EN>MT in connection with procurement procedure TRAD19 to the successful bidder, and (ii) to reject the applicant’s bid submitted for Lot 22, are unlawful, on the basis that the defendant has failed to state reasons, as required by Union law and CJEU case-law, for its decision to reject the applicant’s bid. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant’s decisions of 17 April 2020 (i) to award Lot 22 EN>MT in connection with procurement procedure TRAD19 to the successful bidder, and (ii) to reject the applicant’s bid submitted for Lot 22, are unlawful, on the basis that the defendant has failed to state reasons, as required by Union law and CJEU case-law, for its decision to reject the applicant’s bid.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that that the defendant’s decisions of 17 April 2020 (i) to award Lot 22 EN>MT in connection with procurement procedure TRAD19 to the successful bidder, and (ii) to reject the applicant’s bid submitted for Lot 22, are unlawful, on the basis that the defendant’s conduct throughout the correspondence exchanged with the applicant after 17 April 2020, in particular, with respect to its explanations on the standard marking grid and the ‘pre-defined errors’, was contrary to general principles of due diligence, good administration and public procurement. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that that the defendant’s decisions of 17 April 2020 (i) to award Lot 22 EN>MT in connection with procurement procedure TRAD19 to the successful bidder, and (ii) to reject the applicant’s bid submitted for Lot 22, are unlawful, on the basis that the defendant’s conduct throughout the correspondence exchanged with the applicant after 17 April 2020, in particular, with respect to its explanations on the standard marking grid and the ‘pre-defined errors’, was contrary to general principles of due diligence, good administration and public procurement.

---

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

---

| 7.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/42

---

Action brought on 3 July 2020 — KT v EIB

(Case T-415/20)

(2020/C 297/55)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: KT (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the present action, including the plea of illegality it contains, admissible and well-founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the present action, including the plea of illegality it contains, admissible and well-founded;

| — | as a result:






  — | annul the decision adopted on 24 March 2020 imposing on her, as a disciplinary penalty, summary dismissal for grave misconduct, without notice and with severance grant; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

as a result:

—

annul the decision adopted on 24 March 2020 imposing on her, as a disciplinary penalty, summary dismissal for grave misconduct, without notice and with severance grant;

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

—

order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence, in particular infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence, in particular infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a flaw due to lack of competence of the author of the act. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a flaw due to lack of competence of the author of the act.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging breach of the ‘reasonable period’ rule, in particular infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging breach of the ‘reasonable period’ rule, in particular infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of impartiality. First, the applicant raises a plea of illegality on the ground that Article 40 of the Staff Regulations of the European Investment Bank (EIB) does not comply with the principle of impartiality so far as objective impartiality is concerned. Secondly, she submits that the procedure put in place by the EIB infringed the principle of impartiality so far as subjective impartiality is concerned. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of impartiality. First, the applicant raises a plea of illegality on the ground that Article 40 of the Staff Regulations of the European Investment Bank (EIB) does not comply with the principle of impartiality so far as objective impartiality is concerned. Secondly, she submits that the procedure put in place by the EIB infringed the principle of impartiality so far as subjective impartiality is concerned.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment and breach of the rules relating to the protection of personal data. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment and breach of the rules relating to the protection of personal data.

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

6.

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

---

| 7.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/43

---

Action brought on 3 July 2020 — KU v EEAS

(Case T-425/20)

(2020/C 297/56)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: KU (represented by: R. Wardyn, lawyer)

Defendant: European External Action Service (EEAS)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the EEAS of 17 September 2019 rejecting the applicant’s request of assistance; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the EEAS of 17 September 2019 rejecting the applicant’s request of assistance;

| — | annul the decision of 3 April 2020 rejecting the applicant’s complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 3 April 2020 rejecting the applicant’s complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations;

| — | order the defendant to pay EU 15 000 as fair compensation of the harassment suffered by the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay EU 15 000 as fair compensation of the harassment suffered by the applicant;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging insufficient motivation and failure to review evidence.






  — | It is argued that the decisions of 17 September 2019 and 3 April 2020 of the EEAS are not sufficiently motivated, which is contrary to the duty of the administration to give reasons for its decisions (Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 18 of the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour). |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging insufficient motivation and failure to review evidence.

—

It is argued that the decisions of 17 September 2019 and 3 April 2020 of the EEAS are not sufficiently motivated, which is contrary to the duty of the administration to give reasons for its decisions (Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 18 of the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour).

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging an error of law: infringement of Article 12a of the Staff Regulations.






  — | The EEAS violated Article 12a of the Staff Regulations while refusing to consider that the behaviour of X described in the request for assistance of the applicant constituted psychological harassment within the meaning of this article. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging an error of law: infringement of Article 12a of the Staff Regulations.

—

The EEAS violated Article 12a of the Staff Regulations while refusing to consider that the behaviour of X described in the request for assistance of the applicant constituted psychological harassment within the meaning of this article.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment.






  — | The EEAS committed a manifest error of assessment while refusing to consider that the behaviour of X described in the request for assistance constituted psychological harassment. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment.

—

The EEAS committed a manifest error of assessment while refusing to consider that the behaviour of X described in the request for assistance constituted psychological harassment.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging violation of the duty to provide assistance: infringement of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations.






  — | It is argued that the period of more than sixteen months was an unreasonable period of time for an inquiry and that the EEAS, conjointly with the IDOC, violated the principle of reasonable time as well as the duty to act quickly and thus, Article 24 of the Staff Regulations. |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging violation of the duty to provide assistance: infringement of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations.

—

It is argued that the period of more than sixteen months was an unreasonable period of time for an inquiry and that the EEAS, conjointly with the IDOC, violated the principle of reasonable time as well as the duty to act quickly and thus, Article 24 of the Staff Regulations.

---

| 7.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/44

---

Action brought on 7 July 2020 — JR v Commission

(Case T-435/20)

(2020/C 297/57)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: JR (represented by: L. Levi and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

declare the present action admissible and well founded;

| — | consequently:






  — | annul the decision of 15 April 2020 in that it rejects the applicant’s request for review of the decision of the competition selection board of 16 December 2019 not to include the applicant’s name on the reserve list for internal competition COM/03/AD/18 (AD6) — 1 — Administrators, and, if needed, annul that decision of 16 December 2019; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

consequently:

—

annul the decision of 15 April 2020 in that it rejects the applicant’s request for review of the decision of the competition selection board of 16 December 2019 not to include the applicant’s name on the reserve list for internal competition COM/03/AD/18 (AD6) — 1 — Administrators, and, if needed, annul that decision of 16 December 2019;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment and breach of the rules governing the proceedings of the selection board. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment and breach of the rules governing the proceedings of the selection board.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons and breach of the principle of good administration. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons and breach of the principle of good administration.

---

| 7.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/44

---

Action brought on 10 July 2020 — Jindal Saw and Jindal Saw Italia v Commission

(Case T-440/20)

(2020/C 297/58)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Jindal Saw Ltd (New Delhi, India), Jindal Saw Italia SpA (Trieste, Italy) (represented by: R. Antonini, E. Monard and B. Maniatis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/527 of 15 April 2020 re-imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of tubes and pipes of ductile cast iron (also known as spheroidal graphite cast iron) originating in India as regards Jindal Saw Limited following the judgment of the General Court in T-301/16; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/527 of 15 April 2020 re-imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of tubes and pipes of ductile cast iron (also known as spheroidal graphite cast iron) originating in India as regards Jindal Saw Limited following the judgment of the General Court in T-301/16;

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

—

order the Commission to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 10(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 and of the general principle of non-retroactivity. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 10(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 and of the general principle of non-retroactivity.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the general principle of non-retroactivity and the general principle of legal certainty. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the general principle of non-retroactivity and the general principle of legal certainty.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 266 TFEU and Article 264 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 266 TFEU and Article 264 TFEU.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality and Article 5(1) and 5(4) TEU. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality and Article 5(1) and 5(4) TEU.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to an effective remedy and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to an effective remedy and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 103 of the Union Customs Code and Article 296 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 103 of the Union Customs Code and Article 296 TFEU.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging lack of competence of the Commission to impose registration of Jindal’s imports and infringement of Article 14(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging lack of competence of the Commission to impose registration of Jindal’s imports and infringement of Article 14(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.

---

| 7.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/45

---

Action brought on 10 July 2020 — Jindal Saw and Jindal Saw Italia v Commission

(Case T-441/20)

(2020/C 297/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Jindal Saw Ltd (New Delhi, India), Jindal Saw Italia SpA (Trieste, Italy) (represented by: R. Antonini, E. Monard and B. Maniatis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/526 of 15 April 2020 re-imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of tubes and pipes of ductile cast iron (also known as spheroidal graphite cast iron) originating in India as regards Jindal Saw Limited following the judgment of the General Court in T-300/16; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/526 of 15 April 2020 re-imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of tubes and pipes of ductile cast iron (also known as spheroidal graphite cast iron) originating in India as regards Jindal Saw Limited following the judgment of the General Court in T-300/16;

| — | order the Commission to bear the costs of these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to bear the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 16(1) of Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 and of the general principle of non-retroactivity. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 16(1) of Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 and of the general principle of non-retroactivity.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the general principle of non-retroactivity and the general principle of legal certainty. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the general principle of non-retroactivity and the general principle of legal certainty.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 266 TFEU and Article 264 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 266 TFEU and Article 264 TFEU.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality and Article 5(1) and 5(4) TEU. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality and Article 5(1) and 5(4) TEU.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to an effective remedy and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to an effective remedy and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 103 of the Union Customs Code and Article 296 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 103 of the Union Customs Code and Article 296 TFEU.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging lack of competence of the Commission to impose registration of Jindal’s imports and infringement of Article 24(5) of Regulation (EC) No 597/2009. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging lack of competence of the Commission to impose registration of Jindal’s imports and infringement of Article 24(5) of Regulation (EC) No 597/2009.

---

| 7.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/46

---

Action brought on 13 July 2020 — Grangé and Van Strydonck v EUIPO — Nema (âme)

(Case T-442/20)

(2020/C 297/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Isaline Grangé (Edegem, Belgium) and Alizée Van Strydonck (Strombeek-Bever, Belgium) (represented by: M. De Vroey, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nema Srl (San Lazzaro di Savena, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark âme — Application for registration No 17 895 139

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 June 2020 in Case R 2960/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and any intervener to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and any intervener to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 7.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/46

---

Action brought on 13 July 2020 — Sanford v EUIPO — Avery Zweckform (Labels)

(Case T-443/20)

(2020/C 297/61)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sanford LP (Atlanta, Georgia, United States) (represented by: J. Zecher, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Avery Zweckform GmbH (Oberlaindern/Valley, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Design at issue: Community design No 141999-0002

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 May 2020 in Case R 2413/2018-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | dismiss the appeal of other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal 11 December 2018 against the decision of the Invalidity Division of EUIPO of 25 October 2018; |
| --- | --- |

—

dismiss the appeal of other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal 11 December 2018 against the decision of the Invalidity Division of EUIPO of 25 October 2018;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs, including the costs of the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 25(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 25(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;

| — | Infringement of Article 6(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 6(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;

| — | Infringement of Article 63(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 63(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002.

---

| 7.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/47

---

Action brought on 13 July 2020 — VeriGraft v EASME

(Case T-457/20)

(2020/C 297/62)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: VeriGraft AB (Gothenburg, Sweden) (represented by: P. Hansson and M. Persson, lawyers)

Defendant: Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | find and declare that EASME’s recovery order concerning costs amounting to in total EUR 258 588,80 is invalid; |
| --- | --- |

—

find and declare that EASME’s recovery order concerning costs amounting to in total EUR 258 588,80 is invalid;

| — | find and declare that the costs rejected by EASME (in whole or in part) amounting to in total EUR 258 588,80 constitute eligible costs; |
| --- | --- |

—

find and declare that the costs rejected by EASME (in whole or in part) amounting to in total EUR 258 588,80 constitute eligible costs;

| — | find and declare that EASME’s debit note of EUR 106 928,74 is invalid; and, |
| --- | --- |

—

find and declare that EASME’s debit note of EUR 106 928,74 is invalid; and,

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

—

order EASME to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the recovery order infringes the right to good administration:






  — | from the recovery order, including annexes, it is not possible to understand what specific costs were rejected by EASME, and on what basis these costs were rejected. The right to good administration enshrined in article 41 in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and more specifically the obligation to state reasons, is therefore infringed. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the recovery order infringes the right to good administration:

—

from the recovery order, including annexes, it is not possible to understand what specific costs were rejected by EASME, and on what basis these costs were rejected. The right to good administration enshrined in article 41 in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and more specifically the obligation to state reasons, is therefore infringed.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the rejected costs are eligible under the grant agreement:






  — | the rejected costs are in any event eligible under the terms of the grant agreement concluded between VERIGRAFT and EASME as they were mentioned in the grant agreement and reported in periodic reports approved by EASME. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the rejected costs are eligible under the grant agreement:

—

the rejected costs are in any event eligible under the terms of the grant agreement concluded between VERIGRAFT and EASME as they were mentioned in the grant agreement and reported in periodic reports approved by EASME.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the debit note is in any event invalid as VERIGRAFT rejected costs are eligible under the grant agreement:






  — | VERIGRAFT has incurred costs that exceed those that EASME seek to recover through the recovery order and the debit note is thus, in any event, invalid also on this ground. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the debit note is in any event invalid as VERIGRAFT rejected costs are eligible under the grant agreement:

—

VERIGRAFT has incurred costs that exceed those that EASME seek to recover through the recovery order and the debit note is thus, in any event, invalid also on this ground.

---

| 7.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/48

---

Action brought on 21 July 2020 — Eggy Food v EUIPO (YOUR DAILY PROTEIN)

(Case T-464/20)

(2020/C 297/63)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Eggy Food GmbH & Co. KG (Osnabrück, Germany) (represented by: J. Eberhardt, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark YOUR DAILY PROTEIN — Application for registration No 17 953 235

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 May 2020 in Case R 2235/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order the publication of the application for registration of the EU mark No 17 953 235; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the publication of the application for registration of the EU mark No 17 953 235;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

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

—

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

| — | Infringement of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 7.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/48

---

Action brought on 24 July 2020 — LD v Commission

(Case T-474/20)

(2020/C 297/64)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: LD (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of 20 June 2019 by which the applicant was excluded from taking part in the tests at the Assessment Centre for Competition EPSO/AD/371/19; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 20 June 2019 by which the applicant was excluded from taking part in the tests at the Assessment Centre for Competition EPSO/AD/371/19;

| — | annul the decision of 31 October 2019 rejecting the request for review of the exclusion from Competition EPSO/AD/371/19; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 31 October 2019 rejecting the request for review of the exclusion from Competition EPSO/AD/371/19;

| — | annul the decision of the appointing authority of 22 April 2020 dismissing the administrative appeal brought under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the appointing authority of 22 April 2020 dismissing the administrative appeal brought under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-456/20, LA v Commission.

---