# Official Journal C 128/21 M

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 128 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6521 March 2022 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 128

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6521 March 2022

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2022/C 128/01 | Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union | 1 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

2022/C 128/01

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

Official Journal of the European Union

1

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2022/C 128/02 | Case C-461/20: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 February 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen — Sweden) — Advania Sverige AB, Kammarkollegiet v Dustin Sverige AB (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2014/24/EU — Article 72 — Modification of contracts during their term — Transfer of a framework agreement — New contractor assuming on the insolvency of the initial contractor the rights and obligations attributed to the latter under a framework agreement — Whether need for a new procurement procedure) | 2 |
| 2022/C 128/03 | Case C-515/20: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 February 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — B AG v Finanzamt A (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 122 — Reduced rate for supplies of wood for use as firewood — Differentiation on the basis of the objective characteristics and properties of the goods — Types of wood intended for use as fuel which serve the same consumer need and are in competition with each other — Principle of fiscal neutrality) | 3 |
| 2022/C 128/04 | Case C-20/21: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 3 February 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main — Germany) — JW, HD, XS v LOT Polish Airlines (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Second indent of Article 7(1)(b) — Special jurisdiction in matters relating to a contract — Concept of place of performance of the obligation in question — Contract for the provision of services — Air transport — Flight consisting of a confirmed single booking and performed in several legs by two separate air carriers — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights — Article 7 — Right to compensation — Delay on the first leg of the journey — Claim for compensation brought against the air carrier operating that first leg of the journey before the court for the place of arrival of that first flight) | 4 |
| 2022/C 128/05 | Case C-717/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Siemianowicach Śląskich (Poland) lodged on 26 November 2021 — Provident Polska S.A. v VF | 4 |
| 2022/C 128/06 | Case C-718/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 26 November 2021 — L.G. v Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa | 5 |
| 2022/C 128/07 | Case C-720/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 26 November 2021 — Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich | 5 |
| 2022/C 128/08 | Case C-729/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 1 December 2021 — W. Sp. z o. o. v Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej w Łodzi | 6 |
| 2022/C 128/09 | Case C-771/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Győri Járásbíróság (Hungary) lodged on 14 December 2021 — JH v Wizz Air Hungary Légiközlekedési Zrt. (Wizz Air Hungary Zrt.) | 7 |
| 2022/C 128/10 | Case C-782/21 P: Appeal brought on 15 December 2021 by Aeris Invest Sàrl against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 6 October 2021 in Case T-827/17 Aeris Invest v ECB | 7 |
| 2022/C 128/11 | Case C-807/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht (Germany) lodged on 21 December 2021 — Deutsche Wohnen SE v Staatsanwaltschaft Berlin | 8 |
| 2022/C 128/12 | Case C-823/21: Action brought on 22 December 2021 — European Commission v Hungary | 9 |
| 2022/C 128/13 | Case C-830/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 23 December 2021 — Syngenta Agro GmbH v Agro Trade Handelsgesellschaft mbH | 10 |
| 2022/C 128/14 | Case C-5/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 3 January 2022 — Green Network SpA v SF, YB, Autorità di Regolazione per Energia Reti e Ambiente (ARERA) | 10 |
| 2022/C 128/15 | Case C-27/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 11 January 2022 — Volkswagen Group Italia SpA, Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato | 11 |
| 2022/C 128/16 | Case C-54/22 P: Appeal brought on 27 January 2022 by Romania against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 10 November 2021 in Case T-495/19 Romania v Commission | 12 |
| | General Court |
| 2022/C 128/17 | Case T-286/09 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 26 January 2022 — Intel Corporation v Commission (Competition — Abuse of dominant position — Microprocessors market — Decision finding an infringement of Article 102 TFEU and of Article 54 of the EEA Agreement — Loyalty rebates — Naked restrictions — Characterisation as abuse — As-efficient-competitor analysis — Overall strategy — Single and continuous infringement) | 13 |
| 2022/C 128/18 | Case T-868/16: Judgment of the General Court of 9 February 2022 — QI and Others v Commission and ECB (Non-contractual liability — Economic and monetary policy — Restructuring of Greek public debt — Bond exchange agreement for the sole benefit of the Eurosystem central banks — Private sector involvement — Collective action clauses — Private creditors — Official sector creditors — Attributability — Sufficiently serious infringement of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals — Article 63(1) TFEU — Articles 120 to 127 and Article 352(1) TFEU — Right to property — Equal treatment) | 14 |
| 2022/C 128/19 | Case T-799/17: Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2022 — Scania and Others v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Truck manufacturers market — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and of Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Agreements and concerted practices in relation to the prices of trucks, the timing for the introduction of emission technologies and the passing on to customers of the costs relating to those technologies — Hybrid procedure staggered over time — Presumption of innocence — Principle of impartiality — Charter of Fundamental Rights — Single and continuous infringement — Restriction of competition by object — Geographic scope of the infringement — Fine — Proportionality — Equal treatment — Unlimited jurisdiction) | 14 |
| 2022/C 128/20 | Case T-616/18: Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2022 — Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo v Commission (Commitments by Gazprom) (Competition — Abuse of a dominant position — Gas markets of central and eastern Europe — Decision to make binding the individual commitments proposed by an undertaking — Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Whether the commitments are adequate in the light of the competition concerns initially identified in the statement of objections — Commission decision not to require commitments in relation to some of the initial concerns — Principle of sound administration — Transparency — Obligation to state reasons — Energy-policy objectives of the European Union — Principle of energy solidarity — Misuse of powers) | 15 |
| 2022/C 128/21 | Case T-740/18: Judgment of the General Court of 9 February 2022 — Taminco and Arysta LifeScience Great Britain v Commission (Plant protection products — Active substance thiram — Non-renewal of approval — Regulation No 1107/2009 and Implementing Regulation No 844/2012 — Rights of the defence — Procedural irregularity — Manifest error of assessment — Competence of EFSA — Proportionality — Precautionary principle — Equal treatment) | 16 |
| 2022/C 128/22 | Case T-27/19: Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2022 — Pilatus Bank and Pilatus Holding v ECB (Economic and monetary policy — Prudential supervision of credit institutions — Specific supervisory tasks conferred on the ECB — Decision to withdraw a credit institution’s authorisation — Indictment of the main shareholder in a third country — Criterion of good repute — Perception of good repute by the market — Presumption of innocence — Proportionality — Rights of the defence) | 16 |
| 2022/C 128/23 | Case T-317/19: Judgment of the General Court of 9 February 2022 — AMVAC Netherlands v Commission (Plant protection products — Active substance ethoprophos — Non-renewal of approval — Regulation No 1107/2009 and Implementing Regulation No 844/2012 — Rights of the defence — Manifest error of assessment — Legal certainty — Proportionality — Precautionary principle) | 17 |
| 2022/C 128/24 | Case T-399/19: Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2022 — Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo v Commission (Rejection of a complaint) (Competition — Abuse of a dominant position — Gas markets of central and eastern Europe — Decision rejecting a complaint — No EU interest — State action defence — Obligation to conduct a diligent examination — Procedural rights under Regulation (EC) No 773/2004) | 18 |
| 2022/C 128/25 | Case T-652/19: Judgment of the General Court of 9 February 2022 — Elevolution — Engenharia v Commission (Public procurement — Financial regulation — Exclusion from procurement and grant-award procedures covered by the EDF for a three-year period — Obligation to state reasons — Principle of sound administration — Right to be heard — Manifest error of assessment — Proportionality) | 18 |
| 2022/C 128/26 | Case T-849/19: Judgment of the General Court of 26 January 2022 — Leonardo v Frontex (Public supply contracts — Tendering procedure — Aerial surveillance services — Action for annulment — No interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility — Non-contractual liability) | 19 |
| 2022/C 128/27 | Case T-33/20: Judgment of the General Court of 9 February 2022 — Van Walle v ECDC (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — ECDC staff members — Appraisal report for 2018 — Freedom of expression — Obligation to state reasons — Case requiring a specific statement of reasons — Manifest error of assessment — Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials — Right to be heard) | 19 |
| 2022/C 128/28 | Case T-498/20: Judgment of the General Court of 26 January 2022 — Diego v EUIPO — Forbo Financial Services (WOOD STEP LAMINATE FLOORING) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark WOOD STEP LAMINATE FLOORING — Earlier international word mark STEP — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Free movement of goods) | 20 |
| 2022/C 128/29 | Case T-536/20: Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2022 — LU v EIB (Civil service — EIB staff — Dignity at Work Policy — Psychological harassment — Investigation procedure — Action for annulment — Final report of the investigation panel — Preparatory act — Inadmissibility — Decision rejecting the complaint — Act adversely affecting an official — Admissibility — Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Rights of the defence — Right to be heard — Obligation to state reasons — Liability) | 21 |
| 2022/C 128/30 | Case T-589/20: Judgment of the General Court of 9 February 2022 — Calzaturificio Emmegiemme Shoes v EUIPO — Inticom (MAIMAI MADE IN ITALY) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark MAIMAI MADE IN ITALY — Earlier EU word mark YAMAMAY — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Admissibility of new evidence — Alteration of the distinctive character) | 21 |
| 2022/C 128/31 | Case T-694/20: Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2022 — Canisius v EUIPO — Beiersdorf (CCLABELLE VIENNA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark CCLABELLE VIENNA — Earlier EU word mark LABELLO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 22 |
| 2022/C 128/32 | Case T-116/21: Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2022 — Maternus v EUIPO — adp Gauselmann (WILD) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark WILD — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 52(1)(a) and Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(a) and Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 22 |
| 2022/C 128/33 | Case T-173/21: Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2022 — Novelis Deutschland v EUIPO — CU.CO. (grill dish) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a grill dish — Earlier national design — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002) | 23 |
| 2022/C 128/34 | Case T-202/21: Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2022 — Vita Zahnfabrik v EUIPO — VIPI Produtos Odontológicos (VITABLOCS TriLuxe forte) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark VITABLOCS TriLuxe forte — Earlier EU word mark TRILUX — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 24 |
| 2022/C 128/35 | Case T-233/21: Judgment of the General Court of 26 January 2022 — Meta Cluster v EUIPO (Clustermedizin) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark Clustermedizin — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 24 |
| 2022/C 128/36 | Case T-765/14: Order of the General Court of 17 December 2021 — Legakis and Others v Council (Non-contractual liability — Economic and monetary policy — Stability support programme for the Republic of Cyprus — Statements of the Euro Group of 16 and 25 March 2013 concerning Cyprus — Statement of the President of the Euro Group of 21 March 2013 concerning Cyprus — Incorrect identification of the defendant — Manifest inadmissibility) | 25 |
| 2022/C 128/37 | Case T-418/21: Order of the General Court of 14 January 2022 — Alauzun and Others v Commission and EMA (Action for annulment — Medicinal products for human use — Amendment to the conditional marketing authorisation for the medicinal product for human use Comirnaty — Act not open to challenge — Preparatory act — No interest in bringing proceedings — No direct concern — Act not of individual concern — Non-regulatory act — Inadmissibility) | 25 |
| 2022/C 128/38 | Case T-40/22: Action brought on 22 January 2022 — Dado Ceramica and Others v EUIPO — Italcer (Piastrelle) | 26 |
| 2022/C 128/39 | Case T-47/22: Action brought on 26 January 2022 — DDR Kultur v EUIPO — Groupe Canal+ (THE PLANET) | 27 |
| 2022/C 128/40 | Case T-48/22: Action brought on 27 January 2022 — Czech Republic v Commission | 27 |
| 2022/C 128/41 | Case T-50/22: Action brought on 21 January 2022 — AL v Council and Commission | 29 |
| 2022/C 128/42 | Case T-52/22: Action brought on 28 January 2022 — Chambre de commerce et d’industrie territoriale de la Marne en Champagne v EUIPO — Ambrosetti Group Ltd (TEHA) | 30 |
| 2022/C 128/43 | Case T-60/22: Action brought on 28 January 2022 — Chambre de commerce et d’industrie territoriale de la Marne en Champagne v EUIPO — Ambrosetti Group Ltd (TEHA) | 31 |
| 2022/C 128/44 | Case T-65/22: Action brought on 2 February 2022 — PS v EIB | 31 |
| 2022/C 128/45 | Case T-68/22: Action brought on 2 February 2022 — Granini France v EUIPO — Pichler (Joro) | 32 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2022/C 128/02

Case C-461/20: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 February 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen — Sweden) — Advania Sverige AB, Kammarkollegiet v Dustin Sverige AB (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2014/24/EU — Article 72 — Modification of contracts during their term — Transfer of a framework agreement — New contractor assuming on the insolvency of the initial contractor the rights and obligations attributed to the latter under a framework agreement — Whether need for a new procurement procedure)

2

2022/C 128/03

Case C-515/20: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 February 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — B AG v Finanzamt A (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 122 — Reduced rate for supplies of wood for use as firewood — Differentiation on the basis of the objective characteristics and properties of the goods — Types of wood intended for use as fuel which serve the same consumer need and are in competition with each other — Principle of fiscal neutrality)

3

2022/C 128/04

Case C-20/21: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 3 February 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main — Germany) — JW, HD, XS v LOT Polish Airlines (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Second indent of Article 7(1)(b) — Special jurisdiction in matters relating to a contract — Concept of place of performance of the obligation in question — Contract for the provision of services — Air transport — Flight consisting of a confirmed single booking and performed in several legs by two separate air carriers — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights — Article 7 — Right to compensation — Delay on the first leg of the journey — Claim for compensation brought against the air carrier operating that first leg of the journey before the court for the place of arrival of that first flight)

4

2022/C 128/05

Case C-717/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Siemianowicach Śląskich (Poland) lodged on 26 November 2021 — Provident Polska S.A. v VF

4

2022/C 128/06

Case C-718/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 26 November 2021 — L.G. v Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa

5

2022/C 128/07

Case C-720/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 26 November 2021 — Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich

5

2022/C 128/08

Case C-729/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 1 December 2021 — W. Sp. z o. o. v Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej w Łodzi

6

2022/C 128/09

Case C-771/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Győri Járásbíróság (Hungary) lodged on 14 December 2021 — JH v Wizz Air Hungary Légiközlekedési Zrt. (Wizz Air Hungary Zrt.)

7

2022/C 128/10

Case C-782/21 P: Appeal brought on 15 December 2021 by Aeris Invest Sàrl against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 6 October 2021 in Case T-827/17 Aeris Invest v ECB

7

2022/C 128/11

Case C-807/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht (Germany) lodged on 21 December 2021 — Deutsche Wohnen SE v Staatsanwaltschaft Berlin

8

2022/C 128/12

Case C-823/21: Action brought on 22 December 2021 — European Commission v Hungary

9

2022/C 128/13

Case C-830/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 23 December 2021 — Syngenta Agro GmbH v Agro Trade Handelsgesellschaft mbH

10

2022/C 128/14

Case C-5/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 3 January 2022 — Green Network SpA v SF, YB, Autorità di Regolazione per Energia Reti e Ambiente (ARERA)

10

2022/C 128/15

Case C-27/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 11 January 2022 — Volkswagen Group Italia SpA, Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato

11

2022/C 128/16

Case C-54/22 P: Appeal brought on 27 January 2022 by Romania against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 10 November 2021 in Case T-495/19 Romania v Commission

12

General Court

2022/C 128/17

Case T-286/09 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 26 January 2022 — Intel Corporation v Commission (Competition — Abuse of dominant position — Microprocessors market — Decision finding an infringement of Article 102 TFEU and of Article 54 of the EEA Agreement — Loyalty rebates — Naked restrictions — Characterisation as abuse — As-efficient-competitor analysis — Overall strategy — Single and continuous infringement)

13

2022/C 128/18

Case T-868/16: Judgment of the General Court of 9 February 2022 — QI and Others v Commission and ECB (Non-contractual liability — Economic and monetary policy — Restructuring of Greek public debt — Bond exchange agreement for the sole benefit of the Eurosystem central banks — Private sector involvement — Collective action clauses — Private creditors — Official sector creditors — Attributability — Sufficiently serious infringement of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals — Article 63(1) TFEU — Articles 120 to 127 and Article 352(1) TFEU — Right to property — Equal treatment)

14

2022/C 128/19

Case T-799/17: Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2022 — Scania and Others v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Truck manufacturers market — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and of Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Agreements and concerted practices in relation to the prices of trucks, the timing for the introduction of emission technologies and the passing on to customers of the costs relating to those technologies — Hybrid procedure staggered over time — Presumption of innocence — Principle of impartiality — Charter of Fundamental Rights — Single and continuous infringement — Restriction of competition by object — Geographic scope of the infringement — Fine — Proportionality — Equal treatment — Unlimited jurisdiction)

14

2022/C 128/20

Case T-616/18: Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2022 — Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo v Commission (Commitments by Gazprom) (Competition — Abuse of a dominant position — Gas markets of central and eastern Europe — Decision to make binding the individual commitments proposed by an undertaking — Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Whether the commitments are adequate in the light of the competition concerns initially identified in the statement of objections — Commission decision not to require commitments in relation to some of the initial concerns — Principle of sound administration — Transparency — Obligation to state reasons — Energy-policy objectives of the European Union — Principle of energy solidarity — Misuse of powers)

15

2022/C 128/21

Case T-740/18: Judgment of the General Court of 9 February 2022 — Taminco and Arysta LifeScience Great Britain v Commission (Plant protection products — Active substance thiram — Non-renewal of approval — Regulation No 1107/2009 and Implementing Regulation No 844/2012 — Rights of the defence — Procedural irregularity — Manifest error of assessment — Competence of EFSA — Proportionality — Precautionary principle — Equal treatment)

16

2022/C 128/22

Case T-27/19: Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2022 — Pilatus Bank and Pilatus Holding v ECB (Economic and monetary policy — Prudential supervision of credit institutions — Specific supervisory tasks conferred on the ECB — Decision to withdraw a credit institution’s authorisation — Indictment of the main shareholder in a third country — Criterion of good repute — Perception of good repute by the market — Presumption of innocence — Proportionality — Rights of the defence)

16

2022/C 128/23

Case T-317/19: Judgment of the General Court of 9 February 2022 — AMVAC Netherlands v Commission (Plant protection products — Active substance ethoprophos — Non-renewal of approval — Regulation No 1107/2009 and Implementing Regulation No 844/2012 — Rights of the defence — Manifest error of assessment — Legal certainty — Proportionality — Precautionary principle)

17

2022/C 128/24

Case T-399/19: Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2022 — Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo v Commission (Rejection of a complaint) (Competition — Abuse of a dominant position — Gas markets of central and eastern Europe — Decision rejecting a complaint — No EU interest — State action defence — Obligation to conduct a diligent examination — Procedural rights under Regulation (EC) No 773/2004)

18

2022/C 128/25

Case T-652/19: Judgment of the General Court of 9 February 2022 — Elevolution — Engenharia v Commission (Public procurement — Financial regulation — Exclusion from procurement and grant-award procedures covered by the EDF for a three-year period — Obligation to state reasons — Principle of sound administration — Right to be heard — Manifest error of assessment — Proportionality)

18

2022/C 128/26

Case T-849/19: Judgment of the General Court of 26 January 2022 — Leonardo v Frontex (Public supply contracts — Tendering procedure — Aerial surveillance services — Action for annulment — No interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility — Non-contractual liability)

19

2022/C 128/27

Case T-33/20: Judgment of the General Court of 9 February 2022 — Van Walle v ECDC (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — ECDC staff members — Appraisal report for 2018 — Freedom of expression — Obligation to state reasons — Case requiring a specific statement of reasons — Manifest error of assessment — Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials — Right to be heard)

19

2022/C 128/28

Case T-498/20: Judgment of the General Court of 26 January 2022 — Diego v EUIPO — Forbo Financial Services (WOOD STEP LAMINATE FLOORING) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark WOOD STEP LAMINATE FLOORING — Earlier international word mark STEP — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Free movement of goods)

20

2022/C 128/29

Case T-536/20: Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2022 — LU v EIB (Civil service — EIB staff — Dignity at Work Policy — Psychological harassment — Investigation procedure — Action for annulment — Final report of the investigation panel — Preparatory act — Inadmissibility — Decision rejecting the complaint — Act adversely affecting an official — Admissibility — Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Rights of the defence — Right to be heard — Obligation to state reasons — Liability)

21

2022/C 128/30

Case T-589/20: Judgment of the General Court of 9 February 2022 — Calzaturificio Emmegiemme Shoes v EUIPO — Inticom (MAIMAI MADE IN ITALY) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark MAIMAI MADE IN ITALY — Earlier EU word mark YAMAMAY — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Admissibility of new evidence — Alteration of the distinctive character)

21

2022/C 128/31

Case T-694/20: Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2022 — Canisius v EUIPO — Beiersdorf (CCLABELLE VIENNA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark CCLABELLE VIENNA — Earlier EU word mark LABELLO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

22

2022/C 128/32

Case T-116/21: Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2022 — Maternus v EUIPO — adp Gauselmann (WILD) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark WILD — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 52(1)(a) and Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(a) and Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

22

2022/C 128/33

Case T-173/21: Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2022 — Novelis Deutschland v EUIPO — CU.CO. (grill dish) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a grill dish — Earlier national design — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

23

2022/C 128/34

Case T-202/21: Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2022 — Vita Zahnfabrik v EUIPO — VIPI Produtos Odontológicos (VITABLOCS TriLuxe forte) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark VITABLOCS TriLuxe forte — Earlier EU word mark TRILUX — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

24

2022/C 128/35

Case T-233/21: Judgment of the General Court of 26 January 2022 — Meta Cluster v EUIPO (Clustermedizin) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark Clustermedizin — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

24

2022/C 128/36

Case T-765/14: Order of the General Court of 17 December 2021 — Legakis and Others v Council (Non-contractual liability — Economic and monetary policy — Stability support programme for the Republic of Cyprus — Statements of the Euro Group of 16 and 25 March 2013 concerning Cyprus — Statement of the President of the Euro Group of 21 March 2013 concerning Cyprus — Incorrect identification of the defendant — Manifest inadmissibility)

25

2022/C 128/37

Case T-418/21: Order of the General Court of 14 January 2022 — Alauzun and Others v Commission and EMA (Action for annulment — Medicinal products for human use — Amendment to the conditional marketing authorisation for the medicinal product for human use Comirnaty — Act not open to challenge — Preparatory act — No interest in bringing proceedings — No direct concern — Act not of individual concern — Non-regulatory act — Inadmissibility)

25

2022/C 128/38

Case T-40/22: Action brought on 22 January 2022 — Dado Ceramica and Others v EUIPO — Italcer (Piastrelle)

26

2022/C 128/39

Case T-47/22: Action brought on 26 January 2022 — DDR Kultur v EUIPO — Groupe Canal+ (THE PLANET)

27

2022/C 128/40

Case T-48/22: Action brought on 27 January 2022 — Czech Republic v Commission

27

2022/C 128/41

Case T-50/22: Action brought on 21 January 2022 — AL v Council and Commission

29

2022/C 128/42

Case T-52/22: Action brought on 28 January 2022 — Chambre de commerce et d’industrie territoriale de la Marne en Champagne v EUIPO — Ambrosetti Group Ltd (TEHA)

30

2022/C 128/43

Case T-60/22: Action brought on 28 January 2022 — Chambre de commerce et d’industrie territoriale de la Marne en Champagne v EUIPO — Ambrosetti Group Ltd (TEHA)

31

2022/C 128/44

Case T-65/22: Action brought on 2 February 2022 — PS v EIB

31

2022/C 128/45

Case T-68/22: Action brought on 2 February 2022 — Granini France v EUIPO — Pichler (Joro)

32

---

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 21.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/1

---

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

(2022/C 128/01)

Last publication

OJ C 119, 14.3.2022

Past publications

OJ C 109, 7.3.2022

OJ C 95, 28.2.2022

OJ C 84, 21.2.2022

OJ C 73, 14.2.2022

OJ C 64, 7.2.2022

OJ C 51, 31.1.2022

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 21.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 February 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen — Sweden) — Advania Sverige AB, Kammarkollegiet v Dustin Sverige AB

(Case C-461/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2014/24/EU - Article 72 - Modification of contracts during their term - Transfer of a framework agreement - New contractor assuming on the insolvency of the initial contractor the rights and obligations attributed to the latter under a framework agreement - Whether need for a new procurement procedure)

(2022/C 128/02)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Advania Sverige AB, Kammarkollegiet

Defendant: Dustin Sverige AB

Operative part of the judgment

Article 72(1)(d)(ii) of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC must be interpreted as meaning that an economic operator which, following the insolvency of the initial contractor which led to its liquidation, has taken over only the rights and obligations of the initial contractor arising from a framework agreement concluded with a contracting authority must be regarded as having succeeded in part to that initial contractor, following corporate restructuring, within the meaning of that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 414, 30.11.2020.

---

| 21.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 February 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — B AG v Finanzamt A

(Case C-515/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 122 - Reduced rate for supplies of wood for use as firewood - Differentiation on the basis of the objective characteristics and properties of the goods - Types of wood intended for use as fuel which serve the same consumer need and are in competition with each other - Principle of fiscal neutrality)

(2022/C 128/03)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: B AG

Defendant: Finanzamt A

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 122 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of wood for use as firewood, within the meaning of that article, designates any wood which, on the basis of its objective properties, is intended exclusively for burning. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 122 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of wood for use as firewood, within the meaning of that article, designates any wood which, on the basis of its objective properties, is intended exclusively for burning.

| 2. | Article 122 of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State which, in applying that article, establishes a reduced rate of value added tax for supplies of wood for use as firewood, may limit its scope as regards some categories of supplies of wood for use as firewood with reference to the Combined Nomenclature, subject to compliance with the principle of fiscal neutrality. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 122 of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State which, in applying that article, establishes a reduced rate of value added tax for supplies of wood for use as firewood, may limit its scope as regards some categories of supplies of wood for use as firewood with reference to the Combined Nomenclature, subject to compliance with the principle of fiscal neutrality.

| 3. | The principle of fiscal neutrality must be interpreted as not precluding national law from excluding from the benefit of the reduced rate of value added tax the supply of wood chips, even though it grants that benefit to supplies of other types of wood for use as firewood, subject to wood chips not being interchangeable, from the point of view of the average consumer, with other types of wood for use as firewood, which it is for the referring court to ascertain. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The principle of fiscal neutrality must be interpreted as not precluding national law from excluding from the benefit of the reduced rate of value added tax the supply of wood chips, even though it grants that benefit to supplies of other types of wood for use as firewood, subject to wood chips not being interchangeable, from the point of view of the average consumer, with other types of wood for use as firewood, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.

---

(1)  OJ C 28, 25.1.2021.

---

| 21.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 3 February 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main — Germany) — JW, HD, XS v LOT Polish Airlines

(Case C-20/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Second indent of Article 7(1)(b) - Special jurisdiction in matters relating to a contract - Concept of ‘place of performance of the obligation in question’ - Contract for the provision of services - Air transport - Flight consisting of a confirmed single booking and performed in several legs by two separate air carriers - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights - Article 7 - Right to compensation - Delay on the first leg of the journey - Claim for compensation brought against the air carrier operating that first leg of the journey before the court for the place of arrival of that first flight)

(2022/C 128/04)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Frankfurt am Main

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: JW, HD, XS

Defendant: LOT Polish Airlines

Operative part of the judgment

The second indent of Article 7(1)(b) 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, in respect of a flight consisting of a confirmed single booking for the entire journey and divided into two or more legs on which transport is performed by separate air carriers, where a claim for compensation, brought on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, arises exclusively from a delay of the first leg of the journey caused by a late departure and is brought against the air carrier operating that first leg, the place of arrival for that first leg may not be classified as a ‘place of performance’ within the meaning of that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 98, 22.3.2021.

---

| 21.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/4

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Siemianowicach Śląskich (Poland) lodged on 26 November 2021 — Provident Polska S.A. v VF

(Case C-717/21)

(2022/C 128/05)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy w Siemianowicach Śląskich

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Provident Polska S.A.

Defendant: VF

Question referred

Does Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which gives expression to a fundamental right protecting the place of residence, preclude an interpretation of Article 3(1) and Article 4(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29, as amended), (1) and in particular an interpretation of the concept of a significant imbalance, under which a consumer credit contract may be performed by payment of instalments collected by the seller or supplier exclusively at the consumer’s place of residence?

---

(1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29, Special edition in Polish: Chapter 15 Volume 002 P. 288 — 293.

---

| 21.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/5

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 26 November 2021 — L.G. v Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa

(Case C-718/21)

(2022/C 128/06)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: L.G.

Other party to the proceedings: Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union preclude a provision of national law such as the first sentence of Article 69(1b) of the Ustawa z dnia 27 lipca 2001 r. — Prawo o ustroju sądów powszechnych (Law of 27 July 2001 on the System of Ordinary Courts; Dz, U. of 2020, item 2072), which makes the effectiveness of a declaration by a judge of his or her intention to continue to hold a judicial office after reaching retirement age subject to the consent of another body? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union preclude a provision of national law such as the first sentence of Article 69(1b) of the Ustawa z dnia 27 lipca 2001 r. — Prawo o ustroju sądów powszechnych (Law of 27 July 2001 on the System of Ordinary Courts; Dz, U. of 2020, item 2072), which makes the effectiveness of a declaration by a judge of his or her intention to continue to hold a judicial office after reaching retirement age subject to the consent of another body?

| 2. | Does the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union preclude the adoption of an interpretation of a national provision under which a judge’s belated declaration of his or her intention to continue to hold a judicial office after reaching retirement age is ineffective, irrespective of the reason for the failure to observe the time limit and the significance of that failure for the proceedings concerning consent to his or her continuing to hold a judicial office? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union preclude the adoption of an interpretation of a national provision under which a judge’s belated declaration of his or her intention to continue to hold a judicial office after reaching retirement age is ineffective, irrespective of the reason for the failure to observe the time limit and the significance of that failure for the proceedings concerning consent to his or her continuing to hold a judicial office?

---

| 21.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/5

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 26 November 2021 — Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich

(Case C-720/21)

(2022/C 128/07)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant in the extraordinary appeal: Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich

Other parties to the proceedings: M.M., E.M., X Bank Spółka Akcyjna

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union, and Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union, be interpreted as making admissible a legal remedy, such as an extraordinary appeal, aimed at setting aside a final ruling of a court where there is a need to ‘ensure compliance with the principle of a democratic state ruled by law and implementing the principles of social justice’ if the use of that remedy is necessary to ensure the effectiveness of EU law? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union, and Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union, be interpreted as making admissible a legal remedy, such as an extraordinary appeal, aimed at setting aside a final ruling of a court where there is a need to ‘ensure compliance with the principle of a democratic state ruled by law and implementing the principles of social justice’ if the use of that remedy is necessary to ensure the effectiveness of EU law?

| 2. | Must the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union, and Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union, be interpreted as meaning that, where provisions of national law make it possible for a final ruling of a court to be varied or set aside by means of a remedy such as an extraordinary appeal in the event of a breach of the principles enshrined in the Constitution of a Member State, those provisions may also be relied on as grounds for setting aside or varying a final ruling of a court in the event of a breach of EU law? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union, and Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union, be interpreted as meaning that, where provisions of national law make it possible for a final ruling of a court to be varied or set aside by means of a remedy such as an extraordinary appeal in the event of a breach of the principles enshrined in the Constitution of a Member State, those provisions may also be relied on as grounds for setting aside or varying a final ruling of a court in the event of a breach of EU law?

| 3. | Must the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union, and Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union, be interpreted as meaning that, where a national court has infringed EU law in a manner which has led to a case being decided in a way that is flawed from the point of view of that law, the final ruling of that court may be set aside or varied by means of a legal remedy, such as an extraordinary appeal, which makes such a decision conditional upon a ‘flagrant’ breach of the law? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Must the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union, and Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union, be interpreted as meaning that, where a national court has infringed EU law in a manner which has led to a case being decided in a way that is flawed from the point of view of that law, the final ruling of that court may be set aside or varied by means of a legal remedy, such as an extraordinary appeal, which makes such a decision conditional upon a ‘flagrant’ breach of the law?

---

| 21.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/6

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 1 December 2021 — W. Sp. z o. o. v Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej w Łodzi

(Case C-729/21)

(2022/C 128/08)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant in the appeal on a point of law: W. Sp. z o. o.

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej w Łodzi

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the provisions of EU law concerning VAT be interpreted as allowing the application of a provision of national law — such as Article 6(1) of the ustawa o podatku od towarów i usług (Law on the tax on goods and services) of 11 March 2004 (Dz. U. of 2021, item 685; ‘the Law on VAT’) — which excludes taxation of a supply of an organised part of an undertaking without making the application of that exclusion subject to the condition referred to in Article 19 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax ..., (1) that is to say, legal succession between the seller and the purchaser? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must the provisions of EU law concerning VAT be interpreted as allowing the application of a provision of national law — such as Article 6(1) of the ustawa o podatku od towarów i usług (Law on the tax on goods and services) of 11 March 2004 (Dz. U. of 2021, item 685; ‘the Law on VAT’) — which excludes taxation of a supply of an organised part of an undertaking without making the application of that exclusion subject to the condition referred to in Article 19 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax ..., (1) that is to say, legal succession between the seller and the purchaser?

| 2. | If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, do all the assets of that organised part of the seller’s property have to be transferred for the exclusion referred to in Article 6(1) of the Law on VAT to apply and does a change in this respect (in particular the non-conclusion of agreements concerning the insurance and management of the property being transferred) mean that there has been a taxable supply of goods? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, do all the assets of that organised part of the seller’s property have to be transferred for the exclusion referred to in Article 6(1) of the Law on VAT to apply and does a change in this respect (in particular the non-conclusion of agreements concerning the insurance and management of the property being transferred) mean that there has been a taxable supply of goods?

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

---

| 21.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/7

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Győri Járásbíróság (Hungary) lodged on 14 December 2021 — JH v Wizz Air Hungary Légiközlekedési Zrt. (Wizz Air Hungary Zrt.)

(Case C-771/21)

(2022/C 128/09)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Győri Járásbíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: JH

Defendant: Wizz Air Hungary Légiközlekedési Zrt. (Wizz Air Hungary Zrt.)

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay [of flights], and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that an air carrier is obliged to take reasonable measures to avoid the cancellation of a flight even in the event of extraordinary circumstances which confer exemption? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay [of flights], and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that an air carrier is obliged to take reasonable measures to avoid the cancellation of a flight even in the event of extraordinary circumstances which confer exemption?

| 2. | If the Court of Justice replies to question 1 in the affirmative, is the air carrier obliged, as part of those reasonable measures,






  a) | to return with the aircraft assigned for operation of the flight, which was diverted to a neighbouring airport because of a storm, to collect the passengers for that flight as soon as the crew’s flying time allows, and, therefore, to operate that flight? If so, is the air carrier also obliged to do this even if, for that reason, in order for other flights which have been assigned to the aircraft to operate, it has to provide another aircraft and a replacement crew at the departure airport of those flights, which is the air carrier’s base airport? |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

If the Court of Justice replies to question 1 in the affirmative, is the air carrier obliged, as part of those reasonable measures,

a)

to return with the aircraft assigned for operation of the flight, which was diverted to a neighbouring airport because of a storm, to collect the passengers for that flight as soon as the crew’s flying time allows, and, therefore, to operate that flight? If so, is the air carrier also obliged to do this even if, for that reason, in order for other flights which have been assigned to the aircraft to operate, it has to provide another aircraft and a replacement crew at the departure airport of those flights, which is the air carrier’s base airport?

| b) | to transfer the passengers by road to the aircraft assigned for operation of the flight, which was diverted to a neighbouring airport 140 km away because of a storm, and to operate the flight from there? |
| --- | --- |

b)

to transfer the passengers by road to the aircraft assigned for operation of the flight, which was diverted to a neighbouring airport 140 km away because of a storm, and to operate the flight from there?

| c) | to send a replacement aircraft or to transfer the passengers by road to the replacement aircraft, which was sent to a neighbouring airport, and, therefore, to operate the flight? |
| --- | --- |

c)

to send a replacement aircraft or to transfer the passengers by road to the replacement aircraft, which was sent to a neighbouring airport, and, therefore, to operate the flight?

---

(1)  OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1, Special edition in Hungarian Chapter 07 Volume 008 P. 10.

---

| 21.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/7

---

Appeal brought on 15 December 2021 by Aeris Invest Sàrl against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 6 October 2021 in Case T-827/17 Aeris Invest v ECB

(Case C-782/21 P)

(2022/C 128/10)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Aeris Invest Sàrl (represented by: R. Vallina Hoset, E. Galán Burgos and M. Varela Suárez, abogados)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Central Bank, European Commission and Banco Santander, S.A.

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the Third Chamber (Extended Composition) of the General Court of 6 October 2021, Aeris Invest v ECB, T-827/17, EU:T:2021:660; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the Third Chamber (Extended Composition) of the General Court of 6 October 2021, Aeris Invest v ECB, T-827/17, EU:T:2021:660;

| — | uphold the form of order sought by Aeris Invest at first instance and, in particular, declare null and void the decisions of the European Central Bank of 7 November 2017, LS/MD/17/405, LS/MD/17/419 and LS/MD/17/406, which refused access to a number of documents concerning the failure and resolution of Banco Popular Español, S.A., the deposit balance and the ELA facility granted to Banco Popular Español, S.A.; and |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the form of order sought by Aeris Invest at first instance and, in particular, declare null and void the decisions of the European Central Bank of 7 November 2017, LS/MD/17/405, LS/MD/17/419 and LS/MD/17/406, which refused access to a number of documents concerning the failure and resolution of Banco Popular Español, S.A., the deposit balance and the ELA facility granted to Banco Popular Español, S.A.; and

| — | order the European Central Bank to pay the costs in accordance with Article 184 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Central Bank to pay the costs in accordance with Article 184 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant relies on two grounds in support of its appeal against the judgment under appeal.

| — | By its first ground of appeal, the appellant claims that the judgment under appeal infringes Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), on the basis that: (i) it is not possible to request access to the documents sought in Case T-628/17; and (ii) the judgment under appeal prevents that party from exercising its right to an effective remedy and increases the inequality of arms between the parties. In any event, that restriction of Article 47 of the Charter is not justifiable under Article 52(1) of the Charter. |
| --- | --- |

—

By its first ground of appeal, the appellant claims that the judgment under appeal infringes Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), on the basis that: (i) it is not possible to request access to the documents sought in Case T-628/17; and (ii) the judgment under appeal prevents that party from exercising its right to an effective remedy and increases the inequality of arms between the parties. In any event, that restriction of Article 47 of the Charter is not justifiable under Article 52(1) of the Charter.

| — | By the second ground of appeal, the appellant maintains that the judgment under appeal infringes the Decision of the European Central Bank of 4 March 2004 on public access to European Central Bank documents (‘Decision 2004/258’), (1) read together with Article 47 of the Charter. In particular, it infringes Articles 1, 2 and 6 of Decision 2004/258 by interpreting the purpose of Decision 2004/258 in a manner contrary to fundamental rights. |
| --- | --- |

—

By the second ground of appeal, the appellant maintains that the judgment under appeal infringes the Decision of the European Central Bank of 4 March 2004 on public access to European Central Bank documents (‘Decision 2004/258’), (1) read together with Article 47 of the Charter. In particular, it infringes Articles 1, 2 and 6 of Decision 2004/258 by interpreting the purpose of Decision 2004/258 in a manner contrary to fundamental rights.

---

(1)  OJ L 80, of 18 March 2004, p. 42.

---

| 21.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/8

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht (Germany) lodged on 21 December 2021 — Deutsche Wohnen SE v Staatsanwaltschaft Berlin

(Case C-807/21)

(2022/C 128/11)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Kammergericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings

Summary proceedings against: Deutsche Wohnen SE

Other party to the proceedings: Staatsanwaltschaft Berlin

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 83(4) to (6) of the GDPR (1) to be interpreted as incorporating into national law the functional concept of an undertaking and the principle of an economic entity, as defined in Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, as a result of which, by broadening the principle of a legal entity underpinning Paragraph 30 of the Gesetz über Ordnungswidrigkeiten (Law on administrative offences; ‘the OWiG’), proceedings for an administrative fine may be brought against an undertaking directly and a fine imposed without requiring a finding that a natural and identified person committed an administrative offence, if necessary, in satisfaction of the objective and subjective elements of tortious liability? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 83(4) to (6) of the GDPR (1) to be interpreted as incorporating into national law the functional concept of an undertaking and the principle of an economic entity, as defined in Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, as a result of which, by broadening the principle of a legal entity underpinning Paragraph 30 of the Gesetz über Ordnungswidrigkeiten (Law on administrative offences; ‘the OWiG’), proceedings for an administrative fine may be brought against an undertaking directly and a fine imposed without requiring a finding that a natural and identified person committed an administrative offence, if necessary, in satisfaction of the objective and subjective elements of tortious liability?

| 2. | If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: Is Article 83(4) to (6) of the GDPR to be interpreted as meaning that the undertaking must have intentionally or negligently committed the breach of an obligation vicariously through an employee (see Article 23 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (2)), or is the objective fact of breach caused by it sufficient, in principle, for a fine to be imposed on that undertaking (‘strict liability’)? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: Is Article 83(4) to (6) of the GDPR to be interpreted as meaning that the undertaking must have intentionally or negligently committed the breach of an obligation vicariously through an employee (see Article 23 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (2)), or is the objective fact of breach caused by it sufficient, in principle, for a fine to be imposed on that undertaking (‘strict liability’)?

---

(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 (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ 2016 L 119, p. 1).

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).

---

| 21.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/9

---

Action brought on 22 December 2021 — European Commission v Hungary

(Case C-823/21)

(2022/C 128/12)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Azéma, L. Grønfeldt, A. Tokár and J. Tomkin, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Hungary

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by making access to the international protection procedure and the making of an application for international protection in respect of third-country nationals present in the Hungarian territory, including at its borders, subject to the requirement that they must first undergo a procedure at a Hungarian diplomatic representation in a third country, Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6 of Directive 2013/32, (1) read in conjunction with Article 18 of the Charter. |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by making access to the international protection procedure and the making of an application for international protection in respect of third-country nationals present in the Hungarian territory, including at its borders, subject to the requirement that they must first undergo a procedure at a Hungarian diplomatic representation in a third country, Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6 of Directive 2013/32, (1) read in conjunction with Article 18 of the Charter.

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

—

order Hungary to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Under the rules on the right of asylum introduced in Hungary by Act LVIII of 2020, which was adopted on a provisional basis but has subsequently been extended on several occasions, persons wishing to seek asylum in Hungary must, with few exceptions, first submit a letter of intent to the Hungarian Embassy in Belgrade or Kyiv, and can only access the international protection procedure after a positive response to that letter of intent and the issuance of an entry permit.

The Commission considers that that new asylum procedure is incompatible with Article 6 of Directive 2013/32 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection, interpreted in the light of Article 18 of the Charter.

The right of ‘access to the procedure’, which is guaranteed by Article 6 of the directive, implies first and foremost the possibility for third-country nationals present in the territory of a Member State, including at its borders, to make an application for international protection.

However, it follows from the applicable provisions of Act LVIII of 2020 that, if third-country nationals present in Hungarian territory, including at its borders, express their willingness to avail themselves of international protection, the Hungarian authorities will not consider that declaration as the making of an application for international protection within the meaning of Directive 2013/32. The application will not be registered and the person will not be granted the rights to which the applicant is entitled. Instead, in order to submit his or her application, the person must leave the Hungarian territory, return to a third country and first undergo a procedure at the Hungarian embassy in that country.

---

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

---

| 21.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 23 December 2021 — Syngenta Agro GmbH v Agro Trade Handelsgesellschaft mbH

(Case C-830/21)

(2022/C 128/13)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Syngenta Agro GmbH

Defendant: Agro Trade Handelsgesellschaft mbH

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 1 of Regulation (EU) No 547/2011, (1) read in combination with paragraph 1(b) of Annex I thereto, to be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of a parallel import of a plant protection product, the name and address of the holder of the authorisation in the Member State of origin from which the plant protection product was imported must be stated on the packaging when it is distributed in another Member State? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 1 of Regulation (EU) No 547/2011, (1) read in combination with paragraph 1(b) of Annex I thereto, to be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of a parallel import of a plant protection product, the name and address of the holder of the authorisation in the Member State of origin from which the plant protection product was imported must be stated on the packaging when it is distributed in another Member State?

| 2. | Is Article 1 of Regulation (EU) No 547/2011, read in combination with paragraph 1(f) of Annex I thereto, to be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of a parallel import of a plant protection product, the batch number initially allocated by the manufacturer must be indicated on the packaging, or is it compatible with that provision for the parallel importer to remove the original batch number and to affix its own identification number to the packaging, provided it keeps records showing the correlation between the batch numbers used by it and the batch numbers used by the holder of the authorisation of the plant protection product imported in parallel? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is Article 1 of Regulation (EU) No 547/2011, read in combination with paragraph 1(f) of Annex I thereto, to be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of a parallel import of a plant protection product, the batch number initially allocated by the manufacturer must be indicated on the packaging, or is it compatible with that provision for the parallel importer to remove the original batch number and to affix its own identification number to the packaging, provided it keeps records showing the correlation between the batch numbers used by it and the batch numbers used by the holder of the authorisation of the plant protection product imported in parallel?

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 547/2011 of 8 June 2011 implementing Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards labelling requirements for plant protection products (OJ 2011 L 155, p. 176).

---

| 21.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 3 January 2022 — Green Network SpA v SF, YB, Autorità di Regolazione per Energia Reti e Ambiente (ARERA)

(Case C-5/22)

(2022/C 128/14)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Green Network SpA

Defendants: SF, YB, Autorità di Regolazione per Energia Reti e Ambiente (ARERA)

Questions referred

| 1. | Are the provisions of EU law contained in Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 (1) — and in particular in Article 37(1) and (4), governing the powers of the regulatory authorities, and in Annex I — to be interpreted as including a prescriptive power exercised by the Italian electricity market regulatory authority (Autorità di Regolazione per Energia Reti e Ambiente) (ARERA), in relation to companies operating in the electricity sector, whereunder the authority may order such a company to reimburse customers, including former customers and customers in arrears, sums of money paid by such customers to cover administrative management costs, pursuant to a contractual term that has been penalised by the authority? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are the provisions of EU law contained in Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 (1) — and in particular in Article 37(1) and (4), governing the powers of the regulatory authorities, and in Annex I — to be interpreted as including a prescriptive power exercised by the Italian electricity market regulatory authority (Autorità di Regolazione per Energia Reti e Ambiente) (ARERA), in relation to companies operating in the electricity sector, whereunder the authority may order such a company to reimburse customers, including former customers and customers in arrears, sums of money paid by such customers to cover administrative management costs, pursuant to a contractual term that has been penalised by the authority?

| 2. | Are the provisions of EU law contained in Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 — and in particular in Article 37(1) and (4), governing the powers of the regulatory authorities, and in Annex I — to be interpreted as including, within the scope of any compensation and the refund arrangements which apply to customers in the electricity market if contracted service quality levels are not met by the market operator, the reimbursement of moneys paid by such customers that are expressly governed by a contractual term in an agreement that has been signed and accepted and bear no relationship to service quality itself but are stipulated as covering the economic operator’s own administrative management costs? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Are the provisions of EU law contained in Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 — and in particular in Article 37(1) and (4), governing the powers of the regulatory authorities, and in Annex I — to be interpreted as including, within the scope of any compensation and the refund arrangements which apply to customers in the electricity market if contracted service quality levels are not met by the market operator, the reimbursement of moneys paid by such customers that are expressly governed by a contractual term in an agreement that has been signed and accepted and bear no relationship to service quality itself but are stipulated as covering the economic operator’s own administrative management costs?

---

(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).

---

| 21.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/11

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 11 January 2022 — Volkswagen Group Italia SpA, Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato

(Case C-27/22)

(2022/C 128/15)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants and appellants: Volkswagen Group Italia SpA, Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft

Defendant and respondent: Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato

Questions referred

| 1. | Can the penalties imposed for unfair commercial practices under national legislation implementing Directive 2005/29/EC (1) be classified as criminal administrative penalties? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can the penalties imposed for unfair commercial practices under national legislation implementing Directive 2005/29/EC (1) be classified as criminal administrative penalties?

| 2. | Must Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as precluding a national provision that makes it possible to uphold in court proceedings and make final a criminal administrative penalty against a legal person in respect of unlawful conduct in the form of unfair commercial practices, for which a final criminal conviction has been handed down against that person in the meantime in a different Member State, where the latter criminal conviction became final before the legal challenge to the former criminal administrative penalty became res judicata? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as precluding a national provision that makes it possible to uphold in court proceedings and make final a criminal administrative penalty against a legal person in respect of unlawful conduct in the form of unfair commercial practices, for which a final criminal conviction has been handed down against that person in the meantime in a different Member State, where the latter criminal conviction became final before the legal challenge to the former criminal administrative penalty became res judicata?

| 3. | Can the provisions laid down in Directive 2005/29, with particular reference to Articles 3(4) and 13(2)(e), justify a derogation from the principle of ne bis in idem established by Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (subsequently incorporated into the Treaty on European Union by Article 6 TEU) and by Article 54 of the Schengen Convention? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Can the provisions laid down in Directive 2005/29, with particular reference to Articles 3(4) and 13(2)(e), justify a derogation from the principle of ne bis in idem established by Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (subsequently incorporated into the Treaty on European Union by Article 6 TEU) and by Article 54 of the Schengen Convention?

---

(1)  Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22).

---

| 21.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/12

---

Appeal brought on 27 January 2022 by Romania against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 10 November 2021 in Case T-495/19 Romania v Commission

(Case C-54/22 P)

(2022/C 128/16)

Language of the case: Romanian

Parties

Appellant: Romania (represented by: E. Gane, L. Liţu and L.-E. Baţagoi, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Hungary

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

| — | allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the General Court in Case T-495/19, in so far as it concerns the analysis relating to the plea based on the infringement of Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation No 211/2011, and adjudicate in Case T-495/19, upholding the application for annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2019/721; |
| --- | --- |

—

allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the General Court in Case T-495/19, in so far as it concerns the analysis relating to the plea based on the infringement of Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation No 211/2011, and adjudicate in Case T-495/19, upholding the application for annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2019/721;

| — | or, alternatively, allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the General Court in Case T-495/19, in so far as it concerns the analysis relating to the plea based on the infringement of Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation No 211/2011, and refer Case T-495/19 back to the General Court so that the latter may adjudicate afresh, uphold the application for annulment and annul Commission Decision (EU) 2019/721; |
| --- | --- |

—

or, alternatively, allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the General Court in Case T-495/19, in so far as it concerns the analysis relating to the plea based on the infringement of Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation No 211/2011, and refer Case T-495/19 back to the General Court so that the latter may adjudicate afresh, uphold the application for annulment and annul Commission Decision (EU) 2019/721;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, Romania relies on a single ground, alleging the infringement of Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation No 211/2011, in conjunction with Article 5(2) TEU.

Romania submits that the General Court erred in law, thereby infringing the provisions in question.

| (i) | First, the General Court so erred by its interpretation concerning the conditions in which the Commission could refuse to register a European citizens’ initiative — in particular when it found that such a refusal may occur only where the possibility for the Commission of submitting a proposal for an EU legal act for the purpose of implementing the Treaties may be totally excluded.
  However, such an initiative, it is submitted, manifestly falls outside the framework of the Commission’s powers to submit a proposal for an EU legal act if, following a legal assessment in abstracto of the measures proposed, there are serious doubts that such measures could be adopted on the basis of the Treaties. |
| --- | --- |

(i)

First, the General Court so erred by its interpretation concerning the conditions in which the Commission could refuse to register a European citizens’ initiative — in particular when it found that such a refusal may occur only where the possibility for the Commission of submitting a proposal for an EU legal act for the purpose of implementing the Treaties may be totally excluded.

However, such an initiative, it is submitted, manifestly falls outside the framework of the Commission’s powers to submit a proposal for an EU legal act if, following a legal assessment in abstracto of the measures proposed, there are serious doubts that such measures could be adopted on the basis of the Treaties.

| (ii) | Secondly, the General Court erred by its interpretation concerning the possibility for the Commission of registering a proposed European citizens’ initiative with reservations or conditionally.
  However, in such a situation, the Commission is required to refer to all the mandatory and optional information provided by the organisers and cannot disregard it even in part. |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

Secondly, the General Court erred by its interpretation concerning the possibility for the Commission of registering a proposed European citizens’ initiative with reservations or conditionally.

However, in such a situation, the Commission is required to refer to all the mandatory and optional information provided by the organisers and cannot disregard it even in part.

---

General Court

| 21.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/13

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 January 2022 — Intel Corporation v Commission

(Case T-286/09 RENV) (1)

(Competition - Abuse of dominant position - Microprocessors market - Decision finding an infringement of Article 102 TFEU and of Article 54 of the EEA Agreement - Loyalty rebates - ‘Naked’ restrictions - Characterisation as abuse - As-efficient-competitor analysis - Overall strategy - Single and continuous infringement)

(2022/C 128/17)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Intel Corporation, Inc. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: A. Parr, Solicitor, D. Beard QC and J. Williams, Barrister)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Christoforou, V. Di Bucci, N. Khan and M. Kellerbauer, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Association for Competitive Technology, Inc. (Washington, DC, United States) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis and K. Van Hove, lawyers)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Union fédérale des consommateurs — Que choisir (UFC — Que choisir) (Paris, France) (represented by: E. Nasry, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking, primarily, the annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 3726 final of 13 May 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article [102 TFEU] and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C 3/37.990 — Intel) or, in the alternative, annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Article 1(a) to (e) and Article 2 of Commission Decision C(2009) 3726 final of 13 May 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article [102 TFEU] and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C-3/37.990 — Intel); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Article 1(a) to (e) and Article 2 of Commission Decision C(2009) 3726 final of 13 May 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article [102 TFEU] and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C-3/37.990 — Intel);

| 2. | Annuls Article 3 of Decision C(2009) 3726 final solely in so far as it concerns Article 1(a) to (e) of that decision; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Annuls Article 3 of Decision C(2009) 3726 final solely in so far as it concerns Article 1(a) to (e) of that decision;

| 3. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 4. | Orders the European Commission to pay, in addition to its own costs relating to the proceedings before the General Court in Cases T-286/09 and T-286/09 RENV and to the appeal proceedings before the Court of Justice in Case C-413/14 P, two thirds of the costs incurred by Intel Corporation, Inc., and by Association for Competitive Technology, Inc., in those proceedings, while Intel Corporation and Association for Competitive Technology are each to bear one third of their own costs; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the European Commission to pay, in addition to its own costs relating to the proceedings before the General Court in Cases T-286/09 and T-286/09 RENV and to the appeal proceedings before the Court of Justice in Case C-413/14 P, two thirds of the costs incurred by Intel Corporation, Inc., and by Association for Competitive Technology, Inc., in those proceedings, while Intel Corporation and Association for Competitive Technology are each to bear one third of their own costs;

| 5. | Orders Union fédérale des consommateurs — Que choisir (UFC — Que choisir) to bear its own costs relating to the proceedings brought before the General Court in Cases T-286/09 and T-286/09 RENV and to the appeal proceedings before the Court of Justice in Case C-413/14 P. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Orders Union fédérale des consommateurs — Que choisir (UFC — Que choisir) to bear its own costs relating to the proceedings brought before the General Court in Cases T-286/09 and T-286/09 RENV and to the appeal proceedings before the Court of Justice in Case C-413/14 P.

---

(1)  OJ C 220, 12.9.2009.

---

| 21.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/14

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 February 2022 — QI and Others v Commission and ECB

(Case T-868/16) (1)

(Non-contractual liability - Economic and monetary policy - Restructuring of Greek public debt - Bond exchange agreement for the sole benefit of the Eurosystem central banks - Private sector involvement - Collective action clauses - Private creditors - Official sector creditors - Attributability - Sufficiently serious infringement of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals - Article 63(1) TFEU - Articles 120 to 127 and Article 352(1) TFEU - Right to property - Equal treatment)

(2022/C 128/18)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: QI and the 15 other applicants whose names are set out in the annex to the judgment (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendants: European Commission (represented by: J.-P. Keppenne, L. Flynn and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents) and European Central Bank (represented by: K. Laurinavičius and M. Szablewska, acting as Agents, and by H.-G. Kamann, lawyer)

Interveners in support of the defendants: European Council and Council of the European Union (represented by: K. Michoel, E. Chatziioakeimidou and J. Bauerschmidt, acting as Agents)

Re:

APPLICATION based on Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicants following the implementation of a mandatory exchange of State bonds in the context of the restructuring of Greek public debt in 2012 through the involvement of private investors by means of the application of collective action clauses, due to the conduct and actions of, in particular, the European Council, the Council, the Commission and the ECB.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders QI and the other applicants whose names appear in the annex to pay, in addition to their own costs, those incurred by the European Commission and by the European Central Bank (ECB); |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders QI and the other applicants whose names appear in the annex to pay, in addition to their own costs, those incurred by the European Commission and by the European Central Bank (ECB);

| 3. | Orders the European Council and the Council of the European Union to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Council and the Council of the European Union to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 30, 30.1.2017.

---

| 21.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/14

---

Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2022 — Scania and Others v Commission

(Case T-799/17) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Truck manufacturers market - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and of Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Agreements and concerted practices in relation to the prices of trucks, the timing for the introduction of emission technologies and the passing on to customers of the costs relating to those technologies - ‘Hybrid’ procedure staggered over time - Presumption of innocence - Principle of impartiality - Charter of Fundamental Rights - Single and continuous infringement - Restriction of competition by object - Geographic scope of the infringement - Fine - Proportionality - Equal treatment - Unlimited jurisdiction)

(2022/C 128/19)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Scania AB (Södertälje, Sweden), Scania CV AB (Södertälje), Scania Deutschland GmbH (Koblenz, Germany) (represented by: D. Arts, F. Miotto, C. Pommiès, K. Schillemans, C. Langenius, L. Ulrichs, P. Hammarskiöld, S. Falkner and N. De Backer, lawyers)

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

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2017) 6467 final of 27 September 2017, relating to proceedings under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA) (Case AT.39824 — Trucks) or, in the alternative, a reduction of the fines imposed on the applicants in that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Scania AB, Scania CV AB and Scania Deutschland GmbH to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Scania AB, Scania CV AB and Scania Deutschland GmbH to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 42, 5.2.2018.

---

| 21.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/15

---

Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2022 — Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo v Commission (Commitments by Gazprom)

(Case T-616/18) (1)

(Competition - Abuse of a dominant position - Gas markets of central and eastern Europe - Decision to make binding the individual commitments proposed by an undertaking - Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Whether the commitments are adequate in the light of the competition concerns initially identified in the statement of objections - Commission decision not to require commitments in relation to some of the initial concerns - Principle of sound administration - Transparency - Obligation to state reasons - Energy-policy objectives of the European Union - Principle of energy solidarity - Misuse of powers)

(2022/C 128/20)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo S.A. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: K. Karasiewicz, T. Kaźmierczak, K. Kicun and P. Moskwa, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Meessen and J. Szczodrowski, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicant: Republic of Lithuania (represented by: K. Dieninis and R. Dzikovič, acting as Agents), Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna and M. Nowacki, acting as Agents), and Overgas Inc. (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: S. Gröss and S. Cappellari, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Gazprom PJSC (Moscow, Russia), and Gazprom export LLC (Saint Petersburg, Russia) (represented by: J. Karenfort, J. Hainz, B. Evtimov, N. Tuominen and J. Heithecker, lawyers, as well as D. O’Keeffe, Solicitor)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Decision C(2018) 3106 final of the Commission of 24 May 2018 relating to a proceeding under Article 102 [TFEU] and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39816 — Upstream Gas Supplies in Central and Eastern Europe).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo S.A. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, Gazprom PJSC and Gazprom export LLC; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo S.A. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, Gazprom PJSC and Gazprom export LLC;

| 3. | Orders the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Poland and Overgas Inc. to bear their own respective costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Poland and Overgas Inc. to bear their own respective costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 4, 7.1.2019.

---

| 21.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/16

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 February 2022 — Taminco and Arysta LifeScience Great Britain v Commission

(Case T-740/18) (1)

(Plant protection products - Active substance thiram - Non-renewal of approval - Regulation No 1107/2009 and Implementing Regulation No 844/2012 - Rights of the defence - Procedural irregularity - Manifest error of assessment - Competence of EFSA - Proportionality - Precautionary principle - Equal treatment)

(2022/C 128/21)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Taminco BVBA (Ghent, Belgium), Arysta LifeScience Great Britain Ltd (Edinburgh, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Mereu and M. Grunchard, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Koleva, acting as Agent)

Re:

APPLICATION under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1500 of 9 October 2018 concerning the non-renewal of approval of the active substance thiram, and prohibiting the use and sale of seeds treated with plant protection products containing thiram, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 (OJ 2018 L 254, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Taminco BVBA and Arysta LifeScience Great Britain Ltd to bear their own costs and those incurred by the European Commission in the context of the present action; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Taminco BVBA and Arysta LifeScience Great Britain Ltd to bear their own costs and those incurred by the European Commission in the context of the present action;

| 3. | Orders Taminco to bear its own costs and those incurred by the Commission in the context of the proceedings for interim measures. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Taminco to bear its own costs and those incurred by the Commission in the context of the proceedings for interim measures.

---

(1)  OJ C 72, 25.2.2019.

---

| 21.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/16

---

Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2022 — Pilatus Bank and Pilatus Holding v ECB

(Case T-27/19) (1)

(Economic and monetary policy - Prudential supervision of credit institutions - Specific supervisory tasks conferred on the ECB - Decision to withdraw a credit institution’s authorisation - Indictment of the main shareholder in a third country - Criterion of good repute - Perception of good repute by the market - Presumption of innocence - Proportionality - Rights of the defence)

(2022/C 128/22)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Pilatus Bank plc (Ta’Xbiex, Malta), Pilatus Holding Ltd. (Ta’Xbiex) (represented by: O. Behrends, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: E. Yoo, M. Puidokas and A. Karpf, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou, A. Nijenhuis and A. Steiblytė, Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the ECB of 2 November 2018 withdrawing the authorisation of Pilatus Bank to take up the business of a credit institution.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Pilatus Bank plc and Pilatus Holding Ltd. to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Central Bank (ECB); |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Pilatus Bank plc and Pilatus Holding Ltd. to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Central Bank (ECB);

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 72, 25.2.2019.

---

| 21.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/17

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 February 2022 — AMVAC Netherlands v Commission

(Case T-317/19) (1)

(Plant protection products - Active substance ethoprophos - Non-renewal of approval - Regulation No 1107/2009 and Implementing Regulation No 844/2012 - Rights of the defence - Manifest error of assessment - Legal certainty - Proportionality - Precautionary principle)

(2022/C 128/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: AMVAC Netherlands BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: C. Mereu, M. Grunchard and S. Englebert, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castilla Contreras and A. Dawes, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/344 of 28 February 2019 concerning the non-renewal of approval of the active substance ethoprophos, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 (OJ 2019 L 62, p. 7).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders AMVAC Netherlands BV to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in the present action and in the proceedings for interim measures. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders AMVAC Netherlands BV to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in the present action and in the proceedings for interim measures.

---

(1)  OJ C 263, 5.8.2019.

---

| 21.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/18

---

Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2022 — Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo v Commission (Rejection of a complaint)

(Case T-399/19) (1)

(Competition - Abuse of a dominant position - Gas markets of central and eastern Europe - Decision rejecting a complaint - No EU interest - State action defence - Obligation to conduct a diligent examination - Procedural rights under Regulation (EC) No 773/2004)

(2022/C 128/24)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo S.A. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: K. Karasiewicz, T. Kaźmierczak, K. Kicun and P. Moskwa, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Ernst, G. Meessen and J. Szczodrowski, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Gazprom PJSC (Moscow, Russia), and Gazprom export LLC (Saint Petersburg, Russia) (represented by: J. Karenfort, J. Hainz, B. Evtimov, N. Tuominen and J. Heithecker, lawyers, as well as D. O’Keeffe, Solicitor)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Decision C(2019) 3003 final of the Commission of 17 April 2019 rejecting the complaint (Case AT.40497 — Polish gas prices).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Decision C(2019) 3003 final of the European Commission of 17 April 2019 rejecting the complaint (Case AT.40497 — Polish gas prices); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Decision C(2019) 3003 final of the European Commission of 17 April 2019 rejecting the complaint (Case AT.40497 — Polish gas prices);

| 2. | Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo S.A.; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo S.A.;

| 3. | Orders Gazprom PJSC and Gazprom export LLC to bear their own respective costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Gazprom PJSC and Gazprom export LLC to bear their own respective costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 288, 26.8.2019.

---

| 21.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/18

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 February 2022 — Elevolution — Engenharia v Commission

(Case T-652/19) (1)

(Public procurement - Financial regulation - Exclusion from procurement and grant-award procedures covered by the EDF for a three-year period - Obligation to state reasons - Principle of sound administration - Right to be heard - Manifest error of assessment - Proportionality)

(2022/C 128/25)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Elevolution — Engenharia, SA (Amadora, Portugal) (represented by: M. Marques Mendes, R. Campos, A. Dias Henriques, M. Troncoso Ferrer and C. García Fernández, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: I Melo Sampaio, acting as Agent)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the Commission decision of 12 July 2019 excluding the applicant for three years from participating in procurement and grant-award procedures financed by the European Development Fund (EDF) and concerning the publication of information relating to that exclusion.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Elevolution — Engenharia, SA to pay the costs, including the costs relating to the proceedings for interim measures. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Elevolution — Engenharia, SA to pay the costs, including the costs relating to the proceedings for interim measures.

---

(1)  OJ C 399, 25.11.2019.

---

| 21.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 January 2022 — Leonardo v Frontex

(Case T-849/19) (1)

(Public supply contracts - Tendering procedure - Aerial surveillance services - Action for annulment - No interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility - Non-contractual liability)

(2022/C 128/26)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Leonardo SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: M. Esposito, F. Caccioppoli and G. Calamo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) (represented by: H. Caniard, C. Georgiadis, A. Gras and S. Drew, acting as Agents, and by M. Umbach, F. Biebuyck, V. Ost and M. Clarich, lawyers)

Re:

First, application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the contract notice FRONTEX/OP/888/2019/JL/CG of 18 October 2019 entitled ‘Remotely Piloted Aircraft System (RPAS) for Medium Altitude Long Endurance Maritime Aerial Surveillance’, as amended, of the documents included in the annex thereto, of the questions and answers published by Frontex, of the minutes of the Information Meeting held at Frontex’s premises on 28 October 2019, of the decision awarding that contract and of any other prior, associated or subsequent act, and, secondly, application under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the damage which the applicant claims to have suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Leonardo SpA to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex), including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Leonardo SpA to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex), including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures.

---

(1)  OJ C 54, 17.2.2020.

---

| 21.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 February 2022 — Van Walle v ECDC

(Case T-33/20) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - ECDC staff members - Appraisal report for 2018 - Freedom of expression - Obligation to state reasons - Case requiring a specific statement of reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials - Right to be heard)

(2022/C 128/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ivo Van Walle (Järfälla, Sweden) (represented by: L. Levi and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) (represented by: J. Mannheim, acting as Agent, and by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of the applicant’s appraisal report for 2018.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Ivo Van Walle to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Ivo Van Walle to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC).

---

(1)  OJ C 103, 30.3.2020.

---

| 21.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/20

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 January 2022 — Diego v EUIPO — Forbo Financial Services (WOOD STEP LAMINATE FLOORING)

(Case T-498/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark WOOD STEP LAMINATE FLOORING - Earlier international word mark STEP - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Free movement of goods)

(2022/C 128/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Diego Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató Kft. (Dabas, Hungary) (represented by: P. Jalsovszky, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Forbo Financial Services AG (Baar, Switzerland) (represented by: F. Kramer, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 June 2020 (Case R 1630/2019-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Forbo Financial Services and Diego Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Diego Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató Kft. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Diego Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató Kft. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 339, 12.10.2020.

---

| 21.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/21

---

Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2022 — LU v EIB

(Case T-536/20) (1)

(Civil service - EIB staff - Dignity at Work Policy - Psychological harassment - Investigation procedure - Action for annulment - Final report of the investigation panel - Preparatory act - Inadmissibility - Decision rejecting the complaint - Act adversely affecting an official - Admissibility - Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Rights of the defence - Right to be heard - Obligation to state reasons - Liability)

(2022/C 128/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: LU (represented by: B. Maréchal, lawyer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented by: G. Faedo and K. Carr, acting as Agents, and by J. Currall and B. Wägenbaur, lawyers)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 270 TFEU and to Article 50a(1) of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union seeking, first, in essence, annulment of the final report issued by the Dignity at Work Panel on 13 May 2020 and of the decision of the President of the EIB of 26 May 2020 rejecting the harassment complaint lodged by the applicant and, second, compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the President of the European Investment Bank (EIB) of 26 May 2020 rejecting the harassment complaint made by LU; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the President of the European Investment Bank (EIB) of 26 May 2020 rejecting the harassment complaint made by LU;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

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

3.

Orders the EIB to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 399, 23.11.2020.

---

| 21.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/21

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 February 2022 — Calzaturificio Emmegiemme Shoes v EUIPO — Inticom (MAIMAI MADE IN ITALY)

(Case T-589/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark MAIMAI MADE IN ITALY - Earlier EU word mark YAMAMAY - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Admissibility of new evidence - Alteration of the distinctive character)

(2022/C 128/30)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Calzaturificio Emmegiemme Shoes Srl (Surano, Italy) (represented by: R. Fragalà, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Inticom SpA (Gallarate, Italy)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 July 2020 (Case R 1874/2018-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Inticom and Calzaturificio Emmegiemme Shoes.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Calzaturificio Emmegiemme Shoes Srl to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Calzaturificio Emmegiemme Shoes Srl to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 378, 9.11.2020.

---

| 21.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/22

---

Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2022 — Canisius v EUIPO — Beiersdorf (CCLABELLE VIENNA)

(Case T-694/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark CCLABELLE VIENNA - Earlier EU word mark LABELLO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 128/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Maria Alexandra Canisius (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: H. Asenbauer, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Beiersdorf AG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: J. Fuhrmann and V. von Bomhard, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 September 2020 (Case R 2233/2019-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Beiersdorf and Ms Canisius.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Ms Maria Alexandra Canisius to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ms Maria Alexandra Canisius to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 28, 25.1.2021.

---

| 21.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/22

---

Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2022 — Maternus v EUIPO — adp Gauselmann (WILD)

(Case T-116/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark WILD - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 52(1)(a) and Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(a) and Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2022/C 128/32)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Maternus GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: M. Zoebisch and R. Drozdz, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: adp Gauselmann GmbH (Espelkamp, Germany) (represented by: K. Mandel, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 December 2020 (Case R 932/2019-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between adp Gauselmann and Maternus.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

Orders Maternus GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 148, 26.4.2021.

---

| 21.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2022 — Novelis Deutschland v EUIPO — CU.CO. (grill dish)

(Case T-173/21) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a grill dish - Earlier national design - Ground for invalidity - No individual character - Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

(2022/C 128/33)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Novelis Deutschland GmbH (Göttingen, Germany) (represented by: U. Herberth, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Cuki Cofresco Srl (CU.CO.) (Volpiano, Italy) (represented by: L. Saglietti and E. Bianco, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 February 2021 (Case R 1856/2019-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Cuki Cofresco and Novelis Deutschland.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Novelis Deutschland GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Novelis Deutschland GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 217, 7.6.2021.

---

| 21.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2022 — Vita Zahnfabrik v EUIPO — VIPI Produtos Odontológicos (VITABLOCS TriLuxe forte)

(Case T-202/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark VITABLOCS TriLuxe forte - Earlier EU word mark TRILUX - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2022/C 128/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Vita Zahnfabrik H. Rauter GmbH & Co. KG (Bad Säckingen, Germany) (represented by: A. Theis and F. Hauck, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: VIPI Indústria, Comércio, Exportação E Importação De Produtos Odontológicos LTDA (Pirassununga, Brazil) (represented by: J. Blum, Solicitor)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 February 2021 (Case R 818/2020 4) relating to opposition proceedings between VIPI Indústria, Comércio, Exportação E Importação De Produtos Odontológicos and Vita Zahnfabrik H. Rauter.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Vita Zahnfabrik H. Rauter GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Vita Zahnfabrik H. Rauter GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 217, 7.6.2021.

---

| 21.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 January 2022 — Meta Cluster v EUIPO (Clustermedizin)

(Case T-233/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark Clustermedizin - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 128/35)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Meta Cluster GmbH (Pyrbaum, Germany) (represented by: H. Baumann, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 February 2021 (Case R 2127/2020-4), relating to an application for registration of the word sign Clustermedizin as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Meta Cluster GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Meta Cluster GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 242, 21.6.2021.

---

| 21.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/25

---

Order of the General Court of 17 December 2021 — Legakis and Others v Council

(Case T-765/14) (1)

(Non-contractual liability - Economic and monetary policy - Stability support programme for the Republic of Cyprus - Statements of the Euro Group of 16 and 25 March 2013 concerning Cyprus - Statement of the President of the Euro Group of 21 March 2013 concerning Cyprus - Incorrect identification of the defendant - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2022/C 128/36)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicants: Georgios Legakis (Palaio Faliro, Greece), Myrto Panagiota Legaki (Palaio Faliro), Maria Legaki (Palaio Faliro), Melina Legaki (Palaio Faliro) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. de Gregorio Merino, E. Chatziioakeimidou, M. Balta and E. Dumitriu-Segnana, acting as Agents)

Re:

APPLICATION pursuant to Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicants as a result of the statements of the Euro Group of 16 and 25 March 2013 and the statement of the President of the Euro Group of 21 March 2013.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as being manifestly inadmissible.

| 2. | Mr Georgios Legakis, Ms Myrto Panagiota Legaki, Ms Maria Legaki and Ms Melina Legaki shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Georgios Legakis, Ms Myrto Panagiota Legaki, Ms Maria Legaki and Ms Melina Legaki shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 34, 2.2.2015.

---

| 21.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/25

---

Order of the General Court of 14 January 2022 — Alauzun and Others v Commission and EMA

(Case T-418/21) (1)

(Action for annulment - Medicinal products for human use - Amendment to the conditional marketing authorisation for the medicinal product for human use Comirnaty - Act not open to challenge - Preparatory act - No interest in bringing proceedings - No direct concern - Act not of individual concern - Non-regulatory act - Inadmissibility)

(2022/C 128/37)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Virginie Alauzun (Saint-Cannat, France) and 774 other applicants whose names are set out in the annex to the order (represented by: F. Di Vizio, lawyer)

Defendants: European Commission (represented by: O. Beynet, L. Haasbeek and K. Mifsud-Bonnicci, acting as Agents), European Medicines Agency (represented by: S. Drosos, C. Schultheiss and S. Marino, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment, first, of Commission Implementing Decision C(2021) 4034 final of 31 May 2021 amending the conditional marketing authorisation granted by Implementing Decision C(2020) 9598 final for ‘Comirnaty — COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine (nucleoside modified)’, a medicinal product for human use, and, second, of the EMA’s opinion of 28 May 2021.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Ms Virginie Alauzun and the other applicants whose names are set out in the annex shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Ms Virginie Alauzun and the other applicants whose names are set out in the annex shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 338, 23.8.2021.

---

| 21.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/26

---

Action brought on 22 January 2022 — Dado Ceramica and Others v EUIPO — Italcer (Piastrelle)

(Case T-40/22)

(2022/C 128/38)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Dado Ceramica Srl (San Giovanni in Persiceto, Italy), Antica Ceramica Rubiera Srl (Rubiera, Italy) and Star-Gres sp. z o.o. (Końskie, Poland) (represented by: A. Merlini and F. Carpi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Italcer SpA (Rubiera, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Design at issue: Community design (Piastrelle) — Community design No 6 581 245-0013

Proceedings before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 November 2021 in Case R 1965/2020-3

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and uphold the application for a declaration of invalidity; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and uphold the application for a declaration of invalidity;

| — | in the alternative, after the annulment of the contested decision, refer the case back to the Board of Appeal of EUIPO and issue appropriate directions regarding the oral phases of the procedure and the admission of new and highly relevant documents; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, after the annulment of the contested decision, refer the case back to the Board of Appeal of EUIPO and issue appropriate directions regarding the oral phases of the procedure and the admission of new and highly relevant documents;

| — | order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear the costs of the proceedings and reimburse the costs incurred by the applicants. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear the costs of the proceedings and reimburse the costs incurred by the applicants.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;

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

—

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

---

| 21.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/27

---

Action brought on 26 January 2022 — DDR Kultur v EUIPO — Groupe Canal+ (THE PLANET)

(Case T-47/22)

(2022/C 128/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: DDR Kultur UG (haftungsbeschränkt) (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: I. Yeboah, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Groupe Canal+ (Issy-les-Moulineaux, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark THE PLANET — Application for registration No 18 096 394

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 November 2021 in Case R 2385/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 21.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/27

---

Action brought on 27 January 2022 — Czech Republic v Commission

(Case T-48/22)

(2022/C 128/40)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Vláčil, J. Očková and O. Serdula, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision to the extent to which it excludes expenditure of in the total amount of EUR 43 470 836,30 incurred by the Czech Republic, and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision to the extent to which it excludes expenditure of in the total amount of EUR 43 470 836,30 incurred by the Czech Republic, and

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

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By this action, the applicant seeks annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/2020 of 17 November 2021 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (notified under document C(2021) 8168 final) to the extent that it excludes expenditure incurred by the Czech Republic in the total amount of EUR 43 470 836,30.

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

First, it is necessary to annul the financial correction made in connection with the finding concerning the application of the status of ‘active farmer’. The applicant claims that the Commission infringed Article 52(1) of Regulation No 1306/2013, (1) since it imposed the correction despite the fact that the Czech Republic in the checks on the status of active farmer did not infringe EU law by virtue of the fact that EU law does not preclude, in the case of two conditions provided for in the third subparagraph of Article 9(2) of Regulation No 1307/2013, the application of the criterion of the share of receipts from agricultural activity. EU law further does not require that in the checks on the status of active farmer ‘connected’ companies should be taken into consideration. In any event, the Commission infringed Article 52(2) of Regulation No 1306/2013 and the principle of proportionality, since it imposed the financial correction in an amount which does not have regard to the gravity of the alleged non-conformity.

Secondly, it is necessary to annul the financial correction imposed in connection with the finding concerning ‘permanent grassland’. The applicant claims that the Commission infringed Article 52(1) of Regulation No 1306/2013, the principle of sound administration, the principle of legitimate expectations and the obligation to state reasons under Article 296 TFEU when it imposed the correction, despite having previously accepted that the system of the records of permanent grassland in the Czech Republic was in accordance with EU law. The Commission furthermore failed to state reasons for taking that latter step.

Thirdly, it is necessary to annul the financial correction imposed in connection with the finding concerning the minimum control rate. The applicant claims that the Commission infringed Article 52(1) of Regulation No 1306/2013 when it imposed the correction, despite the Czech Republic having complied with the minimum control rate required under EU law. The Commission furthermore failed to define one of the alleged shortcomings in the first communication in the audit, thereby infringing Article 34(2) of Regulation No 908/2014. (2) In any event, the Commission infringed Article 52(2) of Regulation No 1306/2013 and the principle of proportionality, since it imposed the financial correction in an amount which fails to have regard to the gravity of the alleged non-conformity.

Fourthly, it is necessary to annul the financial correction imposed in connection with the finding concerning the recovery of undue payments. The applicant claims that the Commission infringed Article 52(1) of Regulation No 1306/2013 when it imposed the correction despite the fact that the relevant provision of EU law does not require the systematic monitoring of the ineligibility of areas in previous years. In any event, the Commission infringed Article 52(2) of Regulation 1306/2013 and the principle of proportionality when it imposed the financial correction in an amount which fails to have regard to the gravity of the alleged non-conformity.

Fifthly, it is necessary to annul the financial correction imposed in connection with the finding concerning the late submission of the application. The applicant claims that the Commission infringed Article 52(1) of Regulation No 1306/2013 when it imposed the correction despite fact that the possibility to add the signature to the application within five days does not constitute the late submission of the application under Article 13 of Regulation No 640/2014. (3)

Sixthly, it is necessary to annul the financial correction imposed in connection with all the auditory findings under the budgetary heading concerning ‘budgetary discipline’. The applicant claims that the Commission infringed Article 52(2) of Regulation No 1306/2013 and the principle of proportionality in calculating that correction incorrectly, not least with regard to the effects of the other pleas in the application.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 549).

(2)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 908/2014 of 6 August 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to paying agencies and other bodies, financial management, clearance of accounts, rules on checks, securities and transparency (OJ 2014 L 255, p. 59).

(3)  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).

---

| 21.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/29

---

Action brought on 21 January 2022 — AL v Council and Commission

(Case T-50/22)

(2022/C 128/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: AL (represented by: R. Rata, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union, European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | partially annul the contested decision of 22 October 2021 in respect of the parts which do not uphold the applicant’s previous complaints against the PMO decisions of 3 March 2021 and 22 March 2021 and, to the extent applicable, order that the follow-up decisions, establishing the exact amount to be recovered, be updated accordingly; |
| --- | --- |

—

partially annul the contested decision of 22 October 2021 in respect of the parts which do not uphold the applicant’s previous complaints against the PMO decisions of 3 March 2021 and 22 March 2021 and, to the extent applicable, order that the follow-up decisions, establishing the exact amount to be recovered, be updated accordingly;

| — | order the defendant to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the applicant. (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the applicant. (1)

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging violation of Articles 4, 5, 9 and 10 of the Council Decision of 29 April 2004 adopting the general implementing provisions concerning a person treated as a dependent child, in so far as the applicant’s net income was calculated with regard to other gifts/payments for his past military service and the contribution for maintenance of his mother by another person, giving rise to wrongful deductions under Article 5 of those general implementing provisions in the calculation of the maintenance cost for his mother. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging violation of Articles 4, 5, 9 and 10 of the Council Decision of 29 April 2004 adopting the general implementing provisions concerning a person treated as a dependent child, in so far as the applicant’s net income was calculated with regard to other gifts/payments for his past military service and the contribution for maintenance of his mother by another person, giving rise to wrongful deductions under Article 5 of those general implementing provisions in the calculation of the maintenance cost for his mother.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging the violation of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations and manifest error of appreciation in respect of the allowance for the applicant’s mother, treated as a dependent child, in the absence of the applicant’s intention to deliberately mislead the administration regarding the sums received for his past military service. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging the violation of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations and manifest error of appreciation in respect of the allowance for the applicant’s mother, treated as a dependent child, in the absence of the applicant’s intention to deliberately mislead the administration regarding the sums received for his past military service.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging the violation of the principle of legitimate expectations and of the principle of good administration in respect of the allowance for the applicant’s mother, treated as a dependent child, in so far as the administration was aware of the sums that the applicant received for his past military service. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging the violation of the principle of legitimate expectations and of the principle of good administration in respect of the allowance for the applicant’s mother, treated as a dependent child, in so far as the administration was aware of the sums that the applicant received for his past military service.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging the violation of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations and manifest error of appreciation in respect of the child allowance for A and B for the period from 1 February 2013 to 30 June 2013, in the absence of any proof that the applicant was aware of the termination of the foster care period and therefore in the absence of the applicant’s intention to deliberately mislead the administration regarding the end of the foster care period. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging the violation of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations and manifest error of appreciation in respect of the child allowance for A and B for the period from 1 February 2013 to 30 June 2013, in the absence of any proof that the applicant was aware of the termination of the foster care period and therefore in the absence of the applicant’s intention to deliberately mislead the administration regarding the end of the foster care period.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging the violation of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations and manifest error of appreciation in respect of the child allowance for C, (i) having regard to the fact that it is proven to the satisfaction of the administration that C is ‘actually being maintained’ by the applicant and (ii) in the absence of any proof of the applicant’s alleged intention to deliberately mislead the administration. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging the violation of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations and manifest error of appreciation in respect of the child allowance for C, (i) having regard to the fact that it is proven to the satisfaction of the administration that C is ‘actually being maintained’ by the applicant and (ii) in the absence of any proof of the applicant’s alleged intention to deliberately mislead the administration.

---

(1)  The application refers, in the order sought, to ‘the defendant’ (singular).

---

| 21.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/30

---

Action brought on 28 January 2022 — Chambre de commerce et d’industrie territoriale de la Marne en Champagne v EUIPO — Ambrosetti Group Ltd (TEHA)

(Case T-52/22)

(2022/C 128/42)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Chambre de commerce et d’industrie territoriale de la Marne en Champagne (Châlons-en-Champagne, France) (represented by: T. de Haan, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

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

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for registration of the European Union figurative mark TEHA — Application No 17 091 091

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 November 2021 in Case R 837/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred by the applicant’s legal predecessor for the purposes of the proceedings before the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred by the applicant’s legal predecessor for the purposes of the proceedings before the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 18(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 21.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/31

---

Action brought on 28 January 2022 — Chambre de commerce et d’industrie territoriale de la Marne en Champagne v EUIPO — Ambrosetti Group Ltd (TEHA)

(Case T-60/22)

(2022/C 128/43)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Chambre de commerce et d’industrie territoriale de la Marne en Champagne (Châlons-en-Champagne, France) (represented by: T. de Haan, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

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

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union of figurative mark TEHA — International registration designating the European Union No 1 404 100

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 November 2021 in Case R 839/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred by the applicant’s legal predecessor for the purposes of the proceedings before the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred by the applicant’s legal predecessor for the purposes of the proceedings before the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 18(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 21.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/31

---

Action brought on 2 February 2022 — PS v EIB

(Case T-65/22)

(2022/C 128/44)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: PS (represented by: S. Orlandi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank (EIB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of 12 July 2021 rejecting the applicant’s claim lodged on 21 May 2021; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 12 July 2021 rejecting the applicant’s claim lodged on 21 May 2021;

| — | order the European Investment Bank to pay the applicant the allowance referred to in Article 11 of the AXA insurance policy, for permanent invalidity, at the maximum rate, as well as the benefits provided for in Article 9.1.13 of the Staff Rules, in addition to the sum of EUR 24 000 for the non-material damage caused; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Investment Bank to pay the applicant the allowance referred to in Article 11 of the AXA insurance policy, for permanent invalidity, at the maximum rate, as well as the benefits provided for in Article 9.1.13 of the Staff Rules, in addition to the sum of EUR 24 000 for the non-material damage caused;

| — | order the European Investment Bank to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Investment Bank to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action against the EIB’s decision of 12 July 2021 rejecting the applicant’s claim for damages lodged on 21 May 2021, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of the fundamental right to effective social security for workers under Articles 31(1) and 34(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 12 of the European Social Charter. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the fundamental right to effective social security for workers under Articles 31(1) and 34(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 12 of the European Social Charter.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to good administration and the right to have affairs handled within a reasonable time, and failure on the part of the EIB to discharge its duty of care. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to good administration and the right to have affairs handled within a reasonable time, and failure on the part of the EIB to discharge its duty of care.

---

| 21.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/32

---

Action brought on 2 February 2022 — Granini France v EUIPO — Pichler (Joro)

(Case T-68/22)

(2022/C 128/45)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Granini France (Mâcon, France) (represented by: J. Wachsmuth, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Josef Pichler (St. Leonhard in Passeier, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark Joro — Application for registration No 18 136 261

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 November 2021 in Case R 2336/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | amend the contested decision to the effect that the decision of the Opposition Division of 19 November 2020 is annulled in so far as it rejected the opposition in respect of:
  Ginseng liquor; Japanese liquor flavoured with Japanese plum extracts; Red ginseng liquor; Hulless barley liquor; Tonic liquor flavoured with japanese plum extracts (umeshu); Alcoholic cocktail mixes; Alcoholic cocktails containing milk; Alcoholic cocktails in the form of chilled gelatins; Alcoholic fruit cocktail drinks; Alcoholic tea-based beverages; Alcoholic carbonated beverages, except beer; Pre-mixed alcoholic beverages; Aperitifs; Japanese sweet grape wine containing extracts of ginseng and cinchona bark; Black raspberry wine [Bokbunjaju]; Alcoholic beverages of fruit; Wine coolers [drinks]; Fruit extracts, alcoholic
  and that the EU trade mark application No 18 136 261 is also rejected in respect of those goods; |
| --- | --- |

—

amend the contested decision to the effect that the decision of the Opposition Division of 19 November 2020 is annulled in so far as it rejected the opposition in respect of:

Ginseng liquor; Japanese liquor flavoured with Japanese plum extracts; Red ginseng liquor; Hulless barley liquor; Tonic liquor flavoured with japanese plum extracts (umeshu); Alcoholic cocktail mixes; Alcoholic cocktails containing milk; Alcoholic cocktails in the form of chilled gelatins; Alcoholic fruit cocktail drinks; Alcoholic tea-based beverages; Alcoholic carbonated beverages, except beer; Pre-mixed alcoholic beverages; Aperitifs; Japanese sweet grape wine containing extracts of ginseng and cinchona bark; Black raspberry wine [Bokbunjaju]; Alcoholic beverages of fruit; Wine coolers [drinks]; Fruit extracts, alcoholic

and that the EU trade mark application No 18 136 261 is also rejected in respect of those goods;

| — | in the alternative, annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---