# Official Journal C 62/22 F

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 62 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6422 February 2021 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 62

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6422 February 2021

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2021/C 62/01 | 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

2021/C 62/01

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 |
| 2021/C 62/02 | Joined Cases C-597/18 P, C-598/18 P, C-603/18 P and C-604/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 December 2020 — Council of the European Union v Dr. K. Chrysostomides & Co. LLC and Others, European Union, European Commission, European Central Bank (ECB), Euro Group (C-597/18 P), Council of the European Union v Eleni Pavlikka Bourdouvali and Others, European Union, European Commission, European Central Bank (ECB), Euro Group (C-598/18 P), Dr. K. Chrysostomides & Co. LLC and Others (C-603/18 P), Eleni Pavlikka Bourdouvali and Others (C-604/18 P) v European Union, Council of the European Union, European Commission, European Central Bank (ECB), Euro Group (Appeals — Economic and monetary policy — Stability support programme for the Republic of Cyprus — Restructuring of Cypriot debt — Decision of the Governing Council of the European Central Bank (ECB) relating to emergency liquidity assistance following a request from the Central Bank of the Republic of Cyprus — Euro Group statements of 25 March, 12 April, 13 May and 13 September 2013 — Decision 2013/236/EU — Memorandum of understanding on specific economic policy conditionality concluded between the Republic of Cyprus and the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) — Right to property — Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations — Equal treatment — Non-contractual liability of the European Union) | 2 |
| 2021/C 62/03 | Case C-601/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 December 2020 — BP v European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) (Appeal — Civil service — Members of the contract staff — European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) — Fixed-term contract — Decision not to renew — New decision adopted following an annulment by the General Court — Irregularities allegedly committed during the implementation of the General Court judgment) | 5 |
| 2021/C 62/04 | Case C-607/19: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 December 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Husqvarna AB v Lidl Digital International GmbH & Co. KG, formerly Lidl E-Commerce International GmbH & Co. KG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — EU trade marks — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 51(1)(a) — Article 55(1) — Revocation of rights in an EU mark — EU mark which has not been put to genuine use within a continuous period of five years — Expiry of the period of five years — Date of assessment) | 5 |
| 2021/C 62/05 | Case C-656/19: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 December 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Szegedi Törvényszék — Hungary) — BAKATI PLUS Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Exemptions on exportation — Article 146(1)(b) — Goods dispatched or transported outside the European Union by a customer not established within the territory of the Member State concerned — Article 147 — Goods to be carried in the personal luggage of travellers not established within the European Union — Concept — Goods which have actually left the territory of the European Union — Proof — Refusal of the exemption on exportation — Principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality — Tax evasion) | 6 |
| 2021/C 62/06 | Case C-667/19: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 December 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie — Poland) — A.M. v E.M. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Cosmetic products — Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 — Article 19 — Consumer information — Labelling — Information which must appear on the container and packaging of the products — Labelling in a foreign language — Function of the cosmetic product — Meaning — Packaging of cosmetic products containing a reference to a detailed product catalogue drafted in the consumer’s language) | 7 |
| 2021/C 62/07 | Case C-710/19: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 December 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — Belgium) — G.M.A. v État belge (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of movement for persons — Article 45 TFEU — Citizenship of the Union — Directive 2004/38/EC — Right of residence for more than three months — Article 14(4)(b) — Jobseekers — Reasonable period of time to acquaint themselves with potentially suitable employment opportunities and take the necessary steps to obtain employment — Requirements imposed by the host Member State on the jobseeker during that period — Conditions governing the right of residence — Obligation to continue seeking employment and to have a genuine chance of being engaged) | 8 |
| 2021/C 62/08 | Case C-801/19: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 December 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Upravni sud u Zagrebu — Croatia) — FRANCK d.d. Zagreb v Ministarstvo financija Republike Hrvatske Samostalni sektor za drugostupanjski upravni postupak (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Exemptions — Article 135(1)(b) and (d) — Definitions of granting of credit and other negotiable instruments — Complex transactions — Principal supply — Provision of funds in return for payment — Transfer of a bill of exchange to a factoring company and the money obtained to the issuer of the bill of exchange) | 8 |
| 2021/C 62/09 | Case C-849/19: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 December 2020 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environment — Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora — Special areas of conservation — Article 4(4) — Obligation to establish conservation objectives — Article 6(1) — Obligation to take conservation measures — Decision 2006/613/EC — Mediterranean biogeographical region) | 9 |
| 2021/C 62/10 | Joined Cases C-354/20 PPU and C 412/20 PPU: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 December 2020 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Execution of European arrest warrants issued in respect of L (C-354/20 PPU), P (C-412/20 PPU) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Article 1(3) — Article 6(1) — Surrender procedures between Member States — Conditions for execution — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Second paragraph of Article 47 — Right of access to an independent and impartial tribunal — Systemic or generalised deficiencies — Concept of issuing judicial authority — Taking into consideration of developments after the European arrest warrant concerned has been issued — Obligation of the executing judicial authority to determine specifically and precisely whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the person concerned will run a real risk of breach of his or her right to a fair trial if he or she is surrendered) | 10 |
| 2021/C 62/11 | Case C-416/20 PPU: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 December 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Execution of European arrest warrants issued in respect of TR (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — European arrest warrant — Article 4a(1) — Surrender procedures between Member States — Conditions for execution — Grounds for optional non-execution — Exceptions — Mandatory execution — Sentence imposed in absentia — Escape of the person being prosecuted — Directive (EU) 2016/343 — Articles 8 and 9 — Right to be present at the trial — Requirements in the event of conviction in absentia — Verification on surrender of the convicted person) | 11 |
| 2021/C 62/12 | Case C-349/20: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 29 July 2020 — NB, AB v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Intervenor: United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees | 11 |
| 2021/C 62/13 | Case C-453/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Úřad pro přístup k dopravní infrastruktuře (Czech Republic) lodged on 23 September 2020 — CityRail a.s. v Správa železnic, státní organizace | 12 |
| 2021/C 62/14 | Case C-577/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 4 November 2020 — A | 13 |
| 2021/C 62/15 | Case C-606/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 17 November 2020 — EZ v Iberia Lineas Aereas de Espana, Sociedad Unipersonal | 13 |
| 2021/C 62/16 | Case C-632/20 P: Appeal brought on 24 November 2020 by the Kingdom of Spain against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 23 September 2020 in Case T-370/19 Spain v Commission | 14 |
| 2021/C 62/17 | Case C-633/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 25 November 2020 — Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V. v TC Medical Air Ambulance Agency GmbH | 15 |
| 2021/C 62/18 | Case C-636/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Pécsi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 25 November 2020 — Tolnatext Bt. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága | 16 |
| 2021/C 62/19 | Case C-648/20: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Westminster Magistrates’ Court (United Kingdom) made on 1 December 2020 — Svishtov Regional Prosecutor’s Office v PI | 16 |
| 2021/C 62/20 | Case C-659/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 4 December 2020 — ET v Ministerstvo životního prostředí | 17 |
| 2021/C 62/21 | Case C-660/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 4 December 2020 — MK v Lufthansa CityLine GmbH | 17 |
| 2021/C 62/22 | Case C-687/20: Action brought on 17 December 2020 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic | 18 |
| 2021/C 62/23 | Case C-690/20 P: Appeal brought on 18 December 2020 by Casino, Guichard-Perrachon and Achats Marchandises Casino against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 5 October 2020 in Case T-249/17, Casino, Guichard-Perrachon and AMC v Commission | 19 |
| 2021/C 62/24 | Case C-693/20 P: Appeal brought on 21 December 2020 by Intermarché Casino Achats against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 5 October 2020 in Case T-254/17, Intermarché Casino Achats v Commission | 20 |
| 2021/C 62/25 | Case C-725/20 P: Appeal brought on 28 December 2020 by Maria Teresa Coppo Gavazzi and Others against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 15 October 2020 in Joined Cases T-389/19 to T-394/19, T-397/19, T-398/19, T-403/19, T-404/19, T-406/19, T-407/19, T-409/19 to T-414/19, T-416/19 to T-418/19, T-420/19 to T-422/19, T-425/19 to T-427/19, T-429/19 to T-432/19, T-435/19, T-436/19, T-438/19 to T-442/19, T-444/19 to T-446/19, T-448/19, T-450/19 to T-454/19, T-463/19 and T-465/19, Coppo Gavazzi and Others v Parliament | 21 |
| 2021/C 62/26 | Case C-728/19: Order of the President of the Court of 13 February 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — United Kingdom) — Beverly Hills Teddy Bear Company v PMS International Group | 22 |
| | General Court |
| 2021/C 62/27 | Joined Cases T-236/17 and T-596/17: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — Balti Gaas v Commission and INEA (Financial assistance under the Connecting Europe Facility for the period 2014-2020 — Field of trans-European energy infrastructure — Calls for proposals — Action for failure to act — No invitation to act — Inadmissibility — Action for annulment — Act not open to challenge — Preparatory act — Partial inadmissibility — Decision rejecting a proposal — Manifest errors of assessment — Obligation to state reasons — Competence of the Commission) | 23 |
| 2021/C 62/28 | Case T-442/17 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — RN v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Surviving spouse — Survivor’s pension — Articles 18 and 20 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Conditions for eligibility — Duration of the marriage — Plea of illegality — Equal treatment — Principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age — Proportionality — Concept of spouse) | 24 |
| 2021/C 62/29 | Case T-93/18: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — International Skating Union v Commission (Competition — Association of undertakings — Speed skating events — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Regulations of a sports federation — Balance between competition law and the specific nature of the sport — Sports betting — Court of Arbitration for Sport — Guidelines on the calculation of fines — Scope of territorial application of Article 101 TFEU — Restriction of competition by object — Corrective measures) | 24 |
| 2021/C 62/30 | Case T-515/18: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — Fakro v Commission (Competition — Abuse of dominant position — Market for roof windows and flashings — Decision rejecting a complaint — Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 — Access to the file — Principle of sound administration — Reasonable period — Manifest error of assessment — Obligation to state reasons — No EU interest — Probability of being able to establish the existence of an infringement — Predatory pricing — Fighting brands — Rebates — Exclusivity) | 25 |
| 2021/C 62/31 | Case T-541/18: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — Changmao Biochemical Engineering v Commission (Dumping — Imports of tartaric acid originating in China — Extension of a definitive anti-dumping duty — Determination of the normal value — Protocol of Accession of China to the WTO — Analogue country methodology — Article 2(7) and Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 — Vulnerability of the Union industry — Likelihood of recurrence of injury — Rights of the defence — Obligation to state reasons) | 26 |
| 2021/C 62/32 | Case T-189/19: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — Haikal v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Syria — Freezing of funds — Rights of the defence — Right to a fair hearing — Obligation to state reasons — Right to effective judicial protection — Error of assessment — Right to property — Proportionality — Right to carry on an economic activity — Right to respect for private and family life) | 27 |
| 2021/C 62/33 | Case T-315/19: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — BT v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Surviving spouse — Survivor’s pension — Articles 18 and 20 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Conditions for eligibility — Duration of the marriage — Plea of illegality — Equal treatment — Principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age — Proportionality) | 27 |
| 2021/C 62/34 | Case T-521/19: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — Haswani v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted against Syria — Freezing of funds — Res judicata — Period allowed for commencing proceedings — Obligation to state reasons — Error of assessment — Proportionality) | 28 |
| 2021/C 62/35 | Case T-3/20: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — Forbo Financial Services v EUIPO — Windmöller (Canoleum) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark Canoleum — Earlier international word mark MARMOLEUM — Relative ground for refusal — Late filing of the statement of the grounds of appeal — Inadmissibility of the appeal before the Board of Appeal — Request for restitutio in integrum — Sudden illness of the lawyer representing the applicant — Duty of due care — Probative value of the affidavit made by the lawyer) | 29 |
| 2021/C 62/36 | Case T-118/20: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — Voco v EUIPO (Shape of packaging) (EU trade mark — Application for a three-dimensional EU trade mark — Shape of packaging — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 30 |
| 2021/C 62/37 | Case T-146/16: Order of the General Court of 18 December 2020 — Vereniging tot Behoud van Natuurmonumenten in Nederland and Others v Commission (State aid — Annulment of the contested measure — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate) | 30 |
| 2021/C 62/38 | Case T-568/19: Order of the General Court of 18 December 2020 — Micreos Food Safety v Commission (Action for annulment — Public health — Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 — Phage-based product used to reduce the presence of the bacterial pathogen Listeria monocytogenes in animal-derived ready-to-eat food — Rejection of the request to approve ListexTM P100 as a decontaminant in animal-derived ready-to-eat food — Act not open to challenge — Act not intended to produce binding legal effects — Purely confirmatory act — Informative act — Inadmissibility) | 31 |
| 2021/C 62/39 | Case T-872/19: Order of the General Court of 17 December 2020 — IM v EIB (Action for damages — Institutional law — Position of Chief Executive of the EIF — Vacancy notice — Rejection of the applicant’s application — Lack of autonomy of remedies — Time limit for bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility) | 32 |
| 2021/C 62/40 | Case T-37/20: Order of the General Court of 17 December 2020 — United Kingdom v Commission (Action for annulment — EAGF and EAFRD — Time limit for bringing an action — Starting point — Notification and publication — No excusable error — Out of time — Inadmissibility) | 32 |
| 2021/C 62/41 | Case T-80/20: Order of the General Court of 17 December 2020 — IM v EIB and EIF (Action for annulment — Institutional law — Post of Director-General of the EIF — Rejection of the applicant’s candidature — Appointment of another candidate — No legal interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility) | 33 |
| 2021/C 62/42 | Case T-161/20: Order of the General Court of 17 December 2020 — Ighoga Region 10 v Commission (State aid — Construction of a convention centre and hotel in Ingolstadt — Complaint — Action for failure to act — Adoption of a position putting an end to the failure to act — No need to adjudicate) | 33 |
| 2021/C 62/43 | Case T-289/20: Order of the General Court of 18 December 2020 — Facegym Ltd v EUIPO (FACEGYM) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark FACEGYM — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law) | 34 |
| 2021/C 62/44 | Case T-350/20: Order of the General Court of 17 December 2020 — Wagenknecht v Commission (Action for failure to act — Protection of the European Union’s financial interests — Combating fraud — Meetings of the College of European Commissioners and its President with the representative of the Czech Republic — Multiannual Financial Framework 2021-2027 — Financial regulation — Direct payments from the EU budget in favour of farmers — Alleged conflict of interest of the Prime Minister of the Czech Republic — Alleged failure to act by the Commission — Article 130(1) of the Rules of Procedure — Interest in bringing proceedings — Locus standi — Definition of the Commission’s position — Inadmissibility) | 35 |
| 2021/C 62/45 | Case T-729/20 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 31 December 2020 — Aurubis v Commission (Interim measures — Directive 2003/87/EC — Decision 2011/278/EU — System for greenhouse gas emissions allowance trading — Application for interim measures — No urgency) | 35 |
| 2021/C 62/46 | Case T-731/20 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 31 December 2020 — ExxonMobil Production Deutschland v Commission (Interim measures — Directive 2003/87/EC — Decision 2011/278/EU — System for greenhouse gas emissions allowance trading — Application for interim measures — No urgency) | 36 |
| 2021/C 62/47 | Case T-739/20: Action brought on 17 December 2020 — Unite the Union v EUIPO — WWRD Ireland (WATERFORD) | 36 |
| 2021/C 62/48 | Case T-754/20: Action brought on 18 December 2020 — Cristescu v Commission | 37 |
| 2021/C 62/49 | Case T-757/20: Action brought on 21 December 2020 — OT v Parliament | 39 |
| 2021/C 62/50 | Case T-764/20: Action brought on 23 December 2020 — Anhui Wanwei Updated High-Tech Material Industry and Inner Mongolia Mengwei Technology v Commission | 39 |
| 2021/C 62/51 | Case T-766/20: Action brought on 23 December 2020 — PrenzMarien v EUIPO — Molson Coors Brewing Company (UK) (STONES) | 40 |
| 2021/C 62/52 | Case T-768/20: Action brought on 31 December 2020 — Standard International Management v EUIPO — Asia Standard Management Services (The Standard) | 41 |
| 2021/C 62/53 | Case T-769/20: Action brought on 23 December 2020 — Ryanair v Commission | 42 |
| 2021/C 62/54 | Case T-771/20: Action brought on 29 December 2020 — KS and KD v Council and Others | 43 |
| 2021/C 62/55 | Case T-1/21: Action brought on 4 January 2021 — Fabryki Mebli Forte v EUIPO — Bog-Fran (Furniture) | 44 |
| 2021/C 62/56 | Case T-2/21: Action brought on 5 January 2021 — Emmentaler Switzerland v EUIPO (EMMENTALER) | 45 |
| 2021/C 62/57 | Case T-3/21: Action brought on 5 January 2021 — Power Horse Energy Drinks v EUIPO — Robot Energy Europe (UNSTOPPABLE) | 45 |
| 2021/C 62/58 | Case T-4/21: Action brought on 5 January 2021 — Advanced Superabrasives v EUIPO — Adi (ASI ADVANCED SUPERABRASIVES) | 46 |
| 2021/C 62/59 | Case T-6/21: Action brought on 7 January 2021 — Advanced Organic Materials v EUIPO — Swiss Pharma International (ADVASTEROL) | 47 |
| 2021/C 62/60 | Case T-7/21: Action brought on 8 January 2021 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Kassl (STUDIO KASSL) | 48 |
| 2021/C 62/61 | Case T-8/21: Action brought on 10 January 2021 — IFIC Holding v Commission | 49 |
| 2021/C 62/62 | Case T-653/19: Order of the General Court of 23 December 2020 — FF v Commission | 50 |
| 2021/C 62/63 | Case T-5/20: Order of the General Court of 5 January 2021 — CP v Parliament | 51 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2021/C 62/02

Joined Cases C-597/18 P, C-598/18 P, C-603/18 P and C-604/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 December 2020 — Council of the European Union v Dr. K. Chrysostomides & Co. LLC and Others, European Union, European Commission, European Central Bank (ECB), Euro Group (C-597/18 P), Council of the European Union v Eleni Pavlikka Bourdouvali and Others, European Union, European Commission, European Central Bank (ECB), Euro Group (C-598/18 P), Dr. K. Chrysostomides & Co. LLC and Others (C-603/18 P), Eleni Pavlikka Bourdouvali and Others (C-604/18 P) v European Union, Council of the European Union, European Commission, European Central Bank (ECB), Euro Group (Appeals — Economic and monetary policy — Stability support programme for the Republic of Cyprus — Restructuring of Cypriot debt — Decision of the Governing Council of the European Central Bank (ECB) relating to emergency liquidity assistance following a request from the Central Bank of the Republic of Cyprus — Euro Group statements of 25 March, 12 April, 13 May and 13 September 2013 — Decision 2013/236/EU — Memorandum of understanding on specific economic policy conditionality concluded between the Republic of Cyprus and the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) — Right to property — Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations — Equal treatment — Non-contractual liability of the European Union)

2

2021/C 62/03

Case C-601/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 December 2020 — BP v European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) (Appeal — Civil service — Members of the contract staff — European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) — Fixed-term contract — Decision not to renew — New decision adopted following an annulment by the General Court — Irregularities allegedly committed during the implementation of the General Court judgment)

5

2021/C 62/04

Case C-607/19: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 December 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Husqvarna AB v Lidl Digital International GmbH & Co. KG, formerly Lidl E-Commerce International GmbH & Co. KG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — EU trade marks — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 51(1)(a) — Article 55(1) — Revocation of rights in an EU mark — EU mark which has not been put to genuine use within a continuous period of five years — Expiry of the period of five years — Date of assessment)

5

2021/C 62/05

Case C-656/19: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 December 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Szegedi Törvényszék — Hungary) — BAKATI PLUS Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Exemptions on exportation — Article 146(1)(b) — Goods dispatched or transported outside the European Union by a customer not established within the territory of the Member State concerned — Article 147 — Goods to be carried in the personal luggage of travellers not established within the European Union — Concept — Goods which have actually left the territory of the European Union — Proof — Refusal of the exemption on exportation — Principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality — Tax evasion)

6

2021/C 62/06

Case C-667/19: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 December 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie — Poland) — A.M. v E.M. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Cosmetic products — Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 — Article 19 — Consumer information — Labelling — Information which must appear on the container and packaging of the products — Labelling in a foreign language — Function of the cosmetic product — Meaning — Packaging of cosmetic products containing a reference to a detailed product catalogue drafted in the consumer’s language)

7

2021/C 62/07

Case C-710/19: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 December 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — Belgium) — G.M.A. v État belge (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of movement for persons — Article 45 TFEU — Citizenship of the Union — Directive 2004/38/EC — Right of residence for more than three months — Article 14(4)(b) — Jobseekers — Reasonable period of time to acquaint themselves with potentially suitable employment opportunities and take the necessary steps to obtain employment — Requirements imposed by the host Member State on the jobseeker during that period — Conditions governing the right of residence — Obligation to continue seeking employment and to have a genuine chance of being engaged)

8

2021/C 62/08

Case C-801/19: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 December 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Upravni sud u Zagrebu — Croatia) — FRANCK d.d. Zagreb v Ministarstvo financija Republike Hrvatske Samostalni sektor za drugostupanjski upravni postupak (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Exemptions — Article 135(1)(b) and (d) — Definitions of granting of credit and other negotiable instruments — Complex transactions — Principal supply — Provision of funds in return for payment — Transfer of a bill of exchange to a factoring company and the money obtained to the issuer of the bill of exchange)

8

2021/C 62/09

Case C-849/19: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 December 2020 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environment — Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora — Special areas of conservation — Article 4(4) — Obligation to establish conservation objectives — Article 6(1) — Obligation to take conservation measures — Decision 2006/613/EC — Mediterranean biogeographical region)

9

2021/C 62/10

Joined Cases C-354/20 PPU and C 412/20 PPU: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 December 2020 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Execution of European arrest warrants issued in respect of L (C-354/20 PPU), P (C-412/20 PPU) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Article 1(3) — Article 6(1) — Surrender procedures between Member States — Conditions for execution — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Second paragraph of Article 47 — Right of access to an independent and impartial tribunal — Systemic or generalised deficiencies — Concept of issuing judicial authority — Taking into consideration of developments after the European arrest warrant concerned has been issued — Obligation of the executing judicial authority to determine specifically and precisely whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the person concerned will run a real risk of breach of his or her right to a fair trial if he or she is surrendered)

10

2021/C 62/11

Case C-416/20 PPU: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 December 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Execution of European arrest warrants issued in respect of TR (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — European arrest warrant — Article 4a(1) — Surrender procedures between Member States — Conditions for execution — Grounds for optional non-execution — Exceptions — Mandatory execution — Sentence imposed in absentia — Escape of the person being prosecuted — Directive (EU) 2016/343 — Articles 8 and 9 — Right to be present at the trial — Requirements in the event of conviction in absentia — Verification on surrender of the convicted person)

11

2021/C 62/12

Case C-349/20: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 29 July 2020 — NB, AB v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Intervenor: United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

11

2021/C 62/13

Case C-453/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Úřad pro přístup k dopravní infrastruktuře (Czech Republic) lodged on 23 September 2020 — CityRail a.s. v Správa železnic, státní organizace

12

2021/C 62/14

Case C-577/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 4 November 2020 — A

13

2021/C 62/15

Case C-606/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 17 November 2020 — EZ v Iberia Lineas Aereas de Espana, Sociedad Unipersonal

13

2021/C 62/16

Case C-632/20 P: Appeal brought on 24 November 2020 by the Kingdom of Spain against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 23 September 2020 in Case T-370/19 Spain v Commission

Spain

Commission

14

2021/C 62/17

Case C-633/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 25 November 2020 — Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V. v TC Medical Air Ambulance Agency GmbH

15

2021/C 62/18

Case C-636/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Pécsi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 25 November 2020 — Tolnatext Bt. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

16

2021/C 62/19

Case C-648/20: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Westminster Magistrates’ Court (United Kingdom) made on 1 December 2020 — Svishtov Regional Prosecutor’s Office v PI

16

2021/C 62/20

Case C-659/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 4 December 2020 — ET v Ministerstvo životního prostředí

17

2021/C 62/21

Case C-660/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 4 December 2020 — MK v Lufthansa CityLine GmbH

17

2021/C 62/22

Case C-687/20: Action brought on 17 December 2020 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

18

2021/C 62/23

Case C-690/20 P: Appeal brought on 18 December 2020 by Casino, Guichard-Perrachon and Achats Marchandises Casino against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 5 October 2020 in Case T-249/17, Casino, Guichard-Perrachon and AMC v Commission

19

2021/C 62/24

Case C-693/20 P: Appeal brought on 21 December 2020 by Intermarché Casino Achats against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 5 October 2020 in Case T-254/17, Intermarché Casino Achats v Commission

20

2021/C 62/25

Case C-725/20 P: Appeal brought on 28 December 2020 by Maria Teresa Coppo Gavazzi and Others against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 15 October 2020 in Joined Cases T-389/19 to T-394/19, T-397/19, T-398/19, T-403/19, T-404/19, T-406/19, T-407/19, T-409/19 to T-414/19, T-416/19 to T-418/19, T-420/19 to T-422/19, T-425/19 to T-427/19, T-429/19 to T-432/19, T-435/19, T-436/19, T-438/19 to T-442/19, T-444/19 to T-446/19, T-448/19, T-450/19 to T-454/19, T-463/19 and T-465/19, Coppo Gavazzi and Others v Parliament

21

2021/C 62/26

Case C-728/19: Order of the President of the Court of 13 February 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — United Kingdom) — Beverly Hills Teddy Bear Company v PMS International Group

22

General Court

2021/C 62/27

Joined Cases T-236/17 and T-596/17: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — Balti Gaas v Commission and INEA (Financial assistance under the Connecting Europe Facility for the period 2014-2020 — Field of trans-European energy infrastructure — Calls for proposals — Action for failure to act — No invitation to act — Inadmissibility — Action for annulment — Act not open to challenge — Preparatory act — Partial inadmissibility — Decision rejecting a proposal — Manifest errors of assessment — Obligation to state reasons — Competence of the Commission)

23

2021/C 62/28

Case T-442/17 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — RN v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Surviving spouse — Survivor’s pension — Articles 18 and 20 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Conditions for eligibility — Duration of the marriage — Plea of illegality — Equal treatment — Principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age — Proportionality — Concept of spouse)

24

2021/C 62/29

Case T-93/18: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — International Skating Union v Commission (Competition — Association of undertakings — Speed skating events — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Regulations of a sports federation — Balance between competition law and the specific nature of the sport — Sports betting — Court of Arbitration for Sport — Guidelines on the calculation of fines — Scope of territorial application of Article 101 TFEU — Restriction of competition by object — Corrective measures)

24

2021/C 62/30

Case T-515/18: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — Fakro v Commission (Competition — Abuse of dominant position — Market for roof windows and flashings — Decision rejecting a complaint — Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 — Access to the file — Principle of sound administration — Reasonable period — Manifest error of assessment — Obligation to state reasons — No EU interest — Probability of being able to establish the existence of an infringement — Predatory pricing — Fighting brands — Rebates — Exclusivity)

25

2021/C 62/31

Case T-541/18: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — Changmao Biochemical Engineering v Commission (Dumping — Imports of tartaric acid originating in China — Extension of a definitive anti-dumping duty — Determination of the normal value — Protocol of Accession of China to the WTO — Analogue country methodology — Article 2(7) and Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 — Vulnerability of the Union industry — Likelihood of recurrence of injury — Rights of the defence — Obligation to state reasons)

26

2021/C 62/32

Case T-189/19: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — Haikal v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Syria — Freezing of funds — Rights of the defence — Right to a fair hearing — Obligation to state reasons — Right to effective judicial protection — Error of assessment — Right to property — Proportionality — Right to carry on an economic activity — Right to respect for private and family life)

27

2021/C 62/33

Case T-315/19: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — BT v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Surviving spouse — Survivor’s pension — Articles 18 and 20 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Conditions for eligibility — Duration of the marriage — Plea of illegality — Equal treatment — Principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age — Proportionality)

27

2021/C 62/34

Case T-521/19: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — Haswani v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted against Syria — Freezing of funds — Res judicata — Period allowed for commencing proceedings — Obligation to state reasons — Error of assessment — Proportionality)

28

2021/C 62/35

Case T-3/20: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — Forbo Financial Services v EUIPO — Windmöller (Canoleum) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark Canoleum — Earlier international word mark MARMOLEUM — Relative ground for refusal — Late filing of the statement of the grounds of appeal — Inadmissibility of the appeal before the Board of Appeal — Request for restitutio in integrum — Sudden illness of the lawyer representing the applicant — Duty of due care — Probative value of the affidavit made by the lawyer)

29

2021/C 62/36

Case T-118/20: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — Voco v EUIPO (Shape of packaging) (EU trade mark — Application for a three-dimensional EU trade mark — Shape of packaging — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

30

2021/C 62/37

Case T-146/16: Order of the General Court of 18 December 2020 — Vereniging tot Behoud van Natuurmonumenten in Nederland and Others v Commission (State aid — Annulment of the contested measure — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)

30

2021/C 62/38

Case T-568/19: Order of the General Court of 18 December 2020 — Micreos Food Safety v Commission (Action for annulment — Public health — Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 — Phage-based product used to reduce the presence of the bacterial pathogen Listeria monocytogenes in animal-derived ready-to-eat food — Rejection of the request to approve ListexTM P100 as a decontaminant in animal-derived ready-to-eat food — Act not open to challenge — Act not intended to produce binding legal effects — Purely confirmatory act — Informative act — Inadmissibility)

31

2021/C 62/39

Case T-872/19: Order of the General Court of 17 December 2020 — IM v EIB (Action for damages — Institutional law — Position of Chief Executive of the EIF — Vacancy notice — Rejection of the applicant’s application — Lack of autonomy of remedies — Time limit for bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility)

32

2021/C 62/40

Case T-37/20: Order of the General Court of 17 December 2020 — United Kingdom v Commission (Action for annulment — EAGF and EAFRD — Time limit for bringing an action — Starting point — Notification and publication — No excusable error — Out of time — Inadmissibility)

32

2021/C 62/41

Case T-80/20: Order of the General Court of 17 December 2020 — IM v EIB and EIF (Action for annulment — Institutional law — Post of Director-General of the EIF — Rejection of the applicant’s candidature — Appointment of another candidate — No legal interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility)

33

2021/C 62/42

Case T-161/20: Order of the General Court of 17 December 2020 — Ighoga Region 10 v Commission (State aid — Construction of a convention centre and hotel in Ingolstadt — Complaint — Action for failure to act — Adoption of a position putting an end to the failure to act — No need to adjudicate)

33

2021/C 62/43

Case T-289/20: Order of the General Court of 18 December 2020 — Facegym Ltd v EUIPO (FACEGYM) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark FACEGYM — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

34

2021/C 62/44

Case T-350/20: Order of the General Court of 17 December 2020 — Wagenknecht v Commission (Action for failure to act — Protection of the European Union’s financial interests — Combating fraud — Meetings of the College of European Commissioners and its President with the representative of the Czech Republic — Multiannual Financial Framework 2021-2027 — Financial regulation — Direct payments from the EU budget in favour of farmers — Alleged conflict of interest of the Prime Minister of the Czech Republic — Alleged failure to act by the Commission — Article 130(1) of the Rules of Procedure — Interest in bringing proceedings — Locus standi — Definition of the Commission’s position — Inadmissibility)

35

2021/C 62/45

Case T-729/20 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 31 December 2020 — Aurubis v Commission (Interim measures — Directive 2003/87/EC — Decision 2011/278/EU — System for greenhouse gas emissions allowance trading — Application for interim measures — No urgency)

35

2021/C 62/46

Case T-731/20 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 31 December 2020 — ExxonMobil Production Deutschland v Commission (Interim measures — Directive 2003/87/EC — Decision 2011/278/EU — System for greenhouse gas emissions allowance trading — Application for interim measures — No urgency)

36

2021/C 62/47

Case T-739/20: Action brought on 17 December 2020 — Unite the Union v EUIPO — WWRD Ireland (WATERFORD)

36

2021/C 62/48

Case T-754/20: Action brought on 18 December 2020 — Cristescu v Commission

37

2021/C 62/49

Case T-757/20: Action brought on 21 December 2020 — OT v Parliament

39

2021/C 62/50

Case T-764/20: Action brought on 23 December 2020 — Anhui Wanwei Updated High-Tech Material Industry and Inner Mongolia Mengwei Technology v Commission

39

2021/C 62/51

Case T-766/20: Action brought on 23 December 2020 — PrenzMarien v EUIPO — Molson Coors Brewing Company (UK) (STONES)

40

2021/C 62/52

Case T-768/20: Action brought on 31 December 2020 — Standard International Management v EUIPO — Asia Standard Management Services (The Standard)

41

2021/C 62/53

Case T-769/20: Action brought on 23 December 2020 — Ryanair v Commission

42

2021/C 62/54

Case T-771/20: Action brought on 29 December 2020 — KS and KD v Council and Others

43

2021/C 62/55

Case T-1/21: Action brought on 4 January 2021 — Fabryki Mebli Forte v EUIPO — Bog-Fran (Furniture)

44

2021/C 62/56

Case T-2/21: Action brought on 5 January 2021 — Emmentaler Switzerland v EUIPO (EMMENTALER)

45

2021/C 62/57

Case T-3/21: Action brought on 5 January 2021 — Power Horse Energy Drinks v EUIPO — Robot Energy Europe (UNSTOPPABLE)

45

2021/C 62/58

Case T-4/21: Action brought on 5 January 2021 — Advanced Superabrasives v EUIPO — Adi (ASI ADVANCED SUPERABRASIVES)

46

2021/C 62/59

Case T-6/21: Action brought on 7 January 2021 — Advanced Organic Materials v EUIPO — Swiss Pharma International (ADVASTEROL)

47

2021/C 62/60

Case T-7/21: Action brought on 8 January 2021 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Kassl (STUDIO KASSL)

48

2021/C 62/61

Case T-8/21: Action brought on 10 January 2021 — IFIC Holding v Commission

49

2021/C 62/62

Case T-653/19: Order of the General Court of 23 December 2020 — FF v Commission

50

2021/C 62/63

Case T-5/20: Order of the General Court of 5 January 2021 — CP v Parliament

51

---

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 22.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/1

---

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

(2021/C 62/01)

Last publication

OJ C 53, 15.2.2021

Past publications

OJ C 44, 8.2.2021

OJ C 35, 1.2.2021

OJ C 28, 25.1.2021

OJ C 19, 18.1.2021

OJ C 9, 11.1.2021

OJ C 443, 21.12.2020

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 22.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 December 2020 — Council of the European Union v Dr. K. Chrysostomides & Co. LLC and Others, European Union, European Commission, European Central Bank (ECB), Euro Group (C-597/18 P), Council of the European Union v Eleni Pavlikka Bourdouvali and Others, European Union, European Commission, European Central Bank (ECB), Euro Group (C-598/18 P), Dr. K. Chrysostomides & Co. LLC and Others (C-603/18 P), Eleni Pavlikka Bourdouvali and Others (C-604/18 P) v European Union, Council of the European Union, European Commission, European Central Bank (ECB), Euro Group

(Joined Cases C-597/18 P, C-598/18 P, C-603/18 P and C-604/18 P) (1)

(Appeals - Economic and monetary policy - Stability support programme for the Republic of Cyprus - Restructuring of Cypriot debt - Decision of the Governing Council of the European Central Bank (ECB) relating to emergency liquidity assistance following a request from the Central Bank of the Republic of Cyprus - Euro Group statements of 25 March, 12 April, 13 May and 13 September 2013 - Decision 2013/236/EU - Memorandum of understanding on specific economic policy conditionality concluded between the Republic of Cyprus and the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) - Right to property - Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations - Equal treatment - Non-contractual liability of the European Union)

(2021/C 62/02)

Language of the case: English

Parties

(Case C-597/18 P)

Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by A. de Gregorio Merino, I. Gurov and E. Chatziioakeimidou, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Dr. K. Chrysostomides & Co. LLC, Agroton plc, Joanna Andreou, Kyriaki Andreou, Bundeena Holding plc, Henrietta Jindra Burton, C & O Service & Investment Ltd, C.G. Christofides Industrial Ltd, Phidias Christodoulou, Georgia Phanou-Christodoulou, Christakis Christofides, represented by his executor, Theano Chrysafi, Andreas Chrysafis, Dionysios Chrysostomides, Eleni K. Chrysostomides, Eleni D. Chrysostomides, D & C Construction and Development Ltd, Chrystalla Dekatris, Constantinos Dekatris, Dr. K. Chrysostomides and Co., Emily Dragoumi, Parthenopi Dragoumi, James Droushiotis, Eastvale Finance Ltd, Nicos Eliades, Tereza Eliades, Goodway Alliance Ltd, Christos Hadjimarkos, Johnson Cyprus Employees Provident Fund, Kalia Georgiou LLC, Komposit Ltd, Platon M. Kyriakides, L.kcar Intermetal and Synthetic Ltd, Lois Builders Ltd, Athena Mavronicola-Droushiotis, Medialgeria Monitoring and Consultancy Ltd, Neita International Inc., Sophia Nicolatos, Paris & Barcelona Ltd, Louiza Patsiou, Probus Mare Marine Ltd, Provident Fund of the Employees of Osel Ltd, R.A.M. Oil Cyprus Ltd, Steelway Alliance Ltd, Tameio Pronoias Prosopikou Genikon, The Cyprus Phassouri Estates Ltd, The Prnses Ltd, Christos Tsimon, Nafsika Tsimon, Unienergy Holdings Ltd, Julia Justine Jane Woods (represented by P. Tridimas, Barrister), European Union (represented by the European Commission), European Commission (represented by L. Flynn, J.-P. Keppenne and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents), European Central Bank (ECB) (represented initially by M.O. Szablewska and K. Laurinavičius, acting as Agents, and H.-G. Kamann, Rechtsanwalt, and subsequently by K. Laurinavičius, G. Várhelyi and O. Heinz, acting as Agents, and H.-G. Kamann, Rechtsanwalt), Euro Group (represented by the Council of the European Union)

Intervener in support of the appellant: Republic of Finland (represented by S. Hartikainen and J. Heliskoski, acting as Agents)

(Case C-598/18 P)

Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by A. de Gregorio Merino, I. Gurov and E. Chatziioakeimidou, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Eleni Pavlikka Bourdouvali, Georgios Bourdouvalis, Nikolina Bourdouvali, Coal Energy Trading Ltd, Christos Christofi, Elisavet Christofi, Athanasia Chrysostomou, Sofoklis Chrysostomou, Clearlining Ltd, Alan Dimant, Dodoni Ependyseis Chartofylakou Dimosia Etaireia Ltd, Dtek Holdings Ltd, Dtek Trading Ltd, Elma Holdings pcl, Elma Properties & Investments pcl, Agrippinoulla Fragkoudi, Dimitrios Fragkoudis, Frontal Investments Ltd, Costas Gavrielides, Eleni Harou, Theodora Hasapopoullou, Gladys Iasonos, Georgios Iasonos, Jupiter Portfolio Investments pcl, George Karkousi, Lend & Seaserve Ltd, Liberty Life Insurance pcl, Michail P. Michailidis Ltd, Michalakis Michaelides, Rena Michael Michaelidou, Akis Micromatis, Erginos Micromatis, Harinos Micromatis, Alvinos Micromatis, Plotinos Micromatis, Nertera Investments Ltd, Andros Nicolaides, Melina Nicolaides, Ero Nicolaidou, Aris Panagiotopoulos, Nikolitsa Panagiotopoulou, Lambros Panayiotides, Ersi Papaefthymiou, Kostas Papaefthymiou, Restful Time Co., Alexandros Rodopoulos, Seatec Marine Services Ltd, Sofoklis Chrisostomou & Yioí Ltd, Marinos C. Soteriou, Sparotin Ltd, Miranda Tanou, Myria Tanou (represented by P. Tridimas, Barrister, and K. Chrysostomides, dikigoros), European Union (represented by the European Commission), European Commission (represented by L. Flynn, J.-P. Keppenne and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents), European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by M.O. Szablewska and K. Laurinavičius, acting as Agents, and H.-G. Kamann, Rechtsanwalt), Euro Group (represented by the Council of the European Union)

Intervener in support of the appellant: Republic of Finland (represented by S. Hartikainen and J. Heliskoski, acting as Agents)

(Cases C-603/18 P and C-604/18 P)

Appellants: Dr. K. Chrysostomides & Co. LLC, Agroton plc, Joanna Andreou, Kyriaki Andreou, Henrietta Jindra Burton, C & O Service & Investment Ltd, C.G. Christofides Industrial Ltd, Christakis Christofides, represented by his executor, Theano Chrysafi, Andreas Chrysafis, Dionysios Chrysostomides, Eleni K. Chrysostomides, Eleni D. Chrysostomides, D & C Construction and Development Ltd, Chrystalla Dekatris, Constantinos Dekatris, Dr. K. Chrysostomides and Co., Emily Dragoumi, Parthenopi Dragoumi, Eastvale Finance Ltd, Nicos Eliades, Tereza Eliades, Goodway Alliance Ltd, Christos Hadjimarkos, Johnson Cyprus Employees Provident Fund, L.kcar Intermetal and Synthetic Ltd, Lois Builders Ltd, Medialgeria Monitoring and Consultancy Ltd, Neita International Inc., Paris & Barcelona Ltd, Provident Fund of the Employees of Osel Ltd, R.A.M. Oil Cyprus Ltd, Steelway Alliance Ltd, Tameio Pronoias Prosopikou Genikon, The Cyprus Phassouri Estates Ltd, Christos Tsimon, Nafsika Tsimon, Julia Justine Jane Woods (represented by P. Tridimas, Barrister (C 603/18 P)), Eleni Pavlikka Bourdouvali, Georgios Bourdouvalis, Nikolina Bourdouvali, Christos Christofi, Elisavet Christofi, Clearlining Ltd, Dtek Holding Ltd, Dtek Trading Ltd, Agrippinoulla Fragkoudi, Dimitrios Fragkoudis, Frontal Investments Ltd, Costas Gavrielides, Eleni Harou, Theodora Hasapopoullou, Gladys Iasonos, Georgios Iasonos, George Karkousi, Lend & Seaserve Ltd, Michail P. Michailidis Ltd, Michalakis Michaelides, Rena Michael Michaelidou, Andros Nicolaides, Melina Nicolaides, Ero Nicolaidou, Aris Panagiotopoulos, Nikolitsa Panagiotopoulou, Alexandros Rodopoulos, Seatec Marine Services Ltd, Marinos C. Soteriou (represented by P. Tridimas, Barrister, and K. Chrysostomides, dikigoros (C 604/18 P))

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union (represented by the European Commission), Council of the European Union (represented by E. Chatziioakeimidou, A. de Gregorio Merino and I. Gurov, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by L. Flynn, J.-P. Keppenne and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents), European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by M.O. Szablewska and K. Laurinavičius, acting as Agents, and H.-G. Kamann, Rechtsanwalt), Euro Group (represented by the Council of the European Union)

Intervener in support of the Council of the European Union: Republic of Finland (represented by S. Hartikainen and J. Heliskoski, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgments of the General Court of the European Union of 13 July 2018, K. Chrysostomides & Co. and Others v Council and Others (T-680/13, EU:T:2018:486), and of 13 July 2018, Bourdouvali and Others v Council and Others (T-786/14, not published, EU:T:2018:487), inasmuch as they dismiss the pleas of inadmissibility raised by the Council of the European Union in so far as those pleas relate to the actions, brought in those cases, directed against the Euro Group and Article 2(6)(b) of Council Decision 2013/236/EU of 25 April 2013 addressed to Cyprus on specific measures to restore financial stability and sustainable growth; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgments of the General Court of the European Union of 13 July 2018, K. Chrysostomides & Co. and Others v Council and Others (T-680/13, EU:T:2018:486), and of 13 July 2018, Bourdouvali and Others v Council and Others (T-786/14, not published, EU:T:2018:487), inasmuch as they dismiss the pleas of inadmissibility raised by the Council of the European Union in so far as those pleas relate to the actions, brought in those cases, directed against the Euro Group and Article 2(6)(b) of Council Decision 2013/236/EU of 25 April 2013 addressed to Cyprus on specific measures to restore financial stability and sustainable growth;

| 2. | Declares that the actions brought at first instance in Cases T-680/13 and T-786/14 are inadmissible in so far as they are directed against the Euro Group and Article 2(6)(b) of Decision 2013/236; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that the actions brought at first instance in Cases T-680/13 and T-786/14 are inadmissible in so far as they are directed against the Euro Group and Article 2(6)(b) of Decision 2013/236;

| 3. | Dismisses the main appeals brought in Cases C-603/18 P and C-604/18; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Dismisses the main appeals brought in Cases C-603/18 P and C-604/18;

| 4. | Orders Dr. K. Chrysostomides & Co. LLC, Agroton plc, Ms Joanna Andreou, Ms Kyriaki Andreou, Bundeena Holding plc, Ms Henrietta Jindra Burton, C & O Service & Investment Ltd, C.G. Christofides Industrial Ltd, Mr Phidias Christodoulou, Ms Georgia Phanou-Christodoulou, Mr Christakis Christofides, Ms Theano Chrysafi, Mr Andreas Chrysafis, Mr Dionysios Chrysostomides, Ms Eleni K. Chrysostomides, Ms Eleni D. Chrysostomides, D & C Construction and Development Ltd, Ms Chrystalla Dekatris, Mr Constantinos Dekatris, Dr. K. Chrysostomides and Co., Ms Emily Dragoumi, Ms Parthenopi Dragoumi, Mr James Droushiotis, Eastvale Finance Ltd, Mr Nicos Eliades, Ms Tereza Eliades, Goodway Alliance Ltd, Mr Christos Hadjimarkos, Johnson Cyprus Employees Provident Fund, Kalia Georgiou LLC, Komposit Ltd, Mr Platon M. Kyriakides, L.kcar Intermetal and Synthetic Ltd, Lois Builders Ltd, Ms Athena Mavronicola-Droushiotis, Medialgeria Monitoring and Consultancy Ltd, Neita International Inc., Ms Sophia Nicolatos, Paris & Barcelona Ltd, Ms Louiza Patsiou, Probus Mare Marine Ltd, Provident Fund of the Employees of Osel Ltd, R.A.M. Oil Cyprus Ltd, Steelway Alliance Ltd, Tameio Pronoias Prosopikou Genikon, The Cyprus Phassouri Estates Ltd, The Prnses Ltd, Mr Christos Tsimon, Ms Nafsika Tsimon, Unienergy Holdings Ltd and Ms Julia Justine Jane Woods, and also Ms Eleni Pavlikka Bourdouvali, Mr Georgios Bourdouvalis, Ms Nikolina Bourdouvali, Coal Energy Trading Ltd, Mr Christos Christofi, Ms Elisavet Christofi, Ms Athanasia Chrysostomou, Mr Sofoklis Chrysostomou, Clearlining Ltd, Mr Alan Dimant, Dodoni Ependyseis Chartofylakou Dimosia Etaireia Ltd, Dtek Holding Ltd, Dtek Trading Ltd, Elma Holdings pcl, Elma Properties & Investments pcl, Ms Agrippinoulla Fragkoudi, Mr Dimitrios Fragkoudis, Frontal Investments Ltd, Mr Costas Gavrielides, Ms Eleni Harou, Ms Theodora Hasapopoullou, Ms Gladys Iasonos, Mr Georgios Iasonos, Jupiter Portfolio Investments pcl, Mr George Karkousi, Lend & Seaserve Ltd, Liberty Life Insurance pcl, Michail P. Michailidis Ltd, Mr Michalakis Michaelides, Ms Rena Michael Michaelidou, Mr Akis Micromatis, Mr Erginos Micromatis, Mr Harinos Micromatis, Mr Alvinos Micromatis, Mr Plotinos Micromatis, Nertera Investments Ltd, Mr Andros Nicolaides, Ms Melina Nicolaides, Ms Ero Nicolaidou, Mr Aris Panagiotopoulos, Ms Nikolitsa Panagiotopoulou, Mr Lambros Panayiotides, Ms Ersi Papaefthymiou, Mr Kostas Papaefthymiou, Restful Time Co., Mr Alexandros Rodopoulos, Seatec Marine Services Ltd, Sofoklis Chrisostomou & Yioí Ltd, Mr Marinos C. Soteriou, Sparotin Ltd, Ms Miranda Tanou and Ms Myria Tanou, to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union and the European Commission relating both to the proceedings at first instance and to the proceedings connected with the appeals in Cases C-597/18 P and C-598/18 P; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Dr. K. Chrysostomides & Co. LLC, Agroton plc, Ms Joanna Andreou, Ms Kyriaki Andreou, Bundeena Holding plc, Ms Henrietta Jindra Burton, C & O Service & Investment Ltd, C.G. Christofides Industrial Ltd, Mr Phidias Christodoulou, Ms Georgia Phanou-Christodoulou, Mr Christakis Christofides, Ms Theano Chrysafi, Mr Andreas Chrysafis, Mr Dionysios Chrysostomides, Ms Eleni K. Chrysostomides, Ms Eleni D. Chrysostomides, D & C Construction and Development Ltd, Ms Chrystalla Dekatris, Mr Constantinos Dekatris, Dr. K. Chrysostomides and Co., Ms Emily Dragoumi, Ms Parthenopi Dragoumi, Mr James Droushiotis, Eastvale Finance Ltd, Mr Nicos Eliades, Ms Tereza Eliades, Goodway Alliance Ltd, Mr Christos Hadjimarkos, Johnson Cyprus Employees Provident Fund, Kalia Georgiou LLC, Komposit Ltd, Mr Platon M. Kyriakides, L.kcar Intermetal and Synthetic Ltd, Lois Builders Ltd, Ms Athena Mavronicola-Droushiotis, Medialgeria Monitoring and Consultancy Ltd, Neita International Inc., Ms Sophia Nicolatos, Paris & Barcelona Ltd, Ms Louiza Patsiou, Probus Mare Marine Ltd, Provident Fund of the Employees of Osel Ltd, R.A.M. Oil Cyprus Ltd, Steelway Alliance Ltd, Tameio Pronoias Prosopikou Genikon, The Cyprus Phassouri Estates Ltd, The Prnses Ltd, Mr Christos Tsimon, Ms Nafsika Tsimon, Unienergy Holdings Ltd and Ms Julia Justine Jane Woods, and also Ms Eleni Pavlikka Bourdouvali, Mr Georgios Bourdouvalis, Ms Nikolina Bourdouvali, Coal Energy Trading Ltd, Mr Christos Christofi, Ms Elisavet Christofi, Ms Athanasia Chrysostomou, Mr Sofoklis Chrysostomou, Clearlining Ltd, Mr Alan Dimant, Dodoni Ependyseis Chartofylakou Dimosia Etaireia Ltd, Dtek Holding Ltd, Dtek Trading Ltd, Elma Holdings pcl, Elma Properties & Investments pcl, Ms Agrippinoulla Fragkoudi, Mr Dimitrios Fragkoudis, Frontal Investments Ltd, Mr Costas Gavrielides, Ms Eleni Harou, Ms Theodora Hasapopoullou, Ms Gladys Iasonos, Mr Georgios Iasonos, Jupiter Portfolio Investments pcl, Mr George Karkousi, Lend & Seaserve Ltd, Liberty Life Insurance pcl, Michail P. Michailidis Ltd, Mr Michalakis Michaelides, Ms Rena Michael Michaelidou, Mr Akis Micromatis, Mr Erginos Micromatis, Mr Harinos Micromatis, Mr Alvinos Micromatis, Mr Plotinos Micromatis, Nertera Investments Ltd, Mr Andros Nicolaides, Ms Melina Nicolaides, Ms Ero Nicolaidou, Mr Aris Panagiotopoulos, Ms Nikolitsa Panagiotopoulou, Mr Lambros Panayiotides, Ms Ersi Papaefthymiou, Mr Kostas Papaefthymiou, Restful Time Co., Mr Alexandros Rodopoulos, Seatec Marine Services Ltd, Sofoklis Chrisostomou & Yioí Ltd, Mr Marinos C. Soteriou, Sparotin Ltd, Ms Miranda Tanou and Ms Myria Tanou, to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union and the European Commission relating both to the proceedings at first instance and to the proceedings connected with the appeals in Cases C-597/18 P and C-598/18 P;

| 5. | Orders Dr. K. Chrysostomides & Co. LLC, Agroton plc, Ms Joanna Andreou, Ms Kyriaki Andreou, Ms Henrietta Jindra Burton, C & O Service & Investment Ltd, C.G. Christofides Industrial Ltd, Mr Christakis Christofides, Ms Theano Chrysafi, Mr Andreas Chrysafis, Mr Dionysios Chrysostomides, Ms Eleni K. Chrysostomides, Ms Eleni D. Chrysostomides, D & C Construction and Development Ltd, Ms Chrystalla Dekatris, Mr Constantinos Dekatris, Dr. K. Chrysostomides and Co., Ms Emily Dragoumi, Ms Parthenopi Dragoumi, Eastvale Finance Ltd, Mr Nicos Eliades, Ms Tereza Eliades, Goodway Alliance Ltd, Mr Christos Hadjimarkos, Johnson Cyprus Employees Provident Fund, L.kcar Intermetal and Synthetic Ltd, Lois Builders Ltd, Medialgeria Monitoring and Consultancy Ltd, Neita International Inc., Paris & Barcelona Ltd, Provident Fund of the Employees of Osel Ltd, R.A.M. Oil Cyprus Ltd, Steelway Alliance Ltd, Tameio Pronoias Prosopikou Genikon, The Cyprus Phassouri Estates Ltd, Mr Christos Tsimon, Ms Nafsika Tsimon and Ms Julia Justine Jane Woods, and also Ms Eleni Pavlikka Bourdouvali, Mr Georgios Bourdouvalis, Ms Nikolina Bourdouvali, Mr Christos Christofi, Ms Elisavet Christofi, Clearlining Ltd, Dtek Holding Ltd, Dtek Trading Ltd, Ms Agrippinoulla Fragkoudi, Mr Dimitrios Fragkoudis, Frontal Investments Ltd, Mr Costas Gavrielides, Ms Eleni Harou, Ms Theodora Hasapopoullou, Ms Gladys Iasonos, Mr Georgios Iasonos, Mr George Karkousi, Lend & Seaserve Ltd, Michail P. Michailidis Ltd, Mr Michalakis Michaelides, Ms Rena Michael Michaelidou, Mr Andros Nicolaides, Ms Melina Nicolaides, Ms Ero Nicolaidou, Mr Aris Panagiotopoulos, Ms Nikolitsa Panagiotopoulou, Mr Alexandros Rodopoulos, Seatec Marine Services Ltd and Mr Marinos C. Soteriou, to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union, the European Commission and the European Central Bank (ECB) relating both to the proceedings at first instance and to the proceedings connected with the appeals in Cases C-603/18 P and C-604/18 P; |
| --- | --- |

5.

Orders Dr. K. Chrysostomides & Co. LLC, Agroton plc, Ms Joanna Andreou, Ms Kyriaki Andreou, Ms Henrietta Jindra Burton, C & O Service & Investment Ltd, C.G. Christofides Industrial Ltd, Mr Christakis Christofides, Ms Theano Chrysafi, Mr Andreas Chrysafis, Mr Dionysios Chrysostomides, Ms Eleni K. Chrysostomides, Ms Eleni D. Chrysostomides, D & C Construction and Development Ltd, Ms Chrystalla Dekatris, Mr Constantinos Dekatris, Dr. K. Chrysostomides and Co., Ms Emily Dragoumi, Ms Parthenopi Dragoumi, Eastvale Finance Ltd, Mr Nicos Eliades, Ms Tereza Eliades, Goodway Alliance Ltd, Mr Christos Hadjimarkos, Johnson Cyprus Employees Provident Fund, L.kcar Intermetal and Synthetic Ltd, Lois Builders Ltd, Medialgeria Monitoring and Consultancy Ltd, Neita International Inc., Paris & Barcelona Ltd, Provident Fund of the Employees of Osel Ltd, R.A.M. Oil Cyprus Ltd, Steelway Alliance Ltd, Tameio Pronoias Prosopikou Genikon, The Cyprus Phassouri Estates Ltd, Mr Christos Tsimon, Ms Nafsika Tsimon and Ms Julia Justine Jane Woods, and also Ms Eleni Pavlikka Bourdouvali, Mr Georgios Bourdouvalis, Ms Nikolina Bourdouvali, Mr Christos Christofi, Ms Elisavet Christofi, Clearlining Ltd, Dtek Holding Ltd, Dtek Trading Ltd, Ms Agrippinoulla Fragkoudi, Mr Dimitrios Fragkoudis, Frontal Investments Ltd, Mr Costas Gavrielides, Ms Eleni Harou, Ms Theodora Hasapopoullou, Ms Gladys Iasonos, Mr Georgios Iasonos, Mr George Karkousi, Lend & Seaserve Ltd, Michail P. Michailidis Ltd, Mr Michalakis Michaelides, Ms Rena Michael Michaelidou, Mr Andros Nicolaides, Ms Melina Nicolaides, Ms Ero Nicolaidou, Mr Aris Panagiotopoulos, Ms Nikolitsa Panagiotopoulou, Mr Alexandros Rodopoulos, Seatec Marine Services Ltd and Mr Marinos C. Soteriou, to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union, the European Commission and the European Central Bank (ECB) relating both to the proceedings at first instance and to the proceedings connected with the appeals in Cases C-603/18 P and C-604/18 P;

| 6. | Orders the Republic of Finland to bear its own costs incurred in the context of the present appeals. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Orders the Republic of Finland to bear its own costs incurred in the context of the present appeals.

---

(1)  OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.

---

| 22.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 December 2020 — BP v European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA)

(Case C-601/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Members of the contract staff - European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) - Fixed-term contract - Decision not to renew - New decision adopted following an annulment by the General Court - Irregularities allegedly committed during the implementation of the General Court judgment)

(2021/C 62/03)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: BP (represented by: E. Lazar, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) (represented by: M. O’Flaherty, acting as Agent, and by B. Wägenbaur, Rechtsanwalt)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders BP to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders BP to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA).

---

(1)  OJ C 432, 23.12.2019.

---

| 22.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 December 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Husqvarna AB v Lidl Digital International GmbH & Co. KG, formerly Lidl E-Commerce International GmbH & Co. KG

(Case C-607/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - EU trade marks - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 51(1)(a) - Article 55(1) - Revocation of rights in an EU mark - EU mark which has not been put to genuine use within a continuous period of five years - Expiry of the period of five years - Date of assessment)

(2021/C 62/04)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant and appellant on a point of law: Husqvarna AB

Defendant and respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Lidl Digital International GmbH & Co. KG, formerly Lidl E-Commerce International GmbH & Co. KG

Operative part of the judgment

Article 51(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the [European Union] trade mark must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of a counterclaim for the revocation of rights in an EU mark, the relevant date for the purposes of determining whether the continuous five-year period referred to in that provision has ended is the date on which that counterclaim was filed.

---

(1)  OJ C 27, 27.1.2020.

---

| 22.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 December 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Szegedi Törvényszék — Hungary) — BAKATI PLUS Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

(Case C-656/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Exemptions on exportation - Article 146(1)(b) - Goods dispatched or transported outside the European Union by a customer not established within the territory of the Member State concerned - Article 147 - ‘Goods to be carried in the personal luggage of travellers’ not established within the European Union - Concept - Goods which have actually left the territory of the European Union - Proof - Refusal of the exemption on exportation - Principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality - Tax evasion)

(2021/C 62/05)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Szegedi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: BAKATI PLUS Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató Kft.

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The exemption provided for in Article 147(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax in respect of ‘goods to be carried in the personal luggage of travellers’ must be interpreted as meaning that that exemption does not cover goods which an individual not established within the European Union takes with him or her outside the European Union for commercial purposes with a view to the resale of those goods in a third State; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The exemption provided for in Article 147(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax in respect of ‘goods to be carried in the personal luggage of travellers’ must be interpreted as meaning that that exemption does not cover goods which an individual not established within the European Union takes with him or her outside the European Union for commercial purposes with a view to the resale of those goods in a third State;

| 2. | Article 146(1)(b) and Article 147 of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as not precluding national case-law under which, where the tax authority finds that the conditions for the value added tax (VAT) exemption for goods to be carried in the personal luggage of travellers have not been satisfied, but that the goods concerned have actually been transported outside the European Union by the purchaser, that authority is required to examine whether the VAT exemption under Article 146(1)(b) may be applied to the supply in question even though the applicable customs formalities have not been completed and even though, at the time of the purchase, the purchaser did not intend to have that exemption applied; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 146(1)(b) and Article 147 of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as not precluding national case-law under which, where the tax authority finds that the conditions for the value added tax (VAT) exemption for goods to be carried in the personal luggage of travellers have not been satisfied, but that the goods concerned have actually been transported outside the European Union by the purchaser, that authority is required to examine whether the VAT exemption under Article 146(1)(b) may be applied to the supply in question even though the applicable customs formalities have not been completed and even though, at the time of the purchase, the purchaser did not intend to have that exemption applied;

| 3. | Article 146(1)(b) and Article 147 of Directive 2006/112, and the principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality, must be interpreted as precluding a national practice under which the tax authority automatically denies a taxable person the benefit of the value added tax (VAT) exemption provided for by each of those provisions where it finds that that taxable person has, in bad faith, issued the form on the basis of which the purchaser has made use of the exemption provided for in Article 147, where it is established that the goods concerned have left the territory of the European Union. In such circumstances, the VAT exemption provided for in Article 146(1)(b) must be refused if infringement of a formal requirement has the effect of preventing the production of conclusive evidence that the substantive requirements governing the application of that exemption have been satisfied or if it is established that that taxable person knew or should have known that the transaction in question was involved in fraud jeopardising the functioning of the common system of VAT. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 146(1)(b) and Article 147 of Directive 2006/112, and the principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality, must be interpreted as precluding a national practice under which the tax authority automatically denies a taxable person the benefit of the value added tax (VAT) exemption provided for by each of those provisions where it finds that that taxable person has, in bad faith, issued the form on the basis of which the purchaser has made use of the exemption provided for in Article 147, where it is established that the goods concerned have left the territory of the European Union. In such circumstances, the VAT exemption provided for in Article 146(1)(b) must be refused if infringement of a formal requirement has the effect of preventing the production of conclusive evidence that the substantive requirements governing the application of that exemption have been satisfied or if it is established that that taxable person knew or should have known that the transaction in question was involved in fraud jeopardising the functioning of the common system of VAT.

---

(1)  OJ C 95, 23.3.2020.

---

| 22.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 December 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie — Poland) — A.M. v E.M.

(Case C-667/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Cosmetic products - Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 - Article 19 - Consumer information - Labelling - Information which must appear on the container and packaging of the products - Labelling in a foreign language - ‘Function of the cosmetic product’ - Meaning - Packaging of cosmetic products containing a reference to a detailed product catalogue drafted in the consumer’s language)

(2021/C 62/06)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: A.M.

Defendant: E.M.

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 19(1)(f) of Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on cosmetic products must be interpreted as meaning that the reference to the ‘function of a cosmetic product’ which must appear, under that provision, on the container and packaging of such a product must be such as to inform the consumer in a clear manner of the use and the method of use of the product so as to ensure that it can be used safely by consumers without harming their health, and therefore cannot be limited to a mere indication of the purposes of the product’s use, as referred to in Article 2(1)(a) of that regulation. It is for the referring court to ascertain, in the light of the characteristics and properties of the product concerned and the expectations of an average consumer, who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect, the nature and extent of the information which must appear in that regard on the container and packaging of the product so that it can be used without risk to human health. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 19(1)(f) of Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on cosmetic products must be interpreted as meaning that the reference to the ‘function of a cosmetic product’ which must appear, under that provision, on the container and packaging of such a product must be such as to inform the consumer in a clear manner of the use and the method of use of the product so as to ensure that it can be used safely by consumers without harming their health, and therefore cannot be limited to a mere indication of the purposes of the product’s use, as referred to in Article 2(1)(a) of that regulation. It is for the referring court to ascertain, in the light of the characteristics and properties of the product concerned and the expectations of an average consumer, who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect, the nature and extent of the information which must appear in that regard on the container and packaging of the product so that it can be used without risk to human health.

| 2. | Article 19(2) of Regulation No 1223/2009 must be interpreted as meaning that the information referred to in Article 19(1)(d), (f) and (g) of that regulation, namely that relating to the particular precautions to be observed in the use of the cosmetic product, to the function of that product and to its ingredients, respectively, may not appear in a business catalogue referred to by the symbol provided for in point 1 of Annex VII to that regulation affixed to the packaging or container of that product. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 19(2) of Regulation No 1223/2009 must be interpreted as meaning that the information referred to in Article 19(1)(d), (f) and (g) of that regulation, namely that relating to the particular precautions to be observed in the use of the cosmetic product, to the function of that product and to its ingredients, respectively, may not appear in a business catalogue referred to by the symbol provided for in point 1 of Annex VII to that regulation affixed to the packaging or container of that product.

---

(1)  OJ C 406, 2.12.2019.

---

| 22.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/8

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 December 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — Belgium) — G.M.A. v État belge

(Case C-710/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of movement for persons - Article 45 TFEU - Citizenship of the Union - Directive 2004/38/EC - Right of residence for more than three months - Article 14(4)(b) - Jobseekers - Reasonable period of time to acquaint themselves with potentially suitable employment opportunities and take the necessary steps to obtain employment - Requirements imposed by the host Member State on the jobseeker during that period - Conditions governing the right of residence - Obligation to continue seeking employment and to have a genuine chance of being engaged)

(2021/C 62/07)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: G.M.A.

Defendant: État belge

Operative part of the judgment

Article 45 TFEU and Article 14(4)(b) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that a host Member State is required to grant a reasonable period of time to a Union citizen, which starts to run from the time when that Union citizen registered as a jobseeker, in order to allow that person to acquaint himself or herself with potentially suitable employment opportunities and take the necessary steps to obtain employment.

During that period, the host Member State may require the jobseeker to provide evidence that he or she is seeking employment. It is only after the expiry of that period that that Member State may require the jobseeker to show not only that he or she is continuing to seek employment but also that he or she has a genuine chance of being engaged.

---

(1)  OJ C 399, 25.11.2019.

---

| 22.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 December 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Upravni sud u Zagrebu — Croatia) — FRANCK d.d. Zagreb v Ministarstvo financija Republike Hrvatske Samostalni sektor za drugostupanjski upravni postupak

(Case C-801/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Exemptions - Article 135(1)(b) and (d) - Definitions of ‘granting of credit’ and ‘other negotiable instruments’ - Complex transactions - Principal supply - Provision of funds in return for payment - Transfer of a bill of exchange to a factoring company and the money obtained to the issuer of the bill of exchange)

(2021/C 62/08)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Upravni sud u Zagrebu

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: FRANCK d.d. Zagreb

Defendant: Ministarstvo financija Republike Hrvatske Samostalni sektor za drugostupanjski upravni postupak

Operative part of the judgment

Article 135(1)(b) and (d) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (VAT Directive) must be interpreted as meaning that the exemption from value added tax on granting credit and transactions concerning other negotiable instruments laid down by those provisions, applies to a transaction which consists in the making available of funds obtained from a factoring company by one taxable person to another taxable person, for remuneration, following the transmission to the latter of a bill of exchange issued by the second taxable person, the first taxable person guaranteeing the repayment to the factoring company of that bill of exchange at its maturity.

---

(1)  OJ C 27, 27.1.2020.

---

| 22.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 December 2020 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-849/19) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Directive 92/43/EEC - Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora - Special areas of conservation - Article 4(4) - Obligation to establish conservation objectives - Article 6(1) - Obligation to take conservation measures - Decision 2006/613/EC — Mediterranean biogeographical region)

(2021/C 62/09)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouchagiar and C. Hermes, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: E. Skandalou, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by not adopting within the prescribed periods all the necessary measures for establishing appropriate conservation objectives and appropriate conservation measures in relation to the 239 Sites of Community Importance which are on Greek territory and are included in Commission Decision 2006/613/EC of 19 July 2006 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, the list of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4(4) and 6(1) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, as amended by Council Directive 2006/105/EC of 20 November 2006; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by not adopting within the prescribed periods all the necessary measures for establishing appropriate conservation objectives and appropriate conservation measures in relation to the 239 Sites of Community Importance which are on Greek territory and are included in Commission Decision 2006/613/EC of 19 July 2006 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, the list of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4(4) and 6(1) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, as amended by Council Directive 2006/105/EC of 20 November 2006;

| 2. | Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 19, 20.1.2020.

---

| 22.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 December 2020 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Execution of European arrest warrants issued in respect of L (C-354/20 PPU), P (C-412/20 PPU)

(Joined Cases C-354/20 PPU and C 412/20 PPU) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - European arrest warrant - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Article 1(3) - Article 6(1) - Surrender procedures between Member States - Conditions for execution - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Second paragraph of Article 47 - Right of access to an independent and impartial tribunal - Systemic or generalised deficiencies - Concept of ‘issuing judicial authority’ - Taking into consideration of developments after the European arrest warrant concerned has been issued - Obligation of the executing judicial authority to determine specifically and precisely whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the person concerned will run a real risk of breach of his or her right to a fair trial if he or she is surrendered)

(2021/C 62/10)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings

L (C-354/20 PPU), P (C-412/20 PPU)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(1) and Article 1(3) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that, where the executing judicial authority, which is called upon to decide whether a person in respect of whom a European arrest warrant has been issued is to be surrendered, has evidence of systemic or generalised deficiencies concerning the independence of the judiciary in the Member State that issues that arrest warrant which existed at the time of issue of that warrant or which arose after that issue, that authority cannot deny the status of ‘issuing judicial authority’ to the court which issued that arrest warrant and cannot presume that there are substantial grounds for believing that that person will, if he or she is surrendered to that Member State, run a real risk of breach of his or her fundamental right to a fair trial, guaranteed by the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, without carrying out a specific and precise verification which takes account of, inter alia, his or her personal situation, the nature of the offence in question and the factual context in which that warrant was issued, such as statements by public authorities which are liable to interfere with how an individual case is handled.

---

(1)  OJ C 320, 28.9.2020.

OJ C 378, 9.11.2020.

---

| 22.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 December 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Execution of European arrest warrants issued in respect of TR

(Case C-416/20 PPU) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - European arrest warrant - Article 4a(1) - Surrender procedures between Member States - Conditions for execution - Grounds for optional non-execution - Exceptions - Mandatory execution - Sentence imposed in absentia - Escape of the person being prosecuted - Directive (EU) 2016/343 - Articles 8 and 9 - Right to be present at the trial - Requirements in the event of conviction in absentia - Verification on surrender of the convicted person)

(2021/C 62/11)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

TR

Intervener: Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Hamburg

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4a of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that the executing judicial authority cannot refuse to execute a European arrest warrant issued for the purposes of executing a custodial sentence or a detention order, where the person concerned has prevented the service of summons on him in person and has failed to appear in person at the trial on account of his escape to the executing Member State, on the sole ground that that authority does not have the assurance that, in the event of surrender to the issuing Member State, the right to a new trial, as defined under Articles 8 and 9 of Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings, will be respected.

---

(1)  OJ C 390, 16.11.2020.

---

| 22.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/11

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 29 July 2020 — NB, AB v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Intervenor: United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

(Case C-349/20)

(2021/C 62/12)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: NB, AB

Respondent: Secretary of State for the Home Department

Intervenor: United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

Questions referred

In assessing whether there has been a cessation of protection or assistance from UNRWA (1) within the meaning of the second sentence of Article 12(1) (a) of the QD (2) to an UNRWA-registered stateless Palestinian in respect of the assistance afforded to disabled persons:

| 1. | Is the assessment purely an historic exercise of considering the circumstances which are said to have forced an applicant to leave the UNRWA area of operations when he did, or is it also an ex nunc, forward-looking assessment of whether the applicant can avail himself of such protection or assistance presently? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the assessment purely an historic exercise of considering the circumstances which are said to have forced an applicant to leave the UNRWA area of operations when he did, or is it also an ex nunc, forward-looking assessment of whether the applicant can avail himself of such protection or assistance presently?

| 2. | If the answer to Question 1 is that assessment includes a forward-looking assessment, is it legitimate to rely analogically on the cessation clause in Article 11, so that where historically the applicant can show a qualifying reason as to why he or she left the UNRWA area, the evidential burden falls upon the Member State to show that such reason no longer holds? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to Question 1 is that assessment includes a forward-looking assessment, is it legitimate to rely analogically on the cessation clause in Article 11, so that where historically the applicant can show a qualifying reason as to why he or she left the UNRWA area, the evidential burden falls upon the Member State to show that such reason no longer holds?

| 3. | In order for there to be justifiable objective reasons for the departure of such a person related to UNRW[A]'s provision of protection or assistance, is it necessary to establish intentional infliction of harm or deprivation of assistance (by act or omission) on the part of UNRWA or the state in which it operates? |
| --- | --- |

3.

In order for there to be justifiable objective reasons for the departure of such a person related to UNRW[A]'s provision of protection or assistance, is it necessary to establish intentional infliction of harm or deprivation of assistance (by act or omission) on the part of UNRWA or the state in which it operates?

| 4. | Is it relevant to take into account the assistance provided to such persons by civil society actors such as NGOs? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is it relevant to take into account the assistance provided to such persons by civil society actors such as NGOs?

---

(1)  United Nations Relief and Works Association.

(2)  Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted (the Qualification Directive; hereafter: ‘QD’)(OJ 2004, L 304, p. 12).

---

| 22.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/12

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Úřad pro přístup k dopravní infrastruktuře (Czech Republic) lodged on 23 September 2020 — CityRail a.s. v Správa železnic, státní organizace

(Case C-453/20)

(2021/C 62/13)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Úřad pro přístup k dopravní infrastruktuře

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: CityRail a.s.

Defendant: Správa železnic, státní organizace

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the place of loading and unloading for the transport of goods, including related tracks, constitute part of railway infrastructure as defined by Article 3(3) of Directive 2012/34? (1) |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the place of loading and unloading for the transport of goods, including related tracks, constitute part of railway infrastructure as defined by Article 3(3) of Directive 2012/34? (1)

| 2. | Is it in accordance with Directive 2012/34 that an infrastructure manager may at any time change prices for the use of railway infrastructure or service facilities to the detriment of freight forwarders? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is it in accordance with Directive 2012/34 that an infrastructure manager may at any time change prices for the use of railway infrastructure or service facilities to the detriment of freight forwarders?

| 3. | Is Directive 2012/34 binding for Správa železnic, státní organizace (the Railway Administration) pursuant to Article 288 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is Directive 2012/34 binding for Správa železnic, státní organizace (the Railway Administration) pursuant to Article 288 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union?

| 4. | Can the rules set out in a network statement be deemed discriminatory if they are not consistent with the EU legislation to which the Railway Administration is obliged to adhere? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Can the rules set out in a network statement be deemed discriminatory if they are not consistent with the EU legislation to which the Railway Administration is obliged to adhere?

---

(1)  Directive 2012/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 establishing a single European railway area (OJ 2012 L 343, p. 32).

---

| 22.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/13

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 4 November 2020 — A

(Case C-577/20)

(2021/C 62/14)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: A

Other party: Sosiaali- ja terveysalan lupa- ja valvontavirasto

Questions referred

| 1. | Are the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty on European Union and Directive 2005/36/EC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the competent authority of the host Member State must assess an applicant’s right to pursue a regulated profession in accordance with Articles 45 and 49 TFEU and the relevant case-law (in particular, judgment of 7 May 1991, C-340/89 (2), Vlassopoulou, and judgment of 6 October 2015, C-298/14 (3), Brouillard) even though the conditions for the pursuit of a regulated profession are supposed to be standardised in Article 13(2) of Directive 2005/36/EC, and, under those conditions, the host Member State must permit the pursuit of a profession by an applicant who holds evidence of formal qualifications from a Member State in which the profession is not regulated, but who does not satisfy the requirement for the pursuit of the profession laid down in that provision of the directive? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty on European Union and Directive 2005/36/EC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the competent authority of the host Member State must assess an applicant’s right to pursue a regulated profession in accordance with Articles 45 and 49 TFEU and the relevant case-law (in particular, judgment of 7 May 1991, C-340/89 (2), Vlassopoulou, and judgment of 6 October 2015, C-298/14 (3), Brouillard) even though the conditions for the pursuit of a regulated profession are supposed to be standardised in Article 13(2) of Directive 2005/36/EC, and, under those conditions, the host Member State must permit the pursuit of a profession by an applicant who holds evidence of formal qualifications from a Member State in which the profession is not regulated, but who does not satisfy the requirement for the pursuit of the profession laid down in that provision of the directive?

| 2. | If the first question referred is answered in the affirmative: In the light of the statements made in Case C-298/14, Brouillard (paragraph 55 of the judgment) concerning the exclusive criteria for assessing the equivalence of certificates, does EU law preclude the competent authority of the host Member State, in a situation such as that at issue in the present case, from also basing its assessment of the equivalence of training on information other than that obtained from the training provider or the authorities of the other Member State regarding the precise content of the training and the manner in which it is implemented? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the first question referred is answered in the affirmative: In the light of the statements made in Case C-298/14, Brouillard (paragraph 55 of the judgment) concerning the exclusive criteria for assessing the equivalence of certificates, does EU law preclude the competent authority of the host Member State, in a situation such as that at issue in the present case, from also basing its assessment of the equivalence of training on information other than that obtained from the training provider or the authorities of the other Member State regarding the precise content of the training and the manner in which it is implemented?

---

(1)  Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22).

(2)  Judgment of the Court of 7 May 1991 (Case C-340/89, Irène Vlassopoulou v Ministerium für Justiz, Bundes- und Europaangelegenheiten Baden-Württemberg, ECLI:EU:C:1991:193).

(3)  Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 6 October 2015 (Case C-298/14, Alain Laurent Brouillard v Jury du concours de recrutement de référendaires près la Cour de cassation and Belgian State, ECLI:EU:C:2015:652).

---

| 22.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/13

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 17 November 2020 — EZ v Iberia Lineas Aereas de Espana, Sociedad Unipersonal

(Case C-606/20)

(2021/C 62/15)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: EZ

Defendant: Iberia Lineas Aereas de Espana, Sociedad Unipersonal

Question referred

Is the first sentence of Article 20 of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, concluded in Montreal on 28 May 1999, signed by the European Community on 9 December 1999, approved on its behalf by Council Decision 2001/539/EC of 5 April 2001 (1) and entering into force on 28 June 2004, to be interpreted as meaning that the carrier is wholly or partly exonerated from its liability for loss of baggage pursuant to Article 17(2) of the Montreal Convention if a passenger transports new or as-new electronic items such as a compact camera, tablet (iPad) and wireless headphones in his checked baggage instead of his hand baggage without informing the carrier of this, even though it would have been possible and reasonable for the passenger to carry those electronic items with him in his hand baggage?

---

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

---

| 22.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/14

---

Appeal brought on 24 November 2020 by the Kingdom of Spain against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 23 September 2020 in Case T-370/19 Spain v Commission

(Case C-632/20 P)

(2021/C 62/16)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: S. Centeno Huerta, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | allow the present appeal and set aside the judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2020 in Case T-370/19 brought against the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

allow the present appeal and set aside the judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2020 in Case T-370/19 brought against the European Commission;

| — | give judgment on the action for annulment by annulling Commission Decision of 18 March 2019 on the participation of the National Regulatory Authority of Kosovo in the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (1), and |
| --- | --- |

—

give judgment on the action for annulment by annulling Commission Decision of 18 March 2019 on the participation of the National Regulatory Authority of Kosovo in the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (1), and

| — | in any event order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

in any event order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Kingdom of Spain appeals from the General Court’s judgment of 23 September 2020 in Case T-370/19 Kingdom of Spain v European Commission on the following grounds:

| — | error of law in the interpretation of the concept of ‘third country’ within the meaning of Article 35 of Regulation 2018/1971 (2), in the light of the EU Treaties and of international law; |
| --- | --- |

—

error of law in the interpretation of the concept of ‘third country’ within the meaning of Article 35 of Regulation 2018/1971 (2), in the light of the EU Treaties and of international law;

| — | error of law in the interpretation and application of Article 111 of the Kosovo SAA, in conjunction with Article 35 of Regulation 2018/1971, by misinterpreting the consequences of the European Union not taking a position on Kosovo’s status in international law; |
| --- | --- |

—

error of law in the interpretation and application of Article 111 of the Kosovo SAA, in conjunction with Article 35 of Regulation 2018/1971, by misinterpreting the consequences of the European Union not taking a position on Kosovo’s status in international law;

| — | error of law in the interpretation of Article 35 of Regulation 2018/1971, in conjunction with Article 111 of the Kosovo SAA, in so far as the cooperation concerned does not include participation in BEREC and the Management Board of the BEREC Office; |
| --- | --- |

—

error of law in the interpretation of Article 35 of Regulation 2018/1971, in conjunction with Article 111 of the Kosovo SAA, in so far as the cooperation concerned does not include participation in BEREC and the Management Board of the BEREC Office;

| — | error of law in that it was held in the judgment under appeal that Article 17 TEU was a valid legal basis for adopting the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

error of law in that it was held in the judgment under appeal that Article 17 TEU was a valid legal basis for adopting the contested decision;

| — | error of law in the interpretation of Article 35(2) of Regulation 2018/1971 in that it was held in the judgment under appeal that working arrangements could be laid down unilaterally by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

—

error of law in the interpretation of Article 35(2) of Regulation 2018/1971 in that it was held in the judgment under appeal that working arrangements could be laid down unilaterally by the European Commission.

In the event that any of the abovementioned grounds are established the appeal should be allowed and consequently the action for annulment should be considered and upheld, thereby annulling Commission Decision of 18 March 2019 on the participation of the National Regulatory Authority of Kosovo in the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications.

---

(1)  OJ 2019 C 115, p. 26

(2)  Regulation (EU) 2018/1971 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 establishing the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) and the Agency for Support for BEREC (BEREC Office), amending Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1211/2009 (OJ 2018 L 321, p. 1).

---

| 22.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/15

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 25 November 2020 — Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V. v TC Medical Air Ambulance Agency GmbH

(Case C-633/20)

(2021/C 62/17)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law: Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V.

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: TC Medical Air Ambulance Agency GmbH

Question referred

Is an undertaking which maintains, as the policyholder, foreign travel medical insurance and insurance covering foreign and domestic repatriation costs as a group insurance policy for its customers with an insurance undertaking, distributes to consumers memberships entitling them to claim insurance benefits in the event of illness or accident abroad and receives a fee from recruited members for the insurance cover purchased an insurance intermediary within the meaning of Article 2(3) and (5) of Directive 2002/92/EC (1) and Article 2(1)(1), (3) and (8) of Directive (EU) 2016/97? (2)

---

(1)  Directive 2002/92/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 December 2002 on insurance mediation (OJ 2003 L 9, p. 3).

(2)  Directive (EU) 2016/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 January 2016 on insurance distribution (recast) (OJ 2016 L 26, p. 19).

---

| 22.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/16

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Pécsi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 25 November 2020 — Tolnatext Bt. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

(Case C-636/20)

(2021/C 62/18)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Pécsi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Tolnatext Bt.

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

Question referred

Must Article 22(6) and Article 29 of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the Union Customs Code (1) be interpreted as meaning that, with regard to procedures carried out by a customs authority which is not acting in a judicial capacity, that authority must grant a right to be heard in procedures undertaken ex officio as well as in those undertaken on application?

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code (OJ 2013 L 269, p. 1).

---

| 22.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/16

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from Westminster Magistrates’ Court (United Kingdom) made on 1 December 2020 — Svishtov Regional Prosecutor’s Office v PI

(Case C-648/20)

(2021/C 62/19)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Westminster Magistrates’ Court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Svishtov Regional Prosecutor’s Office

Defendant: PI

Question referred

Where surrender is sought in order to prosecute a requested person, and where the decision to issue an underlying national arrest warrant (‘NAW’) and the decision to issue a European arrest warrant (‘EAW’) are both taken by a public prosecutor, without any involvement of a Court prior to surrender, does a requested person receive the dual level of protection envisaged by the Court in Bob-Dogi C-241/15 (1) if:

| a. | the effect of the NAW is limited to detaining the individual for a maximum of 72 hours for the purpose of bringing him before a Court; and |
| --- | --- |

a.

the effect of the NAW is limited to detaining the individual for a maximum of 72 hours for the purpose of bringing him before a Court; and

| b. | on surrender, it is solely a matter for the Court whether to order release, or to continue detention, in light of all the circumstances of the case? |
| --- | --- |

b.

on surrender, it is solely a matter for the Court whether to order release, or to continue detention, in light of all the circumstances of the case?

---

(1)  Judgment of the Court of 1/6/2016 (ECLI:EU:C:2016:385)

---

| 22.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/17

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 4 December 2020 — ET v Ministerstvo životního prostředí

(Case C-659/20)

(2021/C 62/20)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ET

Defendant: Ministerstvo životního prostředí

Questions referred

| 1. | Does ‘breeding stock’, as defined by Commission Regulation (EC) No 865/2006 (1) laying down detailed rules concerning the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein, include specimens that are the parents of specimens bred by a given breeder, even though that breeder never owned or kept them? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does ‘breeding stock’, as defined by Commission Regulation (EC) No 865/2006 (1) laying down detailed rules concerning the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein, include specimens that are the parents of specimens bred by a given breeder, even though that breeder never owned or kept them?

| 2. | If the answer to the first question is that such parent specimens do not constitute a part of the breeding stock, are competent bodies authorised to verify, in examining compliance with the condition set in Article 54(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 865/2006, consisting of the establishment of stock legally and, at the same time, in a manner not detrimental to the survival of wild specimens, the origin of those parent specimens and to infer on that basis whether the breeding stock has been established in accordance with the rules set out in Article 54(2) of the Regulation? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the first question is that such parent specimens do not constitute a part of the breeding stock, are competent bodies authorised to verify, in examining compliance with the condition set in Article 54(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 865/2006, consisting of the establishment of stock legally and, at the same time, in a manner not detrimental to the survival of wild specimens, the origin of those parent specimens and to infer on that basis whether the breeding stock has been established in accordance with the rules set out in Article 54(2) of the Regulation?

| 3. | In examining compliance with the condition set out in Article 54(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 865/2006, consisting of the establishment of stock legally and, at the same time, in a manner not detrimental to the survival of wild specimens, can further circumstances of the case be taken into consideration (in particular, good faith in the transfer of the specimens and the legitimate expectation that trading in their potential offspring will be permitted, and potentially also the less stringent legislation applicable in the Czech Republic prior to the country’s accession to the European Union)? |
| --- | --- |

3.

In examining compliance with the condition set out in Article 54(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 865/2006, consisting of the establishment of stock legally and, at the same time, in a manner not detrimental to the survival of wild specimens, can further circumstances of the case be taken into consideration (in particular, good faith in the transfer of the specimens and the legitimate expectation that trading in their potential offspring will be permitted, and potentially also the less stringent legislation applicable in the Czech Republic prior to the country’s accession to the European Union)?

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 166, p. 1.

---

| 22.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/17

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 4 December 2020 — MK v Lufthansa CityLine GmbH

(Case C-660/20)

(2021/C 62/21)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant in the appeal on a point of law: MK

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Lufthansa CityLine GmbH

Questions referred

| 1. | Does a national statutory provision treat part-time workers in a less favourable manner than comparable full-time workers within the meaning of Clause 4.1 of the Framework Agreement on part-time work annexed to Directive 97/81/EC (1) if it permits additional remuneration for part-time and full-time workers to be uniformly contingent on the same number of working hours having been exceeded, and therefore allows account to be taken of the overall remuneration, and not of the component of the remuneration that comprises the additional remuneration? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does a national statutory provision treat part-time workers in a less favourable manner than comparable full-time workers within the meaning of Clause 4.1 of the Framework Agreement on part-time work annexed to Directive 97/81/EC (1) if it permits additional remuneration for part-time and full-time workers to be uniformly contingent on the same number of working hours having been exceeded, and therefore allows account to be taken of the overall remuneration, and not of the component of the remuneration that comprises the additional remuneration?

| 2. | If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:
  Is a national statutory provision which allows an entitlement to additional remuneration to be made conditional on the same number of working hours being exceeded uniformly in the case of both part-time and full-time workers compatible with Clause 4.1 and the principle of pro rata temporis in Clause 4.2 of the Framework Agreement on part-time work annexed to Directive 97/81/EC if the purpose of the additional remuneration is to compensate for a particular workload? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:

Is a national statutory provision which allows an entitlement to additional remuneration to be made conditional on the same number of working hours being exceeded uniformly in the case of both part-time and full-time workers compatible with Clause 4.1 and the principle of pro rata temporis in Clause 4.2 of the Framework Agreement on part-time work annexed to Directive 97/81/EC if the purpose of the additional remuneration is to compensate for a particular workload?

---

(1)  Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC (OJ 1998 L 14, p. 9).

---

| 22.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/18

---

Action brought on 17 December 2020 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-687/20)

(2021/C 62/22)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Noll-Ehlers and G. Braga da Cruz, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Portuguese Republic

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by not having drafted strategic road maps relating to five main roads, the Portuguese Republic failed to fulfil its obligations pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 7(2) of Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise (1); |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by not having drafted strategic road maps relating to five main roads, the Portuguese Republic failed to fulfil its obligations pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 7(2) of Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise (1);

| — | declare that, by not having drafted action plans relating to the agglomerations of Amadora and Porto, action plans relating to 236 main roads, or action plans relating to 55 main railway routes, the Portuguese Republic failed to fulfil its obligations pursuant to Article 8(2) of the directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by not having drafted action plans relating to the agglomerations of Amadora and Porto, action plans relating to 236 main roads, or action plans relating to 55 main railway routes, the Portuguese Republic failed to fulfil its obligations pursuant to Article 8(2) of the directive;

| — | declare that, by not having communicated to the Commission the information from the strategic noise maps relating five main roads and, further, by not having communicated to the Commission the summaries of the action plans relating to the agglomerations of Amadora and Porto, together with those relating to 236 main road and 55 main railway routes, the Portuguese Republic failed to fulfil its obligations pursuant to Article 10(2) of the directive, read in conjunction with Annex VI thereto; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by not having communicated to the Commission the information from the strategic noise maps relating five main roads and, further, by not having communicated to the Commission the summaries of the action plans relating to the agglomerations of Amadora and Porto, together with those relating to 236 main road and 55 main railway routes, the Portuguese Republic failed to fulfil its obligations pursuant to Article 10(2) of the directive, read in conjunction with Annex VI thereto;

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

—

order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Under Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise (‘the directive’), which is of relevance in the present proceedings, the Portuguese authorities were required to take the steps indicated below.

| (1) | In the first place, under the second subparagraph of Article 7(2) of the directive, inform the Commission of all the agglomerations, and all the main roads and railways routes located in Portuguese territory, by 31 December 2008. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

In the first place, under the second subparagraph of Article 7(2) of the directive, inform the Commission of all the agglomerations, and all the main roads and railways routes located in Portuguese territory, by 31 December 2008.

| (2) | In the second place, under the first subparagraph of Article 7(2) of the directive, draft strategic noise maps for all agglomerations and all main roads and railway routes, reflecting the situation in reference year 2011, by 30 June 2012. Furthermore, the Portuguese authorities were to send information on those strategic noise maps to the Commission by 30 December 2012, in accordance with Article 10(2) of the directive, read in conjunction with Annex VI thereto. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

In the second place, under the first subparagraph of Article 7(2) of the directive, draft strategic noise maps for all agglomerations and all main roads and railway routes, reflecting the situation in reference year 2011, by 30 June 2012. Furthermore, the Portuguese authorities were to send information on those strategic noise maps to the Commission by 30 December 2012, in accordance with Article 10(2) of the directive, read in conjunction with Annex VI thereto.

| (3) | In the third place, under Article 8(2) of the directive, draft, action plans in respect of all agglomerations and all main roads and railway lines located in Portuguese territory, by 18 July 2013. Furthermore, the Portuguese authorities were to send summaries of those action plans to the Commission by 18 January 2014, in accordance with Article 10(2) of the directive, read in conjunction with Annex VI thereto. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

In the third place, under Article 8(2) of the directive, draft, action plans in respect of all agglomerations and all main roads and railway lines located in Portuguese territory, by 18 July 2013. Furthermore, the Portuguese authorities were to send summaries of those action plans to the Commission by 18 January 2014, in accordance with Article 10(2) of the directive, read in conjunction with Annex VI thereto.

It should be noted that the aforementioned obligations incumbent on the Portuguese authorities constitute three successive stages laid down in the directive, with the second and third stages each being based on the immediately preceding stage.

---

(1)  JO 2002, L 189, p. 12.

---

| 22.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/19

---

Appeal brought on 18 December 2020 by Casino, Guichard-Perrachon and Achats Marchandises Casino against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 5 October 2020 in Case T-249/17, Casino, Guichard-Perrachon and AMC v Commission

(Case C-690/20 P)

(2021/C 62/23)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: Casino, Guichard-Perrachon, Achats Marchandises Casino, (represented by: O. de Juvigny, A. Sunderland, I. Simic, G. Aubron, lawyers)

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

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul point (2) of the operative part of the judgment delivered on 5 October 2020 by the General Court in Case T-249/17; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul point (2) of the operative part of the judgment delivered on 5 October 2020 by the General Court in Case T-249/17;

| — | Grant the forms of order sought by the applicants at first instance and, consequently, annul in its entirety European Commission Decision C(2017) 1054 of 9 February 2017 on the basis of Articles 263 and 277 TFEU; |
| --- | --- |

—

Grant the forms of order sought by the applicants at first instance and, consequently, annul in its entirety European Commission Decision C(2017) 1054 of 9 February 2017 on the basis of Articles 263 and 277 TFEU;

| — | Order the European Commission to pay the costs of this appeal and those of the proceedings at first instance before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the European Commission to pay the costs of this appeal and those of the proceedings at first instance before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellants submit that the contested judgment infringes:

| 1. | Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the requirement of protection against arbitrary interference by public authority in the sphere of a person's private activity, Article 19 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 and Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004, in that the General Court held (i) that these provisions did not require the Commission to record oral statements by suppliers and (ii) that the ‘summaries’ of these interviews drawn up unilaterally by the Commission services constituted valid proof that the Commission had evidence justifying European Commission Decision C(2017) 1054; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the requirement of protection against arbitrary interference by public authority in the sphere of a person's private activity, Article 19 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 and Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004, in that the General Court held (i) that these provisions did not require the Commission to record oral statements by suppliers and (ii) that the ‘summaries’ of these interviews drawn up unilaterally by the Commission services constituted valid proof that the Commission had evidence justifying European Commission Decision C(2017) 1054;

| 2. | Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the requirement of protection against arbitrary intervention by public authorities in the sphere of a person's private activity, in that the General Court held that the fundamental right to inviolability of the home did not require that European Commission Decision C(2017)1054:






  (i) | limit in time the exercise of the Commission's powers of inspection; and |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the requirement of protection against arbitrary intervention by public authorities in the sphere of a person's private activity, in that the General Court held that the fundamental right to inviolability of the home did not require that European Commission Decision C(2017)1054:

(i)

limit in time the exercise of the Commission's powers of inspection; and

| (ii) | limit the persons and premises that may be inspected; |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

limit the persons and premises that may be inspected;

| 3. | Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in that the General Court held that the legal regime applicable to Commission inspections satisfies the fundamental right to an effective remedy. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in that the General Court held that the legal regime applicable to Commission inspections satisfies the fundamental right to an effective remedy.

---

| 22.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/20

---

Appeal brought on 21 December 2020 by Intermarché Casino Achats against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 5 October 2020 in Case T-254/17, Intermarché Casino Achats v Commission

(Case C-693/20 P)

(2021/C 62/24)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Intermarché Casino Achats (represented by: Y. Utzschneider, J. Jourdan, C. Mussi, S. Eder, lawyers)

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

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul in part the judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2020 delivered in Case T 254/17, in so far as it dismissed in part the action brought by Intermarché Casino Achats seeking the annulment of the decision of the European Commission of 9 February 2017 taken on the basis of Article 20(1) and (4) of Regulation No 1/2003 (Case AT.40466 — Tute 1) and in so far as it ordered the applicant to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul in part the judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2020 delivered in Case T 254/17, in so far as it dismissed in part the action brought by Intermarché Casino Achats seeking the annulment of the decision of the European Commission of 9 February 2017 taken on the basis of Article 20(1) and (4) of Regulation No 1/2003 (Case AT.40466 — Tute 1) and in so far as it ordered the applicant to pay the costs;

| — | Annul Article 1(a) of the decision of the Commission of 9 February 2017 in the above case AT.40466; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Article 1(a) of the decision of the Commission of 9 February 2017 in the above case AT.40466;

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

—

Order the Commission to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its first plea, the appellant submits that the General Court erred in law by rejecting the plea of illegality of Article 20(1) and (4) of Regulation No 1/2003, based on the absence of appropriate remedies against the conduct of the inspections, which is not in accordance with the requirements of an effective remedy enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights.

By its second plea, the appellant submits that the General Court erred in law by determining that the documents submitted by the Commission to demonstrate the existence of solid evidence of infringement at the date of the inspection could be taken into account without complying with the formalities imposed by Regulation No 1/2003 and Regulation No 773/2004. This vitiated the General Court's conclusion that the Commission had solid evidence of the existence of the infringement referred to in Article 1(a) of the inspection decision. By refusing to annul Article 1(a) of the inspection decision, the General Court thus infringed the right to inviolability of the home enshrined in Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

By its third plea, the appellant submits that the General Court erred in law by determining that the right to inviolability of the home enshrined in Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights did not require the inspection decision to lay down a limit on the duration of inspections and by refusing to annul the decision on that ground.

---

| 22.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/21

---

Appeal brought on 28 December 2020 by Maria Teresa Coppo Gavazzi and Others against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 15 October 2020 in Joined Cases T-389/19 to T-394/19, T-397/19, T-398/19, T-403/19, T-404/19, T-406/19, T-407/19, T-409/19 to T-414/19, T-416/19 to T-418/19, T-420/19 to T-422/19, T-425/19 to T-427/19, T-429/19 to T-432/19, T-435/19, T-436/19, T-438/19 to T-442/19, T-444/19 to T-446/19, T-448/19, T-450/19 to T-454/19, T-463/19 and T-465/19, Coppo Gavazzi and Others v Parliament

(Case C-725/20 P)

(2021/C 62/25)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellants: Maria Teresa Coppo Gavazzi, Cristiana Muscardini, Luigi Vinci, Agostino Mantovani, Anna Catasta, Vanda Novati, Francesco Enrico Speroni, Maria Di Meo, Giuseppe Di Lello Finuoli, Raffaele Lombardo, Olivier Dupuis, Leda Frittelli, Livio Filippi, Vincenzo Viola, Antonio Mussa, Mauro Nobilia, Sergio Camillo Segre, Stefano De Luca, Riccardo Ventre, Mirella Musoni, Francesco Iacono, Vito Bonsignore, Claudio Azzolini, Vincenzo Aita, Mario Mantovani, Vincenzo Mattina, Romano Maria La Russa, Giorgio Carollo, Fiammetta Cucurnia, on her own behalf and as heir of Giulietto Chiesa, Roberto Costanzo, Giorgio Gallenzi, as heir of Giulio Cesare Gallenzi, Vitaliano Gemelli, Pasqualina Napoletano and Ida Panusa (represented by: M. Merola, avvocato)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment under appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment under appeal;

| — | refer Case T-453/19, Panusa v Parliament, back to the General Court for examination of the merits; |
| --- | --- |

—

refer Case T-453/19, Panusa v Parliament, back to the General Court for examination of the merits;

| — | annul the decisions at issue as regards the appellants other than Ms Panusa; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decisions at issue as regards the appellants other than Ms Panusa;

| — | order the European Parliament to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

By the first ground of appeal
  , the appellants claim that the General Court erred in law in so far as it considered that the decisions contested before it were unconnected to the right to a pension and had no impact thereon, and accordingly held that those decisions comply with the general principles and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The error is the result of an abstract and arbitrary distinction having been made between the right to a pension and the right to pension benefits. The decisions at issue adversely affected the right to a pension itself, thus infringing not only the rules set out in the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members, but also the right to property, and conflicting with the principles of proportionality, legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations.

By the second ground of appeal
  , the appellants claim that the General Court made various errors of law in assessing the procedural grounds for annulment put forward by them as applicants at first instance, with particular reference to (i) the identification of the correct legal basis for the decisions at issue, (ii) the authority of the Head of Unit who adopted the measure and (iii) failure to state sufficient reasons. The General Court should have found that the decisions at issue are based on a provision that has now been repealed and, since they are classified as extraordinary administrative measures, should have been adopted by the Bureau of the European Parliament. Moreover, the General Court unduly extended the possibility of stating reasons by reference to other documents. The statement of reasons is not in fact contained in the decisions at issue but only in an opinion of the European Parliament’s Legal Service to which there is not even an explicit reference in the decisions at issue or in the preparatory acts.

By the third ground of appeal
  , the appellant who was the applicant in Case T-453/19 claims that the General Court erred in law in finding that her action was inadmissible on the ground of a lack of interest in bringing proceedings. She claims that the General Court did not consider the possibility that the pension benefit she receives had a different legal basis, even though this was discussed during the hearing. Since that different legal basis would guarantee the appellant a higher benefit, it cannot be denied that she has an interest in bringing proceedings.

---

| 22.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/22

---

Order of the President of the Court of 13 February 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — United Kingdom) — Beverly Hills Teddy Bear Company v PMS International Group

(Case C-728/19) (1)

(2021/C 62/26)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 423, 16.12.2019.

---

General Court

| 22.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — Balti Gaas v Commission and INEA

(Joined Cases T-236/17 and T-596/17) (1)

(Financial assistance under the Connecting Europe Facility for the period 2014-2020 - Field of trans-European energy infrastructure - Calls for proposals - Action for failure to act - No invitation to act - Inadmissibility - Action for annulment - Act not open to challenge - Preparatory act - Partial inadmissibility - Decision rejecting a proposal - Manifest errors of assessment - Obligation to state reasons - Competence of the Commission)

(2021/C 62/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Balti Gaas OÜ (Tallinn, Estonia) (represented by: E. Tamm, lawyer)

Defendants: European Commission (represented by: O. Beynet and Y. Marinova, acting as Agents), Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (represented by: I. Ramallo and L. Di Paolo, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Republic of Estonia (represented by: N. Grünberg, acting as Agent)

Re:

Application, first, under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the decision allegedly contained in INEA’s letter of 17 February 2017 concerning the applicant’s proposal in response to the second call for proposals published for 2016 in the context of the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF), on the basis of the multiannual work programme adopted under Commission Implementing Decision C(2016) 1587 final of 17 March 2016 on amending Commission Implementing Decision C(2014) 2080 establishing the multiannual work programme for granting financial aid in the field of trans-European energy infrastructure under the CEF for the period 2014-2020 (Case T-236/17), and, second, principally, under Article 265 TFEU for a declaration that the Commission unlawfully failed to adopt a reasoned decision regarding the applicant’s proposal and, in the alternative, application for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision C(2017) 1593 final of 14 March 2017 on the selection and award of grants for actions contributing to projects of common interest under the CEF in the field of trans-European energy infrastructure (Case T-596/17).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the actions; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the actions;

| 2. | Orders the Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Balti Gaas OÜ in Case T-236/17, the European Commission being ordered to bear its own costs in that case; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Balti Gaas OÜ in Case T-236/17, the European Commission being ordered to bear its own costs in that case;

| 3. | Orders Balti Gaas OÜ to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission in Case T-596/17; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Balti Gaas OÜ to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission in Case T-596/17;

| 4. | Orders the Republic of Estonia to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Republic of Estonia to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 221, 10.7.2017.

---

| 22.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — RN v Commission

(Case T-442/17 RENV) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Surviving spouse - Survivor’s pension - Articles 18 and 20 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Conditions for eligibility - Duration of the marriage - Plea of illegality - Equal treatment - Principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age - Proportionality - Concept of ‘spouse’)

(2021/C 62/28)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: RN (represented by: F. Moyse, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara and B. Mongin, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Parliament (represented by: M. Ecker and E. Taneva, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the Commission’s decision of 24 September 2014 rejecting the applicant’s request for a survivor's pension.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 24 September 2014 rejecting RN’s request for a survivor’s pension; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 24 September 2014 rejecting RN’s request for a survivor’s pension;

| 2. | Orders the Commission to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by RN relating to Case F-104/15 and in the present proceedings on referral; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by RN relating to Case F-104/15 and in the present proceedings on referral;

| 3. | Orders the Commission and RN each to bear their own costs relating to the proceedings in Case T-695/16 P; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Commission and RN each to bear their own costs relating to the proceedings in Case T-695/16 P;

| 4. | Orders the European Parliament to bear its own costs relating to Case F-104/15 and the present proceedings on referral. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the European Parliament to bear its own costs relating to Case F-104/15 and the present proceedings on referral.

---

(1)  OJ C 302, 14.9.2015.

---

| 22.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — International Skating Union v Commission

(Case T-93/18) (1)

(Competition - Association of undertakings - Speed skating events - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Regulations of a sports federation - Balance between competition law and the specific nature of the sport - Sports betting - Court of Arbitration for Sport - Guidelines on the calculation of fines - Scope of territorial application of Article 101 TFEU - Restriction of competition by object - Corrective measures)

(2021/C 62/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: International Skating Union (Lausanne, Switzerland) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet, G. Meessen and F. van Schaik, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Mark Jan Hendrik Tuitert (Hoogmade, Netherlands), Niels Kerstholt (Zeist, Netherlands), European Elite Athletes Association (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: B. Braeken and J. Versteeg, lawyers)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFUE for annulment of Commission Decision C(2017) 8230 final, adopted on 8 December 2017 relating to proceedings under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT/40208 — International Skating Union’s eligibility rules).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Articles 2 and 4 of Commission Decision C(2017) 8230 final, adopted on 8 December 2017 relating to proceedings under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT/40208 — International Skating Unions’s eligibility rules), in so far as, by requiring the International Skating Union to put an end to the infringement established which is subject to a periodic penalty payment, the Commission refers to the arbitration rules and requires that they be amended in the event that the pre-authorisation system is maintained; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Articles 2 and 4 of Commission Decision C(2017) 8230 final, adopted on 8 December 2017 relating to proceedings under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT/40208 — International Skating Unions’s eligibility rules), in so far as, by requiring the International Skating Union to put an end to the infringement established which is subject to a periodic penalty payment, the Commission refers to the arbitration rules and requires that they be amended in the event that the pre-authorisation system is maintained;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders the International Skating Union and the European Commission to bear their own costs; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the International Skating Union and the European Commission to bear their own costs;

| 4. | Orders the European Elite Athletes Association, Mr Mark Jan Hendrik Tuitert and Mr Niels Kerstholt to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the European Elite Athletes Association, Mr Mark Jan Hendrik Tuitert and Mr Niels Kerstholt to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 142, 23.4.2018.

---

| 22.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — Fakro v Commission

(Case T-515/18) (1)

(Competition - Abuse of dominant position - Market for roof windows and flashings - Decision rejecting a complaint - Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 - Access to the file - Principle of sound administration - Reasonable period - Manifest error of assessment - Obligation to state reasons - No EU interest - Probability of being able to establish the existence of an infringement - Predatory pricing - ‘Fighting brands’ - Rebates - Exclusivity)

(2021/C 62/30)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Fakro sp. z o.o. (Nowy Sącz, Poland) (represented by: A. Radkowiak-Macuda and Z. Kiedacz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Farley, I. Rogalski and J. Szczodrowski, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, M. Wiącek and M. Rzotkiewicz, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2018) 3864 final of 14 June 2018 rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant alleging infringements of Article 102 TFEU in the market for roof windows and flashings (Case AT.40026 — Velux).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Fakro sp. z o.o., the European Commission and the Republic of Poland to each bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Fakro sp. z o.o., the European Commission and the Republic of Poland to each bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.

---

| 22.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — Changmao Biochemical Engineering v Commission

(Case T-541/18) (1)

(Dumping - Imports of tartaric acid originating in China - Extension of a definitive anti-dumping duty - Determination of the normal value - Protocol of Accession of China to the WTO - Analogue country methodology - Article 2(7) and Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 - Vulnerability of the Union industry - Likelihood of recurrence of injury - Rights of the defence - Obligation to state reasons)

(2021/C 62/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Changmao Biochemical Engineering Co. Ltd (Changzhou, China) (represented by: K. Adamantopoulos and P. Billiet, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Demeneix and M. França, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Distillerie Bonollo SpA (Formigine, Italy), Industria Chimica Valenzana (ICV) SpA (Borgoricco, Italy), Caviro Distillerie Srl (Faenza, Italy) (represented by: R. MacLean, Solicitor)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/921 of 28 June 2018 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of tartaric acid originating in the People’s Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2018 L 164, p. 14).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Changmao Biochemical Engineering Co. Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Changmao Biochemical Engineering Co. Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 408, 12.11.2018.

---

| 22.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — Haikal v Council

(Case T-189/19) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Syria - Freezing of funds - Rights of the defence - Right to a fair hearing - Obligation to state reasons - Right to effective judicial protection - Error of assessment - Right to property - Proportionality - Right to carry on an economic activity - Right to respect for private and family life)

(2021/C 62/32)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Applicant: Maen Haikal (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: S. Koev, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Cholakova and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2019/87 of 21 January 2019 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2019 L 18 I, p. 13), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/85 of 21 January 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2019 L 18 I, p. 4), Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/806 of 17 May 2019 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2019 L 132, p. 36), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/798 of 17 May 2019 implementing Regulation No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2019 L 132, p. 1), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Maen Haikal to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Maen Haikal to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 187, 3.6.2019.

---

| 22.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — BT v Commission

(Case T-315/19) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Surviving spouse - Survivor’s pension - Articles 18 and 20 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Conditions for eligibility - Duration of the marriage - Plea of illegality - Equal treatment - Principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age - Proportionality)

(2021/C 62/33)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: BT (represented by: J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Mongin, acting as Agent)

Intervener in support of the applicant: International Association of Former Officials of the European Union (AIACE International) (represented by: J. Van Rossum, lawyer)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Parliament (represented by: J. Van Pottelberge and J. Steele, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and R. Meyer, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the Commission’s decision of 20 July 2018 rejecting the applicant’s request for a survivor’s pension.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 20 July 2018 rejecting BT’s request for a survivor’s pension; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 20 July 2018 rejecting BT’s request for a survivor’s pension;

| 2. | Orders the Commission to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by BT; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by BT;

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

3.

Orders the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union each to bear their own costs;

| 4. | Orders the International Association of Former Officials of the European Union (AIACE International) to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the International Association of Former Officials of the European Union (AIACE International) to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 246, 22.7.2019.

---

| 22.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — Haswani v Council

(Case T-521/19) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted against Syria - Freezing of funds - Res judicata - Period allowed for commencing proceedings - Obligation to state reasons - Error of assessment - Proportionality)

(2021/C 62/34)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: George Haswani (Yabrud, Syria) (represented by: G. Karouni, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Limonet and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2016 L 141, p. 125), of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/840 of 27 May 2016 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2016 L 141, p. 30), of Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/917 of 29 May 2017 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2017 L 139, p. 62), of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/907 of 29 May 2017 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2017 L 139, p. 15), of Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2017/1245 of 10 July 2017 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2017 L 178, p. 13), of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1241 of 10 July 2017 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2017 L 178, p. 1), of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/778 of 28 May 2018 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2018 L 131, p. 16), of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/774 of 28 May 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2018 L 131, p. 1), of Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/806 of 17 May 2019 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2019 L 132, p. 36), of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/798 of 17 May 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2019 L 132, p. 1), of Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/719 of 28 May 2020 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2020 L 168, p. 66), and of Council Regulation (EU) 2020/716 of 28 May 2020 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2020 L 168, p. 1) in so far as those measures apply to the applicant and, moreover, application under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the damage that that applicant allegedly suffered as a result of those acts.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr. George Haswani to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr. George Haswani to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 305, 9.9.2019.

---

| 22.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — Forbo Financial Services v EUIPO — Windmöller (Canoleum)

(Case T-3/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark Canoleum - Earlier international word mark MARMOLEUM - Relative ground for refusal - Late filing of the statement of the grounds of appeal - Inadmissibility of the appeal before the Board of Appeal - Request for restitutio in integrum - Sudden illness of the lawyer representing the applicant - Duty of due care - Probative value of the affidavit made by the lawyer)

(2021/C 62/35)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Forbo Financial Services AG (Baar, Switzerland) (represented by: S. Fröhlich, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Windmöller GmbH (Augustdorf, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 October 2019 (Case R 773/2019-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Forbo Financial Services and Windmöller.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 9 October 2019 (Case R 773/2019-2); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 9 October 2019 (Case R 773/2019-2);

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

2.

Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 77, 9.3.2020.

---

| 22.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — Voco v EUIPO (Shape of packaging)

(Case T-118/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for a three-dimensional EU trade mark - Shape of packaging - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2021/C 62/36)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Voco GmbH (Cuxhaven, Germany) (represented by: C. Spintig and S. Pietzcker, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: R. Cottrell and A. Söder, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 December 2019 (Case R 978/2019-5) concerning an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of packaging as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 4 December 2019 (Case R 978/2019-5); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 4 December 2019 (Case R 978/2019-5);

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

2.

Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 129, 20.4.2020.

---

| 22.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/30

---

Order of the General Court of 18 December 2020 — Vereniging tot Behoud van Natuurmonumenten in Nederland and Others v Commission

(Case T-146/16) (1)

(State aid - Annulment of the contested measure - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)

(2021/C 62/37)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicants: Vereniging tot Behoud van Natuurmonumenten in Nederland (‘s-Graveland, Netherlands) and the 12 other applicants whose names are set out in the annex to the order (represented by: P. Kuypers and M. de Wit, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P.-J. Loewenthal and S. Noë, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicants: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M. Bulterman, J. Langer and M. Noort, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2015) 5929 final of 2 September 2015 on State aid SA.27301 (2015/NN) — Netherlands, relating to the subsidised acquisition or free granting of nature land, a summary of which has been published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ 2016 C 9, p. 1).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

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

| 2. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application to intervene lodged by Vereniging Gelijkberechtiging Grondbezitters and the other applicants for leave to intervene whose names are set out in Annex II. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application to intervene lodged by Vereniging Gelijkberechtiging Grondbezitters and the other applicants for leave to intervene whose names are set out in Annex II.

| 3. | Each party shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Each party shall bear its own costs.

| 4. | Vereniging Gelijkberechtiging Grondbezitters and the other applicants for leave to intervene whose names are set out in Annex II shall bear the costs relating to their application to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Vereniging Gelijkberechtiging Grondbezitters and the other applicants for leave to intervene whose names are set out in Annex II shall bear the costs relating to their application to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 191, 30.5.2016.

---

| 22.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/31

---

Order of the General Court of 18 December 2020 — Micreos Food Safety v Commission

(Case T-568/19) (1)

(Action for annulment - Public health - Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 - Phage-based product used to reduce the presence of the bacterial pathogen Listeria monocytogenes in animal-derived ready-to-eat food - Rejection of the request to approve ListexTM P100 as a decontaminant in animal-derived ready-to-eat food - Act not open to challenge - Act not intended to produce binding legal effects - Purely confirmatory act - Informative act - Inadmissibility)

(2021/C 62/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Micreos Food Safety BV (Wageningen, Netherlands) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Eggers, W. Farrell and I. Galindo Martín, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of the alleged decisions of the Commission of 17 June 2019 by which the Commission: (i) rejected the original application by the applicant for the approval of ListexTM P100 as a decontaminant in animal-derived ready-to-eat food, or re-examined that application; (ii) rejected the alternative application to regard ListexTM P100 as a non-decontaminating processing aid; and, (iii) prohibited the placing on the market of the European Union of that product as a processing aid in such food.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Micreos Food Safety BV shall pay the costs, including those of the interim proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Micreos Food Safety BV shall pay the costs, including those of the interim proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 372, 4.11.2019.

---

| 22.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/32

---

Order of the General Court of 17 December 2020 — IM v EIB

(Case T-872/19) (1)

(Action for damages - Institutional law - Position of Chief Executive of the EIF - Vacancy notice - Rejection of the applicant’s application - Lack of autonomy of remedies - Time limit for bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility)

(2021/C 62/39)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented by: T. Gilliams, G. Faedo and M. Loizou, acting as Agents, and by J. Currall and B. Wägenbaur, lawyers)

Re:

Application based on Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant following the decisions of 3 and 9 October 2019 by which the EIB rejected his application for the position of Chief Executive of the European Investment Fund (EIF).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

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

2.

Orders IM to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 68, 2.3.2020.

---

| 22.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/32

---

Order of the General Court of 17 December 2020 — United Kingdom v Commission

(Case T-37/20) (1)

(Action for annulment - EAGF and EAFRD - Time limit for bringing an action - Starting point - Notification and publication - No excusable error - Out of time - Inadmissibility)

(2021/C 62/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: S. Brandon, acting as Agent, and by T. Buley, Barrister)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Aquilina and A. Sauka, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/1835 of 30 October 2019 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) (OJ 2019 L 279, p. 98), in so far as it concerns certain expenditure incurred by the United Kingdom.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene of the Czech Republic and the French Republic. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene of the Czech Republic and the French Republic.

| 3. | The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

| 4. | The Czech Republic and the French Republic shall bear their own costs relating to their applications to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Czech Republic and the French Republic shall bear their own costs relating to their applications to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 95, 23.3.2020.

---

| 22.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/33

---

Order of the General Court of 17 December 2020 — IM v EIB and EIF

(Case T-80/20) (1)

(Action for annulment - Institutional law - Post of Director-General of the EIF - Rejection of the applicant’s candidature - Appointment of another candidate - No legal interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility)

(2021/C 62/41)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendants: European Investment Bank (represented by: T. Gilliams, G. Faedo and M. Loizou, acting as Agents, and by J. Currall and B. Wägenbaur, lawyers), European Investment Fund (represented by: N. Panayotopoulos and F. Dascalescu, acting as Agents, and by J. Currall and B. Wägenbaur, lawyers)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the EIF of 11 December 2019 appointing a new Director-General of the EIF.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | IM shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

IM shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 103, 30.3.2020.

---

| 22.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/33

---

Order of the General Court of 17 December 2020 — Ighoga Region 10 v Commission

(Case T-161/20) (1)

(State aid - Construction of a convention centre and hotel in Ingolstadt - Complaint - Action for failure to act - Adoption of a position putting an end to the failure to act - No need to adjudicate)

(2021/C 62/42)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Interessengemeinschaft der Hoteliers und Gastronomen Region 10 eV (Ighoga Region 10) (Ingolstadt, Germany) (represented by: A. Bartosch, lawyer)

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

Re:

Application under Article 265 TFEU for a declaration that the Commission unlawfully failed to adopt a final decision closing the preliminary examination procedure concerning the alleged State aid scheme SA.48582 (2017/FC) implemented by Germany in favour of the Maritim Group and KHI Immobilien GmbH.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

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

| 2. | The European Commission shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Interessengemeinschaft der Hoteliers und Gastronomen Region 10 eV (Ighoga Region 10). |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Commission shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Interessengemeinschaft der Hoteliers und Gastronomen Region 10 eV (Ighoga Region 10).

---

(1)  OJ C 175, 25.5.2020.

---

| 22.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/34

---

Order of the General Court of 18 December 2020 — Facegym Ltd v EUIPO (FACEGYM)

(Case T-289/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark FACEGYM - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

(2021/C 62/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Facegym Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Edenborough QC)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 February 2020 (Case R 70/2020-5), relating to an application for registration of the word sign FACEGYM as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Facegym Ltd shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Facegym Ltd shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 247, 27.7.2020.

---

| 22.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/35

---

Order of the General Court of 17 December 2020 — Wagenknecht v Commission

(Case T-350/20) (1)

(Action for failure to act - Protection of the European Union’s financial interests - Combating fraud - Meetings of the College of European Commissioners and its President with the representative of the Czech Republic - Multiannual Financial Framework 2021-2027 - Financial regulation - Direct payments from the EU budget in favour of farmers - Alleged conflict of interest of the Prime Minister of the Czech Republic - Alleged failure to act by the Commission - Article 130(1) of the Rules of Procedure - Interest in bringing proceedings - Locus standi - Definition of the Commission’s position - Inadmissibility)

(2021/C 62/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Lukáš Wagenknecht (Pardubice, Czech Republic) (represented by: A. Koller, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Erlbacher and M. Salyková, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 265 TFEU for a declaration that the Commission unlawfully failed to act on the applicant’s request to adopt, by virtue of Article 325(1) and Article 319(3) TFEU and of Article 61(1) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, amending Regulations (EU) No 1296/2013, (EU) No 1301/2013, (EU) No 1303/2013, (EU) No 1304/2013, (EU) No 1309/2013, (EU) No 1316/2013, (EU) No 223/2014, (EU) No 283/2014, and Decision No 541/2014/EU and repealing Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 (OJ 2018 L 193, p. 1), binding and dissuasive measures designed to prevent or deal with the alleged conflict of interests of Mr Andrej Babiš, the Prime Minister of the Czech Republic, in particular, first, by preventing the Members of the College of Commissioners, particularly its President, from meeting Mr Babiš and discussing with him questions connected with the Multiannual Financial Framework of the European Union for 2021-2027 and with the EU budget in general and, second, by adopting measures intended to put an end to the direct payments of agricultural aid from the EU budget in favour of certain companies over which Mr Babiš exercises control and of which he is the effective proprietor.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | No regard shall be had to the document produced as Annex A.9 and passages from the application referring to the content of that document. |
| --- | --- |

1.

No regard shall be had to the document produced as Annex A.9 and passages from the application referring to the content of that document.

| 2. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 3. | Mr Lukáš Wagenknecht shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Mr Lukáš Wagenknecht shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 271, 17.8.2020.

---

| 22.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/35

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 31 December 2020 — Aurubis v Commission

(Case T-729/20 R)

(Interim measures - Directive 2003/87/EC - Decision 2011/278/EU - System for greenhouse gas emissions allowance trading - Application for interim measures - No urgency)

(2021/C 62/45)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Aurubis AG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: S. Altenschmidt and J. Hoss, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. De Meester and G. Wils, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 279 TFEU and Article 156 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, seeking that the Commission be ordered to transfer 1 154 794 emission allowances to the account of the installation of the applicant by 31 December 2020 at the latest.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

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

2.

The costs are reserved.

---

| 22.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/36

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 31 December 2020 — ExxonMobil Production Deutschland v Commission

(Case T-731/20 R)

(Interim measures - Directive 2003/87/EC - Decision 2011/278/EU - System for greenhouse gas emissions allowance trading - Application for interim measures - No urgency)

(2021/C 62/46)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: ExxonMobil Production Deutschland GmbH (Hanover, Germany) (represented by: S. Altenschmidt and J. Hoss, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. De Meester and G. Wils, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 279 TFEU and Article 156 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, seeking that the Commission be ordered to transfer 7 428 258 emission allowances to the account of the installation of the applicant by 31 December 2020 at the latest.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

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

2.

The costs are reserved.

---

| 22.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/36

---

Action brought on 17 December 2020 — Unite the Union v EUIPO — WWRD Ireland (WATERFORD)

(Case T-739/20)

(2021/C 62/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Unite the Union (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: B. O’Connor, Solicitor and M. Hommé, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: WWRD Ireland IPCO LLC (Wilmington, Delaware, United States)

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: European Union word mark WATERFORD — European Union trade mark No 397 521

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 September 2020 in Case R 2683/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | alter the contested decision in such a way as to find that the trade mark WATERFORD should be revoked within the terms of Article 58 EUTMR; |
| --- | --- |

—

alter the contested decision in such a way as to find that the trade mark WATERFORD should be revoked within the terms of Article 58 EUTMR;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the applicant’s costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the applicant’s costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 58(1)(c) Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 58(1)(c) Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 22.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/37

---

Action brought on 18 December 2020 — Cristescu v Commission

(Case T-754/20)

(2021/C 62/48)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Adrian Sorin Cristescu (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: M.-A. Lucas and P. Pichault, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of 27 February 2020 of the Director-General [confidential] (1) to impose a penalty of reprimand on the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 27 February 2020 of the Director-General [confidential] (1) to impose a penalty of reprimand on the applicant;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of the general implementing provisions of 12 June 2019 on the conduct of administrative inquiries and disciplinary procedures (‘the GIP’), in so far as the Investigation and Disciplinary Office of the Commission (IDOC) did not assess information indicating a possible breach and the documents supporting that information before the opening of the investigation, nor did it prepare a note on that subject for the appointing authority. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the general implementing provisions of 12 June 2019 on the conduct of administrative inquiries and disciplinary procedures (‘the GIP’), in so far as the Investigation and Disciplinary Office of the Commission (IDOC) did not assess information indicating a possible breach and the documents supporting that information before the opening of the investigation, nor did it prepare a note on that subject for the appointing authority.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 3(1) and 7(4) of the GIP, in so far as the IDOC communicated the confidential report of the duty security staff to the Director-General of [confidential] in view of his hearing or continued the investigation without having established, in breach of its mandate, whether the rules of procedure had been observed, even though the latter was aware of the report. The applicant claims that it is apparent from the file that the Director-General of [confidential] was aware of the report concerning the incident which gave rise to the investigation and the disciplinary proceedings despite the fact that that report was confidential and that the preliminary analysis should have included, inter alia, checking that her statements were consistent with that report, which, moreover, contained indicia that she had been involved in the incident, had requested a security report and announced that she would make a report to the hierarchy. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 3(1) and 7(4) of the GIP, in so far as the IDOC communicated the confidential report of the duty security staff to the Director-General of [confidential] in view of his hearing or continued the investigation without having established, in breach of its mandate, whether the rules of procedure had been observed, even though the latter was aware of the report. The applicant claims that it is apparent from the file that the Director-General of [confidential] was aware of the report concerning the incident which gave rise to the investigation and the disciplinary proceedings despite the fact that that report was confidential and that the preliminary analysis should have included, inter alia, checking that her statements were consistent with that report, which, moreover, contained indicia that she had been involved in the incident, had requested a security report and announced that she would make a report to the hierarchy.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 4 of the GIP, in so far as the proceedings were not conducted within a reasonable time. The applicant claims that unjustified interruptions occurred between the opening of the investigation and the preliminary analysis, then between that analysis and the hearing of witnesses against him and, lastly, between those hearings and that of the applicant, with the result that the witnesses forgot essential elements or, in any event, did not mention them. The applicant takes the view that those deficiencies infringed his rights of defence and undermined the authority’s ability to make a proper assessment. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 4 of the GIP, in so far as the proceedings were not conducted within a reasonable time. The applicant claims that unjustified interruptions occurred between the opening of the investigation and the preliminary analysis, then between that analysis and the hearing of witnesses against him and, lastly, between those hearings and that of the applicant, with the result that the witnesses forgot essential elements or, in any event, did not mention them. The applicant takes the view that those deficiencies infringed his rights of defence and undermined the authority’s ability to make a proper assessment.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 15(1) and (2) of the GIP, in so far as the IDOC did not verify a series of facts put forward in defence. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 15(1) and (2) of the GIP, in so far as the IDOC did not verify a series of facts put forward in defence.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging breach of Article 28(b) of the GIP, in so far as the disciplinary report did not come from the appointing authority and did not state the alleged breaches of the applicant’s obligations. The applicant claims that, contrary to what was stated in the decision of 5 December 2018 opening disciplinary proceedings, the disciplinary report of 6 December 2018 prepared by IDOC, although it did not have a mandate in that regard, did not state the alleged facts, which resulted in the disciplinary decision containing different complaints from those contained in the final investigation report. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging breach of Article 28(b) of the GIP, in so far as the disciplinary report did not come from the appointing authority and did not state the alleged breaches of the applicant’s obligations. The applicant claims that, contrary to what was stated in the decision of 5 December 2018 opening disciplinary proceedings, the disciplinary report of 6 December 2018 prepared by IDOC, although it did not have a mandate in that regard, did not state the alleged facts, which resulted in the disciplinary decision containing different complaints from those contained in the final investigation report.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 28(a) and 3 of the GIP, in so far as the disciplinary report did not set out all the extenuating and exonerating circumstances. The applicant claims that, on account of manifest errors of assessment, the IDOC did not state in its investigation report certain extenuating and exonerating circumstances which it was required to assess owing to the presumption of innocence and which should be deemed established since they had not been refuted and, accordingly, he should not have been found to have breached his obligations. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 28(a) and 3 of the GIP, in so far as the disciplinary report did not set out all the extenuating and exonerating circumstances. The applicant claims that, on account of manifest errors of assessment, the IDOC did not state in its investigation report certain extenuating and exonerating circumstances which it was required to assess owing to the presumption of innocence and which should be deemed established since they had not been refuted and, accordingly, he should not have been found to have breached his obligations.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging infringement of the first indent of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 11 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations, Articles 29 and 30 of the GIP and infringement of the rights of defence, in so far as the complaint upheld was not clearly stated at the opening of the procedure and the applicant was therefore not able to defend himself effectively. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging infringement of the first indent of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 11 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations, Articles 29 and 30 of the GIP and infringement of the rights of defence, in so far as the complaint upheld was not clearly stated at the opening of the procedure and the applicant was therefore not able to defend himself effectively.

| 8. | Eighth plea in law, alleging errors of law and errors of fact or errors of assessment resulting therefrom. |
| --- | --- |

8.

Eighth plea in law, alleging errors of law and errors of fact or errors of assessment resulting therefrom.

| 9. | Ninth plea in law, alleging that it has not been established that the applicant used inappropriate language during the incident giving rise to the investigation and the disciplinary proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

9.

Ninth plea in law, alleging that it has not been established that the applicant used inappropriate language during the incident giving rise to the investigation and the disciplinary proceedings.

---

(1)  Confidential information omitted.

---

| 22.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/39

---

Action brought on 21 December 2020 — OT v Parliament

(Case T-757/20)

(2021/C 62/49)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: OT (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the present application admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the present application admissible;

| — | annul the contested decision and, where necessary, the decision rejecting the complaint; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and, where necessary, the decision rejecting the complaint;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action against the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 19 December 2019 imposing a reprimand on her, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment and infringement of Article 21a of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’), first, in that the applicant did not ‘receive orders’ within the meaning of Article 21a of the Staff Regulations, so that she cannot be accused of infringing that provision, secondly, in that she could not have known that irregularities, of which she ought to have informed her superiors pursuant to Article 21a of the Staff Regulations, had been committed, and, thirdly, in that she did not in any event deserve, in view of the circumstances, a disciplinary penalty. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment and infringement of Article 21a of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’), first, in that the applicant did not ‘receive orders’ within the meaning of Article 21a of the Staff Regulations, so that she cannot be accused of infringing that provision, secondly, in that she could not have known that irregularities, of which she ought to have informed her superiors pursuant to Article 21a of the Staff Regulations, had been committed, and, thirdly, in that she did not in any event deserve, in view of the circumstances, a disciplinary penalty.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a failure to state reasons in that the defendant never explained to the applicant what were the specific facts that led it to conclude that she ought to have known that irregularities, of which she ought to have informed her superiors pursuant to Article 21a of the Staff Regulations, had been committed. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a failure to state reasons in that the defendant never explained to the applicant what were the specific facts that led it to conclude that she ought to have known that irregularities, of which she ought to have informed her superiors pursuant to Article 21a of the Staff Regulations, had been committed.

---

| 22.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/39

---

Action brought on 23 December 2020 — Anhui Wanwei Updated High-Tech Material Industry and Inner Mongolia Mengwei Technology v Commission

(Case T-764/20)

(2021/C 62/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Anhui Wanwei Updated High-Tech Material Industry Co. Ltd (Chaohu City, China), Inner Mongolia Mengwei Technology Co. Ltd (Bai Town, China) (represented by: J. Cornelis, F. Graafsma and E. Vermulst, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1336 of 25 September 2020 imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain polyvinyl alcohols originating in the People’s Republic of China (1); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1336 of 25 September 2020 imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain polyvinyl alcohols originating in the People’s Republic of China (1);

| — | orders the European Commission to pay the applicant’s costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

orders the European Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that Article 2(6a) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (‘Basic Regulation’) mandates an approach and creates an exception that is not provided for in the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement (‘ADA’), and therefore cannot be applied. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that Article 2(6a) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (‘Basic Regulation’) mandates an approach and creates an exception that is not provided for in the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement (‘ADA’), and therefore cannot be applied.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 2(6a)(a) Basic Regulation by the defendant in considering that Mexican financial statements were not readily available, in breaching its duty of care by failing to consider meaningful data that would discard Turkey as the appropriate representative country, and in not selecting Mexico as the most appropriate representative country. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 2(6a)(a) Basic Regulation by the defendant in considering that Mexican financial statements were not readily available, in breaching its duty of care by failing to consider meaningful data that would discard Turkey as the appropriate representative country, and in not selecting Mexico as the most appropriate representative country.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a violation of article 2(10) Basic Regulation, by making an adjustment for a notional commission and a manifest error of assessment in finding that Wanwei acts as an agent working on a commission basis, by not observing the fair comparison requirement, and by making an upward adjustment to the normal value for non-recoverable VAT. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a violation of article 2(10) Basic Regulation, by making an adjustment for a notional commission and a manifest error of assessment in finding that Wanwei acts as an agent working on a commission basis, by not observing the fair comparison requirement, and by making an upward adjustment to the normal value for non-recoverable VAT.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Articles 3(2) and 3(3) Basic Regulation and manifest error of assessment when establishing price undercutting and a consequent violation of Article 3(6) Basic Regulation by failing to conduct a segmented price undercutting analyses, by failing to make the necessary adjustments for quality differences and by failing to establish price undercutting for the product as a whole. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Articles 3(2) and 3(3) Basic Regulation and manifest error of assessment when establishing price undercutting and a consequent violation of Article 3(6) Basic Regulation by failing to conduct a segmented price undercutting analyses, by failing to make the necessary adjustments for quality differences and by failing to establish price undercutting for the product as a whole.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the applicants’ rights of defence by refusing to disclose certain information necessary to be able to comment on the undercutting analysis. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the applicants’ rights of defence by refusing to disclose certain information necessary to be able to comment on the undercutting analysis.

---

(1)  OJ 2020, L 315, p. 1.

---

| 22.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/40

---

Action brought on 23 December 2020 — PrenzMarien v EUIPO — Molson Coors Brewing Company (UK) (STONES)

(Case T-766/20)

(2021/C 62/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: PrenzMarien GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: M. Kloth, R. Briske and D. Habel, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Molson Coors Brewing Company (UK) Ltd (Burton Upon Trent, 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: European Union word mark STONES — European Union trade mark No 8 810 707

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 September 2020 in Case R 274/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and revoke the contested European Union trade mark in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and revoke the contested European Union trade mark in its entirety;

| — | make an award of costs in favour of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

make an award of costs in favour of the applicant.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in conjunction with Articles 19(1) and 10(3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in conjunction with Articles 19(1) and 10(3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625.

---

| 22.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/41

---

Action brought on 31 December 2020 — Standard International Management v EUIPO — Asia Standard Management Services (The Standard)

(Case T-768/20)

(2021/C 62/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Standard International Management LLC (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: M. Edenborough QC, S. Wickenden, Barrister and M. Maier, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Asia Standard Management Services Ltd (Hong Kong, China)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark The Standard — European Union trade mark No 8 405 243

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 November 2020 in Case R 828/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay to the applicant the applicant’s costs of and occasioned by this application;
  alternatively, if the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal intervenes, |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay to the applicant the applicant’s costs of and occasioned by this application;

alternatively, if the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal intervenes,

| — | order EUIPO and that other party to be jointly and severally liable for those costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and that other party to be jointly and severally liable for those costs.

Pleas in law

The contested decision is vitiated for four principal reasons, namely the Board:

| — | erred in law by failing to hold that advertising and offers for sale of the hotel and ancillary services, namely those in classes 38, 39, 41, 43 and 44, directed to EU consumers amounted to genuine use of the European Union trade mark in circumstances where those services were rendered in the United States; |
| --- | --- |

—

erred in law by failing to hold that advertising and offers for sale of the hotel and ancillary services, namely those in classes 38, 39, 41, 43 and 44, directed to EU consumers amounted to genuine use of the European Union trade mark in circumstances where those services were rendered in the United States;

| — | erred in law by failing to hold that advertising and promotion of the relevant services was sufficient to prove genuine use for those services; |
| --- | --- |

—

erred in law by failing to hold that advertising and promotion of the relevant services was sufficient to prove genuine use for those services;

| — | erred in law by failing to hold that advertising of the opening of the London hotel was relevant; and, |
| --- | --- |

—

erred in law by failing to hold that advertising of the opening of the London hotel was relevant; and,

| — | erred in law by failing to provide any, or any sufficient, reasoning for reaching the conclusion drawn at. |
| --- | --- |

—

erred in law by failing to provide any, or any sufficient, reasoning for reaching the conclusion drawn at.

---

| 22.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/42

---

Action brought on 23 December 2020 — Ryanair v Commission

(Case T-769/20)

(2021/C 62/53)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ryanair DAC (Swords, Ireland) (represented by: E. Vahida, F. Laprévote, V. Blanc, S. Rating and I. Metaxas-Maranghidis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the European Commission’s decision C(2020) 5616 final of 11 August 2020 on State Aid SA.57586 (2020/N) — Estonia COVID-19: Recapitalisation and subsidised interest loan for Nordica; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the European Commission’s decision C(2020) 5616 final of 11 August 2020 on State Aid SA.57586 (2020/N) — Estonia COVID-19: Recapitalisation and subsidised interest loan for Nordica;

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

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the European Commission misapplied Article 107(3)(b) TFEU and its Temporary framework for State aid measures to support the economy in the current COVID-19 outbreak by finding that the aid addresses a serious disturbance in the Estonian economy, that Nordica is eligible to aid, and that the conditions regarding distortions to competition, the State’s exit and restructuring were satisfied, and by violating its obligation to weigh the beneficial effects of the aid against its adverse effects on trading conditions and the maintenance of undistorted competition (i.e., the ‘balancing test’). |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the European Commission misapplied Article 107(3)(b) TFEU and its Temporary framework for State aid measures to support the economy in the current COVID-19 outbreak by finding that the aid addresses a serious disturbance in the Estonian economy, that Nordica is eligible to aid, and that the conditions regarding distortions to competition, the State’s exit and restructuring were satisfied, and by violating its obligation to weigh the beneficial effects of the aid against its adverse effects on trading conditions and the maintenance of undistorted competition (i.e., the ‘balancing test’).

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the European Commission violated specific provisions of the TFEU and the general principles of European law regarding the prohibition of discrimination, free provision of services and free establishment that have underpinned the liberalisation of air transport in the EU since the late 1980s. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the European Commission violated specific provisions of the TFEU and the general principles of European law regarding the prohibition of discrimination, free provision of services and free establishment that have underpinned the liberalisation of air transport in the EU since the late 1980s.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the European Commission failed to initiate a formal investigation procedure despite serious difficulties and violated the applicant’s procedural rights. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the European Commission failed to initiate a formal investigation procedure despite serious difficulties and violated the applicant’s procedural rights.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the European Commission violated its duty to state reasons. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the European Commission violated its duty to state reasons.

---

| 22.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/43

---

Action brought on 29 December 2020 — KS and KD v Council and Others

(Case T-771/20)

(2021/C 62/54)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: KS and KD (represented by: F. Randolph, QC and J. Stojsavljevic-Savic, Solicitor)

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

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should order that:

| — | the defendants, jointly or severally, provide reparation and compensation (including the payment of interest at a rate and for such a period as the Court deems appropriate) to the applicants for the damage suffered by virtue of the former’s responsibility for breaches of the latter’s fundamental human rights, in casu Articles 2, 3, 6, 8 and 13 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1) and 2, 4 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) insofar as concerns the first applicant and Articles 2,3 6, and 13 ECHR and 2, 4 and 47 of the CFR insofar as concerns the second applicant, pursuant to Article 340(2) TFEU; and |
| --- | --- |

—

the defendants, jointly or severally, provide reparation and compensation (including the payment of interest at a rate and for such a period as the Court deems appropriate) to the applicants for the damage suffered by virtue of the former’s responsibility for breaches of the latter’s fundamental human rights, in casu Articles 2, 3, 6, 8 and 13 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1) and 2, 4 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) insofar as concerns the first applicant and Articles 2,3 6, and 13 ECHR and 2, 4 and 47 of the CFR insofar as concerns the second applicant, pursuant to Article 340(2) TFEU; and

| — | the defendants pay the applicants’ costs pursuant to Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, which costs for the avoidance of doubt should not be limited to the amounts of legal aid ordered to be paid by the Court by Order dated 20 November 2020 and should include the costs of conducting proceedings before the Human Rights Review Panel (HRRP). |
| --- | --- |

—

the defendants pay the applicants’ costs pursuant to Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, which costs for the avoidance of doubt should not be limited to the amounts of legal aid ordered to be paid by the Court by Order dated 20 November 2020 and should include the costs of conducting proceedings before the Human Rights Review Panel (HRRP).

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants seek reparation and compensation, in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU, for the damage they claim to have suffered as a result of the alleged violation of their fundamental human rights, in particular under Articles 2 (procedural limb), 3, 6(1) and 13 ECHR and the corresponding Articles 2, 4 and 47 of the Charter by the Defendants.

The action relates to facts arising after 8 December 2008 when responsibility with regard to police and justice was transferred from the United Nations Interim Administration in Kosovo (UNMIK) to the European Union, with EULEX assuming full operational control in the area of the Rule of Law, following adoption of EU Council Joint Action 2008/124/CFSP (2) on 8 February 2008. The latter conferred an executive mandate upon EULEX to ensure that war crimes, inter-ethnic crimes and other serious crimes were ‘properly investigated, prosecuted, adjudicated and enforced’.

The applicants invoke:

| — | a continuing violation of Articles 2 and 3 ECHR (procedural limbs) by the defendants for failure to take remedial action upon receiving notification, at the latest on 29 April 2016, that the HRRP had found EULEX to be in violation of Articles 2 and 3 ECHR in the performance of its executive mandate; |
| --- | --- |

—

a continuing violation of Articles 2 and 3 ECHR (procedural limbs) by the defendants for failure to take remedial action upon receiving notification, at the latest on 29 April 2016, that the HRRP had found EULEX to be in violation of Articles 2 and 3 ECHR in the performance of its executive mandate;

| — | a continuing violation of Articles 6 and 13 ECHR and 47 of the Charter by the Council’s decision to establish the HRRP without powers to provide legal aid to qualifying persons and without powers to enforce its decisions and provide a remedy for the violations found; |
| --- | --- |

—

a continuing violation of Articles 6 and 13 ECHR and 47 of the Charter by the Council’s decision to establish the HRRP without powers to provide legal aid to qualifying persons and without powers to enforce its decisions and provide a remedy for the violations found;

| — | a misuse or abuse of executive power by the Council and the EEAS on 12 October 2017 by asserting that EULEX had done the best it could to investigate the abduction and probable murder of the first applicant’s husband and the murder of the second applicant’s husband and son and that the Panel was not intended to be a judicial body; |
| --- | --- |

—

a misuse or abuse of executive power by the Council and the EEAS on 12 October 2017 by asserting that EULEX had done the best it could to investigate the abduction and probable murder of the first applicant’s husband and the murder of the second applicant’s husband and son and that the Panel was not intended to be a judicial body;

| — | a misuse or failure to use executive power properly insofar as Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/856 (3) removed the executive mandate of EULEX on 8 June 2018, whilst the violations remained extant. |
| --- | --- |

—

a misuse or failure to use executive power properly insofar as Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/856 (3) removed the executive mandate of EULEX on 8 June 2018, whilst the violations remained extant.

---

(1)  European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed at Rome on 4 November 1950 (‘the ECHR’).

(2)  Council Joint Action 2008/124/CFSP of 4 February 2008 on the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo, EULEX KOSOVO (OJ 2008 L 42, p. 92).

(3)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/856 of 8 June 2018 amending Joint Action 2008/124/CFSP on the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo (OJ 2018 L 146, p. 5).

---

| 22.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/44

---

Action brought on 4 January 2021 — Fabryki Mebli ‘Forte’ v EUIPO — Bog-Fran (Furniture)

(Case T-1/21)

(2021/C 62/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bog-Fran sp. z o.o. sp.k. (Warsaw, Poland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Design at issue: registered Community design No 1 384 002-0034

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 October 2020 in Case R 595/2020-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and remit the appeal back to the EUIPO; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and remit the appeal back to the EUIPO;

| — | order EUIPO and the other party to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings and the proceedings before the General Court and to reimburse applicant’s costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the other party to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings and the proceedings before the General Court and to reimburse applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law

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

—

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

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

—

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

---

| 22.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/45

---

Action brought on 5 January 2021 — Emmentaler Switzerland v EUIPO (EMMENTALER)

(Case T-2/21)

(2021/C 62/56)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Emmentaler Switzerland (Berne, Switzerland) (represented by: S. Völker and M. Pemsel, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark EMMENTALER — International registration designating the European Union No 1 378 524

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 October 2020 in Case R 2402/2019-2

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, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 74(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 74(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

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

—

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

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

—

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

---

| 22.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/45

---

Action brought on 5 January 2021 — Power Horse Energy Drinks v EUIPO — Robot Energy Europe (UNSTOPPABLE)

(Case T-3/21)

(2021/C 62/57)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Power Horse Energy Drinks GmbH (Linz, Austria) (represented by: M. Woller, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Robot Energy Europe (Mijas, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark UNSTOPPABLE — EU trade mark No 14 555 271

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 October 2020 in Case R 232/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision in so far as it dismisses the appeal brought by the applicant in relation to the goods:






  — | Class 5: Nutritional supplements; Health food supplements made principally of vitamins; Powdered nutritional supplement drink mix; Vitamin preparations in the nature of food supplements; Vitamin drinks; Vitamin preparations; Vitamin tablets; Vitamins and vitamin preparations; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in so far as it dismisses the appeal brought by the applicant in relation to the goods:

—

Class 5: Nutritional supplements; Health food supplements made principally of vitamins; Powdered nutritional supplement drink mix; Vitamin preparations in the nature of food supplements; Vitamin drinks; Vitamin preparations; Vitamin tablets; Vitamins and vitamin preparations;

| — | Class 32: Non-alcoholic beverages containing fruit juices; Energy drinks; Protein-enriched sports beverages; Sports drinks;
  and in so far as it orders the applicant to bear the costs of the invalidity proceedings and of the appeal proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

Class 32: Non-alcoholic beverages containing fruit juices; Energy drinks; Protein-enriched sports beverages; Sports drinks;

and in so far as it orders the applicant to bear the costs of the invalidity proceedings and of the appeal proceedings;

| — | order EUIPO and the other party to the appeal proceedings, should it intervene in the proceedings, to pay the applicant’s costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the other party to the appeal proceedings, should it intervene in the proceedings, to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 59(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 59(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 59(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 59(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 22.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/46

---

Action brought on 5 January 2021 — Advanced Superabrasives v EUIPO — Adi (ASI ADVANCED SUPERABRASIVES)

(Case T-4/21)

(2021/C 62/58)

Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Advanced Superabrasives, Inc. (Mars Hill, North Carolina, United States) (represented by: D. Piróg and A. Rytel, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Adi Srl (Thiene, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Application for the EU figurative mark ‘ASI ADVANCED SUPERABRASIVES’ — Application No 17 163 734

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 October 2020 in Case R 2713/2019-2

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

| — | in the event that the intervener intervenes in the proceedings, order that party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

in the event that the intervener intervenes in the proceedings, order that party to bear its own costs.

Pleas in law

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

—

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

| — | Infringement of Article 27(3)(b) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 27(3)(b) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;

| — | Infringement of Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, in conjunction with Article 27(4) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, in conjunction with Article 27(4) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625; and

| — | Infringement of Article 71(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, in conjunction with Article 27(3)(b) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 71(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, in conjunction with Article 27(3)(b) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625.

---

| 22.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/47

---

Action brought on 7 January 2021 — Advanced Organic Materials v EUIPO — Swiss Pharma International (ADVASTEROL)

(Case T-6/21)

(2021/C 62/59)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Advanced Organic Materials, SA (Pilar, Argentina) (represented by: J.L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Swiss Pharma International AG (Zurich, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Defendant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark ADVASTEROL — Application for registration No 14 525 521

Proceedings before the EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 October 2020 in Case R 781/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision in so far as, by dismissing the appeal of Advanced Organic Materials, SA, it upholds the decision of the Opposition Division, which partially upheld opposition B 2 624 370, refusing some of the goods covered by European Union trade mark No 14 525 521 ADVASTEROL (word mark); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in so far as, by dismissing the appeal of Advanced Organic Materials, SA, it upholds the decision of the Opposition Division, which partially upheld opposition B 2 624 370, refusing some of the goods covered by European Union trade mark No 14 525 521 ADVASTEROL (word mark);

| — | order the opposing party or parties to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the opposing party or parties 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.

---

| 22.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/48

---

Action brought on 8 January 2021 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Kassl (STUDIO KASSL)

(Case T-7/21)

(2021/C 62/60)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Kassl Holding BV (Amsterdam, the Netherlands)

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 the EU word mark STUDIO KASSL — Application for registration No 17 882 647

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 October 2020 in Case R 880/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision, in so far as in dismissing the appeal brought by the opponent it confirms the decision of the Opposition Division handed down in the opposition proceedings B 3 059 000, granting the EU trademark No 17 882 647 STUDIO KASSL (word mark), to designate goods in Class 25; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision, in so far as in dismissing the appeal brought by the opponent it confirms the decision of the Opposition Division handed down in the opposition proceedings B 3 059 000, granting the EU trademark No 17 882 647 STUDIO KASSL (word mark), to designate goods in Class 25;

| — | order the party or parties opposing this action to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the party or parties opposing this action 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.

---

| 22.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/49

---

Action brought on 10 January 2021 — IFIC Holding v Commission

(Case T-8/21)

(2021/C 62/61)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: IFIC Holding AG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: C. Franz and N. Bornemann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul European Commission Decision C(2020) 2813 final of 28 April 2020; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul European Commission Decision C(2020) 2813 final of 28 April 2020;

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

—

order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The action is directed against Commission Implementing Decision C(2020) 2813 final of 28 April 2020 granting an authorisation to Clearstream Banking AG pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2271/96 of 22 November 1996 protecting against the effects of the extra-territorial application of legislation adopted by a third country, and actions based thereon or resulting therefrom.

In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following pleas in law:

| 1. | First plea in law: Infringement of the right to be heard pursuant to Article 41(1) and (2)(a) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’).






  — | In accordance with Article 41(1) and (2)(a) of the Charter, every (natural or legal) person has a right to a fair administrative procedure and to be heard, before any measure which would affect him or her adversely is taken. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law: Infringement of the right to be heard pursuant to Article 41(1) and (2)(a) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’).

—

In accordance with Article 41(1) and (2)(a) of the Charter, every (natural or legal) person has a right to a fair administrative procedure and to be heard, before any measure which would affect him or her adversely is taken.

| — | The Commission infringed that essential procedural requirement, as it did not notify the applicant or hear it at any time in writing or orally, nor did it give the applicant the opportunity to comment. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Commission infringed that essential procedural requirement, as it did not notify the applicant or hear it at any time in writing or orally, nor did it give the applicant the opportunity to comment.

| 2. | Second plea in law: Infringement of the scope of the second paragraph of Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2271/96 (1), Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1101 (2) and the guidance on the application of the regulation referred to above (3).






  — | The defendant infringed the provisions and the scope of Article 5 of Regulation No 2271/96 and higher-ranking EU law in that it granted the authorisation at issue, in the form of the contested decision, to the authorisation applicant retroactively for a previously existing situation. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law: Infringement of the scope of the second paragraph of Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2271/96 (1), Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1101 (2) and the guidance on the application of the regulation referred to above (3).

—

The defendant infringed the provisions and the scope of Article 5 of Regulation No 2271/96 and higher-ranking EU law in that it granted the authorisation at issue, in the form of the contested decision, to the authorisation applicant retroactively for a previously existing situation.

| — | Such retroactive effect or subsequent consent infringes EU law, in particular the judicial and procedural principles, which guarantee transparency, legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations. |
| --- | --- |

—

Such retroactive effect or subsequent consent infringes EU law, in particular the judicial and procedural principles, which guarantee transparency, legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations.

| — | Neither the regulation nor Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1101 based thereon provide for such retroactive effect. Subsequent retroactive authorisation is not recognised under EU law. |
| --- | --- |

—

Neither the regulation nor Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1101 based thereon provide for such retroactive effect. Subsequent retroactive authorisation is not recognised under EU law.

| 3. | Third plea in law: Infringement of the obligation to state reasons and the principle of transparency and legal certainty.






  — | The defendant infringed its obligation to state reasons and the principle of transparency and legal certainty enshrined in the fundamental procedural and judicial rights. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law: Infringement of the obligation to state reasons and the principle of transparency and legal certainty.

—

The defendant infringed its obligation to state reasons and the principle of transparency and legal certainty enshrined in the fundamental procedural and judicial rights.

| — | The temporal and material scope of Article 1 of the implementing decision is completely indeterminate. Based on the wording, it could apply retroactively for an indeterminate period. |
| --- | --- |

—

The temporal and material scope of Article 1 of the implementing decision is completely indeterminate. Based on the wording, it could apply retroactively for an indeterminate period.

| — | The wording of Article 1 is indeterminate, in particular with regard to ‘Substantial grounds for suspicion’ and ‘Services’. It is unclear to the party concerned under what circumstances and in what period the authorisation applicant may take measures to its detriment, and what the connection is between those measures and the ‘Services’. It is not specified what is meant by ‘Services’ and whether those services may also cover activities of third parties. |
| --- | --- |

—

The wording of Article 1 is indeterminate, in particular with regard to ‘Substantial grounds for suspicion’ and ‘Services’. It is unclear to the party concerned under what circumstances and in what period the authorisation applicant may take measures to its detriment, and what the connection is between those measures and the ‘Services’. It is not specified what is meant by ‘Services’ and whether those services may also cover activities of third parties.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law: Error of assessment or error in the exercise of discretion contrary to higher-ranking EU law in the form of general procedural, judicial and legal principles.






  — | The defendant exercised its discretion improperly in that it totally neglected to take into consideration the position of the applicant or the consequences of the decision for the applicant. |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law: Error of assessment or error in the exercise of discretion contrary to higher-ranking EU law in the form of general procedural, judicial and legal principles.

—

The defendant exercised its discretion improperly in that it totally neglected to take into consideration the position of the applicant or the consequences of the decision for the applicant.

| — | The applicant was not afforded the opportunity to comment on the grounds for suspicion and, in accordance with Article 1 of the decision, will not be heard in the future, so that it has no means of defence against the decisions of the authorisation applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

The applicant was not afforded the opportunity to comment on the grounds for suspicion and, in accordance with Article 1 of the decision, will not be heard in the future, so that it has no means of defence against the decisions of the authorisation applicant.

| — | The fact that the applicant exercised its fundamental procedural right, protected under constitutional and EU law, to bring an action against the authorisation applicant before national courts may not be taken into consideration in the exercise of discretion. The defendant thus exceeded its margin of discretion. |
| --- | --- |

—

The fact that the applicant exercised its fundamental procedural right, protected under constitutional and EU law, to bring an action against the authorisation applicant before national courts may not be taken into consideration in the exercise of discretion. The defendant thus exceeded its margin of discretion.

| — | The defendant did not include less onerous measures and rights to compensation in its considerations, despite this being absolutely necessary in order adequately to weigh up those considerations and make an assessment. |
| --- | --- |

—

The defendant did not include less onerous measures and rights to compensation in its considerations, despite this being absolutely necessary in order adequately to weigh up those considerations and make an assessment.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2271/96 of 22 November 1996 protecting against the effects of the extra-territorial application of legislation adopted by a third country, and actions based thereon or resulting therefrom (OJ 1996 L 309, p. 1).

(2)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1101 of 3 August 2018 laying down the criteria for the application of the second paragraph of Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2271/96 protecting against the effects of the extra-territorial application of legislation adopted by a third country, and actions based thereon or resulting therefrom (OJ 2018 L 199I, p. 7 ).

(3)  Guidance Note — Questions and Answers: adoption of update of the Blocking Statute (2018/C 277 I/03) (OJ 2018 C 277I, p. 4 ).

---

| 22.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/50

---

Order of the General Court of 23 December 2020 — FF v Commission

(Case T-653/19) (1)

(2021/C 62/62)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 399, 25.11.2019.

---

| 22.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/51

---

Order of the General Court of 5 January 2021 — CP v Parliament

(Case T-5/20) (1)

(2021/C 62/63)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 68, 2.3.2020.

---