# Official Journal C 163/3 Ma

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 163 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 643 May 2021 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 163

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 643 May 2021

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2021/C 163/01 | 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 163/01

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 163/02 | Case C-664/18: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 March 2021 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environment — Directive 2008/50/EC — Ambient air quality — Article 13(1) and Annex XI — Systematic and persistent exceedance of the limit values for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) in certain areas of the United Kingdom — Article 23(1) — Annex XV — Exceedance period to be as short as possible — Appropriate measures) | 2 |
| 2021/C 163/03 | Case C-193/19: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 4 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Förvaltningsrätten i Malmö — Sweden) — A v Migrationsverket (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Border controls, asylum and immigration — Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement — Consultation of the Schengen Information System (SIS) in the examination of an application for a residence permit made by a third-country national for whom an alert has been issued in the SIS for the purposes of refusing entry — Article 25(1) — Schengen Borders Code — Entry conditions for third-country nationals — Article 6(1) and (5) — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 7 and Article 24(2) — Refusal to renew a residence permit for the purposes of family reunification on the ground that the applicant’s identity cannot be established with certainty) | 3 |
| 2021/C 163/04 | Case C-220/19: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 3 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Valenciana — Spain) — Promociones Oliva Park SL v Tribunal Económico Administrativo Regional (TEAR) de la Comunidad Valenciana (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2008/118/EC — General arrangements for excise duty — Article 1(2) — Other indirect taxes on excise goods — Directive 2009/28/EC — Promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources — Article 1 and Article 3(1), (2) and (3)(a), the latter paragraph read in conjunction with Article 2(k) — Directive 2009/72/EC — Common rules for the internal market in electricity — Tax on the value of electricity production — Nature and structure of the tax — Electricity from renewable sources and electricity from non-renewable sources taxed in the same way) | 4 |
| 2021/C 163/05 | Case C-362/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 March 2021 — European Commission v Fútbol Club Barcelona, Kingdom of Spain (Appeal — State aid — Aid granted to certain professional football clubs — Article 107(1) TFEU — Concept of advantage — Aid scheme — Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 — Article 1(d) — Reduced tax rate — Non-profit entities — Less advantageous tax deduction — Effect — Cross-appeal — Articles 169 and 178 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice) | 5 |
| 2021/C 163/06 | Joined Cases C-434/19 and C-435/19: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 March 2021 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Poste Italiane SpA (C-434/19), Agenzia delle entrate — Riscossione (C-435/19) v Riscossione Sicilia SpA agente riscossione per la provincia di Palermo e delle altre provincie siciliane (C-434/19), Poste Italiane SpA (C-435/19) (References for a preliminary ruling — State aid — Competition — Article 107(1) TFEU — Conditions under which applicable — Article 106(2) TFEU — Services of general economic interest — Management of the post-office account used for collection of the municipal real estate tax — Undertakings benefiting from special or exclusive rights granted by the Member States — Fees set unilaterally by the recipient undertaking — Abuse of dominant position — Article 102 TFEU — Inadmissibility) | 5 |
| 2021/C 163/07 | Joined Cases C-473/19 and C-474/19: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vänersborgs tingsrätt, mark- och miljödomstolen — Sweden) — Föreningen Skydda Skogen (C-473/19), Naturskyddsföreningen i Härryda, Göteborgs Ornitologiska Förening (C-474/19) v Länsstyrelsen i Västra Götalands län, B.A.B. (C-473/19), U.T.B. (C-474/19) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora — Article 12(1) — Directive 2009/147/EC — Conservation of wild birds — Article 5 — Forestry — Prohibitions intended to ensure the conservation of protected species — Plan for final felling of trees — Site hosting protected species) | 6 |
| 2021/C 163/08 | Case C-581/19: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 4 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) — Portugal) — Frenetikexito — Unipessoal Lda v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 2(1)(c) — Supplies subject to VAT — Exemptions — Article 132(1)(c) — Provision of medical care in the exercise of the medical and paramedical professions — Nutrition monitoring and advice — Sports, physical well-being and fitness activities — Concepts of a single complex supply, a supply ancillary to the main supply, and independent supplies — Criteria) | 7 |
| 2021/C 163/09 | Case C-912/19: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 4 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Agrimotion S.A. v ADAMA Deutschland GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Placing of plant protection products on the market — Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 — Article 52(1) — Parallel trade permit — Personal nature of that permit) | 7 |
| 2021/C 163/10 | Case C-947/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 4 March 2021 — Carmen Liaño Reig v Single Resolution Board (SRB) (Appeal — Economic and monetary union — Banking union — Recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms — Single Resolution Mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) — Resolution procedure — Adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español SA — Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 — Article 24 — Sale of business tool — Article 21 — Write-down and conversion of capital instruments — Tier 2 instruments — Action for annulment — Partial annulment — Not severable — Inadmissibility) | 8 |
| 2021/C 163/11 | Case C-7/20: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — VS v Hauptzollamt Münster (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs union — Union Customs Code — Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 — Article 87(4) — Place where the customs debt is incurred — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 2(1) — Articles 70 and 71 — Chargeable event and place where the import VAT becomes chargeable — Place where the tax debt is incurred — Finding of a failure to comply with an obligation imposed by EU customs legislation — Goods which were physically introduced into the customs territory of the Union in a Member State but entered the economic network of the Union in the Member State where that finding was made) | 9 |
| 2021/C 163/12 | Case C-403/20 P: Appeal brought on 26 August 2020 by CF, TB, LO S.A. and UM S.L. against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 25 June 2020 in Case T-22/19, Noguer Enríquez and Others v Commission | 9 |
| 2021/C 163/13 | Case C-557/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal correctionnel de Limoges (France) lodged on 23 October 2020 — Criminal proceedings against DS | 10 |
| 2021/C 163/14 | Case C-727/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 16 October 2020 — AR v St. Vincenz-Krankenhaus GmbH | 10 |
| 2021/C 163/15 | Case C-37/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 22 January 2021 — flightright GmbH v Ryanair DAC, formerly Ryanair Ltd | 11 |
| 2021/C 163/16 | Case C-58/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 1 February 2021 — FK | 12 |
| 2021/C 163/17 | Case C-66/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Zwolle (Netherlands) lodged on 29 January 2021 — O.T. E. v Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid | 12 |
| 2021/C 163/18 | Case C-69/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats’s-Hertogenbosch (Netherlands) lodged on 4 February 2021 — X v Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid | 13 |
| 2021/C 163/19 | Case C-88/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 12 February 2021 — Lietuvos Respublikos vidaus reikalų ministerija | 14 |
| 2021/C 163/20 | Case C-89/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 12 February 2021 — Romega UAB v Valstybinė maisto ir veterinarijos tarnyba | 15 |
| 2021/C 163/21 | Case C-97/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Blagoevgrad (Bulgaria) lodged on 16 February 2021 — МV — 98 v Nachalnik na otdel Operativni deynosti — grad Sofia v glavna direktsia Fiskalen kontrol pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite | 15 |
| 2021/C 163/22 | Case C-105/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 22 February 2021 — Criminal proceedings against IR | 16 |
| 2021/C 163/23 | Case C-115/21 P: Appeal brought on 25 February 2021 by Oriol Junqueras i Vies against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 15 December 2020 in Case T-24/20, Junqueras i Vies v Parliament | 17 |
| 2021/C 163/24 | Case C-119/21 P: Appeal brought on 25 February 2021 by PlasticsEurope against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 16 December 2020 in Case T-207/18, PlasticsEurope v ECHA | 18 |
| 2021/C 163/25 | Case C-124/21 P: Appeal brought on 26 February 2021 by International Skating Union against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 16 December 2020 in Case T-93/18, International Skating Union v European Commission | 19 |
| 2021/C 163/26 | Case C-127/21 P: Appeal brought on 26 February 2021 by American Airlines, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 16 December 2020 in Case T-430/18, American Airlines v Commission | 21 |
| 2021/C 163/27 | Case C-144/21: Action brought on 5 March 2021 — European Parliament v European Commission | 22 |
| | General Court |
| 2021/C 163/28 | Case T-245/17: Judgment of the General Court of 10 March 2021 — ViaSat v Commission (Action for failure to act and for annulment — Electronic communications networks and services — Harmonised use of the 2 GHz frequency spectrum — Pan-European systems providing mobile satellite services (MSS) — Decision 2007/98/EC — Harmonised operator selection procedure — Authorisations granted to the selected operators — Decision No 626/2008/EC — Request for action to be taken — No formal notice — Adoption of a position by the Commission — Inadmissibility — Refusal to take action — Measure not actionable — Inadmissibility — Powers of the Commission) | 23 |
| 2021/C 163/29 | Case T-539/18: Judgment of the General Court of 10 March 2021 — Ayuntamiento de Quart de Poblet v Commission (Arbitration clause — Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (2007-2013) — Highly scalable Deployment model of Inclusive E-Govern (DIEGO) and Speeding Every European Digital (SEED) contracts — Debit notes — Eligible costs — Justification of the costs — Reliability of records of tasks carried out for the projects) | 24 |
| 2021/C 163/30 | Case T-693/19: Judgment of the General Court of 10 March 2021 — Kerry Luxembourg v EUIPO — Ornua (KERRYMAID) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark KERRYMAID — Earlier EU figurative mark Kerrygold — Relative ground for refusal — Geographical name — Dominant element — Peaceful coexistence — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Application of the law ratione temporis) | 24 |
| 2021/C 163/31 | Case T-694/19: Judgment of the General Court of 10 March 2021 — FI v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Surviving spouse — Survivor’s pension — Articles 18, 19 and 20 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Conditions for eligibility — Duration of the marriage — Plea of illegality — Equal treatment — Proportionality) | 25 |
| 2021/C 163/32 | Case T-809/19: Judgment of the General Court of 24 February 2021 — Liga Nacional de Fútbol Profesional v EUIPO (El Clasico) (EU trade mark — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark El Clasico — Absolute grounds for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Descriptive character — Lack of distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 25 |
| 2021/C 163/33 | Case T-56/20: Judgment of the General Court of 24 February 2021 — Bezos Family Foundation v EUIPO — SNCF Mobilités (VROOM) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark VROOM — Earlier national word mark POP & VROOM — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 26 |
| 2021/C 163/34 | Case T-61/20: Judgment of the General Court of 24 February 2021 — Sonova v EUIPO — Digitmarket (B-Direct) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark B-Direct — Earlier EU figurative mark bizdirect — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 27 |
| 2021/C 163/35 | Case T-66/20: Judgment of the General Court of 10 March 2021 — Hauz 1929 v EUIPO — Houzz (HAUZ LONDON) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark HAUZ LONDON — Earlier EU word mark HOUZZ — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 27 |
| 2021/C 163/36 | Case T-67/20: Judgment of the General Court of 10 March 2021 — Hauz 1929 v EUIPO — Houzz (HAUZ NEW YORK) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark HAUZ NEW YORK — Earlier EU word mark HOUZZ — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 28 |
| 2021/C 163/37 | Case T-68/20: Judgment of the General Court of 10 March 2021 — Hauz 1929 v EUIPO — Houzz (HAUZ EST 1929) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark HAUZ EST 1929 — Earlier EU word mark HOUZZ — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 28 |
| 2021/C 163/38 | Case T-71/20: Judgment of the General Court of 10 March 2021 — Puma v EUIPO — CAMäleon (PUMA-System) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark PUMA-System — Earlier EU figurative marks PUMA — Relative ground for refusal — Detriment to reputation — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 29 |
| 2021/C 163/39 | Case T-99/20: Judgment of the General Court of 10 March 2021 — Golvabia Innovation v EUIPO (MaxWear) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark MaxWear — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 30 |
| 2021/C 163/40 | Case T-728/18: Order of the General Court of 4 March 2021 — Brand IP Licensing v EUIPO — Facebook (lovebook) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the application for registration — No need to adjudicate) | 30 |
| 2021/C 163/41 | Case T-587/19: Order of the General Court of 23 February 2021 — Frutas Tono v EUIPO — Agrocazalla (Marién) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Intervention by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal — Response lodged out of time — Refusal to grant leave to intervene under Article 173(1) of the Rules of Procedure — Cancellation of the earlier word mark serving as a basis for the contested decision — No need to adjudicate) | 31 |
| 2021/C 163/42 | Case T-885/19: Order of the General Court of 5 March 2021 — Aquind and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — Energy — Trans-European energy infrastructure — Regulation (EU) No 347/2013 — Delegation of power to the Commission — Article 290 TFEU — Delegated act amending the list of projects of common interest of the Union — Nature of the act during the period within which the Parliament and the Council may express objections — Act not open to challenge — Manifest inadmissibility) | 32 |
| 2021/C 163/43 | Case T-132/20: Order of the General Court of 4 March 2021 — NEC OncoImmunity v EASME (Action for annulment — Framework Programme for Research and Innovation Horizon 2020 (2014-2020) — Grant agreement — Termination letter — Act coming within a purely contractual framework from which it is inseparable — Inadmissibility — Regulation (EU) No 1290/2013 — Loss of SME status) | 32 |
| 2021/C 163/44 | Case T-135/20: Order of the General Court of 26 February 2021 — Vulkano Research and Development v EUIPO — Ega (EGA Master) (EU trade mark — Cancellation proceedings — Withdrawal of the application for a declaration of invalidity — No need to adjudicate) | 33 |
| 2021/C 163/45 | Case T-251/20: Order of the General Court of 8 March 2021 — KG v Parliament (Action for annulment and for damages — Civil service — Pension — Entitlement to the correction coefficient in the determination of pension rights — Refusal to adopt a position on the applicant’s request — No act adversely affecting an official — Inadmissibility) | 34 |
| 2021/C 163/46 | Case T-437/20: Order of the General Court of 25 February 2021 — Ultrasun v EUIPO (ULTRASUN) (Action for annulment — EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark ULTRASUN — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law) | 34 |
| 2021/C 163/47 | Case T-655/20 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 23 February 2021 — Symrise v ECHA (Application for interim relief — REACH — Substance 2-ethylhexyl salicylate — Compliance check of registrations — Obligation to provide certain information requiring animal testing — Application for interim measures — No urgency) | 35 |
| 2021/C 163/48 | Case T-7/21: Order of the General Court of 10 March 2021 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Kassl (STUDIO KASSL) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the application for registration — No need to adjudicate) | 35 |
| 2021/C 163/49 | Case T-727/20: Action brought on 7 December 2020 — Kirimova v EUIPO | 36 |
| 2021/C 163/50 | Case T-33/21: Action brought on 22 January 2021 — Romania v Commission | 37 |
| 2021/C 163/51 | Case T-81/21: Action brought on 3 February 2021 — Sistem ecologica v Commission | 38 |
| 2021/C 163/52 | Case T-101/21: Action brought on 5 February 2021 — Primagra v Commission | 39 |
| 2021/C 163/53 | Case T-134/21: Action brought on 3 March 2021 — Malacalza Investimenti and Malacalza v ECB | 41 |
| 2021/C 163/54 | Case T-144/21: Action brought on 11 March 2021 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Rimex Trading (UNK UNIK) | 42 |
| 2021/C 163/55 | Case T-147/21: Action brought on 12 March 2021 — Gugler France v EUIPO — Gugler (GUGLER) | 43 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2021/C 163/02

Case C-664/18: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 March 2021 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environment — Directive 2008/50/EC — Ambient air quality — Article 13(1) and Annex XI — Systematic and persistent exceedance of the limit values for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) in certain areas of the United Kingdom — Article 23(1) — Annex XV — Exceedance period to be as short as possible — Appropriate measures)

2

2

2021/C 163/03

Case C-193/19: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 4 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Förvaltningsrätten i Malmö — Sweden) — A v Migrationsverket (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Border controls, asylum and immigration — Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement — Consultation of the Schengen Information System (SIS) in the examination of an application for a residence permit made by a third-country national for whom an alert has been issued in the SIS for the purposes of refusing entry — Article 25(1) — Schengen Borders Code — Entry conditions for third-country nationals — Article 6(1) and (5) — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 7 and Article 24(2) — Refusal to renew a residence permit for the purposes of family reunification on the ground that the applicant’s identity cannot be established with certainty)

3

2021/C 163/04

Case C-220/19: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 3 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Valenciana — Spain) — Promociones Oliva Park SL v Tribunal Económico Administrativo Regional (TEAR) de la Comunidad Valenciana (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2008/118/EC — General arrangements for excise duty — Article 1(2) — Other indirect taxes on excise goods — Directive 2009/28/EC — Promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources — Article 1 and Article 3(1), (2) and (3)(a), the latter paragraph read in conjunction with Article 2(k) — Directive 2009/72/EC — Common rules for the internal market in electricity — Tax on the value of electricity production — Nature and structure of the tax — Electricity from renewable sources and electricity from non-renewable sources taxed in the same way)

4

2021/C 163/05

Case C-362/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 March 2021 — European Commission v Fútbol Club Barcelona, Kingdom of Spain (Appeal — State aid — Aid granted to certain professional football clubs — Article 107(1) TFEU — Concept of advantage — Aid scheme — Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 — Article 1(d) — Reduced tax rate — Non-profit entities — Less advantageous tax deduction — Effect — Cross-appeal — Articles 169 and 178 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice)

5

2021/C 163/06

Joined Cases C-434/19 and C-435/19: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 March 2021 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Poste Italiane SpA (C-434/19), Agenzia delle entrate — Riscossione (C-435/19) v Riscossione Sicilia SpA agente riscossione per la provincia di Palermo e delle altre provincie siciliane (C-434/19), Poste Italiane SpA (C-435/19) (References for a preliminary ruling — State aid — Competition — Article 107(1) TFEU — Conditions under which applicable — Article 106(2) TFEU — Services of general economic interest — Management of the post-office account used for collection of the municipal real estate tax — Undertakings benefiting from special or exclusive rights granted by the Member States — Fees set unilaterally by the recipient undertaking — Abuse of dominant position — Article 102 TFEU — Inadmissibility)

5

2021/C 163/07

Joined Cases C-473/19 and C-474/19: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vänersborgs tingsrätt, mark- och miljödomstolen — Sweden) — Föreningen Skydda Skogen (C-473/19), Naturskyddsföreningen i Härryda, Göteborgs Ornitologiska Förening (C-474/19) v Länsstyrelsen i Västra Götalands län, B.A.B. (C-473/19), U.T.B. (C-474/19) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora — Article 12(1) — Directive 2009/147/EC — Conservation of wild birds — Article 5 — Forestry — Prohibitions intended to ensure the conservation of protected species — Plan for final felling of trees — Site hosting protected species)

6

2021/C 163/08

Case C-581/19: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 4 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) — Portugal) — Frenetikexito — Unipessoal Lda v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 2(1)(c) — Supplies subject to VAT — Exemptions — Article 132(1)(c) — Provision of medical care in the exercise of the medical and paramedical professions — Nutrition monitoring and advice — Sports, physical well-being and fitness activities — Concepts of a single complex supply, a supply ancillary to the main supply, and independent supplies — Criteria)

7

2021/C 163/09

Case C-912/19: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 4 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Agrimotion S.A. v ADAMA Deutschland GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Placing of plant protection products on the market — Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 — Article 52(1) — Parallel trade permit — Personal nature of that permit)

7

2021/C 163/10

Case C-947/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 4 March 2021 — Carmen Liaño Reig v Single Resolution Board (SRB) (Appeal — Economic and monetary union — Banking union — Recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms — Single Resolution Mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) — Resolution procedure — Adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español SA — Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 — Article 24 — Sale of business tool — Article 21 — Write-down and conversion of capital instruments — Tier 2 instruments — Action for annulment — Partial annulment — Not severable — Inadmissibility)

8

2021/C 163/11

Case C-7/20: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — VS v Hauptzollamt Münster (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs union — Union Customs Code — Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 — Article 87(4) — Place where the customs debt is incurred — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 2(1) — Articles 70 and 71 — Chargeable event and place where the import VAT becomes chargeable — Place where the tax debt is incurred — Finding of a failure to comply with an obligation imposed by EU customs legislation — Goods which were physically introduced into the customs territory of the Union in a Member State but entered the economic network of the Union in the Member State where that finding was made)

9

2021/C 163/12

Case C-403/20 P: Appeal brought on 26 August 2020 by CF, TB, LO S.A. and UM S.L. against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 25 June 2020 in Case T-22/19, Noguer Enríquez and Others v Commission

9

2021/C 163/13

Case C-557/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal correctionnel de Limoges (France) lodged on 23 October 2020 — Criminal proceedings against DS

10

2021/C 163/14

Case C-727/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 16 October 2020 — AR v St. Vincenz-Krankenhaus GmbH

10

2021/C 163/15

Case C-37/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 22 January 2021 — flightright GmbH v Ryanair DAC, formerly Ryanair Ltd

11

2021/C 163/16

Case C-58/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 1 February 2021 — FK

12

2021/C 163/17

Case C-66/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Zwolle (Netherlands) lodged on 29 January 2021 — O.T. E. v Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

12

2021/C 163/18

Case C-69/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats’s-Hertogenbosch (Netherlands) lodged on 4 February 2021 — X v Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

13

2021/C 163/19

Case C-88/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 12 February 2021 — Lietuvos Respublikos vidaus reikalų ministerija

14

2021/C 163/20

Case C-89/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 12 February 2021 — Romega UAB v Valstybinė maisto ir veterinarijos tarnyba

15

2021/C 163/21

Case C-97/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Blagoevgrad (Bulgaria) lodged on 16 February 2021 — МV — 98 v Nachalnik na otdel Operativni deynosti — grad Sofia v glavna direktsia Fiskalen kontrol pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite

15

2021/C 163/22

Case C-105/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 22 February 2021 — Criminal proceedings against IR

16

2021/C 163/23

Case C-115/21 P: Appeal brought on 25 February 2021 by Oriol Junqueras i Vies against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 15 December 2020 in Case T-24/20, Junqueras i Vies v Parliament

17

2021/C 163/24

Case C-119/21 P: Appeal brought on 25 February 2021 by PlasticsEurope against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 16 December 2020 in Case T-207/18, PlasticsEurope v ECHA

18

2021/C 163/25

Case C-124/21 P: Appeal brought on 26 February 2021 by International Skating Union against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 16 December 2020 in Case T-93/18, International Skating Union v European Commission

19

2021/C 163/26

Case C-127/21 P: Appeal brought on 26 February 2021 by American Airlines, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 16 December 2020 in Case T-430/18, American Airlines v Commission

21

2021/C 163/27

Case C-144/21: Action brought on 5 March 2021 — European Parliament v European Commission

22

General Court

2021/C 163/28

Case T-245/17: Judgment of the General Court of 10 March 2021 — ViaSat v Commission (Action for failure to act and for annulment — Electronic communications networks and services — Harmonised use of the 2 GHz frequency spectrum — Pan-European systems providing mobile satellite services (MSS) — Decision 2007/98/EC — Harmonised operator selection procedure — Authorisations granted to the selected operators — Decision No 626/2008/EC — Request for action to be taken — No formal notice — Adoption of a position by the Commission — Inadmissibility — Refusal to take action — Measure not actionable — Inadmissibility — Powers of the Commission)

23

2021/C 163/29

Case T-539/18: Judgment of the General Court of 10 March 2021 — Ayuntamiento de Quart de Poblet v Commission (Arbitration clause — Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (2007-2013) — Highly scalable Deployment model of Inclusive E-Govern (DIEGO) and Speeding Every European Digital (SEED) contracts — Debit notes — Eligible costs — Justification of the costs — Reliability of records of tasks carried out for the projects)

24

2021/C 163/30

Case T-693/19: Judgment of the General Court of 10 March 2021 — Kerry Luxembourg v EUIPO — Ornua (KERRYMAID) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark KERRYMAID — Earlier EU figurative mark Kerrygold — Relative ground for refusal — Geographical name — Dominant element — Peaceful coexistence — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Application of the law ratione temporis)

24

2021/C 163/31

Case T-694/19: Judgment of the General Court of 10 March 2021 — FI v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Surviving spouse — Survivor’s pension — Articles 18, 19 and 20 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Conditions for eligibility — Duration of the marriage — Plea of illegality — Equal treatment — Proportionality)

25

2021/C 163/32

Case T-809/19: Judgment of the General Court of 24 February 2021 — Liga Nacional de Fútbol Profesional v EUIPO (El Clasico) (EU trade mark — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark El Clasico — Absolute grounds for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Descriptive character — Lack of distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

25

2021/C 163/33

Case T-56/20: Judgment of the General Court of 24 February 2021 — Bezos Family Foundation v EUIPO — SNCF Mobilités (VROOM) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark VROOM — Earlier national word mark POP & VROOM — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

26

2021/C 163/34

Case T-61/20: Judgment of the General Court of 24 February 2021 — Sonova v EUIPO — Digitmarket (B-Direct) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark B-Direct — Earlier EU figurative mark bizdirect — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

27

2021/C 163/35

Case T-66/20: Judgment of the General Court of 10 March 2021 — Hauz 1929 v EUIPO — Houzz (HAUZ LONDON) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark HAUZ LONDON — Earlier EU word mark HOUZZ — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

27

2021/C 163/36

Case T-67/20: Judgment of the General Court of 10 March 2021 — Hauz 1929 v EUIPO — Houzz (HAUZ NEW YORK) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark HAUZ NEW YORK — Earlier EU word mark HOUZZ — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

28

2021/C 163/37

Case T-68/20: Judgment of the General Court of 10 March 2021 — Hauz 1929 v EUIPO — Houzz (HAUZ EST 1929) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark HAUZ EST 1929 — Earlier EU word mark HOUZZ — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

28

2021/C 163/38

Case T-71/20: Judgment of the General Court of 10 March 2021 — Puma v EUIPO — CAMäleon (PUMA-System) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark PUMA-System — Earlier EU figurative marks PUMA — Relative ground for refusal — Detriment to reputation — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

29

2021/C 163/39

Case T-99/20: Judgment of the General Court of 10 March 2021 — Golvabia Innovation v EUIPO (MaxWear) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark MaxWear — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

30

2021/C 163/40

Case T-728/18: Order of the General Court of 4 March 2021 — Brand IP Licensing v EUIPO — Facebook (lovebook) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the application for registration — No need to adjudicate)

30

2021/C 163/41

Case T-587/19: Order of the General Court of 23 February 2021 — Frutas Tono v EUIPO — Agrocazalla (Marién) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Intervention by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal — Response lodged out of time — Refusal to grant leave to intervene under Article 173(1) of the Rules of Procedure — Cancellation of the earlier word mark serving as a basis for the contested decision — No need to adjudicate)

31

2021/C 163/42

Case T-885/19: Order of the General Court of 5 March 2021 — Aquind and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — Energy — Trans-European energy infrastructure — Regulation (EU) No 347/2013 — Delegation of power to the Commission — Article 290 TFEU — Delegated act amending the list of projects of common interest of the Union — Nature of the act during the period within which the Parliament and the Council may express objections — Act not open to challenge — Manifest inadmissibility)

32

2021/C 163/43

Case T-132/20: Order of the General Court of 4 March 2021 — NEC OncoImmunity v EASME (Action for annulment — Framework Programme for Research and Innovation Horizon 2020 (2014-2020) — Grant agreement — Termination letter — Act coming within a purely contractual framework from which it is inseparable — Inadmissibility — Regulation (EU) No 1290/2013 — Loss of SME status)

32

2021/C 163/44

Case T-135/20: Order of the General Court of 26 February 2021 — Vulkano Research and Development v EUIPO — Ega (EGA Master) (EU trade mark — Cancellation proceedings — Withdrawal of the application for a declaration of invalidity — No need to adjudicate)

33

2021/C 163/45

Case T-251/20: Order of the General Court of 8 March 2021 — KG v Parliament (Action for annulment and for damages — Civil service — Pension — Entitlement to the correction coefficient in the determination of pension rights — Refusal to adopt a position on the applicant’s request — No act adversely affecting an official — Inadmissibility)

34

2021/C 163/46

Case T-437/20: Order of the General Court of 25 February 2021 — Ultrasun v EUIPO (ULTRASUN) (Action for annulment — EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark ULTRASUN — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

34

2021/C 163/47

Case T-655/20 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 23 February 2021 — Symrise v ECHA (Application for interim relief — REACH — Substance 2-ethylhexyl salicylate — Compliance check of registrations — Obligation to provide certain information requiring animal testing — Application for interim measures — No urgency)

35

2021/C 163/48

Case T-7/21: Order of the General Court of 10 March 2021 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Kassl (STUDIO KASSL) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the application for registration — No need to adjudicate)

35

2021/C 163/49

Case T-727/20: Action brought on 7 December 2020 — Kirimova v EUIPO

36

2021/C 163/50

Case T-33/21: Action brought on 22 January 2021 — Romania v Commission

37

2021/C 163/51

Case T-81/21: Action brought on 3 February 2021 — Sistem ecologica v Commission

38

2021/C 163/52

Case T-101/21: Action brought on 5 February 2021 — Primagra v Commission

39

2021/C 163/53

Case T-134/21: Action brought on 3 March 2021 — Malacalza Investimenti and Malacalza v ECB

41

2021/C 163/54

Case T-144/21: Action brought on 11 March 2021 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Rimex Trading (UNK UNIK)

42

2021/C 163/55

Case T-147/21: Action brought on 12 March 2021 — Gugler France v EUIPO — Gugler (GUGLER)

43

---

| | Corrigenda |
| --- | --- |
| 2021/C 163/56 | Corrigendum to the Official Journal notice in Case C-518/20 ( OJ C 19, 18.1.2021 ) | 44 |

Corrigenda

2021/C 163/56

Corrigendum to the Official Journal notice in Case C-518/20 ( OJ C 19, 18.1.2021 )

( OJ C 19, 18.1.2021 )

44

---

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 3.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 163/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 163/1

---

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

(2021/C 163/01)

Last publication

OJ C 148, 26.4.2021

Past publications

OJ C 138, 19.4.2021

OJ C 128, 12.4.2021

OJ C 110, 29.3.2021

OJ C 98, 22.3.2021

OJ C 88, 15.3.2021

OJ C 79, 8.3.2021

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 3.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 163/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 163/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 March 2021 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-664/18) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Directive 2008/50/EC - Ambient air quality - Article 13(1) and Annex XI - Systematic and persistent exceedance of the limit values for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) in certain areas of the United Kingdom - Article 23(1) - Annex XV - Exceedance period to be ‘as short as possible’ - Appropriate measures)

(2021/C 163/02)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented initially by: J. Norris and K. Petersen, and subsequently by E. Manhaeve and J. Norris, acting as Agents)

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: F. Shibli, acting as Agent, assisted by J. Kerr Morrison, Barrister)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented initially by: T. Henze and S. Eisenberg, and subsequently by J. Möller and S. Eisenberg, acting as Agents, assisted by U. Karpenstein, F. Fellenberg and K. Dingemann, Rechtsanwälte)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,
  by systematically and persistently exceeding, in 16 zones of the United Kingdom, the annual limit value for Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), namely in the areas UK0001 (Greater London urban area); UK0002 (West Midlands urban area); UK0003 (Greater Manchester urban area); UK0004 (West Yorkshire urban area); UK0013 (Teesside urban area); UK0014 (The Potteries); UK0018 (Kingston upon Hull); UK0019 (Southampton urban area); UK0024 (Glasgow urban area); UK0029 (Eastern); UK0031 (South East); UK0032 (East Midlands); UK0033 (North West & Merseyside); UK0034 (Yorkshire & Humberside); UK0035 (West Midlands) and UK0036 (North East), as well as the hourly limit value for NO2 in the area UK0001 (Greater London urban area) since the entry into force of those limit values on 1 January 2010, has failed to fulfil its obligations under the combined provisions of Article 13(1) and of Annex XI to Directive No 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008, on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe,
  and
  by failing to adopt, as from 11 June 2010, appropriate measures to ensure compliance with the limit values for NO2 in all those zones, has failed to fulfil its obligations under the combined provisions of Article 23(1), read alone and in conjunction with Annex XV to Directive 2008/50, and in particular the obligation laid down in the second subparagraph of Article 23(1) of that directive, to ensure that the period of exceedance of limit values is kept as short as possible; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,

by systematically and persistently exceeding, in 16 zones of the United Kingdom, the annual limit value for Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), namely in the areas UK0001 (Greater London urban area); UK0002 (West Midlands urban area); UK0003 (Greater Manchester urban area); UK0004 (West Yorkshire urban area); UK0013 (Teesside urban area); UK0014 (The Potteries); UK0018 (Kingston upon Hull); UK0019 (Southampton urban area); UK0024 (Glasgow urban area); UK0029 (Eastern); UK0031 (South East); UK0032 (East Midlands); UK0033 (North West & Merseyside); UK0034 (Yorkshire & Humberside); UK0035 (West Midlands) and UK0036 (North East), as well as the hourly limit value for NO2 in the area UK0001 (Greater London urban area) since the entry into force of those limit values on 1 January 2010, has failed to fulfil its obligations under the combined provisions of Article 13(1) and of Annex XI to Directive No 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008, on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe,

and

by failing to adopt, as from 11 June 2010, appropriate measures to ensure compliance with the limit values for NO2 in all those zones, has failed to fulfil its obligations under the combined provisions of Article 23(1), read alone and in conjunction with Annex XV to Directive 2008/50, and in particular the obligation laid down in the second subparagraph of Article 23(1) of that directive, to ensure that the period of exceedance of limit values is kept as short as possible;

| 2. | Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 445, 10.12.2018.

---

| 3.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 163/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 163/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 4 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Förvaltningsrätten i Malmö — Sweden) — A v Migrationsverket

(Case C-193/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Border controls, asylum and immigration - Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement - Consultation of the Schengen Information System (SIS) in the examination of an application for a residence permit made by a third-country national for whom an alert has been issued in the SIS for the purposes of refusing entry - Article 25(1) - Schengen Borders Code - Entry conditions for third-country nationals - Article 6(1) and (5) - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 7 and Article 24(2) - Refusal to renew a residence permit for the purposes of family reunification on the ground that the applicant’s identity cannot be established with certainty)

(2021/C 163/03)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Förvaltningsrätten i Malmö

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: A

Defendant: Migrationsverket

Operative part of the judgment

Article 25(1) of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders, signed in Schengen (Luxembourg) on 19 June 1990 and entering into force on 26 March 1995, as amended by Regulation (EU) No 265/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 March 2010, must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State which permits the issue, extension or renewal of a residence permit for the purposes of family reunification, requested from within the territory of that Member State by a third-country national who is the subject of an alert in the Schengen Information System for the purposes of refusing entry in the Schengen area and whose identity has not been able to be established by means of a valid travel document, only where the interests of the Member State which issued the alert and which has first been consulted have been taken into account and where the residence permit is issued, extended or renewed only for ‘substantive reasons’ within the meaning of that provision;

Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) and, in particular, Article 6(1)(a) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not apply to a third-country national who is in such a situation.

---

(1)  OJ C 155, 6.5.2019.

---

| 3.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 163/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 163/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 3 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Valenciana — Spain) — Promociones Oliva Park SL v Tribunal Económico Administrativo Regional (TEAR) de la Comunidad Valenciana

(Case C-220/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2008/118/EC - General arrangements for excise duty - Article 1(2) - Other indirect taxes on excise goods - Directive 2009/28/EC - Promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources - Article 1 and Article 3(1), (2) and (3)(a), the latter paragraph read in conjunction with Article 2(k) - Directive 2009/72/EC - Common rules for the internal market in electricity - Tax on the value of electricity production - Nature and structure of the tax - Electricity from renewable sources and electricity from non-renewable sources taxed in the same way)

(2021/C 163/04)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Valenciana

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Promociones Oliva Park SL

Defendant: Tribunal Económico Administrativo Regional (TEAR) de la Comunidad Valenciana

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 1(2) of Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which provides for the levying of a tax on the production and incorporation of electricity into the electricity system in the national territory and the taxable amount of which is the total amount of income received by the taxpayer from carrying out those activities, without taking into account the amount of electricity actually produced and incorporated into that system; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 1(2) of Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which provides for the levying of a tax on the production and incorporation of electricity into the electricity system in the national territory and the taxable amount of which is the total amount of income received by the taxpayer from carrying out those activities, without taking into account the amount of electricity actually produced and incorporated into that system;

| 2. | Article 1 and Article 3(1), (2) and (3)(a) of Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC, the latter paragraph being read in conjunction with subparagraph (k) of the second subparagraph of Article 2 of that directive, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation providing for the levying of a tax at a single rate on the production of electricity and its incorporation into the electricity system, including where that electricity is produced from renewable sources and which does not have as its objective the protection of the environment but to increase the volume of budgetary revenue; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 1 and Article 3(1), (2) and (3)(a) of Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC, the latter paragraph being read in conjunction with subparagraph (k) of the second subparagraph of Article 2 of that directive, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation providing for the levying of a tax at a single rate on the production of electricity and its incorporation into the electricity system, including where that electricity is produced from renewable sources and which does not have as its objective the protection of the environment but to increase the volume of budgetary revenue;

| 3. | Article 107(1) TFEU and Articles 32 to 34 of Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which provides for the levying of a national tax on the production and incorporation of electricity into the electricity system in the territory of a Member State, where that tax is not applied to the incorporation into that system of electricity produced in the other Member States. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 107(1) TFEU and Articles 32 to 34 of Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which provides for the levying of a national tax on the production and incorporation of electricity into the electricity system in the territory of a Member State, where that tax is not applied to the incorporation into that system of electricity produced in the other Member States.

---

(1)  OJ C 213, 24.6.2019.

---

| 3.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 163/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 163/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 March 2021 — European Commission v Fútbol Club Barcelona, Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-362/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Aid granted to certain professional football clubs - Article 107(1) TFEU - Concept of ‘advantage’ - Aid scheme - Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 - Article 1(d) - Reduced tax rate - Non-profit entities - Less advantageous tax deduction - Effect - Cross-appeal - Articles 169 and 178 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice)

(2021/C 163/05)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: P. Němečková, B. Stromsky and G. Luengo, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Fútbol Club Barcelona (represented by: R. Vallina Hoset, J. Roca Sagarra, J. del Saz Cordero, A. Sellés Marco and R. Salas Lúcia, abogados), Kingdom of Spain (represented by: S. Centeno Huerta, J. Ruiz Sánchez, and by A. Rubio González, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 26 February 2019, Fútbol Club Barcelona v Commission (T-865/16, EU:T:2019:113) in so far as it upholds the second plea in law relied on at first instance, and annuls Commission Decision (EU) 2016/2391 of 4 July 2016 on the State aid SA.29769 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) implemented by Spain for certain football clubs; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 26 February 2019, Fútbol Club Barcelona v Commission (T-865/16, EU:T:2019:113) in so far as it upholds the second plea in law relied on at first instance, and annuls Commission Decision (EU) 2016/2391 of 4 July 2016 on the State aid SA.29769 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) implemented by Spain for certain football clubs;

| 2. | Dismisses the action brought in Case T-865/16 by Fútbol Club Barcelona seeking annulment of Decision 2016/2391; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action brought in Case T-865/16 by Fútbol Club Barcelona seeking annulment of Decision 2016/2391;

| 3. | Orders Fútbol Club Barcelona to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission in the proceedings before the General Court of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Fútbol Club Barcelona to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission in the proceedings before the General Court of the European Union;

| 4. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs incurred in the present appeal; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs incurred in the present appeal;

| 5. | Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 238, 15.7.2019.

---

| 3.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 163/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 163/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 March 2021 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Poste Italiane SpA (C-434/19), Agenzia delle entrate — Riscossione (C-435/19) v Riscossione Sicilia SpA agente riscossione per la provincia di Palermo e delle altre provincie siciliane (C-434/19), Poste Italiane SpA (C-435/19)

(Joined Cases C-434/19 and C-435/19) (1)

(References for a preliminary ruling - State aid - Competition - Article 107(1) TFEU - Conditions under which applicable - Article 106(2) TFEU - Services of general economic interest - Management of the post-office account used for collection of the municipal real estate tax - Undertakings benefiting from special or exclusive rights granted by the Member States - Fees set unilaterally by the recipient undertaking - Abuse of dominant position - Article 102 TFEU - Inadmissibility)

(2021/C 163/06)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Poste Italiane SpA (C-434/19), Agenzia delle entrate — Riscossione (C-435/19)

Defendants: Riscossione Sicilia SpA agente riscossione per la provincia di Palermo e delle altre provincie siciliane (C-434/19), Poste Italiane SpA (C-435/19)

Intervening party: Poste italiane SpA — Bancoposta (C-435/19)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 107 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that a national measure under which the agents responsible for collecting the imposta comunale sugli immobiliare (municipal real estate tax) are required to hold a current account in their name with Poste Italiane SpA, to enable tax payers to pay that tax, and to pay a fee for the management of that current account, constitutes ‘State aid’ provided that that measure is (i) attributable to the State, (ii) provides a selective advantage to Poste Italiane through State resources and (iii) is liable to distort competition and trade between the Member States, which are matters for the referring court to ascertain.

---

(1)  OJ C 328, 30.9.2019.

---

| 3.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 163/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 163/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vänersborgs tingsrätt, mark- och miljödomstolen — Sweden) — Föreningen Skydda Skogen (C-473/19), Naturskyddsföreningen i Härryda, Göteborgs Ornitologiska Förening (C-474/19) v Länsstyrelsen i Västra Götalands län, B.A.B. (C-473/19), U.T.B. (C-474/19)

(Joined Cases C-473/19 and C-474/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Directive 92/43/EEC - Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora - Article 12(1) - Directive 2009/147/EC - Conservation of wild birds - Article 5 - Forestry - Prohibitions intended to ensure the conservation of protected species - Plan for final felling of trees - Site hosting protected species)

(2021/C 163/07)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Vänersborgs tingsrätt, mark- och miljödomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Föreningen Skydda Skogen (C-473/19), Naturskyddsföreningen i Härryda, Göteborgs Ornitologiska Förening (C-474/19)

Defendants: Länsstyrelsen i Västra Götalands län, B.A.B. (C-473/19), U.T.B. (C-474/19)

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 5 of Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds must be interpreted as precluding a national practice whereby the prohibitions laid down in that provision cover only the species which are listed in Annex I to that directive, those which are at some level at risk or those which are suffering a long-term decline in population; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 5 of Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds must be interpreted as precluding a national practice whereby the prohibitions laid down in that provision cover only the species which are listed in Annex I to that directive, those which are at some level at risk or those which are suffering a long-term decline in population;

| 2. | Article 12(1)(a) to (c) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora must be interpreted as meaning that, first, it precludes a national practice whereby, should the purpose of a human activity, such as forestry work or land development, be manifestly different from the killing or disturbance of animal species, the prohibitions laid down in that provision apply only in the event of a risk of adverse effects on the conservation status of the species concerned and, secondly, the protection afforded by that provision does not cease to apply to species which have achieved a favourable conservation status; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 12(1)(a) to (c) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora must be interpreted as meaning that, first, it precludes a national practice whereby, should the purpose of a human activity, such as forestry work or land development, be manifestly different from the killing or disturbance of animal species, the prohibitions laid down in that provision apply only in the event of a risk of adverse effects on the conservation status of the species concerned and, secondly, the protection afforded by that provision does not cease to apply to species which have achieved a favourable conservation status;

| 3. | Article 12(1)(d) of Directive 92/43 must be interpreted as precluding a national practice whereby, if the continuous ecological functionality of the natural habitat of the species concerned in a particular area is, in spite of precautionary measures, lost by harm, destruction or deterioration, whether directly or indirectly, by the effect of the activity at issue, taken individually or cumulatively with others, the prohibition laid down in that provision is applied only if the conservation status of the species concerned is likely to deteriorate. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 12(1)(d) of Directive 92/43 must be interpreted as precluding a national practice whereby, if the continuous ecological functionality of the natural habitat of the species concerned in a particular area is, in spite of precautionary measures, lost by harm, destruction or deterioration, whether directly or indirectly, by the effect of the activity at issue, taken individually or cumulatively with others, the prohibition laid down in that provision is applied only if the conservation status of the species concerned is likely to deteriorate.

---

(1)  OJ C 288, 26.8.2019.

---

| 3.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 163/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 163/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 4 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) — Portugal) — Frenetikexito — Unipessoal Lda v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

(Case C-581/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 2(1)(c) - Supplies subject to VAT - Exemptions - Article 132(1)(c) - Provision of medical care in the exercise of the medical and paramedical professions - Nutrition monitoring and advice - Sports, physical well-being and fitness activities - Concepts of a single complex supply, a supply ancillary to the main supply, and independent supplies - Criteria)

(2021/C 163/08)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Frenetikexito — Unipessoal Lda

Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 2006/112 of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that, subject to verification by the referring court, a nutrition monitoring service provided by a certified and authorised professional in sports facilities, potentially in the context of programmes that also include physical well-being and fitness services, constitutes a separate and independent supply of services and is not capable of falling under the exemption laid down in Article 132(1)(c) of that directive.

---

(1)  OJ C 383, 11.11.2019.

---

| 3.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 163/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 163/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 4 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Agrimotion S.A. v ADAMA Deutschland GmbH

(Case C-912/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Placing of plant protection products on the market - Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 - Article 52(1) - Parallel trade permit - Personal nature of that permit)

(2021/C 163/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Agrimotion S.A.

Defendant: ADAMA Deutschland GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 52(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that only the holder of a parallel trade permit may place a plant protection product on the market in the Member State which granted that permit.

---

(1)  OJ C 95, 23.3.2020.

---

| 3.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 163/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 163/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 4 March 2021 — Carmen Liaño Reig v Single Resolution Board (SRB)

(Case C-947/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Economic and monetary union - Banking union - Recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms - Single Resolution Mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) - Resolution procedure - Adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español SA - Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 - Article 24 - Sale of business tool - Article 21 - Write-down and conversion of capital instruments - Tier 2 instruments - Action for annulment - Partial annulment - Not severable - Inadmissibility)

(2021/C 163/10)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Carmen Liaño Reig (represented by: F. López Antón, abogado)

Other party to the proceedings: Single Resolution Board (SRB) (represented by: A. Valavanidou, S. Branca and J. King, Agents, and by B. Meyring and T. Klupsch, Rechtsanwälte, and F.B. Fernández de Trocóniz Robles, abogado)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Ms Carmen Liaño Reig to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ms Carmen Liaño Reig to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 87, 16.3.2020.

---

| 3.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 163/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 163/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — VS v Hauptzollamt Münster

(Case C-7/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs union - Union Customs Code - Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 - Article 87(4) - Place where the customs debt is incurred - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 2(1) - Articles 70 and 71 - Chargeable event and place where the import VAT becomes chargeable - Place where the tax debt is incurred - Finding of a failure to comply with an obligation imposed by EU customs legislation - Goods which were physically introduced into the customs territory of the Union in a Member State but entered the economic network of the Union in the Member State where that finding was made)

(2021/C 163/11)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: VS

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Münster

Operative part of the judgment

The second subparagraph of Article 71(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that import VAT on goods subject to customs duties arises in the Member State in which it is established that an obligation imposed by EU customs legislation has not been complied with, where the goods in question, even if they have been physically introduced into the customs territory of the Union in another Member State, entered the economic network of the Union in the Member State where that finding was made.

---

(1)  OJ C 137, 27.4.2020.

---

| 3.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 163/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 163/9

---

Appeal brought on 26 August 2020 by CF, TB, LO S.A. and UM S.L. against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 25 June 2020 in Case T-22/19, Noguer Enríquez and Others v Commission

(Case C-403/20 P)

(2021/C 163/12)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellants: CF, TB, LO S.A. and UM S.L. (represented by: J. Álvarez González and S. San Felipe Menéndez, abogados)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

By order of 3 March 2021, the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) dismissed the appeal as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded, and ordered CF, TB, LO S.A. and UM S.L. to pay their own costs.

---

| 3.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 163/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 163/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal correctionnel de Limoges (France) lodged on 23 October 2020 — Criminal proceedings against DS

(Case C-557/20)

(2021/C 163/13)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal correctionnel de Limoges

Party to the main criminal proceedings

DS

Interested party: Union française des maréchaux-ferrants

By order of 16 March 2020, the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) declared that the request for a preliminary ruling made by the Tribunal correctionnel de Limoges (Criminal Court, Limoges, France), by decision of 11 September 2020, is manifestly inadmissible.

---

| 3.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 163/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 163/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 16 October 2020 — AR v St. Vincenz-Krankenhaus GmbH

(Case C-727/20)

(2021/C 163/14)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: AR

Respondent: St. Vincenz-Krankenhaus GmbH

Questions referred

| 1. | Do Article 7 of Directive 2003/88 (1) and Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union preclude an interpretation of a rule of national law such as Paragraph 7(3) of the German Bundesurlaubsgesetz (Federal Law on leave) according to which the as yet unexercised entitlement to paid annual leave of a worker who became ill to an extent that rendered him or her unfit for work in the course of the leave year, but who could still have taken — at least some of — the leave in the leave year before the onset of his or her illness, lapses 15 months after the end of the leave year in the event of a continuing uninterrupted period of incapacity for work even if the employer has not actually enabled the worker to exercise his or her leave entitlement by duly informing him or her of the leave concerned and inviting him or her to take it? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do Article 7 of Directive 2003/88 (1) and Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union preclude an interpretation of a rule of national law such as Paragraph 7(3) of the German Bundesurlaubsgesetz (Federal Law on leave) according to which the as yet unexercised entitlement to paid annual leave of a worker who became ill to an extent that rendered him or her unfit for work in the course of the leave year, but who could still have taken — at least some of — the leave in the leave year before the onset of his or her illness, lapses 15 months after the end of the leave year in the event of a continuing uninterrupted period of incapacity for work even if the employer has not actually enabled the worker to exercise his or her leave entitlement by duly informing him or her of the leave concerned and inviting him or her to take it?

| 2. | If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: Does this also preclude the lapse of entitlement at a later date under these conditions if incapacity for work continues? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: Does this also preclude the lapse of entitlement at a later date under these conditions if incapacity for work continues?

---

(1)  Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9).

---

| 3.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 163/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 163/11

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 22 January 2021 — flightright GmbH v Ryanair DAC, formerly Ryanair Ltd

(Case C-37/21)

(2021/C 163/15)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: flightright GmbH

Defendant: Ryanair DAC, formerly Ryanair Ltd

Questions referred

| 1. | Does delayed take-off clearance by air traffic management constitute per se an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of [Regulation (EC) No 261/2004], (1) or must that question be answered in the negative since delays in take-off clearance by air traffic management, referred to as ‘slot delays’, do not represent an occurrence that is ‘out of the ordinary’ in air transport, but rather an occurrence that is part of the usual and expected processes and basic conditions of international air transport, because it is inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of air carriers? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does delayed take-off clearance by air traffic management constitute per se an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of [Regulation (EC) No 261/2004], (1) or must that question be answered in the negative since delays in take-off clearance by air traffic management, referred to as ‘slot delays’, do not represent an occurrence that is ‘out of the ordinary’ in air transport, but rather an occurrence that is part of the usual and expected processes and basic conditions of international air transport, because it is inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of air carriers?

| 2. | Is it to be assumed that it is already known to the courts that ‘slot delays’ by air traffic management in international air transport are not circumstances that are out of the ordinary within the meaning of the case-law of the Court of Justice, but rather ordinary, usual and expected concomitants of air transport, or is it necessary in the dispute to take evidence in that regard by obtaining expert reports, whereby such evidence would be provided only if slot delays occur extremely rarely in international air transport and not on a regular basis? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is it to be assumed that it is already known to the courts that ‘slot delays’ by air traffic management in international air transport are not circumstances that are out of the ordinary within the meaning of the case-law of the Court of Justice, but rather ordinary, usual and expected concomitants of air transport, or is it necessary in the dispute to take evidence in that regard by obtaining expert reports, whereby such evidence would be provided only if slot delays occur extremely rarely in international air transport and not on a regular basis?

| 3. | Are slot delays by air traffic management to be regarded as an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 only if they themselves are due to circumstances that can be characterised as extraordinary within the meaning of Article 5(3), such as an accident or a terrorist threat, but not to weather conditions which are customary for the time and place of the event and which temporarily affect air traffic? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Are slot delays by air traffic management to be regarded as an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 only if they themselves are due to circumstances that can be characterised as extraordinary within the meaning of Article 5(3), such as an accident or a terrorist threat, but not to weather conditions which are customary for the time and place of the event and which temporarily affect air traffic?

| 4. | Does adverse weather as a reason for a slot delay constitute an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 only if, in itself, the adverse weather constitutes an extraordinary circumstance and if, in itself, the adverse weather at the place in question and at the time in question is ‘out of the ordinary’, and, in itself, is not typical of the ‘usual weather conditions to be expected’ at the place in question and at the time in question, but ‘goes beyond them’? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Does adverse weather as a reason for a slot delay constitute an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 only if, in itself, the adverse weather constitutes an extraordinary circumstance and if, in itself, the adverse weather at the place in question and at the time in question is ‘out of the ordinary’, and, in itself, is not typical of the ‘usual weather conditions to be expected’ at the place in question and at the time in question, but ‘goes beyond them’?

| 5. | Are adverse weather conditions that are not out of the ordinary at a specific place at a specific time and do not go beyond the usual weather conditions to be expected at a specific place at a specific time events inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of air carriers and in the normal basic conditions of air transport within the meaning of the Court of Justice’s interpretation of Article 5(3) of [Regulation No 261/2004]? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Are adverse weather conditions that are not out of the ordinary at a specific place at a specific time and do not go beyond the usual weather conditions to be expected at a specific place at a specific time events inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of air carriers and in the normal basic conditions of air transport within the meaning of the Court of Justice’s interpretation of Article 5(3) of [Regulation No 261/2004]?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).

---

| 3.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 163/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 163/12

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 1 February 2021 — FK

(Case C-58/21)

(2021/C 163/16)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Wien

Parties to the main proceedings

Complainant: FK

Respondent authority: Rechtsanwaltskammer Wien

Questions referred

| 1. | How is Article 13(2)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (1) to be interpreted where, from a quantitative point of view, the centre of interest of the activities of a person is in a non-Member State in which that person also resides and, furthermore, that person also pursues an activity in two Member States (Federal Republic of Germany and Austria), the activity in the two Member States being distributed in such a way that the bulk of the activity clearly takes place in one Member State (in this specific case, the Federal Republic of Germany)?
  In the event that that provision is interpreted to the effect that Austria has competence, [the following question] is [asked]: |
| --- | --- |

1.

How is Article 13(2)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (1) to be interpreted where, from a quantitative point of view, the centre of interest of the activities of a person is in a non-Member State in which that person also resides and, furthermore, that person also pursues an activity in two Member States (Federal Republic of Germany and Austria), the activity in the two Member States being distributed in such a way that the bulk of the activity clearly takes place in one Member State (in this specific case, the Federal Republic of Germany)?

In the event that that provision is interpreted to the effect that Austria has competence, [the following question] is [asked]:

| 2. | [Are] the provision of Paragraph 50(2)(2)(c)(aa) of the Rechtsanwaltsordnung (Code of Lawyers) (2) and the provision of Paragraph 26(1)(8) of the Satzung Teil A 2018 (2018 Statute for Part A) based thereon permissible under EU law or do they infringe EU law and the rights guaranteed under EU law by requiring, as a condition for the award of a retirement pension, that the right to practise law in Austria and abroad be waived (Paragraph 50(2)(2)(c)(aa)) or that the right to practise as a lawyer anywhere be waived (Paragraph 26(1)(8) of the 2018 Statute for Part A)? |
| --- | --- |

2.

[Are] the provision of Paragraph 50(2)(2)(c)(aa) of the Rechtsanwaltsordnung (Code of Lawyers) (2) and the provision of Paragraph 26(1)(8) of the Satzung Teil A 2018 (2018 Statute for Part A) based thereon permissible under EU law or do they infringe EU law and the rights guaranteed under EU law by requiring, as a condition for the award of a retirement pension, that the right to practise law in Austria and abroad be waived (Paragraph 50(2)(2)(c)(aa)) or that the right to practise as a lawyer anywhere be waived (Paragraph 26(1)(8) of the 2018 Statute for Part A)?

---

(1)  OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1.

(2)  RGBl. Nr. 96/1868 idF BGBl I Nr. 10/2017.

---

| 3.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 163/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 163/12

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Zwolle (Netherlands) lodged on 29 January 2021 — O.T. E. v Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

(Case C-66/21)

(2021/C 163/17)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Zwolle

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: O.T. E.

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

Questions referred

| 1. | (a) | Since the Netherlands has failed to specify in national law when the reflection period guaranteed in Article 6(1) of Directive 2004/81/EC (1) commences, must that provision be interpreted as meaning that the reflection period commences by operation of law when the third-country national notifies (communicates) the trafficking in human beings to the Netherlands authorities? |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

(a)

Since the Netherlands has failed to specify in national law when the reflection period guaranteed in Article 6(1) of Directive 2004/81/EC (1) commences, must that provision be interpreted as meaning that the reflection period commences by operation of law when the third-country national notifies (communicates) the trafficking in human beings to the Netherlands authorities?

| (b) | Since the Netherlands has failed to specify in national law the duration of the reflection period guaranteed in Article 6(1) of Directive 2004/81/EC, must that provision be interpreted as meaning that the reflection period ends by operation of law once the trafficking in human beings has been reported or the third-country national concerned indicates that he no longer wishes to report such trafficking? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Since the Netherlands has failed to specify in national law the duration of the reflection period guaranteed in Article 6(1) of Directive 2004/81/EC, must that provision be interpreted as meaning that the reflection period ends by operation of law once the trafficking in human beings has been reported or the third-country national concerned indicates that he no longer wishes to report such trafficking?

| 2. | Are expulsion orders within the meaning of Article 6(2) of Directive 2004/81/EC to be understood to include orders for the removal of a third-country national from the territory of one Member State to the territory of another Member State? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Are expulsion orders within the meaning of Article 6(2) of Directive 2004/81/EC to be understood to include orders for the removal of a third-country national from the territory of one Member State to the territory of another Member State?

| 3. | (a) | Does Article 6(2) of Directive 2004/81/EC preclude the adoption of a transfer decision during the reflection period guaranteed in the first paragraph of that article? |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

(a)

Does Article 6(2) of Directive 2004/81/EC preclude the adoption of a transfer decision during the reflection period guaranteed in the first paragraph of that article?

| (b) | Does Article 6(2) of Directive 2004/81/EC preclude, during the reflection period guaranteed in the first paragraph of that article, the enforcement of a transfer decision which has already been taken, or the preparations for such enforcement? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Does Article 6(2) of Directive 2004/81/EC preclude, during the reflection period guaranteed in the first paragraph of that article, the enforcement of a transfer decision which has already been taken, or the preparations for such enforcement?

---

(1)  Council Directive of 29 April 2004 on the residence permit issued to third-country nationals who are victims of trafficking in human beings or who have been the subject of an action to facilitate illegal immigration, who cooperate with the competent authorities (OJ 2004 L 261, p. 19).

---

| 3.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 163/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 163/13

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats’s-Hertogenbosch (Netherlands) lodged on 4 February 2021 — X v Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

(Case C-69/21)

(2021/C 163/18)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats’s-Hertogenbosch

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: X

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

Questions referred

| 1. | Can a significant increase in pain intensity due to a lack of medical treatment, while the clinical picture remains unchanged, constitute a situation which is contrary to Article 19(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), read in conjunction with Article 1 of the Charter and Article 4 of the Charter, if no postponement of the departure obligation resulting from Directive 2008/115/EC (1) (‘the Return Directive’) is permitted? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can a significant increase in pain intensity due to a lack of medical treatment, while the clinical picture remains unchanged, constitute a situation which is contrary to Article 19(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), read in conjunction with Article 1 of the Charter and Article 4 of the Charter, if no postponement of the departure obligation resulting from Directive 2008/115/EC (1) (‘the Return Directive’) is permitted?

| 2. | Is the setting of a fixed period within which the consequences of the lack of medical treatment must materialise in order to constitute a medical obstacle to an obligation to return resulting from the Return Directive compatible with Article 4 of the Charter, read in conjunction with Article 1 of the Charter? If the setting of a fixed period is not contrary to EU law, is a Member State then permitted to set a general period that is the same for all possible medical conditions and all possible medical consequences? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the setting of a fixed period within which the consequences of the lack of medical treatment must materialise in order to constitute a medical obstacle to an obligation to return resulting from the Return Directive compatible with Article 4 of the Charter, read in conjunction with Article 1 of the Charter? If the setting of a fixed period is not contrary to EU law, is a Member State then permitted to set a general period that is the same for all possible medical conditions and all possible medical consequences?

| 3. | Is a determination that the consequences of expulsion should be assessed solely in terms of whether, and under what conditions, the foreign national can travel, compatible with Article 19(2) of the Charter, read in conjunction with Article 1 of the Charter and Article 4 of the Charter, and with the Return Directive? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is a determination that the consequences of expulsion should be assessed solely in terms of whether, and under what conditions, the foreign national can travel, compatible with Article 19(2) of the Charter, read in conjunction with Article 1 of the Charter and Article 4 of the Charter, and with the Return Directive?

| 4. | Does Article 7 of the Charter, read in conjunction with Article 1 of the Charter and Article 4 of the Charter, and in the light of the Return Directive, require that the medical condition of the foreign national and the treatment he is undergoing in the Member State be assessed when determining whether private life considerations should result in permission to stay being granted? Does Article 19(2) of the Charter, read in conjunction with Article 1 of the Charter and Article 4 of the Charter, and in the light of the Return Directive, require that private life and family life, as referred to in Article 7 of the Charter, be taken into account when assessing whether medical problems may constitute an obstacle to expulsion? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Does Article 7 of the Charter, read in conjunction with Article 1 of the Charter and Article 4 of the Charter, and in the light of the Return Directive, require that the medical condition of the foreign national and the treatment he is undergoing in the Member State be assessed when determining whether private life considerations should result in permission to stay being granted? Does Article 19(2) of the Charter, read in conjunction with Article 1 of the Charter and Article 4 of the Charter, and in the light of the Return Directive, require that private life and family life, as referred to in Article 7 of the Charter, be taken into account when assessing whether medical problems may constitute an obstacle to expulsion?

---

(1)  Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98).

---

| 3.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 163/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 163/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 12 February 2021 — Lietuvos Respublikos vidaus reikalų ministerija

(Case C-88/21)

(2021/C 163/19)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Party to the main proceedings

Lietuvos Respublikos vidaus reikalų ministerija

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 39 of Council Decision 2007/533/JHA of 12 June 2007 on the establishment, operation and use of the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II), in particular Article 39(3), be interpreted as imposing an obligation to prohibit the registration of objects for which an alert has been issued in the Schengen Information System notwithstanding the fact that the alert is no longer relevant (the vehicle has been located; the criminal procedure in the Member State where the vehicle was located has been discontinued in the absence of a criminal offence committed in that Member State; the State that entered the alert has been informed but fails to take action to remove the alert from the system)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 39 of Council Decision 2007/533/JHA of 12 June 2007 on the establishment, operation and use of the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II), in particular Article 39(3), be interpreted as imposing an obligation to prohibit the registration of objects for which an alert has been issued in the Schengen Information System notwithstanding the fact that the alert is no longer relevant (the vehicle has been located; the criminal procedure in the Member State where the vehicle was located has been discontinued in the absence of a criminal offence committed in that Member State; the State that entered the alert has been informed but fails to take action to remove the alert from the system)?

| 2. | Must Article 39 of Council Decision 2007/533/JHA of 12 June 2007 on the establishment, operation and use of the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II), in particular Article 39(3), be interpreted as obliging a Member State which has located an object for which an alert was issued pursuant to Article 38(1) of the decision to lay down rules of national law that would prohibit any actions with the located object other than actions by which an objective referred to in Article 38 (seizure or use as evidence in criminal proceedings) would be attained? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must Article 39 of Council Decision 2007/533/JHA of 12 June 2007 on the establishment, operation and use of the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II), in particular Article 39(3), be interpreted as obliging a Member State which has located an object for which an alert was issued pursuant to Article 38(1) of the decision to lay down rules of national law that would prohibit any actions with the located object other than actions by which an objective referred to in Article 38 (seizure or use as evidence in criminal proceedings) would be attained?

| 3. | Must Article 39 of Council Decision 2007/533/JHA of 12 June 2007 on the establishment, operation and use of the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II), in particular Article 39(3), be interpreted as allowing Member States to lay down legal rules which would provide for exceptions to the prohibition on registering vehicles for which an alert has been entered in SIS pursuant to Article 38 of the decision, after the competent authorities of the Member State have taken steps in order for the State which entered the alert to be informed about the located object? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Must Article 39 of Council Decision 2007/533/JHA of 12 June 2007 on the establishment, operation and use of the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II), in particular Article 39(3), be interpreted as allowing Member States to lay down legal rules which would provide for exceptions to the prohibition on registering vehicles for which an alert has been entered in SIS pursuant to Article 38 of the decision, after the competent authorities of the Member State have taken steps in order for the State which entered the alert to be informed about the located object?

---

| 3.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 163/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 163/15

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 12 February 2021 — ‘Romega’ UAB v Valstybinė maisto ir veterinarijos tarnyba

(Case C-89/21)

(2021/C 163/20)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant:‘Romega’ UAB

Respondent: Valstybinė maisto ir veterinarijos tarnyba

Question referred

Must Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 (1) of 15 November 2005 on microbiological criteria for foodstuffs and Article 14(8) of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety be interpreted as conferring on the competent supervisory authorities of a Member State the discretion to determine that fresh poultry meat which meets the requirements set out in Row l.28 of Chapter 1 of Annex I to Regulation No 2073/2005 fails to satisfy the requirements of Article 14(1) and (2) of Regulation No 178/2002 in the case where a food product coming under that food category is contaminated by Salmonella serotypes other than those referred to in Row l.28 of Chapter 1 of Annex I to Regulation No 2073/2005, as has been established in the present case?

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 of 15 November 2005 on microbiological criteria for foodstuffs (OJ 2005 L 338, p. 1).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (OJ 2002 L 31, p. 1).

---

| 3.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 163/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 163/15

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Blagoevgrad (Bulgaria) lodged on 16 February 2021 — МV — 98 v Nachalnik na otdel ‘Operativni deynosti’ — grad Sofia v glavna direktsia ‘Fiskalen kontrol’ pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite

(Case C-97/21)

(2021/C 163/21)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Blagoevgrad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: МV — 98

Defendant: Nachalnik na otdel ‘Operativni deynosti’ — grad Sofia v glavna direktsia ‘Fiskalen kontrol’ pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite

| 1. | Are Article 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax and Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which, for an act consisting in not having registered the sale of goods and not having recorded it by issuing a document evidencing the sale, administrative proceedings for the ordering of a coercive administrative measure and administrative penalty proceedings for the imposition of an assets penalty may be brought against the same person in a cumulative manner? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are Article 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax and Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which, for an act consisting in not having registered the sale of goods and not having recorded it by issuing a document evidencing the sale, administrative proceedings for the ordering of a coercive administrative measure and administrative penalty proceedings for the imposition of an assets penalty may be brought against the same person in a cumulative manner?

| 1.1. | If that question is answered in the affirmative, must Article 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax and Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which, for an act consisting in not having registered the sale of goods and not having recorded it by issuing a document evidencing the sale, administrative proceedings for the ordering of a coercive administrative measure and administrative penalty proceedings for the imposition of an assets penalty may be brought against the same person in a cumulative manner, taking account of the fact that that legislation does not at the same time impose on the authorities competent for conducting the two sets of proceedings and on the courts the obligation to ensure the effective application of the principle of proportionality with regard to the overall severity of all the cumulated measures in relation to the seriousness of the specific offence? |
| --- | --- |

1.1.

If that question is answered in the affirmative, must Article 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax and Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which, for an act consisting in not having registered the sale of goods and not having recorded it by issuing a document evidencing the sale, administrative proceedings for the ordering of a coercive administrative measure and administrative penalty proceedings for the imposition of an assets penalty may be brought against the same person in a cumulative manner, taking account of the fact that that legislation does not at the same time impose on the authorities competent for conducting the two sets of proceedings and on the courts the obligation to ensure the effective application of the principle of proportionality with regard to the overall severity of all the cumulated measures in relation to the seriousness of the specific offence?

| 2. | If Articles 50 and 52(1) of the Charter are found not to be applicable in the present case, must Article 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax and Article 49(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union then be interpreted as precluding a national provision such as Article 186(1) of the ZDDS [Zakon za danak varhu dobavenata stoynost (Law on value added tax)], which, for an offence consisting in not having registered the sale of goods and not having recorded it by issuing a document evidencing the sale, provides for the imposition on the same person of the coercive administrative measure of ‘sealing of business premises’ for a period of up to 30 days in addition to the imposition of an assets penalty under Article 185(2) of the ZDDS? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If Articles 50 and 52(1) of the Charter are found not to be applicable in the present case, must Article 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax and Article 49(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union then be interpreted as precluding a national provision such as Article 186(1) of the ZDDS [Zakon za danak varhu dobavenata stoynost (Law on value added tax)], which, for an offence consisting in not having registered the sale of goods and not having recorded it by issuing a document evidencing the sale, provides for the imposition on the same person of the coercive administrative measure of ‘sealing of business premises’ for a period of up to 30 days in addition to the imposition of an assets penalty under Article 185(2) of the ZDDS?

| 3. | Is Article 47(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to be interpreted as not precluding measures introduced by the national legislature in order to safeguard the interest under Article 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, such as the provisional enforcement of the coercive administrative measure of ‘sealing of business premises’ for a period of up to 30 days in order to protect a presumed public interest, where judicial protection against that measure is limited to an assessment of a comparable private interest opposing that public interest? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is Article 47(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to be interpreted as not precluding measures introduced by the national legislature in order to safeguard the interest under Article 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, such as the provisional enforcement of the coercive administrative measure of ‘sealing of business premises’ for a period of up to 30 days in order to protect a presumed public interest, where judicial protection against that measure is limited to an assessment of a comparable private interest opposing that public interest?

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1, Special edition in Bulgarian: Chapter 09 Volume 003 P. 7.

---

| 3.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 163/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 163/16

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 22 February 2021 — Criminal proceedings against IR

(Case C-105/21)

(2021/C 163/22)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

Party to the main proceedings

IR

Questions referred

| 1. | Would it be in conformity with Article 6 of the Charter — read in conjunction with Article 5(4), (2) and (1)(c) ECHR — and with Article 47 of the Charter, the right to freedom of movement, the principle of equality and the principle of mutual trust if the issuing judicial authority, according to Article 6(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584, were to make no effort whatsoever to inform the requested person, while he or she is in the territory of the executing Member State, of the factual and legal bases for his or her arrest and of the right to challenge the arrest warrant? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Would it be in conformity with Article 6 of the Charter — read in conjunction with Article 5(4), (2) and (1)(c) ECHR — and with Article 47 of the Charter, the right to freedom of movement, the principle of equality and the principle of mutual trust if the issuing judicial authority, according to Article 6(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584, were to make no effort whatsoever to inform the requested person, while he or she is in the territory of the executing Member State, of the factual and legal bases for his or her arrest and of the right to challenge the arrest warrant?

| 2. | If so: Does the principle of the primacy of EU law over national law require the issuing judicial authority not to provide that information and, moreover, if the requested person requests the withdrawal of the national arrest warrant despite that failure to provide information, does that principle require the issuing judicial authority to assess that request on the merits only after the requested person has been surrendered? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If so: Does the principle of the primacy of EU law over national law require the issuing judicial authority not to provide that information and, moreover, if the requested person requests the withdrawal of the national arrest warrant despite that failure to provide information, does that principle require the issuing judicial authority to assess that request on the merits only after the requested person has been surrendered?

| 3. | What legal measures of EU law are the appropriate basis for such provision of information? |
| --- | --- |

3.

What legal measures of EU law are the appropriate basis for such provision of information?

---

| 3.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 163/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 163/17

---

Appeal brought on 25 February 2021 by Oriol Junqueras i Vies against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 15 December 2020 in Case T-24/20, Junqueras i Vies v Parliament

(Case C-115/21 P)

(2021/C 163/23)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Oriol Junqueras i Vies (represented by: A. Van den Eynde Adroer, abogado)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the order of 15 December 2020 of the Sixth Chamber of the General Court of the European Union in Case T-24/20; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the order of 15 December 2020 of the Sixth Chamber of the General Court of the European Union in Case T-24/20;

| — | declare the present appeal to be fully admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the present appeal to be fully admissible;

| — | reinstate the proceedings so that, once the appeal has been declared admissible, the Sixth Chamber of the General Court of the European Union may continue its assessment thereof; |
| --- | --- |

—

reinstate the proceedings so that, once the appeal has been declared admissible, the Sixth Chamber of the General Court of the European Union may continue its assessment thereof;

| — | order the European Parliament to pay the costs for the proceedings relating to the plea of inadmissibility and the present appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay the costs for the proceedings relating to the plea of inadmissibility and the present appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

First: Error of law in the interpretation and application to the present case of Articles 13(3) and 7(3) of the Act concerning the election of the members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage (‘the European Electoral Act’) (1976) (1). There has been no withdrawal of the mandate but rather application of a ground for incompatibility not provided for in Article 7(3) of the European Electoral Act (1976). The European Parliament could not take note of any withdrawal of the mandate of Mr Junqueras nor of any ground for incompatibility established in accordance with Article 7(3) of the European Electoral Act (1976) since neither existed. By ‘taking note’, the European Parliament gave legal effects to a decision which could have no such effects and which then became an act against which an action for annulment could be brought under Article 263 TFEU, infringing Mr Junqueras’ rights (in particular [those under] Article 39 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) and Article 9 of Protocol No 7 on the privileges and immunities of the European Union).

Second: Error of law in the interpretation and application of Rule 4(7) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament (‘the Rules of Procedure’). The contested order is wrong in law in so far as it finds that the European Parliament does not have the power to refuse to recognise the grounds for incompatibility in accordance with that rule. On account of the failure to apply Rule 4(7) of the Rules of Procedure, the decision of the European Parliament is a decision that alters the legal position of Mr Junqueras by affecting his rights (in particular [those under] Article 39 of the Charter and Article 9 of Protocol No 7 on the privileges and immunities of the European Union). Consequently, the contested order is wrong in law in so far as it finds that an action for annulment may not be brought under Article 263 TFEU.

Third: Misinterpretation of Articles 8 and 12 of the European Electoral Act (1976) and Rule 3(3) of the Rules of Procedure in so far as the ground for incompatibility applied to Mr Junqueras is not applicable to the electoral procedure. It cannot be concluded that the State may establish that ground for incompatibility in accordance with the electoral procedure legislation laid down in the European Electoral Act (1976). The order is wrong in not finding that Article 13(3) of the European Electoral Act and Rule 4(7) of the Rules of Procedure are incompatible with Article 39(1) and (2), Article 41(1) and (2) and Article 21(2) of the Charter in so far as they lay down limitations to the rights in breach of Article 52(1) and (3) of the Charter. The order is wrong in not taking into account the fact that, in the hierarchy of norms, the Charter has been elevated to the rank of primary law of the European Union. By applying rules contrary to the Charter, the contested act is clearly a decision that alters the legal position of Mr Junqueras and against which an action for annulment may be brought in accordance with Article 263 TFEU. The contested order is therefore wrong in law. In the alternative, the order should have applied an interpretation of Article 13(3) of the European Electoral Act (1976) and of Rule 4(7) of the Rules of Procedure that is consistent with the rights protected by the Charter and the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, and should also have taken into account the exceptional circumstances of the present case and the information already available to the European Parliament. The contested order is wrong in law in so far as it did not find that in this specific case it could be concluded that there was material inaccuracy pursuant to Rule 4(7) of the Rules of Procedure, enabling the European Parliament to refuse to declare the seat vacant or to recognise the ground for incompatibility applied. Accordingly, the contested order is wrong in law since the contested act is a decision which produces legal effects in relation to Mr Junqueras and against which an action for annulment may be brought under Article 263 TFEU.

Fourth: The order under appeal is wrong in law in so far as it finds that an initiative of the President of the European Parliament in accordance with Rule 8 of the Rules of Procedure is not binding under EU law. The legal order must be interpreted as a whole and Article 39 of the Charter (the application of which is mandatory for the Member States under Article 51(1) of the Charter), the duty of sincere cooperation, Article 9 of Protocol No 7 on the privileges and immunities of the European Union, and Article 6 of the Rules of Procedure make it obligatory that Mr Junqueras’ rights be respected where the Member State is notified of the situation by the President of the European Parliament in accordance with Rule 8 of the Rules of Procedure. The order under appeal erred in finding that there are no special circumstances in the present case on account of which the inaction of the European Parliament amounts to an act against which an action for annulment may be brought (a number of previous requests for protection of Mr Junqueras’ immunity which have not been addressed and, above all, a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union recognising Mr Junqueras as an elected [Member of the European Parliament], which establish that his rights have been infringed by the failure to request the waiver of his immunity). The order under appeal erred in finding that, in the particular circumstances of the present case, the refusal to consider a request for urgent protection on the basis of Rule 8 of the Rules of Procedure constitutes a decision which has legal effects on the protection of Mr Junqueras’ immunity and, accordingly, against which an action for annulment may be brought under Article 263 TFEU.

---

(1)  OJ 1976 L 278, p. 5.

---

| 3.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 163/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 163/18

---

Appeal brought on 25 February 2021 by PlasticsEurope against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 16 December 2020 in Case T-207/18, PlasticsEurope v ECHA

(Case C-119/21 P)

(2021/C 163/24)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: PlasticsEurope (represented by: R. Cana, avocat, E. Mullier, avocate)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Chemicals Agency, Federal Republic of Germany, French Republic, ClientEarth

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court in Case T-207/18; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court in Case T-207/18;

| — | annul the contested act; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested act;

| — | alternatively, refer the case back to the General Court to rule on the Appellant’s application for annulment; |
| --- | --- |

—

alternatively, refer the case back to the General Court to rule on the Appellant’s application for annulment;

| — | order the Respondent to pay the costs of these proceedings, including the costs of the proceedings before the General Court, including those of the Interveners. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Respondent to pay the costs of these proceedings, including the costs of the proceedings before the General Court, including those of the Interveners.

Pleas in law and main arguments

| 1. | The margin of discretion which is granted to the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) in assessing substances for identification as substances of very high concern under Article 57(f) of Regulation (EC) 1907/2006 (1) (the REACH Regulation) cannot be interpreted so as to allow the ECHA complete and unchallengeable free rein to make manifest errors in the selection and assessment of ‘scientific evidence’ under that Article 57(f). However, the General Court has accepted this by ruling that there can only be a finding of manifest error of assessment if the ECHA completely and wrongly disregarded a reliable scientific study and if the inclusion of that study would have altered the overall assessment of the evidence in such a way that the final decision would have been implausible. The General Court further accepted that the results of unreliable scientific studies could be relied upon by the ECHA and that their poor reliability does not preclude their being taken into account. The General Court has gone even further in accepting the reliance on unreliable and inconclusive scientific studies where their results support the ECHA ’s targeted hypothesis about the alleged hazardous property of the substance. In doing so, the General Court erred in law and breached the principle of scientific excellence. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The margin of discretion which is granted to the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) in assessing substances for identification as substances of very high concern under Article 57(f) of Regulation (EC) 1907/2006 (1) (the REACH Regulation) cannot be interpreted so as to allow the ECHA complete and unchallengeable free rein to make manifest errors in the selection and assessment of ‘scientific evidence’ under that Article 57(f). However, the General Court has accepted this by ruling that there can only be a finding of manifest error of assessment if the ECHA completely and wrongly disregarded a reliable scientific study and if the inclusion of that study would have altered the overall assessment of the evidence in such a way that the final decision would have been implausible. The General Court further accepted that the results of unreliable scientific studies could be relied upon by the ECHA and that their poor reliability does not preclude their being taken into account. The General Court has gone even further in accepting the reliance on unreliable and inconclusive scientific studies where their results support the ECHA ’s targeted hypothesis about the alleged hazardous property of the substance. In doing so, the General Court erred in law and breached the principle of scientific excellence.

| 2. | The General Court erred in law and misinterpreted Article 57(f) of the the REACH Regulation as well as breached the Appellant’s right to be heard by misinterpreting the Appellant’s submissions as regards the requirement to establish that the substance is of equivalent level of concern to the effects of substances identified on the basis of Article 57(a) to (e) of the the REACH Regulation . |
| --- | --- |

2.

The General Court erred in law and misinterpreted Article 57(f) of the the REACH Regulation as well as breached the Appellant’s right to be heard by misinterpreting the Appellant’s submissions as regards the requirement to establish that the substance is of equivalent level of concern to the effects of substances identified on the basis of Article 57(a) to (e) of the the REACH Regulation .

| 3. | The General Court erred in law in the assessment of the evidence related to the Appellant’s submissions as regards the reliability of scientific studies and distorted the evidence before it. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The General Court erred in law in the assessment of the evidence related to the Appellant’s submissions as regards the reliability of scientific studies and distorted the evidence before it.

| 4. | By considering that the ECHA’s assessment of scientific evidence would be supported by the precautionary principle, the General Court misinterpreted that principle and thus erred in law. |
| --- | --- |

4.

By considering that the ECHA’s assessment of scientific evidence would be supported by the precautionary principle, the General Court misinterpreted that principle and thus erred in law.

| 5. | The General Court erred in law by ruling that intermediates are not exempt from identification pursuant to Articles 57 and 59 of the REACH Regulation on the ground that these provisions only target the intrinsic properties of a substance and not its use (which would include whether or not the substance is an intermediate) and that it was not disproportionate for the ECHA to do so. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The General Court erred in law by ruling that intermediates are not exempt from identification pursuant to Articles 57 and 59 of the REACH Regulation on the ground that these provisions only target the intrinsic properties of a substance and not its use (which would include whether or not the substance is an intermediate) and that it was not disproportionate for the ECHA to do so.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006, L 396, p. 1).

---

| 3.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 163/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 163/19

---

Appeal brought on 26 February 2021 by International Skating Union against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 16 December 2020 in Case T-93/18, International Skating Union v European Commission

(Case C-124/21 P)

(2021/C 163/25)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: International Skating Union (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Mark Jan Hendrik Tuitert, Niels Kerstholt, European Elite Athletes Association

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in International Skating Union v Commission (Case T-93/18) in so far as the appellants' action is dismissed; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in International Skating Union v Commission (Case T-93/18) in so far as the appellants' action is dismissed;

| — | annul the Commission Decision of 8 December 2017 in Case AT. 40208 — International Skating Union's Eligibility rules, and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission Decision of 8 December 2017 in Case AT. 40208 — International Skating Union's Eligibility rules, and

| — | order the Commission and the interveners at first instance to bear the costs of these proceedings and of the proceedings before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission and the interveners at first instance to bear the costs of these proceedings and of the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

First plea: The General Court infringes Article 263 TFEU and the case law of the Court of Justice on Article 101 TFEU by finding that the ISU Eligibility rules restrict competition by object

Part 1: The General Court fails to examine any of the appellant’s arguments challenging the Commission’s assessment of the facts supporting the finding of restriction of competition by object as set out in the Commission Decision of 8 December 2017 in Case AT. 40208 — International Skating Union's Eligibility rules (‘the contested decision’)

All the appellant’s arguments challenging the Commission’s assessment of the facts supporting the finding in Article 1 of the contested decision that the ISU infringed Article 101 TFEU by ‘adopting and enforcing’ the Eligibility rules were either wrongly held to be ineffective or irrelevant or were simply ignored.

Part 2: The General Court redefines the restriction of competition at issue in the case, in breach of its obligation not to substitute its own reasoning for that of the Commission, and wrongly classifies elements discussed by the Commission in Section 8.5 of the contested decision as being relevant to a finding of restriction of competition by object, in breach of the case law of the Court of Justice on Article 101 TFEU

Instead of reviewing the finding of infringement as established in the contested decision, the General Court constructed a new restriction of competition by object deduced from: 1) an abstract reading of the ISU Eligibility rules divorced from any examination of how they were applied in practice and 2) elements discussed by the Commission in Section 8.5 of the contested decision, which does not form part of the finding of infringement by object in the decision (Section 8.3).

Part 3: The General Court commits legal errors in its analysis of the four elements relied upon by the Commission to find that the ISU Eligibility rules are a by object restriction of competition

The content of the Eligibility rules: No conclusion on the alleged restrictive object of the rules can be deduced from the level of the sanctions enforcing them. There are adverse effects on competition resulting from sanctions only when a refusal to authorise an event is unjustified. The level of the sanctions as such says nothing about the content of the rules.

The objectives of the ISU Eligibility rules: From its recognition that the ISU pre- authorisation system pursues a legitimate objective, the General Court should have drawn the conclusion that the ISU Eligibility rules cannot restrict competition by object.

The legal and economic context of the ISU Eligibility rules: The General Court misinterprets Cartes Bancaires (C-67/13) in regarding as irrelevant the fact that all third party figure skating events were approved by the ISU on the ground that there are no ‘interactions’ between the figure skating market and the relevant speed skating market.

The ISU’s intention to restrict competition: The fact that intention is not a necessary factor in a ‘by object’ analysis does not allow the General Court to dismiss as ineffective the appellant’s arguments challenging the Commission’s assessment of the facts set out in recitals 175-178 of the contested ecision on which the Commission relied to find that the ISU infringed Article 101 TFEU through the adoption and enforcement of the Eligibility rules.

Second plea: The General Court errs in law by failing to address the appellant’s fourth plea of its application that the ISU’s decision not to approve the 2014 Dubai Icederby event falls outside the scope of Article 101 TFEU because this decision pursued a legitimate objective in line with the ISU’s Code of Ethics which prohibits all forms of support for betting

The General Court errs in law by mischaracterising the appellant’s plea as involving an abstract discussion of the legitimacy of the objective of protecting the integrity of speed skating. This plea challenged the Commission’s refusal to recognise the validity of the ISU’s ethical concerns about the concept of speed skating competitions combined with on-site betting due to be showcased at the Dubai event. The General Court ignores the evidence produced by the appellant, in particular the report about the debate in the Korean National Assembly rejecting that concept in view of the high risk of manipulations, thus confirming the validity of the ISU’s ethical concerns. The Dubai Icederby is the sole third event party skating event which was not approved under the ISU pre-authorisation system.

---

| 3.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 163/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 163/21

---

Appeal brought on 26 February 2021 by American Airlines, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 16 December 2020 in Case T-430/18, American Airlines v Commission

(Case C-127/21 P)

(2021/C 163/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: American Airlines, Inc. (represented by: J.-P. Poitras, avocat, J. Ruiz Calzado, abogado, J. Wileur, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Delta Air Lines, Inc.

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

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

—

set aside and annul the judgment under appeal;

| — | annul Commission Decision C(2017) 2788 final of 30 April 2018; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Decision C(2017) 2788 final of 30 April 2018;

| — | in the alternative, if deemed necessary, remand the case to the General Court for reconsideration in accordance with the Court’s judgment; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, if deemed necessary, remand the case to the General Court for reconsideration in accordance with the Court’s judgment;

| — | order the Commission to bear its own costs and pay the appellant’s costs, both for these proceedings and the proceedings before the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to bear its own costs and pay the appellant’s costs, both for these proceedings and the proceedings before the General Court;

| — | take any other measures that the Court considers appropriate. |
| --- | --- |

—

take any other measures that the Court considers appropriate.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action, the appellant relies on a single plea in law that the General Court committed an error of law in accepting the Commission’s flawed legal interpretation that the ‘appropriate use’ test in Clause 1.10 of the American-US Airways merger commitments (‘Commitments’) means only ‘absence of misuse’ and thereby the judgment incorrectly upheld Commission Decision C(2017) 2788 final of 30 April 2018 granting Grandfathering rights to Delta Airlines (Case M.6607 — US Airways/American Airlines).

The plea has three limbs:

| 1. | In the first limb, the appellant focuses on the correct legal approach to interpreting the ‘appropriate use’ test for the award of Grandfathering rights under Clause 1.10 of the Commitments and demonstrates that the General Court erred in law in its interpretative approach. |
| --- | --- |

1.

In the first limb, the appellant focuses on the correct legal approach to interpreting the ‘appropriate use’ test for the award of Grandfathering rights under Clause 1.10 of the Commitments and demonstrates that the General Court erred in law in its interpretative approach.

| 2. | In the second limb, the appellant demonstrates that General Court further erred in law by accepting the Commission’s analysis that ‘appropriate use’ means only ‘absence of misuse’ thereby incorrectly accepting Delta’s failure to operate 470 remedy slots. |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the second limb, the appellant demonstrates that General Court further erred in law by accepting the Commission’s analysis that ‘appropriate use’ means only ‘absence of misuse’ thereby incorrectly accepting Delta’s failure to operate 470 remedy slots.

| 3. | In the third limb, the appellant explains the additional legal errors of the judgment in interpreting Clause 1.9 of the Commitments, specifically the wording ‘in accordance with the bid’ based on a flawed legal analysis of the Form RM. |
| --- | --- |

3.

In the third limb, the appellant explains the additional legal errors of the judgment in interpreting Clause 1.9 of the Commitments, specifically the wording ‘in accordance with the bid’ based on a flawed legal analysis of the Form RM.

---

| 3.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 163/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 163/22

---

Action brought on 5 March 2021 — European Parliament v European Commission

(Case C-144/21)

(2021/C 163/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: L. Visaggio, C. Ionescu Dima, M. Menegatti, Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Articles 1(1) and (5), 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9 and 10 inasmuch as they concern the authorisations relating to uses 2, 4 and 5 (and use 1, in relation to the formulation of mixtures for uses 2, 4 and 5) and bearing numbers REACH/20/18/0 to REACH/20/18/27 of Commission Implementing Decision C(2020) 8797 of 18 December 2020 partially granting an authorisation for certain uses of chromium trioxide under Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council (Chemservice GmbH and others); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Articles 1(1) and (5), 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9 and 10 inasmuch as they concern the authorisations relating to uses 2, 4 and 5 (and use 1, in relation to the formulation of mixtures for uses 2, 4 and 5) and bearing numbers REACH/20/18/0 to REACH/20/18/27 of Commission Implementing Decision C(2020) 8797 of 18 December 2020 partially granting an authorisation for certain uses of chromium trioxide under Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council (Chemservice GmbH and others);

| — | in the alternative, annul Commission Implementing Decision C(2020)8797 of 18 December 2020 in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Commission Implementing Decision C(2020)8797 of 18 December 2020 in its entirety;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging that the contested decision has been adopted in breach of the requirements laid down in Article 60(4) and (7) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council and should therefore be annulled inasmuch as it concerns the authorisation for uses 2, 4 and 5 (and use 1, in relation to the formulation of mixtures for uses 2, 4 and 5) and bearing numbers REACH/20/18/0 to REACH/20/18/27. In the alternative, should the Court consider that authorisations in the contested decision for use 6 bearing numbers REACH/20/18/28 to REACH/20/18/34 are so inextricably linked to the authorisations for other uses that the authorisations granted for uses 2, 4 and 5 (and use 1, in relation to the formulation of mixtures for uses 2, 4 and 5) are not severable from the contested decision, the applicant considers that the decision should be annulled in its entirety.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC, (OJ 2006, L 396, p. 1).

---

General Court

| 3.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 163/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 163/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 March 2021 — ViaSat v Commission

(Case T-245/17) (1)

(Action for failure to act and for annulment - Electronic communications networks and services - Harmonised use of the 2 GHz frequency spectrum - Pan-European systems providing mobile satellite services (MSS) - Decision 2007/98/EC - Harmonised operator selection procedure - Authorisations granted to the selected operators - Decision No 626/2008/EC - Request for action to be taken - No formal notice - Adoption of a position by the Commission - Inadmissibility - Refusal to take action - Measure not actionable - Inadmissibility - Powers of the Commission)

(2021/C 163/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ViaSat, Inc. (Carlsbad, California, United States) (represented by: E. Righini, J. Ruiz Calzado, P. de Bandt, M. Gherghinaru and L. Panepinto, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Braun, L. Nicolae and V. Di Bucci, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M. Bulterman, acting as Agent), Eutelsat SA (Paris, France) (represented by: L. de la Brosse and C. Barraco-David, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendant: EchoStar Mobile Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: A. Robertson, QC), Inmarsat Ventures Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Spontoni, B. Amory, É. Barbier de La Serre, lawyers, and A. Howard, Barrister)

Re:

Application under Article 265 TFEU for a declaration that the Commission unlawfully failed to take certain measures in the context of the harmonised application of rules concerning the provision of mobile satellite services (MSS) in the 2 GHz frequency band and, in the alternative, under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of the Commission’s letters of 14 and 21 February 2017 by which it responded following the applicant’s request for action to be taken.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders ViaSat, Inc. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders ViaSat, Inc. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders Eutelsat SA, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, EchoStar Mobile Ltd and Inmarsat Ventures Ltd to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Eutelsat SA, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, EchoStar Mobile Ltd and Inmarsat Ventures Ltd to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 213, 3.7.2017.

---

| 3.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 163/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 163/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 March 2021 — Ayuntamiento de Quart de Poblet v Commission

(Case T-539/18) (1)

(Arbitration clause - Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (2007-2013) - ‘Highly scalable Deployment model of Inclusive E-Govern’ (DIEGO) and ‘Speeding Every European Digital’ (SEED) contracts - Debit notes - Eligible costs - Justification of the costs - Reliability of records of tasks carried out for the projects)

(2021/C 163/29)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Ayuntamiento de Quart de Poblet (Quart de Poblet, Spain) (represented by: B. Sanchis Piqueras and J. A. Rodríguez Pellitero, lawyers)

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

Re:

Application under Article 272 TFEU seeking, in essence, a declaration that the Commission’s alleged contractual claims against the applicant under the DIEGO and SEED grant agreements are non-existent.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Ayuntamiento de Quart de Poblet to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ayuntamiento de Quart de Poblet to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.

---

| 3.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 163/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 163/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 March 2021 — Kerry Luxembourg v EUIPO — Ornua (KERRYMAID)

(Case T-693/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark KERRYMAID - Earlier EU figurative mark Kerrygold - Relative ground for refusal - Geographical name - Dominant element - Peaceful coexistence - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Application of the law ratione temporis)

(2021/C 163/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Kerry Luxembourg Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Traub, lawyer, and I. Connor, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: H. O’Neill and S. Hanne, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Ornua Co-operative Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri and A. Sanz Cerralbo, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 July 2019 (Case R 2473/2013-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Kerry Luxembourg and Ornua.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Kerry Luxembourg Sàrl to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Ornua Co-operative Ltd. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Kerry Luxembourg Sàrl to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Ornua Co-operative Ltd.

---

(1)  OJ C 413, 9.12.2019.

---

| 3.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 163/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 163/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 March 2021 — FI v Commission

(Case T-694/19) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Surviving spouse - Survivor’s pension - Articles 18, 19 and 20 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Conditions for eligibility - Duration of the marriage - Plea of illegality - Equal treatment - Proportionality)

(2021/C 163/31)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

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

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 decisions of 8 March 2019 and 1 April 2019 rejecting the application for the award of a survivor’s pension to the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decisions of the European Commission of 8 March 2019 and 1 April 2019 rejecting the application for the award of a survivor’s pension to FI; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decisions of the European Commission of 8 March 2019 and 1 April 2019 rejecting the application for the award of a survivor’s pension to FI;

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

2.

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

| 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.

---

(1)  OJ C 399, 25.11.2019.

---

| 3.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 163/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 163/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 February 2021 — Liga Nacional de Fútbol Profesional v EUIPO (El Clasico)

(Case T-809/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark El Clasico - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Descriptive character - Lack of distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2021/C 163/32)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Liga Nacional de Fútbol Profesional (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: C. Casas Feu and C. J. Riesco Losa, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas and A. Crawcour, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 October 2019 (Case R 1966/2018-2), concerning the international registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark El Clasico.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Liga Nacional de Fútbol Profesional to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Liga Nacional de Fútbol Profesional to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 27, 27.1.2020.

---

| 3.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 163/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 163/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 February 2021 — Bezos Family Foundation v EUIPO — SNCF Mobilités (VROOM)

(Case T-56/20) (1)

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

(2021/C 163/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Bezos Family Foundation (Seattle, Washington, United States) (represented by: A. Klett, M. Schaffner and M. Lambert Maillard, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: SNCF Mobilités, établissement public à caractère industriel et commercial (Saint-Denis, France)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 November 2019 (Case R 1288/2019 5), relating to opposition proceedings between SNCF Mobilités and Bezos Family Foundation.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Bezos Family Foundation to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Bezos Family Foundation to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 87, 16.3.2020.

---

| 3.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 163/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 163/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 February 2021 — Sonova v EUIPO — Digitmarket (B-Direct)

(Case T-61/20) (1)

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

(2021/C 163/34)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Sonova AG (Stäfa, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Sabellek, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Digitmarket — Sistemas de lnformação SA (Maia, Portugal)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 November 2019 (Case R 88/2019-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Digitmarket — Sistemas de Informação and Sonova.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Sonova AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Sonova AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 87, 16.3.2020.

---

| 3.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 163/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 163/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 March 2021 — Hauz 1929 v EUIPO — Houzz (HAUZ LONDON)

(Case T-66/20) (1)

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

(2021/C 163/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Hauz 1929 Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: N. Lyberis, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Houzz, Inc. (Palo Alto, California, United States)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 November 2019 (Case R 884/2019-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Houzz and Hauz 1929.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Hauz 1929 Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Hauz 1929 Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 95, 23.3.2020.

---

| 3.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 163/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 163/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 March 2021 — Hauz 1929 v EUIPO — Houzz (HAUZ NEW YORK)

(Case T-67/20) (1)

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

(2021/C 163/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Hauz 1929 Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: N. Lyberis, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Houzz, Inc. (Palo Alto, California, United States)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 November 2019 (Case R 886/2019-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Houzz and Hauz 1929.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Hauz 1929 Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Hauz 1929 Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 95, 23.3.2020.

---

| 3.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 163/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 163/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 March 2021 — Hauz 1929 v EUIPO — Houzz (HAUZ EST 1929)

(Case T-68/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark HAUZ EST 1929 - Earlier EU word mark HOUZZ - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2021/C 163/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Hauz 1929 Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: N. Lyberis, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Houzz, Inc. (Palo Alto, California, United States)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 November 2019 (Case R 885/2019-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Houzz and Hauz 1929.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Hauz 1929 Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Hauz 1929 Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 95, 23.3.2020.

---

| 3.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 163/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 163/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 March 2021 — Puma v EUIPO — CAMäleon (PUMA-System)

(Case T-71/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark PUMA-System - Earlier EU figurative marks PUMA - Relative ground for refusal - Detriment to reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2021/C 163/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: CAMäleon Produktionsautomatisierung GmbH (Dettenhausen, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 November 2019 (Case R 404/2019-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Puma and CAMäleon Produktionsautomatisierung.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 27 November 2019 (Case R 404/2019-1) to the extent that the Board of Appeal dismissed the appeal brought by Puma SE in so far as the application for registration of the word sign PUMA-System as an EU trade mark covers the goods and services in Classes 7, 9, 16 and 42 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended, corresponding, for each of those classes, to the following description:






  — | Class 7: ‘power screwdriver’; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 27 November 2019 (Case R 404/2019-1) to the extent that the Board of Appeal dismissed the appeal brought by Puma SE in so far as the application for registration of the word sign PUMA-System as an EU trade mark covers the goods and services in Classes 7, 9, 16 and 42 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended, corresponding, for each of those classes, to the following description:

—

Class 7: ‘power screwdriver’;

| — | Class 9: ‘computer hardware’, ‘computers’, ‘data-processing equipment and computers’, ‘computer peripheral devices’, ‘peripherals adapted for use with computers’, ‘magnetic and optical data carriers’, ‘printers for computers’, ‘heatdetectors’ and ‘measuring instruments’; |
| --- | --- |

—

Class 9: ‘computer hardware’, ‘computers’, ‘data-processing equipment and computers’, ‘computer peripheral devices’, ‘peripherals adapted for use with computers’, ‘magnetic and optical data carriers’, ‘printers for computers’, ‘heatdetectors’ and ‘measuring instruments’;

| — | Class 16: ‘catalogues relating to computer software’, ‘computer software operating manuals’, ‘instruction manuals’, ‘instruction manuals for personal computers, mobile telephones and palmtop computers’ and ‘books’; |
| --- | --- |

—

Class 16: ‘catalogues relating to computer software’, ‘computer software operating manuals’, ‘instruction manuals’, ‘instruction manuals for personal computers, mobile telephones and palmtop computers’ and ‘books’;

| — | Class 42: ‘updating and maintenance of computer software and programs’, ‘configuring computer hardware using software’, ‘configuration of computer networks by software’, ‘configuration of computer software’, ‘computer hardware and software consultancy’ and ‘computer software technical support services’; |
| --- | --- |

—

Class 42: ‘updating and maintenance of computer software and programs’, ‘configuring computer hardware using software’, ‘configuration of computer networks by software’, ‘configuration of computer software’, ‘computer hardware and software consultancy’ and ‘computer software technical support services’;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders Puma and EUIPO each to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Puma and EUIPO each to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 114, 6.4.2020.

---

| 3.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 163/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 163/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 March 2021 — Golvabia Innovation v EUIPO (MaxWear)

(Case T-99/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark MaxWear - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2021/C 163/39)

Language of the case: Swedish

Parties

Applicant: Golvabia Innovation AB (Anderstorp, Sweden) (represented by: D. Thorbjörnsson, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 December 2019 (Case R 888/2019-1) concerning an application for registration of the word sign MaxWear as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Orders Golvabia Innovation AB to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Golvabia Innovation AB to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 129, 20.4.2020.

---

| 3.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 163/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 163/30

---

Order of the General Court of 4 March 2021 — Brand IP Licensing v EUIPO — Facebook (lovebook)

(Case T-728/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the application for registration - No need to adjudicate)

(2021/C 163/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Brand IP Licensing (Tortola, British Virgin Islands) (represented by: J. MacKenzie, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Facebook, Inc. (Menlo Park, California, United States) (represented by: Y. Zhou, Solicitor)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 October 2018 (Case R 2279/2017-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Facebook and Brand IP Licensing.

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. | Brand IP Licensing Ltd and Facebook, Inc. shall bear their own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Brand IP Licensing Ltd and Facebook, Inc. shall bear their own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 54, 11.2.2019.

---

| 3.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 163/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 163/31

---

Order of the General Court of 23 February 2021 — Frutas Tono v EUIPO — Agrocazalla (Marién)

(Case T-587/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Intervention by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal - Response lodged out of time - Refusal to grant leave to intervene under Article 173(1) of the Rules of Procedure - Cancellation of the earlier word mark serving as a basis for the contested decision - No need to adjudicate)

(2021/C 163/41)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Frutas Tono, SL (Benifairó de la Valldigna, Spain) (represented by: A. Cañizares Doménech, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Agrocazalla, SL (Lorca, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 June 2019 (Case R 171/2018-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Agrocazalla and Frutas Tono.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | Agrocazalla, SL is not granted leave to participate in the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Agrocazalla, SL is not granted leave to participate in the proceedings.

| 2. | Agrocazalla shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Agrocazalla shall bear its own costs.

| 3. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

3.

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

| 4. | Each party shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Each party shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 363, 28.10.2019.

---

| 3.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 163/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 163/32

---

Order of the General Court of 5 March 2021 — Aquind and Others v Commission

(Case T-885/19) (1)

(Action for annulment - Energy - Trans-European energy infrastructure - Regulation (EU) No 347/2013 - Delegation of power to the Commission - Article 290 TFEU - Delegated act amending the list of projects of common interest of the Union - Nature of the act during the period within which the Parliament and the Council may express objections - Act not open to challenge - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2021/C 163/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Aquind Ltd (Wallsend, United Kingdom), Aquind Energy Sàrl, (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), Aquind SAS (Rouen, France) (represented by: S. Goldberg, C. Davis, J. Bille, Solicitors, and E. White, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: O. Beynet, Y. Marinova and B. De Meester, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: J. Möller, D. Klebs, S. Heimerl and S. Costanzo, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. J. Ruiz Sánchez, acting as Agent), French Republic (represented by: A.-L. Desjonquères, C. Mosser and A. Daniel, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/389 of 31 October 2019 amending Regulation (EU) No 347/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the Union list of projects of common interest (OJ 2020 L 74, p. 1).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as being manifestly inadmissible.

| 2. | Aquind Ltd, Aquind Energy Sàrl and Aquind SAS shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Aquind Ltd, Aquind Energy Sàrl and Aquind SAS shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures.

| 3. | The Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of Spain and the French Republic shall bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of Spain and the French Republic shall bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 68, 2.3.2020.

---

| 3.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 163/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 163/32

---

Order of the General Court of 4 March 2021 — NEC OncoImmunity v EASME

(Case T-132/20) (1)

(Action for annulment - Framework Programme for Research and Innovation ‘Horizon 2020’ (2014-2020) - Grant agreement - Termination letter - Act coming within a purely contractual framework from which it is inseparable - Inadmissibility - Regulation (EU) No 1290/2013 - Loss of SME status)

(2021/C 163/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: NEC OncoImmunity AS (Oslo, Norway) (represented by: T. Nordby, R. Bråthen and O. Brouwer, lawyers)

Defendant: Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (represented by: G. Niddam and A. Galea, acting as Agents, and by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

Re:

Application primarily based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision allegedly contained in EASME's letter No Ares (2019) 7905893 of 23 December 2019 terminating the grant agreement concluded under the ‘Horizon 2020’ framework programme for research and innovation (2014-2020) and, in the alternative, an application based on Article 272 TFEU seeking a declaration that the terms of that agreement were breached.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action as dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | NEC OncoImmunity AS is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

NEC OncoImmunity AS is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 161, 11.5.2020.

---

| 3.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 163/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 163/33

---

Order of the General Court of 26 February 2021 — Vulkano Research and Development v EUIPO — Ega (EGA Master)

(Case T-135/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Cancellation proceedings - Withdrawal of the application for a declaration of invalidity - No need to adjudicate)

(2021/C 163/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Vulkano Research and Development, SL (Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain) (represented by: V. Wellens and C. Schellekens, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Ega sp. z o.o. sp.k (Starogard Gdański, Poland) (represented by: K. Błach Morysińska and K. Dobrowolski, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 December 2019 (Case R 1038/2018-1) relating to cancellation proceedings between Ega and Vulkano Research and Development.

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. | Vulkano Research and Development, SL and Ega sp. z o.o. sp.k. shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Vulkano Research and Development, SL and Ega sp. z o.o. sp.k. shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 161, 11.5.2020.

---

| 3.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 163/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 163/34

---

Order of the General Court of 8 March 2021 — KG v Parliament

(Case T-251/20) (1)

(Action for annulment and for damages - Civil service - Pension - Entitlement to the correction coefficient in the determination of pension rights - Refusal to adopt a position on the applicant’s request - No act adversely affecting an official - Inadmissibility)

(2021/C 163/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: KG (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: T. Lazian and I. Terwinghe, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for, first, annulment of the Parliament’s letter of 30 August 2019 by which it refused to adopt a decision concerning the application of the correction coefficient in the future determination of the applicant’s pension rights and of the decision rejecting the complaint lodged against that letter and, secondly, compensation for the non-material harm which the applicant allegedly suffered as a result.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

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

2.

KG shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 247, 27.7.2020.

---

| 3.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 163/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 163/34

---

Order of the General Court of 25 February 2021 — Ultrasun v EUIPO (ULTRASUN)

(Case T-437/20) (1)

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

(2021/C 163/46)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Ultrasun AG (Zurich, Switzerland) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 April 2020 (Case R 1453/2019-4), concerning an application for registration of the word sign ULTRASUN as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Ultrasun AG shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Ultrasun AG shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2020.

---

| 3.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 163/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 163/35

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 23 February 2021 — Symrise v ECHA

(Case T-655/20 R)

(Application for interim relief - REACH - Substance 2-ethylhexyl salicylate - Compliance check of registrations - Obligation to provide certain information requiring animal testing - Application for interim measures - No urgency)

(2021/C 163/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Symrise AG (Holzminden, Germany) (represented by: R. Cana, E. Mullier and H. Widemann, lawyers)

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

Re:

Application pursuant to Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU for the grant of interim measures, first, to suspend implementation of Decision A 010 2018 of the Board of Appeal of ECHA of 18 August 2020, relating to the applicant’s registration dossier for 2-ethylhexyl salicylate and, second, to order the extension of the prescribed period to communicate the results of the tests for the duration of the suspension.

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.

---

| 3.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 163/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 163/35

---

Order of the General Court of 10 March 2021 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Kassl (STUDIO KASSL)

(Case T-7/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the application for registration - No need to adjudicate)

(2021/C 163/48)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

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

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

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 October 2020 (Case R 880/2020-4), relation to opposition proceedings between El Corte Inglés and Kassl.

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

2.

Each party shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 62, 22.2.2021.

---

| 3.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 163/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 163/36

---

Action brought on 7 December 2020 — Kirimova v EUIPO

(Case T-727/20)

(2021/C 163/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Nigar Kirimova (Munich, Germany) (represented by: A. Parassina, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision of 30 September 2020 of the Executive Director of EUIPO; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision of 30 September 2020 of the Executive Director of EUIPO;

| — | order EUIPO to exempt the applicant from the nationality requirement pursuant to Article 120 (4) (b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark (1) (thereafter ‘EUTMR’); |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to exempt the applicant from the nationality requirement pursuant to Article 120 (4) (b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark (1) (thereafter ‘EUTMR’);

| — | order EUIPO to enter the applicant to the list of Professional Representatives pursuant to Article 120 EUTMR; |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to enter the applicant to the list of Professional Representatives pursuant to Article 120 EUTMR;

| — | order EUIPO to pay all costs and expenses. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay all costs and expenses.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its application, the applicant seeks annulment of Decision No ER 93419-2020 of the Executive Director of the EUIPO of 30 September 2020, concerning the request of the applicant for entry on the list of professional representatives pursuant to Article 120 EUTMR and for an exemption pursuant to Article 120 (4) (b) EUTMR

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a violation of the principle of legal certainty. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a violation of the principle of legal certainty.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging the infringement of Article 120 (4) EUTMR due to the failure to interpret and implement it in the light of basic principles of the EU and the fundamental prohibition of discrimination. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging the infringement of Article 120 (4) EUTMR due to the failure to interpret and implement it in the light of basic principles of the EU and the fundamental prohibition of discrimination.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the principle of sound administration by abuse of discretional power. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the principle of sound administration by abuse of discretional power.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Articles 94 and 97 EUTMR by infringement of the right to be heard. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Articles 94 and 97 EUTMR by infringement of the right to be heard.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging incorrect assessment of the evidence supporting the case. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging incorrect assessment of the evidence supporting the case.

---

(1)  OJ 2017 L 154, p. 1.

---

| 3.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 163/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 163/37

---

Action brought on 22 January 2021 — Romania v Commission

(Case T-33/21)

(2021/C 163/50)

Language of the case: Romanian

Parties

Applicant: Romania (represented by: E. Gane and L. Bațagoi, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul in part Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/1734 of 18 November 2020 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) (1), as regards the expenditure, in a total amount of EUR 18 717 475,08, incurred by Romania’s accredited paying agency and declared under the EAFRD, which represents a flat-rate correction (25 %) applied to payments made in the financial years 2017, 2018 and 2019 under sub-measure 1a of measure 215 of the National Rural Development Programme (NRDP) 2007-2013; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul in part Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/1734 of 18 November 2020 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) (1), as regards the expenditure, in a total amount of EUR 18 717 475,08, incurred by Romania’s accredited paying agency and declared under the EAFRD, which represents a flat-rate correction (25 %) applied to payments made in the financial years 2017, 2018 and 2019 under sub-measure 1a of measure 215 of the National Rural Development Programme (NRDP) 2007-2013;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging the unlawful use, by the Commission, of the power to exclude amounts from Union financing under Article 52 of Regulation No 1306/2013, in breach of Articles 76 to 78 of Regulation No 1605/2002, Article 40(3) of Regulation No 1698/2005, and Article 12(6) and (7) of Regulation No 907/2014, as well as the principles of legal certainty, legitimate expectations and sound administration






  — | After approving the methods for calculating the payments relating to sub-measure 1a and the results thereof through the adoption of Implementing Decision C(2012)3529 final approving the revision of Romania’s rural development programme for the 2007-2013 programming period, the Commission should have taken responsibility where those payments were considered contrary to Article 40(3) of Regulation No 1698/2005 after subsequent audits. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging the unlawful use, by the Commission, of the power to exclude amounts from Union financing under Article 52 of Regulation No 1306/2013, in breach of Articles 76 to 78 of Regulation No 1605/2002, Article 40(3) of Regulation No 1698/2005, and Article 12(6) and (7) of Regulation No 907/2014, as well as the principles of legal certainty, legitimate expectations and sound administration

—

After approving the methods for calculating the payments relating to sub-measure 1a and the results thereof through the adoption of Implementing Decision C(2012)3529 final approving the revision of Romania’s rural development programme for the 2007-2013 programming period, the Commission should have taken responsibility where those payments were considered contrary to Article 40(3) of Regulation No 1698/2005 after subsequent audits.

| — | At the same time, the Commission wrongly concluded, after the audits had been conducted, that the methods for calculating the payments relating to sub-measure 1a had led to overcompensation of beneficiaries, thereby infringing Article 40(3) of Regulation No 1698/2005. |
| --- | --- |

—

At the same time, the Commission wrongly concluded, after the audits had been conducted, that the methods for calculating the payments relating to sub-measure 1a had led to overcompensation of beneficiaries, thereby infringing Article 40(3) of Regulation No 1698/2005.

| — | The Commission misapplied both Article 12(6) and (7) of Regulation No 907/2014 and its own Guidelines on the calculation of the financial corrections when it established the reason to apply the corrections and the type of corrections to be applied. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Commission misapplied both Article 12(6) and (7) of Regulation No 907/2014 and its own Guidelines on the calculation of the financial corrections when it established the reason to apply the corrections and the type of corrections to be applied.

| — | The contested decision infringes the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, since, by adopting Implementing Decision C(2012)3529 final, the Commission created legitimate expectations both for the Romanian authorities and for beneficiaries in relation to the regularity of the methods for calculating the payments relating to sub-measure 1a and the results thereof. |
| --- | --- |

—

The contested decision infringes the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, since, by adopting Implementing Decision C(2012)3529 final, the Commission created legitimate expectations both for the Romanian authorities and for beneficiaries in relation to the regularity of the methods for calculating the payments relating to sub-measure 1a and the results thereof.

| — | The Commission infringed the principles of legal certainty and sound administration through its conduct, which consisted in divergent positions and a late reply to the Romanian authorities in relation to a situation which the Commission itself had created. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Commission infringed the principles of legal certainty and sound administration through its conduct, which consisted in divergent positions and a late reply to the Romanian authorities in relation to a situation which the Commission itself had created.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to state reasons laid down in the second paragraph of Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union






  — | As regards sub-measure 1a, the Commission did not set out a sufficient and adequate statement of reasons, either with respect to the fact that the allegedly incorrect calculation methods constitute a situation which is among the scenarios governed by Article 12(6) and (7) of Regulation No 907/2014 or an instance of unlawful conduct for the purposes of the Commission’s Guidelines on the calculation of the financial corrections, or with regard to its changing position in relation to the legal classification of the allegedly incorrect calculation methods. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to state reasons laid down in the second paragraph of Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

—

As regards sub-measure 1a, the Commission did not set out a sufficient and adequate statement of reasons, either with respect to the fact that the allegedly incorrect calculation methods constitute a situation which is among the scenarios governed by Article 12(6) and (7) of Regulation No 907/2014 or an instance of unlawful conduct for the purposes of the Commission’s Guidelines on the calculation of the financial corrections, or with regard to its changing position in relation to the legal classification of the allegedly incorrect calculation methods.

---

(1)  OJ 2020 L 390, p. 10.

---

| 3.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 163/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 163/38

---

Action brought on 3 February 2021 — Sistem ecologica v Commission

(Case T-81/21)

(2021/C 163/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant:‘Sistem ecologica’ production, trade and services d.o.o. Srbac (Srbac, Bosnia-Herzegovina) (represented by: D. Diris, D. Rjabynina, and C. Kocks, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare unlawful OLAF’s failure to take, in regard to it, the measures laid down by the relevant rules, namely, to notify it of the decision to open inquiries or an investigation concerning it individually, to inform it of inquiries or investigations liable to implicate it personally, and to enable it to express its views on all the facts concerning it before conclusions relating to it individually are drawn from those inquiries or investigations; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare unlawful OLAF’s failure to take, in regard to it, the measures laid down by the relevant rules, namely, to notify it of the decision to open inquiries or an investigation concerning it individually, to inform it of inquiries or investigations liable to implicate it personally, and to enable it to express its views on all the facts concerning it before conclusions relating to it individually are drawn from those inquiries or investigations;

| — | annul the decision taken by OLAF on 25 November 2020 refusing the applicant’s request to grant access to its investigation file; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision taken by OLAF on 25 November 2020 refusing the applicant’s request to grant access to its investigation file;

| — | annul the decision taken by OLAF on 25 November 2020 to consider the applicant’s comments of 16 October 2020 as complaints; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision taken by OLAF on 25 November 2020 to consider the applicant’s comments of 16 October 2020 as complaints;

| — | annul the decision taken by OLAF on 27 November 2020 rejecting the applicant’s complaints of 16 October 2020; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision taken by OLAF on 27 November 2020 rejecting the applicant’s complaints of 16 October 2020;

| — | annul the decision taken by OLAF on 8 December 2020 that the investigation concerning it was closed; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision taken by OLAF on 8 December 2020 that the investigation concerning it was closed;

| — | annul the decision taken by OLAF on 21 December 2020 that the applicant’s complaints of 14 December 2020 will not be considered as complaints; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision taken by OLAF on 21 December 2020 that the applicant’s complaints of 14 December 2020 will not be considered as complaints;

| — | declare that the information and data relating to it and any relevant evidence forwarded to the national authorities constitute inadmissible evidence, among which OLAF’s mission report of 16 January 2020, communication of 9 June 2020, and final report of 8 December 2020; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the information and data relating to it and any relevant evidence forwarded to the national authorities constitute inadmissible evidence, among which OLAF’s mission report of 16 January 2020, communication of 9 June 2020, and final report of 8 December 2020;

| — | declare any investigative procedures carried out in the investigation following the aforementioned decisions unlawful; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare any investigative procedures carried out in the investigation following the aforementioned decisions unlawful;

| — | declare any conclusions drawn from those investigations unlawful; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare any conclusions drawn from those investigations unlawful;

| — | declare any information transferred to national authorities unlawful, among which the Communication of 9 June 2020, and the final report of 8 December 2020; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare any information transferred to national authorities unlawful, among which the Communication of 9 June 2020, and the final report of 8 December 2020;

| — | order the Commission to pay the applicant the amount of EUR 3 026 388,74 in compensation for damage, assessed provisionally, together with interest, at the rate of 8 % per annum from 15 June 2020 until full payment, due to OLAF’s unlawful conduct and of the loss caused to the applicant’s professional activities and reputation; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the applicant the amount of EUR 3 026 388,74 in compensation for damage, assessed provisionally, together with interest, at the rate of 8 % per annum from 15 June 2020 until full payment, due to OLAF’s unlawful conduct and of the loss caused to the applicant’s professional activities and reputation;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging the breach of the principles of transparency and independence of OLAF’s investigation. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging the breach of the principles of transparency and independence of OLAF’s investigation.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging violation of the principle of impartiality. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging violation of the principle of impartiality.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging violation of the privilege against self- incrimination. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging violation of the privilege against self- incrimination.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the right to information pursuant to Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 883/2013 (1). |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the right to information pursuant to Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 883/2013 (1).

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging violation of the right to be heard before adverse measures are taken. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging violation of the right to be heard before adverse measures are taken.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging violation of the right of presumption of innocence. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging violation of the right of presumption of innocence.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging the infringement of the principles of confidentiality and data protection, pursuant to Article 10 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 883/2013. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging the infringement of the principles of confidentiality and data protection, pursuant to Article 10 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 883/2013.

| 8. | Eighth plea in law, alleging the violation of Article 41(2)(b) of the Charter: infringement of the applicant’s right to have access to the file, and the principle of good administration. |
| --- | --- |

8.

Eighth plea in law, alleging the violation of Article 41(2)(b) of the Charter: infringement of the applicant’s right to have access to the file, and the principle of good administration.

| 9. | Ninth plea in law, alleging the infringement of Regulation (EC) 1049/2001 (2). |
| --- | --- |

9.

Ninth plea in law, alleging the infringement of Regulation (EC) 1049/2001 (2).

| 10. | Tenth plea in law, alleging the infringement of the principle of due diligence. |
| --- | --- |

10.

Tenth plea in law, alleging the infringement of the principle of due diligence.

| 11. | Eleventh plea in law, alleging the infringement of the duty to state reasons. |
| --- | --- |

11.

Eleventh plea in law, alleging the infringement of the duty to state reasons.

| 12. | Twelfth plea in law, alleging the violation of the applicant’s rights of defence. |
| --- | --- |

12.

Twelfth plea in law, alleging the violation of the applicant’s rights of defence.

| 13. | Thirteenth plea in law, alleging the annulment of OLAF’s decisions. |
| --- | --- |

13.

Thirteenth plea in law, alleging the annulment of OLAF’s decisions.

| 14. | Fourteenth plea in law, alleging OLAF’s non-contractual liability for damages incurred by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

14.

Fourteenth plea in law, alleging OLAF’s non-contractual liability for damages incurred by the applicant.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 September 2013 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Regulation (Euratom) No 1074/1999 (OJ 2013 L 248, p. 1).

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

---

| 3.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 163/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 163/39

---

Action brought on 5 February 2021 — Primagra v Commission

(Case T-101/21)

(2021/C 163/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Primagra a.s. (Milín, Czech Republic) (represented by: S. Sobolová and O. Billard, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the ban on the provision of grants imposed by the letter of the defendant dated 22 October 2020, ARES (2020) 5759350; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the ban on the provision of grants imposed by the letter of the defendant dated 22 October 2020, ARES (2020) 5759350;

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

—

order the defendant 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 the applicant’s fundamental rights have been violated both directly and indirectly by the defendant, because the applicant has never been able to exercise its right to be heard in the course of the inquiry leading up to the adoption of the contested measure. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s fundamental rights have been violated both directly and indirectly by the defendant, because the applicant has never been able to exercise its right to be heard in the course of the inquiry leading up to the adoption of the contested measure.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant has no competence to audit specific grants and to decide on specific applications for grants from the European Structural and Investment Funds, because the defendant is entitled only to examine the general conformity of the management and control systems implemented by the Member States, but has no authority at all to conduct a detailed audit and decide on specific grant applications submitted by individual companies. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant has no competence to audit specific grants and to decide on specific applications for grants from the European Structural and Investment Funds, because the defendant is entitled only to examine the general conformity of the management and control systems implemented by the Member States, but has no authority at all to conduct a detailed audit and decide on specific grant applications submitted by individual companies.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant has no competence to interpret and apply Member States’ internal law, because its competences are strictly limited by the principle of conferral set out in Articles 5 and 13 of the Treaty on European Union, any derogation from that principle must be appraised strictly, and the combination of the principle of conferral and the provisions of the Treaties clearly implies that the defendant is not competent to apply a Member State’s internal law. In any case, the Czech law provisions relied upon by the defendant cannot be reviewed under Regulation No 1303/2013 (1), which is the legal basis of the audit procedure leading up to the adoption of the contested measure. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant has no competence to interpret and apply Member States’ internal law, because its competences are strictly limited by the principle of conferral set out in Articles 5 and 13 of the Treaty on European Union, any derogation from that principle must be appraised strictly, and the combination of the principle of conferral and the provisions of the Treaties clearly implies that the defendant is not competent to apply a Member State’s internal law. In any case, the Czech law provisions relied upon by the defendant cannot be reviewed under Regulation No 1303/2013 (1), which is the legal basis of the audit procedure leading up to the adoption of the contested measure.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant did not prove the content of the Czech law and erred in its interpretation and application. Instead of proving the content of the Czech law as required by the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice, the defendant grossly misinterpreted the Czech law and in particular Section 4c of the Conflict of Interest Act, deliberately ignoring the case law of Czech courts as well as the final, binding and enforceable decision of the Czech authorities relating to the subject matter of the audit procedure leading up to the adoption of the contested measure. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant did not prove the content of the Czech law and erred in its interpretation and application. Instead of proving the content of the Czech law as required by the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice, the defendant grossly misinterpreted the Czech law and in particular Section 4c of the Conflict of Interest Act, deliberately ignoring the case law of Czech courts as well as the final, binding and enforceable decision of the Czech authorities relating to the subject matter of the audit procedure leading up to the adoption of the contested measure.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the defendant also erred in the interpretation and application of EU law, because it wrongly concluded there was a breach of Article 61 of the Financial Regulation (2), and it failed to reflect that the Czech rules on conflicts of interest are in conflict with the basic principles of EU law. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the defendant also erred in the interpretation and application of EU law, because it wrongly concluded there was a breach of Article 61 of the Financial Regulation (2), and it failed to reflect that the Czech rules on conflicts of interest are in conflict with the basic principles of EU law.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 320).

(2)  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).

---

| 3.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 163/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 163/41

---

Action brought on 3 March 2021 — Malacalza Investimenti and Malacalza v ECB

(Case T-134/21)

(2021/C 163/53)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Malacalza Investimenti Srl (Genoa, Italy) and Vittorio Malacalza (Genoa) (represented by: L. Boggio, S. Carbone and A. D’Angelo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | order the European Central Bank to pay compensation for damages: |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Central Bank to pay compensation for damages:

| — | to Malacalza Investimenti s.r.l., in the amount of EUR 870 525 670, or any other greater or lesser amount which is deemed fair, to be determined, if necessary, ex aequo et bono; |
| --- | --- |

—

to Malacalza Investimenti s.r.l., in the amount of EUR 870 525 670, or any other greater or lesser amount which is deemed fair, to be determined, if necessary, ex aequo et bono;

| — | to Mr Vittorio Malacalza, in the amount of EUR 4 546 022, or any other greater or lesser amount which is deemed fair, to be determined, if necessary, ex aequo et bono; |
| --- | --- |

—

to Mr Vittorio Malacalza, in the amount of EUR 4 546 022, or any other greater or lesser amount which is deemed fair, to be determined, if necessary, ex aequo et bono;

| — | to both applicants in an amount equal to all the costs and fees of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

to both applicants in an amount equal to all the costs and fees of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The subject matter of this case is an application under Articles 268 and 340 TFEU for compensation for harm suffered by the applicants as a result of various actions of ECB, relating to the exercise of its supervisory functions over Banca Carige S.p.A. (Carige) and consisting both of failures to act when it should have done so and harmful actions.

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the European Central Bank (ECB) participated in creating a picture of the bank’s situation and prospects on the basis of which shareholders felt confident to invest significant resources to purchase Carige shares and subscribe to increases in capital and pay for them; it subsequently undermined that confidence by its conduct and contradictory decisions, imposing unjustified, disproportionate and also, in other respects, unlawful measures, which form part of overall unlawful and harmful conduct.
  In that regard, the applicants refer, inter alia and in particular, to: (i) the confidence in Carige’s situation created by the increases in capital of 2014 and 2015; (ii) the subsequent undermining of that confidence as a result of ECB’s conduct and measures; (iii) the unlawfulness of those measures and the unlawfulness of the overall conduct of which they are part; (iv) the confidence in Carige’s situation created by the increase in capital of 2017; (v) the subsequent undermining of that confidence as a result of ECB’s conduct and measures; (vi) the unlawfulness of those measures and the unlawfulness of the overall conduct of which they are part;(vii) the unlawfulness of ECB’s measures — causing serious harm consisting in loss of value of the shares held by Carige’s shareholders — which would have imposed the divestiture of non-performing loans, in a way and to an extent which are unjustified, disproportionate and contrary to the principle of equal treatment and other principles. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the European Central Bank (ECB) participated in creating a picture of the bank’s situation and prospects on the basis of which shareholders felt confident to invest significant resources to purchase Carige shares and subscribe to increases in capital and pay for them; it subsequently undermined that confidence by its conduct and contradictory decisions, imposing unjustified, disproportionate and also, in other respects, unlawful measures, which form part of overall unlawful and harmful conduct.

In that regard, the applicants refer, inter alia and in particular, to: (i) the confidence in Carige’s situation created by the increases in capital of 2014 and 2015; (ii) the subsequent undermining of that confidence as a result of ECB’s conduct and measures; (iii) the unlawfulness of those measures and the unlawfulness of the overall conduct of which they are part; (iv) the confidence in Carige’s situation created by the increase in capital of 2017; (v) the subsequent undermining of that confidence as a result of ECB’s conduct and measures; (vi) the unlawfulness of those measures and the unlawfulness of the overall conduct of which they are part;(vii) the unlawfulness of ECB’s measures — causing serious harm consisting in loss of value of the shares held by Carige’s shareholders — which would have imposed the divestiture of non-performing loans, in a way and to an extent which are unjustified, disproportionate and contrary to the principle of equal treatment and other principles.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that ECB had unduly influenced and interfered in the Bank’s governance processes, promoting an autocratic management by the managing directors, contrary to company law rules and the normal order of a collegiate administrative body, in order to ensure the implementation of improperly imposed measures, and also hindering a response to the management’s unlawful and harmful managerial practices, and creating weakness for the Bank. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that ECB had unduly influenced and interfered in the Bank’s governance processes, promoting an autocratic management by the managing directors, contrary to company law rules and the normal order of a collegiate administrative body, in order to ensure the implementation of improperly imposed measures, and also hindering a response to the management’s unlawful and harmful managerial practices, and creating weakness for the Bank.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Bank contributed to the creation of the conditions on which it then based its unlawful decision to put the Bank under special administration and, by that conduct and subsequent conduct, also contributed to the unlawful increase in capital with the exclusion of pre-emption rights, approved in 2019, which caused a significant loss in value of the shares of the shareholders. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Bank contributed to the creation of the conditions on which it then based its unlawful decision to put the Bank under special administration and, by that conduct and subsequent conduct, also contributed to the unlawful increase in capital with the exclusion of pre-emption rights, approved in 2019, which caused a significant loss in value of the shares of the shareholders.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the reasons for ECB’s liability relate to the general clause set out in paragraphs 2 and 3 Article 340 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and the fact that ECB’s conduct and measures conflict, in several aspects, with the duties inherent to its supervisory functions, including in respect of the safeguard of the sound and prudent management of banks, and to the infringement of the principles of protection of property, proportionality, good administration, equality, impartiality and equal treatment, transparency, good faith and protection of legitimate expectations, with particular regard to Articles 17, 20 and 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 5(4) of the Treaty on the European Union and Article 16 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 63). |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the reasons for ECB’s liability relate to the general clause set out in paragraphs 2 and 3 Article 340 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and the fact that ECB’s conduct and measures conflict, in several aspects, with the duties inherent to its supervisory functions, including in respect of the safeguard of the sound and prudent management of banks, and to the infringement of the principles of protection of property, proportionality, good administration, equality, impartiality and equal treatment, transparency, good faith and protection of legitimate expectations, with particular regard to Articles 17, 20 and 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 5(4) of the Treaty on the European Union and Article 16 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 63).

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, based on a complaint, concerning in particular the applicant Vittorio Malacalza, relating to actions and reasons which are specifically inherent to his position as former manager and Vice-President of Carige. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, based on a complaint, concerning in particular the applicant Vittorio Malacalza, relating to actions and reasons which are specifically inherent to his position as former manager and Vice-President of Carige.

---

| 3.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 163/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 163/42

---

Action brought on 11 March 2021 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Rimex Trading (UNK UNIK)

(Case T-144/21)

(2021/C 163/54)

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: Rimex Trading (Sofía, Bulgaria)

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 European Union figurative mark UNK UNIK — Application for registration No 17 940 710

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 December 2020 in Case R 2889/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision in so far as in rejecting the opponent’s appeal, it confirmed the Opposition Division’s decision rejecting Opposition B 3 069 013 and granting EU trade mark No 17 940 710 UNK UNIK (figurative). |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in so far as in rejecting the opponent’s appeal, it confirmed the Opposition Division’s decision rejecting Opposition B 3 069 013 and granting EU trade mark No 17 940 710 UNK UNIK (figurative).

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

—

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

Pleas in law

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and 8(2)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 3.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 163/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 163/43

---

Action brought on 12 March 2021 — Gugler France v EUIPO — Gugler (GUGLER)

(Case T-147/21)

(2021/C 163/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Gugler France (Les Auxons, France) (represented by: A. Grolée, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Alexander Gugler (Maxdorf, Germany)

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 figurative mark GUGLER — European Union trade mark No 3 324 902

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 December 2020 in Case R 893/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | cancel the European Union trade mark no3 324 902 on the basis of Article 51(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) 40/94; |
| --- | --- |

—

cancel the European Union trade mark no3 324 902 on the basis of Article 51(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) 40/94;

| — | order EUIPO and/or Alexander Gugler to bear the costs involved in the proceedings before the EUIPO and before the General Court by Gugler France. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and/or Alexander Gugler to bear the costs involved in the proceedings before the EUIPO and before the General Court by Gugler France.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 51(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) 40/94. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 51(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) 40/94.

---

Corrigenda

| 3.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 163/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 163/44

---

Corrigendum to the Official Journal notice in Case C-518/20

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 19 of 18 January 2021
  )

(2021/C 163/56)

The wording of the Official Journal notice in Case C-518/20, Fraport, is replaced by the following wording:

‘Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 16 October 2020 — XP v Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide

(Case C-518/20)

(2021/C 19/24)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law: XP

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide

Questions referred

| 1. | Do Article 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC (1) and Article 31(2) of the Charter preclude an interpretation of a rule of national law such as Paragraph 7(3) of the German Bundesurlaubsgesetz (Federal Law on leave; “the BUrIG”) according to which the as yet unexercised entitlement to paid annual leave of a worker who suffers, on health grounds, a full reduction of earning capacity in the course of the leave year, but who could still have taken — at least some of — the leave in the leave year before the onset of his reduction of earning capacity, lapses 15 months after the end of the leave year in the event of a continuing uninterrupted reduction of earning capacity even if the employer has not actually enabled the worker to exercise his leave entitlement by informing him of the leave concerned and inviting him to take it? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do Article 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC (1) and Article 31(2) of the Charter preclude an interpretation of a rule of national law such as Paragraph 7(3) of the German Bundesurlaubsgesetz (Federal Law on leave; “the BUrIG”) according to which the as yet unexercised entitlement to paid annual leave of a worker who suffers, on health grounds, a full reduction of earning capacity in the course of the leave year, but who could still have taken — at least some of — the leave in the leave year before the onset of his reduction of earning capacity, lapses 15 months after the end of the leave year in the event of a continuing uninterrupted reduction of earning capacity even if the employer has not actually enabled the worker to exercise his leave entitlement by informing him of the leave concerned and inviting him to take it?

| 2. | If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: Under these conditions, is it also impossible for the entitlement to lapse at a later point in time in cases where a full reduction of earning capacity persists?’ |
| --- | --- |

2.

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: Under these conditions, is it also impossible for the entitlement to lapse at a later point in time in cases where a full reduction of earning capacity persists?’

---

(1)  Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ L 299, 18.11.2003, p. 9).

1

---