# Official Journal C 294/1 Au

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 294 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 651 August 2022 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 294

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 651 August 2022

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2022/C 294/01 | Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union | 1 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

2022/C 294/01

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

Official Journal of the European Union

1

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2022/C 294/02 | Opinion C-1/20: Opinion of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 June 2022 — Kingdom of Belgium (Opinion pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU — Request for an Opinion — Draft modernised Energy Charter Treaty — Article 26 — Dispute settlement mechanism — Admissibility) | 2 |
| 2022/C 294/03 | Case C-697/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 June 2022 — Sony Corporation, Sony Electronics Inc. v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Optical disk drives — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992 — Single and continuous infringement — Definition — Collusive agreements relating to procurement events concerning optical disk drives for notebook and desktop computers organised by two computer manufacturers) | 2 |
| 2022/C 294/04 | Case C-698/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 June 2022 — Sony Optiarc Inc., Sony Optiarc America Inc. v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Optical disk drives — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992 — Single and continuous infringement — Definition — Collusive agreements relating to procurement events concerning optical disk drives for notebook and desktop computers organised by two computer manufacturers) | 3 |
| 2022/C 294/05 | Case C-699/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 June 2022 — Quanta Storage Inc. v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Optical disk drives — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and of Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992 — Single and continuous infringement — Definition — Collusive agreements relating to procurement events concerning optical disk drives for notebook and desktop computers organised by two computer manufacturers) | 4 |
| 2022/C 294/06 | Case C-700/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 June 2022 — Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Corp., Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Korea Corp. v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Optical disk drives — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and of Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992 — Single and continuous infringement — Definition — Collusive agreements relating to procurement events concerning optical disk drives for notebook and desktop computers organised by two computer manufacturers) | 5 |
| 2022/C 294/07 | Case C-328/20: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 June 2022 — European Commission v Republic of Austria (Failure to fulfil obligations — Coordination of social security systems — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Articles 4, 7 and 67 — Freedom of movement for workers — Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 — Article 7 — Equal treatment — Family benefits — Social and tax advantages — Adjustment of amounts on the basis of price levels in the children’s State of residence) | 5 |
| 2022/C 294/08 | Case C-520/20: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Silistra, Bulgaria) — DB, LY v Nachalnik na Rayonno upravlenie Silistra pri Oblastna direktsia na Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti — Silistra (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) — Decision 2007/533/JHA — Articles 38 and 39 — Alert on an object sought — Objectives of the alert — Seizure or use as evidence in criminal proceedings — Execution — Measures to be taken and action based on an alert — Surrender of the object seized to the Member State issuing the alert — National legislation not permitting a refusal to execute the alert) | 7 |
| 2022/C 294/09 | Case C-572/20: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln — Germany) — ACC Silicones Ltd v Bundeszentralamt für Steuern (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Free movement of capital — Dividends from free-float shares — Reimbursement of tax on income from capital paid by a non-resident company — Conditions — Free movement of capital — Principle of proportionality) | 7 |
| 2022/C 294/10 | Case C-599/20: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — Baltic Master UAB v Muitinės departamentas prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs union — Community Customs Code — Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 — Article 29 — Determination of the customs value — Transaction value — Article 29(1)(d) — Concept of related persons — Article 31 — Account taken of information derived from a national database for the purpose of determining the customs value — Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 — Article 143(1)(b), (e) and (f) — Situations in which persons are deemed to be related — Article 181a — Doubts based on the veracity of the price declared) | 8 |
| 2022/C 294/11 | Case C-673/20: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 9 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal judiciaire d’Auch — France) — EP v Préfet du Gers, Institut national de la statistique et des études économiques (INSEE) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Citizenship of the Union — National of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland residing in a Member State — Article 9 TEU — Articles 20 and 22 TFEU — Right to vote and to stand as a candidate in municipal elections in the Member State of residence — Article 50 TEU — Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community — Consequences of the withdrawal of a Member State from the Union — Removal from the electoral roll in the Member State of residence — Articles 39 and 40 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Validity of Decision (EU) 2020/135) | 9 |
| 2022/C 294/12 | Case C-55/21: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 9 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — Direktor na Agentsia Mitnitsi v IMPERIAL TOBACCO BULGARIA EOOD (Request for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Excise duties — Directive 2008/118/EC — Article 11 — Reimbursement of excise duty on excise goods released for consumption — Directive 2011/64/EU — point (b) of the first paragraph of Article 17 — Reimbursement of excise duty already paid, by means of tax markings, affixed to manufactured tobacco destroyed under administrative supervision — Obligation of Member States to adopt regulations providing for the reimbursement of excise duties on manufactured tobacco released for consumption and destroyed under customs supervision — None) | 10 |
| 2022/C 294/13 | Case C-187/21: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — FAWKES Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 — Community Customs Code — Article 30(2)(a) and (b) — Customs value — Determination of the transaction value of similar goods — Database set up and managed by the national customs authority — Databases set up and managed by the customs authorities of other Member States and by the services of the European Union — Identical or similar goods exported to the European Union at or about the same time) | 10 |
| 2022/C 294/14 | Case C-783/21: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 31 May 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Firenze — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against M.M. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Article 267 TFEU — No dispute before the referring court — Manifest inadmissibility of the request for a preliminary ruling) | 11 |
| 2022/C 294/15 | Case C-126/22: Order of the Court of 1 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audencia Provincial de Barcelona — Spain) — JH, GK, FB, LR, TV, OS v Ryanair DAC (Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Cancellations — Re-routing — Cancellation of flight following measures taken by the Spanish government due to the Covid-19 pandemic — Re-routing arranged by air passengers — Re-routing through a combination of modes of transport other than air transport) | 12 |
| 2022/C 294/16 | Case C-120/22 P: Appeal brought on 18 February 2022 by Republic of Cyprus against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 8 December 2021 in Case T-593/19, Cyprus v EUIPO — Fontana Food (GRILLOUMI BURGER) | 12 |
| 2022/C 294/17 | Case C-121/22 P: Appeal brought on 18 February 2022 by Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 8 December 2021 in Case T-595/19, Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v EUIPO — Fontana Food (GRILLOUMI BURGER) | 13 |
| 2022/C 294/18 | Case C-139/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Śródmieścia w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 25 February 2022 — AM and PM v mBank S.A. | 13 |
| 2022/C 294/19 | Case C-145/22 P: Appeal brought on 1 March 2022 by Mr Jörg Lück against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 15 December 2021 in Case T-188/21, Jörg Lück v European Union Intellectual Property Office | 14 |
| 2022/C 294/20 | Case C-152/22 P: Appeal brought on 2 March 2022 by Legero Schuhfabrik GmbH against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 15 December 2021 in Case T-684/20, Legero Schuhfabrik GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office | 14 |
| 2022/C 294/21 | Case C-293/22 P: Appeal brought on 3 May 2022 by Chemours Netherlands BV against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 23 February 2022 in Case T-636/19, Chemours Netherlands v ECHA | 14 |
| 2022/C 294/22 | Case C-312/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 10 May 2022 — FL v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira | 16 |
| 2022/C 294/23 | Case C-323/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 13 May 2022 — KRI SpA, as the successor of SI.LO.NE. — Sistema logistico nord-est Srl v Agenzia delle dogane e dei monopoli | 16 |
| 2022/C 294/24 | Case C-353/22: Action brought on 31 May 2022 — European Commission v Kingdom of Sweden | 17 |
| | General Court |
| 2022/C 294/25 | Case T-523/17: Judgment of the General Court of 1 June 2022 — Eleveté Invest Group and Others v Commission and SRB (Economic and monetary union — Banking Union — Single Resolution Mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) — Resolution procedure applicable where an entity is failing or is likely to fail — Adoption by the SRB of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español — Right to be heard — Obligation to state reasons — Articles 18 and 20 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 — Non-contractual liability) | 18 |
| 2022/C 294/26 | Case T-570/17: Judgment of the General Court of 1 June 2022 — Algebris (UK) and Anchorage Capital Group v Commission (Economic and monetary union — Banking Union — Single Resolution Mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) — Resolution procedure applicable where an entity is failing or is likely to fail — Adoption by the SRB of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español — Delegation of power — Obligation to state reasons — Principle of good administration — Article 20 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 — Right to be heard — Right to property) | 19 |
| 2022/C 294/27 | Case T-628/17: Judgment of the General Court of 1 June 2022 — Aeris Invest v Commission and SRB (Economic and monetary union — Banking Union — Single Resolution Mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) — Resolution procedure applicable where an entity is failing or is likely to fail — Adoption by the SRB of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español — Delegation of power — Right to be heard — Right to property — Obligation to state reasons — Articles 14, 18 and 20 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014) | 19 |
| 2022/C 294/28 | Case T-235/18: Judgment of the General Court of 15 June 2022 — Qualcomm v Commission (Qualcomm — exclusivity payments) (Competition — Abuse of a dominant position — LTE chipsets market — Decision finding an infringement of Article 102 TFEU and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement — Exclusivity payments — Rights of the defence — Article 19 and Article 27(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Foreclosure effects) | 20 |
| 2022/C 294/29 | Case T-363/19 and T-456/19: Judgment of the General Court of 8 June 2022 — United Kingdom and ITV v Commission (State aid — Aid scheme implemented by the United Kingdom in favour of certain multinational groups — Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the internal market and unlawful and ordering the recovery of the aid paid — Advance tax rulings — Tax regime relating to the financing of groups and concerning in particular controlled foreign companies — Selective tax advantages) | 21 |
| 2022/C 294/30 | Case T-144/20: Judgment of the General Court of 8 June 2022 — Guangxi Xin Fu Yuan v Commission (Dumping — Imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware originating in China — Review investigation — Circumvention — Article 13 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 — Related companies — Procedural obligations — Article 5(10) and (11) of Regulation 2016/1036 — Articles 6.1, 6.2 and 12.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement — Rights of the defence — Equal treatment — Legitimate expectations — Manifest error of assessment) | 22 |
| 2022/C 294/31 | Case T-355/20: Judgment of the General Court of 1 June 2022 — Krasnyj Octyabr v EUIPO — Pokój (Pokój TRADYCJA JAKOŚĆ KRÓWKA SŁODKIE CHWILE Z DZIECIŃSTWA TRADYCYJNA RECEPTURA) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark Pokój TRADYCJA JAKOŚĆ KRÓWKA SŁODKIE CHWILE Z DZIECIŃSTWA TRADYCYJNA RECEPTURA — Earlier international figurative mark KOPOBKA KOROVKA — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 22 |
| 2022/C 294/32 | Case T-363/20: Judgment of the General Court of 1 June 2022 — Krasnyj Octyabr v EUIPO — Pokój (KRÓWKA MLECZNA Milk FUDGE) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark KRÓWKA MLECZNA Milk FUDGE — Earlier international figurative mark KOPOBKA KOROVKA — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Right to be heard — Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001) | 23 |
| 2022/C 294/33 | Case T-380/20: Judgment of the General Court of 15 June 2022 — Tubes Radiatori v EUIPO — Antrax It (Radiator) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Community design representing a radiator — Earlier designs — Grounds for invalidity — No individual character — Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Freedom of the designer — No scope for innovation — Overall impression) | 24 |
| 2022/C 294/34 | Case T-440/20: Judgment of the General Court of 1 June 2022 — Jindal Saw and Jindal Saw Italia v Commission (Reimposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty) (Dumping — Imports of tubes and pipes of ductile cast iron originating in India — Compliance with the judgment of the General Court in Case T-301/16 — Reimposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty — Non-repayment in full of the initial definitive anti-dumping duty — Legal basis — Non-retroactivity — Legal certainty — Article 266 TFEU — Proportionality — Right to effective judicial protection — Article 103 of the Union Customs Code — Registration Regulation — Plea of illegality — Admissibility) | 24 |
| 2022/C 294/35 | Case T-441/20: Judgment of the General Court of 1 June 2022 — Jindal Saw and Jindal Saw Italia v Commission (Reimposition of a definitive countervailing duty) (Subsidies — Imports of tubes and pipes of ductile cast iron originating in India — Compliance with the judgment of the General Court in Case T-300/16 — Reimposition of a definitive countervailing duty — Non-repayment in full of the initial definitive countervailing duty — Legal basis — Non-retroactivity — Legal certainty — Article 266 TFEU — Proportionality — Right to effective judicial protection — Article 103 of the Union Customs Code — Registration Regulation — Plea of illegality — Admissibility) | 25 |
| 2022/C 294/36 | Case T-621/20: Judgment of the General Court of 8 June 2022 — EMCS v EUAA (Public service contracts — Tender procedure — Provision of temporary agency workers for EASO — Rejection of a tenderer’s bid — Award of the contract to another tenderer — Equal treatment — Principle of transparency — Manifest error of assessment — Obligation to state reasons) | 25 |
| 2022/C 294/37 | Case T-738/20: Judgment of the General Court of 8 June 2022 — Deutschtec v EUIPO — Group A (HOLUX) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark HOLUX — Earlier international registration in respect of the word mark HOLUX — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 26 |
| 2022/C 294/38 | Case T-26/21 to T-28/21: Judgment of the General Court of 8 June 2022 — Apple v EUIPO — Swatch (THINK DIFFERENT) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — Earlier EU word marks THINK DIFFERENT — No genuine use of the marks — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Obligation to state reasons — Right to be heard — Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001) | 27 |
| 2022/C 294/39 | Case T-92/21: Judgment of the General Court of 8 June 2022 — Darment v Commission (Environment — Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 — Fluorinated greenhouse gases — Electronic registry for quotas for placing hydrofluorocarbons on the market — Decision to register — Authorisation to use a quota — Compliance with a judgment of the General Court — Principle of sound administration) | 27 |
| 2022/C 294/40 | Case T-293/21: Judgment of the General Court of 8 June 2022 — Muschaweck v EUIPO — Conze (UM) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark UM — Genuine use of the mark — Use with the consent of the proprietor — Use in the form in which the mark was registered — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Representation by the proprietor of the trade mark — Evidence of use submitted within the time limit set) | 28 |
| 2022/C 294/41 | Case T-338/21: Judgment of the General Court of 15 June 2022 — F I S I v EUIPO — Verband der Deutschen Daunen- und Federnindustrie (ECODOWN) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark ECODOWN — Absolute grounds for refusal — No distinctive character — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — No distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001)) | 28 |
| 2022/C 294/42 | Case T-355/21: Judgment of the General Court of 8 June 2022 — Polo Club Düsseldorf v EUIPO — Company Bridge and Life (POLO CLUB DÜSSELDORF EST. 1976) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark POLO CLUB, DÜSSELDORF EST. 1976 — Earlier national figurative mark POLO CLUB — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 29 |
| 2022/C 294/43 | Case T-433/21: Judgment of the General Court of 8 June 2022 — Vitronic v EUIPO (Enforcement Trailer) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark Enforcement Trailer — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Article 7(2) of Regulation 2017/1001) | 30 |
| 2022/C 294/44 | Case T-744/21: Judgment of the General Court of 8 June 2022 — Medela v EUIPO (MAXFLOW) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark MAXFLOW — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 30 |
| 2022/C 294/45 | Case T-104/22 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 8 June 2022 — Hungary v Commission (Interim measures — Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — European Structural and Investment Funds — Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 — Documents originating in a Member State — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Prima facie case — Urgency — Balancing of interests) | 31 |
| 2022/C 294/46 | Case T-88/22: Action brought on 18 February 2022 — Arhs developments v Commission | 31 |
| 2022/C 294/47 | Case T-255/22: Action brought on 11 May 2022 — Cham Wings Airlines v Council | 32 |
| 2022/C 294/48 | Case T-281/22: Action brought on 13 May 2022 — Xpand Consortium and Others v Commission | 33 |
| 2022/C 294/49 | Case T-341/22: Action brought on 8 June 2022 — Deutsche Bank v EUIPO — Operación y Auditoria (avanza Tu negocio) | 34 |
| 2022/C 294/50 | Case T-347/22: Action brought on 9 June 2022 — Rauch Furnace Technology v EUIPO (Musto et Bureau (melting crucible) | 35 |
| 2022/C 294/51 | Case T-348/22: Action brought on 9 June 2022 — PT Indonesia Ruipu Nickel and Chrome Alloy v Commission | 36 |
| 2022/C 294/52 | Case T-350/22: Action brought on 10 June 2022 — adp Merkur v EUIPO — Play’n GO Marks (GAME OF GLADIATORS) | 36 |
| 2022/C 294/53 | Case T-351/22: Action brought on 13 June 2022 — De Dietrich Process Systems v EUIPO — Koch-Glitsch (SCHEIBEL) | 37 |
| 2022/C 294/54 | Case T-352/22: Action brought on 13 June 2022 — De Dietrich Process Systems v EUIPO — Koch-Glitsch (KARR) | 38 |
| 2022/C 294/55 | Case T-353/22: Action brought on 1 June 2022 — XH v Commission | 38 |
| 2022/C 294/56 | Case T-354/22: Action brought on 9 June 2022 — Bindl v Commission | 39 |
| 2022/C 294/57 | Case T-356/22: Action brought on 16 June 2022 — LG Chem v Commission | 41 |
| 2022/C 294/58 | Case T-357/22: Action brought on 16 June 2022 — Das Neves v Commission | 42 |
| 2022/C 294/59 | Case T-358/22: Action brought on 16 June 2022 — PQ v EEAS | 42 |
| 2022/C 294/60 | Case T-359/22: Action brought on 16 June 2022 — Zubitskiy v Council | 43 |
| 2022/C 294/61 | Case T-360/22: Action brought on 16 June 2022 — Berezkin v Council | 44 |
| 2022/C 294/62 | Case T-363/22: Action brought on 17 June 2022 — Akhmedov v Council | 45 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2022/C 294/02

Opinion C-1/20: Opinion of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 June 2022 — Kingdom of Belgium (Opinion pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU — Request for an Opinion — Draft modernised Energy Charter Treaty — Article 26 — Dispute settlement mechanism — Admissibility)

2

2022/C 294/03

Case C-697/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 June 2022 — Sony Corporation, Sony Electronics Inc. v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Optical disk drives — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992 — Single and continuous infringement — Definition — Collusive agreements relating to procurement events concerning optical disk drives for notebook and desktop computers organised by two computer manufacturers)

2

2022/C 294/04

Case C-698/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 June 2022 — Sony Optiarc Inc., Sony Optiarc America Inc. v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Optical disk drives — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992 — Single and continuous infringement — Definition — Collusive agreements relating to procurement events concerning optical disk drives for notebook and desktop computers organised by two computer manufacturers)

3

2022/C 294/05

Case C-699/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 June 2022 — Quanta Storage Inc. v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Optical disk drives — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and of Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992 — Single and continuous infringement — Definition — Collusive agreements relating to procurement events concerning optical disk drives for notebook and desktop computers organised by two computer manufacturers)

4

2022/C 294/06

Case C-700/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 June 2022 — Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Corp., Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Korea Corp. v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Optical disk drives — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and of Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992 — Single and continuous infringement — Definition — Collusive agreements relating to procurement events concerning optical disk drives for notebook and desktop computers organised by two computer manufacturers)

5

2022/C 294/07

Case C-328/20: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 June 2022 — European Commission v Republic of Austria (Failure to fulfil obligations — Coordination of social security systems — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Articles 4, 7 and 67 — Freedom of movement for workers — Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 — Article 7 — Equal treatment — Family benefits — Social and tax advantages — Adjustment of amounts on the basis of price levels in the children’s State of residence)

5

2022/C 294/08

Case C-520/20: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Silistra, Bulgaria) — DB, LY v Nachalnik na Rayonno upravlenie Silistra pri Oblastna direktsia na Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti — Silistra (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) — Decision 2007/533/JHA — Articles 38 and 39 — Alert on an object sought — Objectives of the alert — Seizure or use as evidence in criminal proceedings — Execution — Measures to be taken and action based on an alert — Surrender of the object seized to the Member State issuing the alert — National legislation not permitting a refusal to execute the alert)

7

2022/C 294/09

Case C-572/20: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln — Germany) — ACC Silicones Ltd v Bundeszentralamt für Steuern (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Free movement of capital — Dividends from free-float shares — Reimbursement of tax on income from capital paid by a non-resident company — Conditions — Free movement of capital — Principle of proportionality)

7

2022/C 294/10

Case C-599/20: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — Baltic Master UAB v Muitinės departamentas prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs union — Community Customs Code — Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 — Article 29 — Determination of the customs value — Transaction value — Article 29(1)(d) — Concept of related persons — Article 31 — Account taken of information derived from a national database for the purpose of determining the customs value — Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 — Article 143(1)(b), (e) and (f) — Situations in which persons are deemed to be related — Article 181a — Doubts based on the veracity of the price declared)

8

2022/C 294/11

Case C-673/20: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 9 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal judiciaire d’Auch — France) — EP v Préfet du Gers, Institut national de la statistique et des études économiques (INSEE) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Citizenship of the Union — National of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland residing in a Member State — Article 9 TEU — Articles 20 and 22 TFEU — Right to vote and to stand as a candidate in municipal elections in the Member State of residence — Article 50 TEU — Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community — Consequences of the withdrawal of a Member State from the Union — Removal from the electoral roll in the Member State of residence — Articles 39 and 40 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Validity of Decision (EU) 2020/135)

9

2022/C 294/12

Case C-55/21: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 9 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — Direktor na Agentsia Mitnitsi v IMPERIAL TOBACCO BULGARIA EOOD (Request for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Excise duties — Directive 2008/118/EC — Article 11 — Reimbursement of excise duty on excise goods released for consumption — Directive 2011/64/EU — point (b) of the first paragraph of Article 17 — Reimbursement of excise duty already paid, by means of tax markings, affixed to manufactured tobacco destroyed under administrative supervision — Obligation of Member States to adopt regulations providing for the reimbursement of excise duties on manufactured tobacco released for consumption and destroyed under customs supervision — None)

10

2022/C 294/13

Case C-187/21: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — FAWKES Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 — Community Customs Code — Article 30(2)(a) and (b) — Customs value — Determination of the transaction value of similar goods — Database set up and managed by the national customs authority — Databases set up and managed by the customs authorities of other Member States and by the services of the European Union — Identical or similar goods exported to the European Union at or about the same time)

10

2022/C 294/14

Case C-783/21: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 31 May 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Firenze — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against M.M. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Article 267 TFEU — No dispute before the referring court — Manifest inadmissibility of the request for a preliminary ruling)

11

2022/C 294/15

Case C-126/22: Order of the Court of 1 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audencia Provincial de Barcelona — Spain) — JH, GK, FB, LR, TV, OS v Ryanair DAC (Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Cancellations — Re-routing — Cancellation of flight following measures taken by the Spanish government due to the Covid-19 pandemic — Re-routing arranged by air passengers — Re-routing through a combination of modes of transport other than air transport)

12

2022/C 294/16

Case C-120/22 P: Appeal brought on 18 February 2022 by Republic of Cyprus against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 8 December 2021 in Case T-593/19, Cyprus v EUIPO — Fontana Food (GRILLOUMI BURGER)

12

2022/C 294/17

Case C-121/22 P: Appeal brought on 18 February 2022 by Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 8 December 2021 in Case T-595/19, Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v EUIPO — Fontana Food (GRILLOUMI BURGER)

13

2022/C 294/18

Case C-139/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Śródmieścia w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 25 February 2022 — AM and PM v mBank S.A.

13

2022/C 294/19

Case C-145/22 P: Appeal brought on 1 March 2022 by Mr Jörg Lück against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 15 December 2021 in Case T-188/21, Jörg Lück v European Union Intellectual Property Office

14

2022/C 294/20

Case C-152/22 P: Appeal brought on 2 March 2022 by Legero Schuhfabrik GmbH against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 15 December 2021 in Case T-684/20, Legero Schuhfabrik GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office

14

2022/C 294/21

Case C-293/22 P: Appeal brought on 3 May 2022 by Chemours Netherlands BV against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 23 February 2022 in Case T-636/19, Chemours Netherlands v ECHA

14

2022/C 294/22

Case C-312/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 10 May 2022 — FL v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

16

2022/C 294/23

Case C-323/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 13 May 2022 — KRI SpA, as the successor of SI.LO.NE. — Sistema logistico nord-est Srl v Agenzia delle dogane e dei monopoli

16

2022/C 294/24

Case C-353/22: Action brought on 31 May 2022 — European Commission v Kingdom of Sweden

17

General Court

2022/C 294/25

Case T-523/17: Judgment of the General Court of 1 June 2022 — Eleveté Invest Group and Others v Commission and SRB (Economic and monetary union — Banking Union — Single Resolution Mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) — Resolution procedure applicable where an entity is failing or is likely to fail — Adoption by the SRB of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español — Right to be heard — Obligation to state reasons — Articles 18 and 20 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 — Non-contractual liability)

18

2022/C 294/26

Case T-570/17: Judgment of the General Court of 1 June 2022 — Algebris (UK) and Anchorage Capital Group v Commission (Economic and monetary union — Banking Union — Single Resolution Mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) — Resolution procedure applicable where an entity is failing or is likely to fail — Adoption by the SRB of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español — Delegation of power — Obligation to state reasons — Principle of good administration — Article 20 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 — Right to be heard — Right to property)

19

2022/C 294/27

Case T-628/17: Judgment of the General Court of 1 June 2022 — Aeris Invest v Commission and SRB (Economic and monetary union — Banking Union — Single Resolution Mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) — Resolution procedure applicable where an entity is failing or is likely to fail — Adoption by the SRB of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español — Delegation of power — Right to be heard — Right to property — Obligation to state reasons — Articles 14, 18 and 20 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014)

19

2022/C 294/28

Case T-235/18: Judgment of the General Court of 15 June 2022 — Qualcomm v Commission (Qualcomm — exclusivity payments) (Competition — Abuse of a dominant position — LTE chipsets market — Decision finding an infringement of Article 102 TFEU and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement — Exclusivity payments — Rights of the defence — Article 19 and Article 27(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Foreclosure effects)

20

2022/C 294/29

Case T-363/19 and T-456/19: Judgment of the General Court of 8 June 2022 — United Kingdom and ITV v Commission (State aid — Aid scheme implemented by the United Kingdom in favour of certain multinational groups — Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the internal market and unlawful and ordering the recovery of the aid paid — Advance tax rulings — Tax regime relating to the financing of groups and concerning in particular controlled foreign companies — Selective tax advantages)

21

2022/C 294/30

Case T-144/20: Judgment of the General Court of 8 June 2022 — Guangxi Xin Fu Yuan v Commission (Dumping — Imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware originating in China — Review investigation — Circumvention — Article 13 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 — Related companies — Procedural obligations — Article 5(10) and (11) of Regulation 2016/1036 — Articles 6.1, 6.2 and 12.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement — Rights of the defence — Equal treatment — Legitimate expectations — Manifest error of assessment)

22

2022/C 294/31

Case T-355/20: Judgment of the General Court of 1 June 2022 — Krasnyj Octyabr v EUIPO — Pokój (Pokój TRADYCJA JAKOŚĆ KRÓWKA SŁODKIE CHWILE Z DZIECIŃSTWA TRADYCYJNA RECEPTURA) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark Pokój TRADYCJA JAKOŚĆ KRÓWKA SŁODKIE CHWILE Z DZIECIŃSTWA TRADYCYJNA RECEPTURA — Earlier international figurative mark KOPOBKA KOROVKA — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

22

2022/C 294/32

Case T-363/20: Judgment of the General Court of 1 June 2022 — Krasnyj Octyabr v EUIPO — Pokój (KRÓWKA MLECZNA Milk FUDGE) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark KRÓWKA MLECZNA Milk FUDGE — Earlier international figurative mark KOPOBKA KOROVKA — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Right to be heard — Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)

23

2022/C 294/33

Case T-380/20: Judgment of the General Court of 15 June 2022 — Tubes Radiatori v EUIPO — Antrax It (Radiator) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Community design representing a radiator — Earlier designs — Grounds for invalidity — No individual character — Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Freedom of the designer — No scope for innovation — Overall impression)

24

2022/C 294/34

Case T-440/20: Judgment of the General Court of 1 June 2022 — Jindal Saw and Jindal Saw Italia v Commission (Reimposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty) (Dumping — Imports of tubes and pipes of ductile cast iron originating in India — Compliance with the judgment of the General Court in Case T-301/16 — Reimposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty — Non-repayment in full of the initial definitive anti-dumping duty — Legal basis — Non-retroactivity — Legal certainty — Article 266 TFEU — Proportionality — Right to effective judicial protection — Article 103 of the Union Customs Code — Registration Regulation — Plea of illegality — Admissibility)

24

2022/C 294/35

Case T-441/20: Judgment of the General Court of 1 June 2022 — Jindal Saw and Jindal Saw Italia v Commission (Reimposition of a definitive countervailing duty) (Subsidies — Imports of tubes and pipes of ductile cast iron originating in India — Compliance with the judgment of the General Court in Case T-300/16 — Reimposition of a definitive countervailing duty — Non-repayment in full of the initial definitive countervailing duty — Legal basis — Non-retroactivity — Legal certainty — Article 266 TFEU — Proportionality — Right to effective judicial protection — Article 103 of the Union Customs Code — Registration Regulation — Plea of illegality — Admissibility)

25

2022/C 294/36

Case T-621/20: Judgment of the General Court of 8 June 2022 — EMCS v EUAA (Public service contracts — Tender procedure — Provision of temporary agency workers for EASO — Rejection of a tenderer’s bid — Award of the contract to another tenderer — Equal treatment — Principle of transparency — Manifest error of assessment — Obligation to state reasons)

25

2022/C 294/37

Case T-738/20: Judgment of the General Court of 8 June 2022 — Deutschtec v EUIPO — Group A (HOLUX) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark HOLUX — Earlier international registration in respect of the word mark HOLUX — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

26

2022/C 294/38

Case T-26/21 to T-28/21: Judgment of the General Court of 8 June 2022 — Apple v EUIPO — Swatch (THINK DIFFERENT) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — Earlier EU word marks THINK DIFFERENT — No genuine use of the marks — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Obligation to state reasons — Right to be heard — Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)

27

2022/C 294/39

Case T-92/21: Judgment of the General Court of 8 June 2022 — Darment v Commission (Environment — Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 — Fluorinated greenhouse gases — Electronic registry for quotas for placing hydrofluorocarbons on the market — Decision to register — Authorisation to use a quota — Compliance with a judgment of the General Court — Principle of sound administration)

27

2022/C 294/40

Case T-293/21: Judgment of the General Court of 8 June 2022 — Muschaweck v EUIPO — Conze (UM) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark UM — Genuine use of the mark — Use with the consent of the proprietor — Use in the form in which the mark was registered — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Representation by the proprietor of the trade mark — Evidence of use submitted within the time limit set)

28

2022/C 294/41

Case T-338/21: Judgment of the General Court of 15 June 2022 — F I S I v EUIPO — Verband der Deutschen Daunen- und Federnindustrie (ECODOWN) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark ECODOWN — Absolute grounds for refusal — No distinctive character — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — No distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001))

28

2022/C 294/42

Case T-355/21: Judgment of the General Court of 8 June 2022 — Polo Club Düsseldorf v EUIPO — Company Bridge and Life (POLO CLUB DÜSSELDORF EST. 1976) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark POLO CLUB, DÜSSELDORF EST. 1976 — Earlier national figurative mark POLO CLUB — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

29

2022/C 294/43

Case T-433/21: Judgment of the General Court of 8 June 2022 — Vitronic v EUIPO (Enforcement Trailer) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark Enforcement Trailer — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Article 7(2) of Regulation 2017/1001)

30

2022/C 294/44

Case T-744/21: Judgment of the General Court of 8 June 2022 — Medela v EUIPO (MAXFLOW) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark MAXFLOW — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

30

2022/C 294/45

Case T-104/22 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 8 June 2022 — Hungary v Commission (Interim measures — Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — European Structural and Investment Funds — Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 — Documents originating in a Member State — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Prima facie case — Urgency — Balancing of interests)

31

2022/C 294/46

Case T-88/22: Action brought on 18 February 2022 — Arhs developments v Commission

31

2022/C 294/47

Case T-255/22: Action brought on 11 May 2022 — Cham Wings Airlines v Council

32

2022/C 294/48

Case T-281/22: Action brought on 13 May 2022 — Xpand Consortium and Others v Commission

33

2022/C 294/49

Case T-341/22: Action brought on 8 June 2022 — Deutsche Bank v EUIPO — Operación y Auditoria (avanza Tu negocio)

34

2022/C 294/50

Case T-347/22: Action brought on 9 June 2022 — Rauch Furnace Technology v EUIPO (Musto et Bureau (melting crucible)

35

2022/C 294/51

Case T-348/22: Action brought on 9 June 2022 — PT Indonesia Ruipu Nickel and Chrome Alloy v Commission

36

2022/C 294/52

Case T-350/22: Action brought on 10 June 2022 — adp Merkur v EUIPO — Play’n GO Marks (GAME OF GLADIATORS)

36

2022/C 294/53

Case T-351/22: Action brought on 13 June 2022 — De Dietrich Process Systems v EUIPO — Koch-Glitsch (SCHEIBEL)

37

2022/C 294/54

Case T-352/22: Action brought on 13 June 2022 — De Dietrich Process Systems v EUIPO — Koch-Glitsch (KARR)

38

2022/C 294/55

Case T-353/22: Action brought on 1 June 2022 — XH v Commission

38

2022/C 294/56

Case T-354/22: Action brought on 9 June 2022 — Bindl v Commission

39

2022/C 294/57

Case T-356/22: Action brought on 16 June 2022 — LG Chem v Commission

41

2022/C 294/58

Case T-357/22: Action brought on 16 June 2022 — Das Neves v Commission

42

2022/C 294/59

Case T-358/22: Action brought on 16 June 2022 — PQ v EEAS

42

2022/C 294/60

Case T-359/22: Action brought on 16 June 2022 — Zubitskiy v Council

43

2022/C 294/61

Case T-360/22: Action brought on 16 June 2022 — Berezkin v Council

44

2022/C 294/62

Case T-363/22: Action brought on 17 June 2022 — Akhmedov v Council

45

---

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 1.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/1

---

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

(2022/C 294/01)

Last publication

OJ C 284, 25.7.2022

Past publications

OJ C 276, 18.7.2022

OJ C 266, 11.7.2022

OJ C 257, 4.7.2022

OJ C 244, 27.6.2022

OJ C 237, 20.6.2022

OJ C 222, 7.6.2022

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 1.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/2

---

Opinion of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 June 2022 — Kingdom of Belgium

(Opinion C-1/20) (1)

(Opinion pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU - Request for an Opinion - Draft modernised Energy Charter Treaty - Article 26 - Dispute settlement mechanism - Admissibility)

(2022/C 294/02)

Language of the case: all the official languages

Applicant

Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: S. Baeyens, J.-C. Halleux, C. Pochet and M. Van Regemorter, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the Opinion

The request for an Opinion introduced by the Kingdom of Belgium, on 2 December 2020, is inadmissible.

---

(1)  OJ C 53, 15.2.2021.

---

| 1.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 June 2022 — Sony Corporation, Sony Electronics Inc. v European Commission

(Case C-697/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Optical disk drives - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992 - Single and continuous infringement - Definition - Collusive agreements relating to procurement events concerning optical disk drives for notebook and desktop computers organised by two computer manufacturers)

(2022/C 294/03)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Sony Corporation, Sony Electronics Inc. (represented by: E. Kelly, N. Levy and R. Snelders, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Dawes, M. Farley, F. van Schaik and L. Wildpanner, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 12 July 2019, Sony and Sony Electronics v Commission (T-762/15, not published, EU:T:2019:515); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 12 July 2019, Sony and Sony Electronics v Commission (T-762/15, not published, EU:T:2019:515);

| 2. | Annuls Article 1(f) of Commission Decision C(2015) 7135 final of 21 October 2015 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39639 — Optical disk drives) to the extent that it declares that Sony Corporation and Sony Electronics Inc. infringed Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992 by participating, from 23 August 2004 to 15 September 2006, in several separate infringements; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Annuls Article 1(f) of Commission Decision C(2015) 7135 final of 21 October 2015 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39639 — Optical disk drives) to the extent that it declares that Sony Corporation and Sony Electronics Inc. infringed Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992 by participating, from 23 August 2004 to 15 September 2006, in several separate infringements;

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

3.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 4. | Orders the European Commission to pay, in addition to its own costs relating to both the proceedings at first instance and those on appeal, all of the costs incurred by Sony Corporation and Sony Electronics Inc. in the present appeal and half of the costs that they incurred at first instance; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the European Commission to pay, in addition to its own costs relating to both the proceedings at first instance and those on appeal, all of the costs incurred by Sony Corporation and Sony Electronics Inc. in the present appeal and half of the costs that they incurred at first instance;

| 5. | Orders Sony Corporation and Sony Electronics Inc. to bear half of their own costs relating to the proceedings at first instance. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Orders Sony Corporation and Sony Electronics Inc. to bear half of their own costs relating to the proceedings at first instance.

---

(1)  OJ C 383, 11.11.2019.

---

| 1.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 June 2022 — Sony Optiarc Inc., Sony Optiarc America Inc. v European Commission

(Case C-698/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Optical disk drives - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992 - Single and continuous infringement - Definition - Collusive agreements relating to procurement events concerning optical disk drives for notebook and desktop computers organised by two computer manufacturers)

(2022/C 294/04)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Sony Optiarc Inc., Sony Optiarc America Inc. (represented by: E. Kelly, N. Levy and R. Snelders, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Dawes, M. Farley, F. van Schaik and L. Wildpanner, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 12 July 2019, Sony Optiarc and Sony Optiarc America v Commission (T-763/15, not published, EU:T:2019:517); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 12 July 2019, Sony Optiarc and Sony Optiarc America v Commission (T-763/15, not published, EU:T:2019:517);

| 2. | Annuls Article 1(g) of Commission Decision C(2015) 7135 final of 21 October 2015 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39639 — Optical disk drives) to the extent that it declares that Sony Optiarc Inc. and Sony Optiarc America Inc. infringed Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992 by participating, from 25 July 2007 to 29 October 2008 and from 25 July 2007 to 31 October 2007 respectively, in several separate infringements; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Annuls Article 1(g) of Commission Decision C(2015) 7135 final of 21 October 2015 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39639 — Optical disk drives) to the extent that it declares that Sony Optiarc Inc. and Sony Optiarc America Inc. infringed Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992 by participating, from 25 July 2007 to 29 October 2008 and from 25 July 2007 to 31 October 2007 respectively, in several separate infringements;

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

3.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 4. | Orders the European Commission to pay, in addition to its own costs relating to both the proceedings at first instance and those on appeal, all of the costs incurred by Sony Optiarc Inc. and Sony Optiarc America Inc. in the present appeal and half of the costs that they incurred at first instance; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the European Commission to pay, in addition to its own costs relating to both the proceedings at first instance and those on appeal, all of the costs incurred by Sony Optiarc Inc. and Sony Optiarc America Inc. in the present appeal and half of the costs that they incurred at first instance;

| 5. | Orders Sony Optiarc Inc. and Sony Optiarc America Inc. to bear half of their own costs relating to the proceedings at first instance. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Orders Sony Optiarc Inc. and Sony Optiarc America Inc. to bear half of their own costs relating to the proceedings at first instance.

---

(1)  OJ C 383, 11.11.2019.

---

| 1.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 June 2022 — Quanta Storage Inc. v European Commission

(Case C-699/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Optical disk drives - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and of Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992 - Single and continuous infringement - Definition - Collusive agreements relating to procurement events concerning optical disk drives for notebook and desktop computers organised by two computer manufacturers)

(2022/C 294/05)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Quanta Storage Inc. (represented by: O. Geiss, Rechtsanwalt, B. Hartnett, avocat, T. Siakka, Solicitor, and W. Sparks, advocaat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: P. Berghe, M. Farley, F. van Schaik and C. Zois, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 12 July 2019, Quanta Storage v Commission (T-772/15, EU:T:2019:519); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 12 July 2019, Quanta Storage v Commission (T-772/15, EU:T:2019:519);

| 2. | Annuls Article 1(h) of Commission Decision C(2015) 7135 final of 21 October 2015 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39639 — Optical disk drives) in so far as it finds that Quanta Storage Inc. infringed Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992 by participating, from 14 February to 28 October 2008, in several separate infringements; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Annuls Article 1(h) of Commission Decision C(2015) 7135 final of 21 October 2015 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39639 — Optical disk drives) in so far as it finds that Quanta Storage Inc. infringed Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992 by participating, from 14 February to 28 October 2008, in several separate infringements;

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

3.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 4. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs relating to both the proceedings at first instance and the appeal proceedings and to pay all the costs incurred by Quanta Storage Inc. in the present appeal and half of the costs which it incurred at first instance; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs relating to both the proceedings at first instance and the appeal proceedings and to pay all the costs incurred by Quanta Storage Inc. in the present appeal and half of the costs which it incurred at first instance;

| 5. | Orders Quanta Storage Inc. to bear half of its own costs relating to the proceedings at first instance. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Orders Quanta Storage Inc. to bear half of its own costs relating to the proceedings at first instance.

---

(1)  OJ C 406, 2.12.2019.

---

| 1.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 June 2022 — Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Corp., Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Korea Corp. v European Commission

(Case C-700/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Optical disk drives - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and of Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992 - Single and continuous infringement - Definition - Collusive agreements relating to procurement events concerning optical disk drives for notebook and desktop computers organised by two computer manufacturers)

(2022/C 294/06)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Corp., Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Korea Corp. (represented: initially by A. Aresu, M. Bay, avvocati, and J. Ruiz Calzado, abogado, and subsequently by M. Bay, avvocato, and J. Ruiz Calzado, abogado)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Biolan, M. Farley, F. van Schaik and C. Zois, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 12 July 2019, Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology and Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Korea v Commission (T-8/16, EU:T:2019:522); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 12 July 2019, Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology and Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Korea v Commission (T-8/16, EU:T:2019:522);

| 2. | Annuls Article 1(e) of Commission Decision C(2015) 7135 final of 21 October 2015 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39639 — Optical disk drives) in so far as it finds that Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Corp. and Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Korea Corp. infringed Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992 by participating, from 23 June 2004 to 17 November 2008, in several separate infringements; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Annuls Article 1(e) of Commission Decision C(2015) 7135 final of 21 October 2015 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39639 — Optical disk drives) in so far as it finds that Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Corp. and Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Korea Corp. infringed Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992 by participating, from 23 June 2004 to 17 November 2008, in several separate infringements;

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

3.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 4. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs relating to both the proceedings at first instance and the appeal proceedings and to pay all the costs incurred by Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Corp. and Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Korea Corp. in the present appeal and half of the costs which they incurred at first instance; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs relating to both the proceedings at first instance and the appeal proceedings and to pay all the costs incurred by Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Corp. and Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Korea Corp. in the present appeal and half of the costs which they incurred at first instance;

| 5. | Orders Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Corp. and Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Korea Corp. to bear half of their own costs relating to the proceedings at first instance. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Orders Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Corp. and Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Korea Corp. to bear half of their own costs relating to the proceedings at first instance.

---

(1)  OJ C 383, 11.11.2019.

---

| 1.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 June 2022 — European Commission v Republic of Austria

(Case C-328/20) (1)

(Failure to fulfil obligations - Coordination of social security systems - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Articles 4, 7 and 67 - Freedom of movement for workers - Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 - Article 7 - Equal treatment - Family benefits - Social and tax advantages - Adjustment of amounts on the basis of price levels in the children’s State of residence)

(2022/C 294/07)

Language of the case: German

Parties

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

Interveners in support of the applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: J. Pavliš, M. Smolek and J. Vláčil, acting as Agents), Republic of Croatia (represented by: G. Vidović Mesarek, acting as Agent), Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent), Romania (represented by: E. Gane and L. Liţu, acting as Agents), Republic of Slovenia (represented by: J. Morela, acting as Agent), Slovak Republic (represented by: B. Ricziová, acting as Agent), EFTA Surveillance Authority (represented by: E. Gromnicka, C. Howdle, J.S. Watson and C. Zatschler, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Austria (represented by: M. Klamert, C. Pesendorfer, A. Posch and J. Schmoll, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: M. Jespersen, J. Nymann-Lindegren and M. Wolff, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Norway (represented by: S. Hammersvik, J.T. Kaasin, L. Tvedt and P. Wennerås, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by establishing the adjustment mechanism resulting from the amendments to Paragraph 8a of the Bundesgesetz betreffend den Familienlastenausgleich durch Beihilfen (Federal Law on compensation for family expenses by means of allowances) of 24 October 1967, as amended by the Bundesgesetz mit dem das Familienlastenausgleichsgesetz 1967, das Einkommensteuergesetz 1988 und das Entwicklungshelfergesetz geändert werden (Federal Law amending the Federal Law of 1967 on compensation for family expenses by means of allowances, the Federal Law of 1988 on the taxation of the income of natural persons and the Law on the status of development aid workers) of 4 December 2018, and to Paragraph 33 of the Bundesgesetz über die Besteuerung des Einkommens natürlicher Personen (Federal Law on the taxation of the income of natural persons) of 7 July 1988, as amended by the Jahressteuergesetz 2018 (Annual Tax Law of 2018) of 14 August 2018, and by the Federal Law amending the Federal Law of 1967 on compensation for family expenses by means of allowances, the Federal Law of 1988 on the taxation of the income of natural persons and the Law on the status of development aid workers of 4 December 2018 applicable to family allowances and the child tax credit for workers whose children reside permanently in another Member State, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4 and 67 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, and under Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by establishing the adjustment mechanism resulting from the amendments to Paragraph 8a of the Bundesgesetz betreffend den Familienlastenausgleich durch Beihilfen (Federal Law on compensation for family expenses by means of allowances) of 24 October 1967, as amended by the Bundesgesetz mit dem das Familienlastenausgleichsgesetz 1967, das Einkommensteuergesetz 1988 und das Entwicklungshelfergesetz geändert werden (Federal Law amending the Federal Law of 1967 on compensation for family expenses by means of allowances, the Federal Law of 1988 on the taxation of the income of natural persons and the Law on the status of development aid workers) of 4 December 2018, and to Paragraph 33 of the Bundesgesetz über die Besteuerung des Einkommens natürlicher Personen (Federal Law on the taxation of the income of natural persons) of 7 July 1988, as amended by the Jahressteuergesetz 2018 (Annual Tax Law of 2018) of 14 August 2018, and by the Federal Law amending the Federal Law of 1967 on compensation for family expenses by means of allowances, the Federal Law of 1988 on the taxation of the income of natural persons and the Law on the status of development aid workers of 4 December 2018 applicable to family allowances and the child tax credit for workers whose children reside permanently in another Member State, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4 and 67 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, and under Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union;

| 2. | Declares that, by establishing the adjustment mechanism resulting from the amendments to Paragraph 8a of the Bundesgesetz betreffend den Familienlastenausgleich durch Beihilfen (Federal Law on compensation for family expenses by means of allowances) of 24 October 1967, as amended by the Bundesgesetz mit dem das Familienlastenausgleichsgesetz 1967, das Einkommensteuergesetz 1988 und das Entwicklungshelfergesetz geändert werden (Federal Law amending the Federal Law of 1967 on compensation for family expenses by means of allowances, the Federal Law of 1988 on the taxation of the income of natural persons and the Law on the status of development aid workers) of 4 December 2018, and to Paragraph 33 of the Bundesgesetz über die Besteuerung des Einkommens natürlicher Personen (Federal Law on the taxation of the income of natural persons) of 7 July 1988, as amended by the Jahressteuergesetz 2018 (Annual Tax Law of 2018) of 14 August 2018, and by the Federal Law amending the Federal Law of 1967 on compensation for family expenses by means of allowances, the Federal Law of 1988 on the taxation of the income of natural persons and the Law on the status of development aid workers of 4 December 2018 applicable to the Family Bonus Plus, the sole earner’s allowance, the single parent’s allowance and the tax credit for maintenance payments, for migrant workers whose children reside permanently in another Member State, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(2) of Regulation No 492/2011; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that, by establishing the adjustment mechanism resulting from the amendments to Paragraph 8a of the Bundesgesetz betreffend den Familienlastenausgleich durch Beihilfen (Federal Law on compensation for family expenses by means of allowances) of 24 October 1967, as amended by the Bundesgesetz mit dem das Familienlastenausgleichsgesetz 1967, das Einkommensteuergesetz 1988 und das Entwicklungshelfergesetz geändert werden (Federal Law amending the Federal Law of 1967 on compensation for family expenses by means of allowances, the Federal Law of 1988 on the taxation of the income of natural persons and the Law on the status of development aid workers) of 4 December 2018, and to Paragraph 33 of the Bundesgesetz über die Besteuerung des Einkommens natürlicher Personen (Federal Law on the taxation of the income of natural persons) of 7 July 1988, as amended by the Jahressteuergesetz 2018 (Annual Tax Law of 2018) of 14 August 2018, and by the Federal Law amending the Federal Law of 1967 on compensation for family expenses by means of allowances, the Federal Law of 1988 on the taxation of the income of natural persons and the Law on the status of development aid workers of 4 December 2018 applicable to the Family Bonus Plus, the sole earner’s allowance, the single parent’s allowance and the tax credit for maintenance payments, for migrant workers whose children reside permanently in another Member State, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(2) of Regulation No 492/2011;

| 3. | Orders the Republic of Austria to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Republic of Austria to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

| 4. | Orders the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Republic of Croatia, the Republic of Poland, Romania, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic, and the Kingdom of Norway and the EFTA Surveillance Authority to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Republic of Croatia, the Republic of Poland, Romania, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic, and the Kingdom of Norway and the EFTA Surveillance Authority to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 297, 7.9.2020.

---

| 1.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/7

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Silistra, Bulgaria) — DB, LY v Nachalnik na Rayonno upravlenie Silistra pri Oblastna direktsia na Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti — Silistra

(Case C-520/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) - Decision 2007/533/JHA - Articles 38 and 39 - Alert on an object sought - Objectives of the alert - Seizure or use as evidence in criminal proceedings - Execution - Measures to be taken and action based on an alert - Surrender of the object seized to the Member State issuing the alert - National legislation not permitting a refusal to execute the alert)

(2022/C 294/08)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad — Silistra

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: DB, LY

Defendant: Nachalnik na Rayonno upravlenie Silistra pri Oblastna direktsia na Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti — Silistra

Operative part of the judgment

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) must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation pursuant to which the competent authorities of the executing Member State are required to execute an alert on an object entered in the second generation Schengen Information System, even though those authorities have doubts regarding the reasons, set out in Article 38(1) of that decision, for the entry of that alert.

---

(1)  OJ C 433, 14.12.2020.

---

| 1.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln — Germany) — ACC Silicones Ltd v Bundeszentralamt für Steuern

(Case C-572/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Free movement of capital - Dividends from ‘free-float’ shares - Reimbursement of tax on income from capital paid by a non-resident company - Conditions - Free movement of capital - Principle of proportionality)

(2022/C 294/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ACC Silicones Ltd

Defendant: Bundeszentralamt für Steuern

Operative part of the judgment

Article 63 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a provision of a Member State’s tax legislation which makes the reimbursement of tax on income from capital paid on dividends from shareholdings below the thresholds laid down by Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States, as amended by Council Directive 2003/123/EC of 22 December 2003, received by a company established in another Member State subject to proof that that tax cannot be set off or its set-off carried forward in favour of that company, or in favour of its direct or indirect shareholders, nor deducted by that company as work-related outgoings or an operating cost, whereas such a condition is not provided for as regards reimbursement of tax on income from capital paid by a resident company receiving the same type of income.

---

(1)  OJ C 53, 15.2.2021.

---

| 1.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — ‘Baltic Master’ UAB v Muitinės departamentas prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

(Case C-599/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs union - Community Customs Code - Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Article 29 - Determination of the customs value - Transaction value - Article 29(1)(d) - Concept of ‘related persons’ - Article 31 - Account taken of information derived from a national database for the purpose of determining the customs value - Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 - Article 143(1)(b), (e) and (f) - Situations in which persons are deemed to be related - Article 181a - Doubts based on the veracity of the price declared)

(2022/C 294/10)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘Baltic Master’ UAB

Defendant: Muitinės departamentas prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

Interested party: Vilniaus teritorinė muitinė

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 29(1)(d) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 82/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 1996, and Article 143(1)(b), (e) and (f) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 46/1999 of 8 January 1999, must be interpreted as meaning that:






  — | the buyer and the seller may not be deemed to be legally recognised partners or to be related on account of a direct or indirect relationship of de jure control in a situation in which no document exists which makes it possible to establish such a relationship; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Article 29(1)(d) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 82/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 1996, and Article 143(1)(b), (e) and (f) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 46/1999 of 8 January 1999, must be interpreted as meaning that:

—

the buyer and the seller may not be deemed to be legally recognised partners or to be related on account of a direct or indirect relationship of de jure control in a situation in which no document exists which makes it possible to establish such a relationship;

| — | the buyer and the seller may be deemed to be related on account of a direct or indirect relationship of de facto control in a situation in which the circumstances surrounding the conclusion of the transactions at issue, substantiated by objective elements, may be regarded as demonstrating not only that there is a close relationship of trust between that buyer and that seller, but that one of them is in a position to exercise constraint or direction over the other or that a third party is in a position to exercise such constraint or direction over them. |
| --- | --- |

—

the buyer and the seller may be deemed to be related on account of a direct or indirect relationship of de facto control in a situation in which the circumstances surrounding the conclusion of the transactions at issue, substantiated by objective elements, may be regarded as demonstrating not only that there is a close relationship of trust between that buyer and that seller, but that one of them is in a position to exercise constraint or direction over the other or that a third party is in a position to exercise such constraint or direction over them.

| 2. | Article 31(1) of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 82/97, must be interpreted as not prohibiting the determination of the customs value of imported goods, where it could not be determined in accordance with Articles 29 and 30 of that code, on the basis of information contained in a national database relating to a customs value of goods which have the same origin and which, although not ‘similar’ within the meaning of Article 142(1)(d) of Regulation No 2454/93, as amended by Regulation No 46/1999, are ascribed to the same TARIC code. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 31(1) of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 82/97, must be interpreted as not prohibiting the determination of the customs value of imported goods, where it could not be determined in accordance with Articles 29 and 30 of that code, on the basis of information contained in a national database relating to a customs value of goods which have the same origin and which, although not ‘similar’ within the meaning of Article 142(1)(d) of Regulation No 2454/93, as amended by Regulation No 46/1999, are ascribed to the same TARIC code.

---

(1)  OJ C 35, 1.2.2021.

---

| 1.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 9 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal judiciaire d’Auch — France) — EP v Préfet du Gers, Institut national de la statistique et des études économiques (INSEE)

(Case C-673/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Citizenship of the Union - National of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland residing in a Member State - Article 9 TEU - Articles 20 and 22 TFEU - Right to vote and to stand as a candidate in municipal elections in the Member State of residence - Article 50 TEU - Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community - Consequences of the withdrawal of a Member State from the Union - Removal from the electoral roll in the Member State of residence - Articles 39 and 40 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Validity of Decision (EU) 2020/135)

(2022/C 294/11)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal judiciaire d’Auch

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: EP

Defendant: Préfet du Gers, Institut national de la statistique et des études économiques (INSEE)

Interested party: Maire de Thoux

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Articles 9 and 50 TEU and Articles 20 to 22 TFEU, read in conjunction with the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, which was adopted on 17 October 2019 and entered into force on 1 February 2020, must be interpreted as meaning that, as of the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union, on 1 February 2020, nationals of that State who exercised their right to reside in a Member State before the end of the transition period no longer enjoy the status of citizen of the Union, nor, more specifically, by virtue of Article 20(2)(b) TFEU and Article 22 TFEU, the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in municipal elections in their Member State of residence, including where they are also deprived, by virtue of the law of the State of which they are nationals, of the right to vote in elections held by that State; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Articles 9 and 50 TEU and Articles 20 to 22 TFEU, read in conjunction with the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, which was adopted on 17 October 2019 and entered into force on 1 February 2020, must be interpreted as meaning that, as of the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union, on 1 February 2020, nationals of that State who exercised their right to reside in a Member State before the end of the transition period no longer enjoy the status of citizen of the Union, nor, more specifically, by virtue of Article 20(2)(b) TFEU and Article 22 TFEU, the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in municipal elections in their Member State of residence, including where they are also deprived, by virtue of the law of the State of which they are nationals, of the right to vote in elections held by that State;

| 2. | The examination of the third and fourth questions referred for a preliminary ruling has not revealed any factor capable of affecting the validity of Council Decision (EU) 2020/135 of 30 January 2020 on the conclusion of the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The examination of the third and fourth questions referred for a preliminary ruling has not revealed any factor capable of affecting the validity of Council Decision (EU) 2020/135 of 30 January 2020 on the conclusion of the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community.

---

(1)  OJ C 98, 22.3.2021.

---

| 1.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 9 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — Direktor na Agentsia ‘Mitnitsi’ v ‘IMPERIAL TOBACCO BULGARIA’ EOOD

(Case C-55/21) (1)

(Request for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Excise duties - Directive 2008/118/EC - Article 11 - Reimbursement of excise duty on excise goods released for consumption - Directive 2011/64/EU - point (b) of the first paragraph of Article 17 - Reimbursement of excise duty already paid, by means of tax markings, affixed to manufactured tobacco destroyed under administrative supervision - Obligation of Member States to adopt regulations providing for the reimbursement of excise duties on manufactured tobacco released for consumption and destroyed under customs supervision - None)

(2022/C 294/12)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven administrativen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Direktor na Agentsia ‘Mitnitsi’

Defendant:‘IMPERIAL TOBACCO BULGARIA’ EOOD

Operative part of the judgment

Article 11 of Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC and point (b) of the first paragraph of Article 17 of Council Directive 2011/64/EU of 21 June 2011 on the structure and rates of excise duty applied to manufactured tobacco must be interpreted as meaning that those provisions do not require Member States to provide for the reimbursement of excise duty in respect of excise goods, including manufactured tobacco, destroyed under customs supervision, which have already been released for consumption.

---

(1)  OJ C 128, 12.4.2021.

---

| 1.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — FAWKES Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

(Case C-187/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Community Customs Code - Article 30(2)(a) and (b) - Customs value - Determination of the transaction value of similar goods - Database set up and managed by the national customs authority - Databases set up and managed by the customs authorities of other Member States and by the services of the European Union - Identical or similar goods exported to the European Union ‘at or about the same time’)

(2022/C 294/13)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Kúria

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: FAWKES Kft.

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 30(2)(a) and (b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code must be interpreted as meaning that, when determining the customs value in accordance with that provision, the customs authority of a Member State may confine itself to using information contained in the national database which it compiles and manages, without that customs authority being required, where the information is sufficient for that purpose, to access information held by the customs authorities of other Member States or by the EU services and institutions, without prejudice, if that is not the case, to the possibility for that customs authority to make a request to those authorities or to those services and institutions in order to obtain additional data for the purposes of that determination; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 30(2)(a) and (b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code must be interpreted as meaning that, when determining the customs value in accordance with that provision, the customs authority of a Member State may confine itself to using information contained in the national database which it compiles and manages, without that customs authority being required, where the information is sufficient for that purpose, to access information held by the customs authorities of other Member States or by the EU services and institutions, without prejudice, if that is not the case, to the possibility for that customs authority to make a request to those authorities or to those services and institutions in order to obtain additional data for the purposes of that determination;

| 2. | Article 30(2)(a) and (b) of Regulation No 2913/92 must be interpreted as meaning that the customs authority of a Member State may exclude, when determining the customs value, transaction values relating to other transactions entered into by the applicant for customs clearance, even if those values have not been challenged either by that customs authority or by the customs authorities of other Member States, provided that (i) for transaction values relating to imports into that Member State, that authority first calls them into question pursuant to Article 78(1) and (2) of Regulation No 2913/92, within the time limits imposed by Article 221 thereof and following the procedure laid down in Article 181a of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 3254/94 of 19 December 1994, and (ii) for transaction values relating to imports into other Member States, that customs authority sets out the grounds for that exclusion in accordance with Article 6(3) of Regulation No 2913/92 by reference to factors affecting their plausibility; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 30(2)(a) and (b) of Regulation No 2913/92 must be interpreted as meaning that the customs authority of a Member State may exclude, when determining the customs value, transaction values relating to other transactions entered into by the applicant for customs clearance, even if those values have not been challenged either by that customs authority or by the customs authorities of other Member States, provided that (i) for transaction values relating to imports into that Member State, that authority first calls them into question pursuant to Article 78(1) and (2) of Regulation No 2913/92, within the time limits imposed by Article 221 thereof and following the procedure laid down in Article 181a of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 3254/94 of 19 December 1994, and (ii) for transaction values relating to imports into other Member States, that customs authority sets out the grounds for that exclusion in accordance with Article 6(3) of Regulation No 2913/92 by reference to factors affecting their plausibility;

| 3. | The concept of goods exported ‘at or about the same time’ as the goods being valued, referred to in Article 30(2)(a) and (b) of Regulation No 2913/92, must be interpreted as meaning that, when determining the customs value in accordance with that provision, a customs authority may confine itself to using data relating to transaction values covering a period of 90 days, including 45 days before and 45 days after the customs clearance of the goods being valued, provided that the transactions relating to exports, into the EU, of goods which are identical or similar to the goods being valued over that period enable it to determine the customs value of those goods in accordance with that provision. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The concept of goods exported ‘at or about the same time’ as the goods being valued, referred to in Article 30(2)(a) and (b) of Regulation No 2913/92, must be interpreted as meaning that, when determining the customs value in accordance with that provision, a customs authority may confine itself to using data relating to transaction values covering a period of 90 days, including 45 days before and 45 days after the customs clearance of the goods being valued, provided that the transactions relating to exports, into the EU, of goods which are identical or similar to the goods being valued over that period enable it to determine the customs value of those goods in accordance with that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 228, 14.6.2021.

---

| 1.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/11

---

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 31 May 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Firenze — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against M.M.

(Case C-783/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Article 267 TFEU - No dispute before the referring court - Manifest inadmissibility of the request for a preliminary ruling)

(2022/C 294/14)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Firenze

Parties to the main proceedings

M.M.

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Firenze (District Court, Florence, Italy), made by decision of 11 November 2021, is manifestly inadmissible.

---

(1)  Date of lodging: 16.12.2021

---

| 1.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/12

---

Order of the Court of 1 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audencia Provincial de Barcelona — Spain) — JH, GK, FB, LR, TV, OS v Ryanair DAC

(Case C-126/22) (1)

(Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Cancellations - Re-routing - Cancellation of flight following measures taken by the Spanish government due to the Covid-19 pandemic - Re-routing arranged by air passengers - Re-routing through a combination of modes of transport other than air transport)

(2022/C 294/15)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audencia Provincial de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: JH, GK, FB, LR, TV, OS

Defendant: Ryanair DAC

Operative part of the order

Case C-126/22 is removed from the Register of the Court of Justice.

---

(1)  Filing date: 22.2.2022.

---

| 1.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/12

---

Appeal brought on 18 February 2022 by Republic of Cyprus against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 8 December 2021 in Case T-593/19, Cyprus v EUIPO — Fontana Food (GRILLOUMI BURGER)

(Case C-120/22 P)

(2022/C 294/16)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Republic of Cyprus (represented by: V. Marsland, Solicitor, and C. Milbradt, Rechtsanwältin)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Fontana Food AB

By order of 15 June 2022, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal was not allowed to proceed and that Republic of Cyprus should bear its own costs.

---

| 1.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/13

---

Appeal brought on 18 February 2022 by Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 8 December 2021 in Case T-595/19, Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v EUIPO — Fontana Food (GRILLOUMI BURGER)

(Case C-121/22 P)

(2022/C 294/17)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi (represented by: V. Marsland, Solicitor, and C. Milbradt, Rechtsanwältin)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Fontana Food AB

By order of 15 June 2022, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal was not allowed to proceed and that Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi should bear its own costs.

---

| 1.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/13

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Śródmieścia w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 25 February 2022 — AM and PM v mBank S.A.

(Case C-139/22)

(2022/C 294/18)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Śródmieścia w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: AM and PM

Defendant: mBank S.A.

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 3(1), Article 7(1) and (2), and Article 8 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (1) and the principle of effectiveness be interpreted as meaning that, in order for a contractual term which has not been individually negotiated to be regarded as unfair, it is sufficient to ascertain that the content of that contractual term corresponds to that of a provision of a standard contract which has been entered in the register of unfair terms? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 3(1), Article 7(1) and (2), and Article 8 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (1) and the principle of effectiveness be interpreted as meaning that, in order for a contractual term which has not been individually negotiated to be regarded as unfair, it is sufficient to ascertain that the content of that contractual term corresponds to that of a provision of a standard contract which has been entered in the register of unfair terms?

| 2. | Must Article 3(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC ... be interpreted as precluding a judicial body from interpreting national provisions in such a way that an unfair contractual term loses its unfair character if the consumer can choose to perform his or her obligations arising from the contract concerned on the basis of another term of that contract which is fair? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must Article 3(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC ... be interpreted as precluding a judicial body from interpreting national provisions in such a way that an unfair contractual term loses its unfair character if the consumer can choose to perform his or her obligations arising from the contract concerned on the basis of another term of that contract which is fair?

| 3. | Must Article 3(1) and Article 4(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC ... be interpreted as meaning that a seller or supplier is required to inform each consumer of the essential characteristics of the contract and the risks associated with the contract, even if the consumer in question has relevant knowledge of the subject matter? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Must Article 3(1) and Article 4(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC ... be interpreted as meaning that a seller or supplier is required to inform each consumer of the essential characteristics of the contract and the risks associated with the contract, even if the consumer in question has relevant knowledge of the subject matter?

| 4. | Must Article 3(1), Article 6 [...] and Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC ... be interpreted as meaning that, where more than one consumer concludes the same contract with a single seller or supplier, the same contractual terms may be regarded as unfair to the first consumer and fair to the second and, if so, may the consequence be that the contract is invalid as far as the first consumer is concerned and valid as far as the second consumer is concerned, such that he or she is subject to all the obligations arising from that contract? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Must Article 3(1), Article 6 [...] and Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC ... be interpreted as meaning that, where more than one consumer concludes the same contract with a single seller or supplier, the same contractual terms may be regarded as unfair to the first consumer and fair to the second and, if so, may the consequence be that the contract is invalid as far as the first consumer is concerned and valid as far as the second consumer is concerned, such that he or she is subject to all the obligations arising from that contract?

---

(1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.

---

| 1.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/14

---

Appeal brought on 1 March 2022 by Mr Jörg Lück against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 15 December 2021 in Case T-188/21, Jörg Lück v European Union Intellectual Property Office

(Case C-145/22 P)

(2022/C 294/19)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Jörg Lück (represented by: L. Becker, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, R.H. Investment UG

By order of 17 June 2022, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) decided that the appeal should not be allowed to proceed and ordered the appellant to bear his own costs.

---

| 1.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/14

---

Appeal brought on 2 March 2022 by Legero Schuhfabrik GmbH against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 15 December 2021 in Case T-684/20, Legero Schuhfabrik GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office

(Case C-152/22 P)

(2022/C 294/20)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Legero Schuhfabrik GmbH (represented by: M. Gail, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Rieker Schuh AG

By order of 22 June 2022, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) decided that the appeal should not be allowed to proceed and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.

---

| 1.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/14

---

Appeal brought on 3 May 2022 by Chemours Netherlands BV against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 23 February 2022 in Case T-636/19, Chemours Netherlands v ECHA

(Case C-293/22 P)

(2022/C 294/21)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Chemours Netherlands BV (represented by: R. Cana, H. Widemann and Z. Romata, avocates)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), Kingdom of the Netherlands, ClientEarth, ClientEarth AISBL, CHEM Trust Europe eV

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment under appeal in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment under appeal in its entirety;

| — | annul the contested decision (1); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision (1);

| — | 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 ECHA to pay the costs of these proceedings, including the costs of the proceedings before the General Court, and those of the interveners. |
| --- | --- |

—

order ECHA to pay the costs of these proceedings, including the costs of the proceedings before the General Court, and those of the interveners.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on the following pleas in law.

| A. | The General Court erred in law and in its assessment and breached and misinterpreted Article 57(f) of REACH in ruling that ECHA did not manifestly err by considering that serious effects on human health of an equivalent level of concern would have been established.
  In particular, (a) the General Court erred in its assessment, breached and misinterpreted Article 57(f) of REACH in ruling that ECHA could conclude that effects, which are acknowledged not to form ‘the basis’ of the contested decision, may nevertheless contribute to establishing ‘an equivalent level of concern’; (b) the General Court erred in its assessment, breached and misinterpreted Article 57(f) of REACH in ruling that ECHA established that the developmental toxicity and the repeated dose toxicity effects would be of ‘equivalent level of concern’; and (c) the General Court erred in its assessment, breached and misinterpreted Article 57(f) of REACH by considering as lawful ECHA’s decision to (i) apply weight of evidence considerations to the individual effects for human health and (ii) consider the effects for human health and the environment jointly. |
| --- | --- |

A.

The General Court erred in law and in its assessment and breached and misinterpreted Article 57(f) of REACH in ruling that ECHA did not manifestly err by considering that serious effects on human health of an equivalent level of concern would have been established.

In particular, (a) the General Court erred in its assessment, breached and misinterpreted Article 57(f) of REACH in ruling that ECHA could conclude that effects, which are acknowledged not to form ‘the basis’ of the contested decision, may nevertheless contribute to establishing ‘an equivalent level of concern’; (b) the General Court erred in its assessment, breached and misinterpreted Article 57(f) of REACH in ruling that ECHA established that the developmental toxicity and the repeated dose toxicity effects would be of ‘equivalent level of concern’; and (c) the General Court erred in its assessment, breached and misinterpreted Article 57(f) of REACH by considering as lawful ECHA’s decision to (i) apply weight of evidence considerations to the individual effects for human health and (ii) consider the effects for human health and the environment jointly.

| B. | The General Court erred in its assessment, breached and misinterpreted Article 57(f) of REACH in ruling that ECHA did not manifestly err in considering that serious effects on the environment of an equivalent level of concern would have been established.
  In particular, (a) the General Court erred in its assessment and misinterpreted Article 57(f) by allowing ECHA to establish serious effects on the environment by relying on human health toxicity data; and (b) the General Court erred in law and misinterpreted Article 57(f) by not considering the lack of bioaccumulation as a relevant element to be taken into consideration by ECHA in its assessment in the specific circumstances of this case. |
| --- | --- |

B.

The General Court erred in its assessment, breached and misinterpreted Article 57(f) of REACH in ruling that ECHA did not manifestly err in considering that serious effects on the environment of an equivalent level of concern would have been established.

In particular, (a) the General Court erred in its assessment and misinterpreted Article 57(f) by allowing ECHA to establish serious effects on the environment by relying on human health toxicity data; and (b) the General Court erred in law and misinterpreted Article 57(f) by not considering the lack of bioaccumulation as a relevant element to be taken into consideration by ECHA in its assessment in the specific circumstances of this case.

| C. | The General Court breached the general principle of EU law of scientific excellence and breached the standard of review.
  The General Court reached conclusions on irreversible effects of the Substance and assessed scientific studies in breach of the general principle of EU law of scientific excellence and in breach of the standard of review. |
| --- | --- |

C.

The General Court breached the general principle of EU law of scientific excellence and breached the standard of review.

The General Court reached conclusions on irreversible effects of the Substance and assessed scientific studies in breach of the general principle of EU law of scientific excellence and in breach of the standard of review.

---

(1)  ECHA’s decision ED/71/2019 of 4 July 2019, which came into force on 16 July 2019, in so far as it includes 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoro-2-(heptafluoropropoxy)propionic acid, its salts and its acyl halides (and their isomers and combinations thereof) in the list of substances identified for eventual inclusion in Annex XIV to 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, corrigendum OJ 2007 L 136, p. 3).

---

| 1.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/16

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 10 May 2022 — FL v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

(Case C-312/22)

(2022/C 294/22)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: FL

Respondent: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Question referred

Is it compatible with EU law for income in the form of interest on bonds and debt instruments paid by a non-resident Swiss bank to the appellant in 2005 to be subject to income aggregation and therefore to be taxed at the same rate of income tax as other income, meaning that the applicable rate of tax is far higher than the rate (levy) that would apply had the income in question been paid by a bank resident in national territory?

---

| 1.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/16

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 13 May 2022 — KRI SpA, as the successor of SI.LO.NE. — Sistema logistico nord-est Srl v Agenzia delle dogane e dei monopoli

(Case C-323/22)

(2022/C 294/23)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: KRI SpA, as the successor of SI.LO.NE. — Sistema logistico nord-est Srl

Respondent: Agenzia delle dogane e dei monopoli

Question referred

Must the first sentence of Article 14 of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 (1) be interpreted as meaning that in the event of irregular departure of the product subject to excise duty, the liability of the warehousekeeper guaranteeing payment of the duty is objective, with there being no possibility of exemption from that liability and from payment of the sums corresponding to the related financial penalties, even where that departure results from an unlawful act attributable — exclusively — to a third party, or can it be interpreted as meaning that the exemption from the tax and from the corresponding penalties is to be granted — as a fortuitous event or force majeure — to the guarantor warehousekeeper who not only has nothing whatsoever to do with the unlawful act of the third party but also had a legitimate and good faith expectation that the movement of the product under the duty suspension arrangement was regular?

---

(1)  Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products (OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1).

---

| 1.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/17

---

Action brought on 31 May 2022 — European Commission v Kingdom of Sweden

(Case C-353/22)

(2022/C 294/24)

Language of the case: Swedish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Tricot, P. Carlin and E. Manhaeve, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Sweden

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of Directive (EU) 2017/853 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2017 amending Council Directive 91/477/EEC on control of the acquisition and possession of weapons, codified under Directive (EU) 2021/555 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 March 2021 on control of the acquisition and possession of weapons, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
  Points 6, 7, 8 and 9 in category A, point 8 in category B and point 5 in category C, under the definition in point A of Part II of Annex I to Directive 91/477, as amended by Article 1(19) of Directive 2017/853,
  Article 5(3) of Directive 91/477, as amended by Article 1(6) of Directive 2017/853,
  Article 10(1), second paragraph, of Directive 91/477, as amended by Article 1(9) of Directive 2017/853, and
  Article 10(2) of Directive 91/477, as amended by Article 1(9) of Directive 2017/853, or, in any case, by failing to notify the Commission of such provisions, |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of Directive (EU) 2017/853 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2017 amending Council Directive 91/477/EEC on control of the acquisition and possession of weapons, codified under Directive (EU) 2021/555 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 March 2021 on control of the acquisition and possession of weapons, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with

Points 6, 7, 8 and 9 in category A, point 8 in category B and point 5 in category C, under the definition in point A of Part II of Annex I to Directive 91/477, as amended by Article 1(19) of Directive 2017/853,

Article 5(3) of Directive 91/477, as amended by Article 1(6) of Directive 2017/853,

Article 10(1), second paragraph, of Directive 91/477, as amended by Article 1(9) of Directive 2017/853, and

Article 10(2) of Directive 91/477, as amended by Article 1(9) of Directive 2017/853, or, in any case, by failing to notify the Commission of such provisions,

| — | Order the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the Commission a lump sum of EUR 5 387,90 per day, but not less than EUR 1 909 000, if the failure to fulfil the obligations referred to in the first paragraph is ongoing on the date that a judgment is delivered in these proceedings, and require the Kingdom of Sweden to make a penalty payment to the Commission of EUR 48 454,98 per day from the date of the judgment in these proceedings until the Kingdom of Sweden has complied with its obligations under the directive, and |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the Commission a lump sum of EUR 5 387,90 per day, but not less than EUR 1 909 000, if the failure to fulfil the obligations referred to in the first paragraph is ongoing on the date that a judgment is delivered in these proceedings, and require the Kingdom of Sweden to make a penalty payment to the Commission of EUR 48 454,98 per day from the date of the judgment in these proceedings until the Kingdom of Sweden has complied with its obligations under the directive, and

| — | Order the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Directive (EU) 2017/853 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2017 amending Council Directive 91/477/EEC on control of the acquisition and possession of weapons, codified under Directive (EU) 2021/555 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 March 2021 on control of the acquisition and possession of weapons, is intended to harmonise Member States’ legislation and procedures concerning firearms, to simplify procedures for the acquisition, possession and transfer of firearms, to prevent the unauthorised manufacture and trade of firearms, and to increase the traceability of firearms.

Member States were required to transpose the directive by 14 September 2018. The Commission initiated infringement proceedings against Sweden on 22 November 2018. On 26 July 2019 the Commission sent a reasoned opinion to Sweden. Sweden to date has not notified the Commission that it has transposed in full the provisions of the directive into its national law.

---

(1)  OJ 2017 L 137, p. 22

(2)  OJ 2021 L 115, p. 1

---

General Court

| 1.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/18

---

Judgment of the General Court of 1 June 2022 — Eleveté Invest Group and Others v Commission and SRB

(Case T-523/17) (1)

(Economic and monetary union - Banking Union - Single Resolution Mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) - Resolution procedure applicable where an entity is failing or is likely to fail - Adoption by the SRB of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español - Right to be heard - Obligation to state reasons - Articles 18 and 20 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 - Non-contractual liability)

(2022/C 294/25)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Eleveté Invest Group, SL (Madrid, Spain) and the other 19 applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the judgment (represented by: B. Cremades Roman, J. López Useros, S. Cajal Martín and P. Marrodán Lázaro, lawyers)

Defendants: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn and A. Steiblytė, acting as Agents, and by J. Rivas Andrés, lawyer), Single Resolution Board (represented by: J. King and M. Fernández Rupérez, acting as Agents, and by B. Meyring, S. Schelo, F. Fernández de Trocóniz Robles, T. Klupsch and S. Ianc, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendants: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: J. Rodríguez de la Rúa Puig and L. Aguilera Ruiz, acting as Agents), Banco Santander, SA (Santander, Spain) (represented by: J. Rodríguez Cárcamo, A. Rodríguez Conde, D. Sarmiento Ramírez-Escudero and J. Remón Peñalver, lawyers)

Re:

First, application based on Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Executive Session of the SRB of 7 June 2017 concerning the adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español, SA, and for annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 endorsing the resolution scheme for Banco Popular Español S.A. (OJ 2017 L 178, p. 15), second, application based on Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the damage which the applicants claim to have suffered as a result of those decisions and, third, application for a declaration that the provisional valuation is invalid, and for compensation.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Eleveté Invest Group, SL and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission, the Single Resolution Board (SRB) and Banco Santander, SA; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Eleveté Invest Group, SL and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission, the Single Resolution Board (SRB) and Banco Santander, SA;

| 3. | Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 374, 6.11.2017.

---

| 1.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 1 June 2022 — Algebris (UK) and Anchorage Capital Group v Commission

(Case T-570/17) (1)

(Economic and monetary union - Banking Union - Single Resolution Mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) - Resolution procedure applicable where an entity is failing or is likely to fail - Adoption by the SRB of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español - Delegation of power - Obligation to state reasons - Principle of good administration - Article 20 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 - Right to be heard - Right to property)

(2022/C 294/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Algebris (UK) Ltd (London, United Kingdom), Anchorage Capital Group LLC (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: T. Soames, N. Chesaites, lawyers, and R. East, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn and A. Steiblytė, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB) (represented by: J. King and M. Fernández Rupérez, acting as Agents, and by B. Meyring, S. Schelo, F. Fernández de Trocóniz Robles, T. Klupsch and S. Ianc, lawyers), Banco Santander, SA (Santander, Spain) (represented by: J. Rodríguez Cárcamo, A. Rodríguez Conde, D. Sarmiento Ramírez-Escudero, lawyers, and G. Cahill, Barrister)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 endorsing the resolution scheme for Banco Popular Español, S.A. (OJ 2017 L 178, p. 15).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Algebris (UK) Ltd and Anchorage Capital Group LLC to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission and Banco Santander, SA.; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Algebris (UK) Ltd and Anchorage Capital Group LLC to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission and Banco Santander, SA.;

| 3. | Orders the Single Resolution Board (SRB) to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Single Resolution Board (SRB) to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 392, 20.11.2017.

---

| 1.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 1 June 2022 — Aeris Invest v Commission and SRB

(Case T-628/17) (1)

(Economic and monetary union - Banking Union - Single Resolution Mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) - Resolution procedure applicable where an entity is failing or is likely to fail - Adoption by the SRB of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español - Delegation of power - Right to be heard - Right to property - Obligation to state reasons - Articles 14, 18 and 20 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014)

(2022/C 294/27)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Aeris Invest Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: M. Roca Junyent, R. Vallina Hoset, G. Serrano Fenollosa, E. Galán Burgos and M. Varela Suárez, lawyers)

Defendants: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn and A. Steiblytė, acting as Agents), Single Resolution Board (represented by: J. King and M. Fernández Rupérez, acting as Agents, and by B. Meyring, S. Schelo, F. Fernández de Trocóniz Robles, T. Klupsch and S. Ianc, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendants: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: L. Aguilera Ruiz and J. Rodríguez de la Rúa Puig, acting as Agents), European Parliament (represented by: P. López-Carceller, M. Martínez Iglesias, L. Visaggio, J. Etienne, M. Menegatti and M. Sammut, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: A. de Gregorio Merino, J. Bauerschmidt, H. Marcos Fraile and A. Westerhof Löfflerová, acting as Agents), Banco Santander, SA (Santander, Spain) (represented by: J. Rodríguez Cárcamo, A. Rodríguez Conde, D. Sarmiento Ramírez-Escudero and J. Remón Peñalver, lawyers)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU for annulment of, first, Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Executive Session of the SRB of 7 June 2017 concerning the adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español, SA, and, second, Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 endorsing the resolution scheme for Banco Popular Español S.A. (OJ 2017 L 178, p. 15).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Aeris Invest Sàrl to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission, the Single Resolution Board (SRB) and Banco Santander, SA; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Aeris Invest Sàrl to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission, the Single Resolution Board (SRB) and Banco Santander, SA;

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

3.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain, the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 374, 6.11.2017.

---

| 1.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/20

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 June 2022 — Qualcomm v Commission (Qualcomm — exclusivity payments)

(Case T-235/18) (1)

(Competition - Abuse of a dominant position - LTE chipsets market - Decision finding an infringement of Article 102 TFEU and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement - Exclusivity payments - Rights of the defence - Article 19 and Article 27(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Foreclosure effects)

(2022/C 294/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Qualcomm Inc. (San Diego, California, United States) (represented by: M. Pinto de Lemos Fermiano Rato, M. Davilla and M. English, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: N. Khan, A. Dawes and C. Urraca Caviedes, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant, Qualcomm Inc., seeks annulment of Commission Decision C(2018) 240 final of 24 January 2018 relating to proceedings under Article 102 [TFEU] and Article 54 of the [EEA Agreement] (Case AT.40220 — Qualcomm (Exclusivity payments)), by which the European Commission found that Qualcomm had abused its dominant position from 25 February 2011 to 16 September 2016 (‘the period concerned’) and imposed on it a fine of EUR 997 439 000 (‘the contested decision’).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside Commission Decision C(2018) 240 final of 24 January 2018 relating to proceedings under Article 102 [TFEU] and Article 54 of the [EEA Agreement] (Case AT.40220 — Qualcomm (Exclusivity payments)); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside Commission Decision C(2018) 240 final of 24 January 2018 relating to proceedings under Article 102 [TFEU] and Article 54 of the [EEA Agreement] (Case AT.40220 — Qualcomm (Exclusivity payments));

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 190, 4.6.2018.

---

| 1.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/21

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 June 2022 — United Kingdom and ITV v Commission

(Case T-363/19 and T-456/19) (1)

(State aid - Aid scheme implemented by the United Kingdom in favour of certain multinational groups - Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the internal market and unlawful and ordering the recovery of the aid paid - Advance tax rulings - Tax regime relating to the financing of groups and concerning in particular controlled foreign companies - Selective tax advantages)

(2022/C 294/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant in case T-363/19: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: F. Shibli and S. McCrory, acting as Agents, and by P. Baker QC, and T. Johnston, Barrister)

Applicants in case T-456/19: ITV plc (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Lesar, Solicitor, and K. Beal QC)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, S. Noë and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents and, in Case T 456/19, by M. Clayton and M. Segura Catalán, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendant in case T-456/19: United Kingdom (represented by: F. Shibli and S. McCrory, acting as Agents, and by P. Baker QC, and T. Johnston, Barrister), LSEGH (Luxembourg) Ltd (London), London Stock Exchange Group Holdings (Italy) Ltd (London) (represented by: A. von Bonin, O. Brouwer and A. Pliego Selie, lawyers)

Re:

Applications under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2019/1352 of 2 April 2019 on the State aid SA.44896 implemented by the United Kingdom concerning CFC Group Financing Exemption (OJ 2019 L 216, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Joins Cases T-363/19 and T-456/19 for the purposes of the present judgment; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Joins Cases T-363/19 and T-456/19 for the purposes of the present judgment;

| 2. | Dismisses the actions; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the actions;

| 3. | Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in Case T-363/19; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in Case T-363/19;

| 4. | Orders ITV plc to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission in Case T-456/19; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders ITV plc to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission in Case T-456/19;

| 5. | Orders LSEGH (Luxembourg) Ltd and London Stock Exchange Group Holdings (Italy) Ltd to bear their own costs; |
| --- | --- |

5.

Orders LSEGH (Luxembourg) Ltd and London Stock Exchange Group Holdings (Italy) Ltd to bear their own costs;

| 6. | Orders the United Kingdom to bear its own costs in Case T-456/19. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Orders the United Kingdom to bear its own costs in Case T-456/19.

---

(1)  OJ C 263, 5.8.2019.

---

| 1.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/22

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 June 2022 — Guangxi Xin Fu Yuan v Commission

(Case T-144/20) (1)

(Dumping - Imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware originating in China - Review investigation - Circumvention - Article 13 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 - Related companies - Procedural obligations - Article 5(10) and (11) of Regulation 2016/1036 - Articles 6.1, 6.2 and 12.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement - Rights of the defence - Equal treatment - Legitimate expectations - Manifest error of assessment)

(2022/C 294/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Guangxi Xin Fu Yuan Co. Ltd (Bobai, China) (represented by: J. Cornelis and T. Zuber, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Němečková and M. Gustafsson, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2131 of 28 November 2019 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1198 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware originating in the People’s Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2019 L 321, p. 139).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Guangxi Xin Fu Yuan Co. Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Guangxi Xin Fu Yuan Co. Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 161, 11.5.2020.

---

| 1.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/22

---

Judgment of the General Court of 1 June 2022 — Krasnyj Octyabr v EUIPO — Pokój (Pokój TRADYCJA JAKOŚĆ KRÓWKA SŁODKIE CHWILE Z DZIECIŃSTWA TRADYCYJNA RECEPTURA)

(Case T-355/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark Pokój TRADYCJA JAKOŚĆ KRÓWKA SŁODKIE CHWILE Z DZIECIŃSTWA TRADYCYJNA RECEPTURA - Earlier international figurative mark KOPOBKA KOROVKA - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2022/C 294/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: PAO Moscow Confectionery Factory ‘Krasnyj Octyabr’ (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: M. Geitz and J. Stock, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Spółdzielnia ‘Pokój’ (Bielsko-Biała, Poland) (represented by: E. Pijewska and M. Mazurek, lawyers)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 2 April 2020 (Case R 1974/2019-1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders PAO Moscow Confectionery Factory ‘Krasnyj Octyabr’ to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders PAO Moscow Confectionery Factory ‘Krasnyj Octyabr’ to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 255, 3.8.2020.

---

| 1.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 1 June 2022 — Krasnyj Octyabr v EUIPO — Pokój (KRÓWKA MLECZNA Milk FUDGE)

(Case T-363/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark KRÓWKA MLECZNA Milk FUDGE - Earlier international figurative mark KOPOBKA KOROVKA - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Right to be heard - Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2022/C 294/32)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: PAO Moscow Confectionery Factory ‘Krasnyj Octyabr’ (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: M. Geitz and J. Stock, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Spółdzielnia ‘Pokój’ (Bielsko-Biała, Poland) (represented by: E. Pijewska and M. Mazurek, lawyers)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 7 April 2020 (Case R 1532/2019-1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders PAO Moscow Confectionery Factory ‘Krasnyj Octyabr’ to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders PAO Moscow Confectionery Factory ‘Krasnyj Octyabr’ to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 255, 3.8.2020.

---

| 1.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 June 2022 — Tubes Radiatori v EUIPO — Antrax It (Radiator)

(Case T-380/20) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Community design representing a radiator - Earlier designs - Grounds for invalidity - No individual character - Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Freedom of the designer - No scope for innovation - Overall impression)

(2022/C 294/33)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Tubes Radiatori Srl (Resana, Italy) (represented by: S. Verea, K. Muraro, M. Balestriero and P. Menapace, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Antrax It Srl (Resana) (represented by: L. Gazzola and G. Lugato, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 March 2020 (Case R 1275/2017-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Antrax It and Tubes Radiatori.

Operative part of the judgment

The General Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Tubes Radiatori Srl to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Tubes Radiatori Srl to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 271, 17.8.2020.

---

| 1.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 1 June 2022 — Jindal Saw and Jindal Saw Italia v Commission (Reimposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty)

(Case T-440/20) (1)

(Dumping - Imports of tubes and pipes of ductile cast iron originating in India - Compliance with the judgment of the General Court in Case T-301/16 - Reimposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty - Non-repayment in full of the initial definitive anti-dumping duty - Legal basis - Non-retroactivity - Legal certainty - Article 266 TFEU - Proportionality - Right to effective judicial protection - Article 103 of the Union Customs Code - Registration Regulation - Plea of illegality - Admissibility)

(2022/C 294/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

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

Re:

By their action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicants seek the partial annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/527 of 15 April 2020 re-imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of tubes and pipes of ductile cast iron (also known as spheroidal graphite cast iron) originating in India as regards Jindal Saw Limited following the judgment of the General Court in Case T-301/16 (OJ 2020 L 118, p. 14).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Jindal Saw Ltd and Jindal Saw Italia SpA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Jindal Saw Ltd and Jindal Saw Italia SpA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 297, 7.9.2020.

---

| 1.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 1 June 2022 — Jindal Saw and Jindal Saw Italia v Commission (Reimposition of a definitive countervailing duty)

(Case T-441/20) (1)

(Subsidies - Imports of tubes and pipes of ductile cast iron originating in India - Compliance with the judgment of the General Court in Case T-300/16 - Reimposition of a definitive countervailing duty - Non-repayment in full of the initial definitive countervailing duty - Legal basis - Non-retroactivity - Legal certainty - Article 266 TFEU - Proportionality - Right to effective judicial protection - Article 103 of the Union Customs Code - Registration Regulation - Plea of illegality - Admissibility)

(2022/C 294/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

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

Re:

By their action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicants seek the partial annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/526 of 15 April 2020 re-imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of tubes and pipes of ductile cast iron (also known as spheroidal graphite cast iron) originating in India as regards Jindal Saw Limited, following the judgment of the General Court in Case T-300/16 (OJ 2020 L 118, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Jindal Saw Ltd and Jindal Saw Italia SpA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Jindal Saw Ltd and Jindal Saw Italia SpA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 297, 7.9.2020.

---

| 1.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 June 2022 — EMCS v EUAA

(Case T-621/20) (1)

(Public service contracts - Tender procedure - Provision of temporary agency workers for EASO - Rejection of a tenderer’s bid - Award of the contract to another tenderer - Equal treatment - Principle of transparency - Manifest error of assessment - Obligation to state reasons)

(2022/C 294/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: EMCS ltd. (Msida, Malta) (represented by: P. Kuypers and N. Groot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Agency for Asylum (EUAA) (represented by: P. Eyckmans and J. van Heel, acting as Agents, and by V. Ost and M. Umbach, lawyers)

Re:

Application, first, under Article 263 TFEU, for annulment of the decision of the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) of 23 July 2020, entitled ‘Call for tenders EASO/2020/789 Provision of Temporary Agency Workers for EASO in Malta’, rejecting the bid submitted by the applicant in the call for tenders and awarding the contract to another tenderer and, second, under Article 268 TFEU, for compensation of the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant on account of that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders EMCS ltd. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EMCS ltd. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 443, 21.12.2020.

---

| 1.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 June 2022 — Deutschtec v EUIPO — Group A (HOLUX)

(Case T-738/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark HOLUX - Earlier international registration in respect of the word mark HOLUX - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 294/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Deutschtec GmbH (Petershagen/Eggersdorf, Germany) (represented by: R. Arnade, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: R. Raponi and J. Ivanauskas, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Group A NV (Hasselt, Belgium)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 7 October 2020 (Case R 223/2020-4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

Orders Deutschtec GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 53, 15.2.2021.

---

| 1.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 June 2022 — Apple v EUIPO — Swatch (THINK DIFFERENT)

(Case T-26/21 to T-28/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - Earlier EU word marks THINK DIFFERENT - No genuine use of the marks - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Obligation to state reasons - Right to be heard - Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2022/C 294/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Apple Inc. (Cupertino, California, United States) (represented by: I. Junkar, I. Fowler, M. Petersenn and B. Lüthge, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Swatch AG (Biel/Bienne, Switzerland) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)

Re:

By its three actions based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decisions of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 4 November 2020 (Cases R 2011/2018-4, R 2012/2018-4 and R 2013/2018-4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Joins Cases T-26/21 to T-28/21 for the purposes of the judgment; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Joins Cases T-26/21 to T-28/21 for the purposes of the judgment;

| 2. | Dismisses the actions; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the actions;

| 3. | Orders Apple Inc. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Apple Inc. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 88, 15.3.2021.

---

| 1.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 June 2022 — Darment v Commission

(Case T-92/21) (1)

(Environment - Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 - Fluorinated greenhouse gases - Electronic registry for quotas for placing hydrofluorocarbons on the market - Decision to register - Authorisation to use a quota - Compliance with a judgment of the General Court - Principle of sound administration)

(2022/C 294/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Darment Oy (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by: C. Ginter, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: E. Sanfrutos Cano, K. Talabér-Ritz and B. De Meester, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its application under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant, Darment Oy, seeks the annulment of the European Commission’s decision of 15 December 2020 to enter its quota for the year 2021 and for the years 2019 and 2020 in the electronic registry for quotas for placing hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) on the market (‘the HFC registry’) (‘the contested decision’).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Darment Oy to pay the costs, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Darment Oy to pay the costs, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures.

---

(1)  OJ C 128, 12.4.2021.

---

| 1.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 June 2022 — Muschaweck v EUIPO — Conze (UM)

(Case T-293/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark UM - Genuine use of the mark - Use with the consent of the proprietor - Use in the form in which the mark was registered - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Representation by the proprietor of the trade mark - Evidence of use submitted within the time limit set)

(2022/C 294/40)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Ulrike Muschaweck (Munich, Germany) (represented by: C. Konle, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Joachim Conze (Munich) (represented by: H. Bolte, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 March 2021 (Case R 2260/2019-2), relating to revocation proceedings between Ms Muschaweck and Mr Conze.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Ms Ulrike Muschaweck to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ms Ulrike Muschaweck to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 278, 12.7.2021.

---

| 1.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 June 2022 — F I S I v EUIPO — Verband der Deutschen Daunen- und Federnindustrie (ECODOWN)

(Case T-338/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark ECODOWN - Absolute grounds for refusal - No distinctive character - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - No distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001))

(2022/C 294/41)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: F I S I Fibre sintetiche SpA (Oggiono, Italy) (represented by: G. Cartella and B. Cartella, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Verband der Deutschen Daunen- und Federnindustrie eV (Mayence, Germany) (represented by: M. Travostino and N. Bottero, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment and alteration of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 13 April 2021 (Case R 216/2020-1).

Operative part of the judgment

The General Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders F I S I Fibre sintetiche SpA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders F I S I Fibre sintetiche SpA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 320, 9.8.2021.

---

| 1.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 June 2022 — Polo Club Düsseldorf v EUIPO — Company Bridge and Life (POLO CLUB DÜSSELDORF EST. 1976)

(Case T-355/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark POLO CLUB, DÜSSELDORF EST. 1976 - Earlier national figurative mark POLO CLUB - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 294/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Polo Club Düsseldorf GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: C. Weil, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Company Bridge and Life, SL (Elche, Spain) (represented by: J. Gracia Albero and D. Gómez Sánchez, lawyers)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant, Polo Club Düsseldorf GmbH & Co. KG, seeks, in essence, the annulment and alteration of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 26 April 2021 (Case R 1667/2020-1) (‘the contested decision’).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Polo Club Düsseldorf GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs, including those necessarily incurred by Company Bridge and Life, SL for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Polo Club Düsseldorf GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs, including those necessarily incurred by Company Bridge and Life, SL for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 329, 16.8.2021.

---

| 1.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 June 2022 — Vitronic v EUIPO (Enforcement Trailer)

(Case T-433/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark Enforcement Trailer - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Article 7(2) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2022/C 294/43)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Vitronic Dr.-Ing. Stein Bildverarbeitungssysteme GmbH (Wiesbaden, Germany) (represented by: D. Tsoumanis, lawyer)

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

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 18 May 2021 (Case R 236/2021-4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Vitronic Dr.-Ing. Stein Bildverarbeitungssysteme GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Vitronic Dr.-Ing. Stein Bildverarbeitungssysteme GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 357, 6.9.2021.

---

| 1.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 June 2022 — Medela v EUIPO (MAXFLOW)

(Case T-744/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark MAXFLOW - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 294/44)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Medela Holding AG (Baar, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Hartmann and S. Fröhlich, lawyers)

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

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 30 August 2021 (Case R 876/2021-2).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Medela Holding AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Medela Holding AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 37, 24.1.2022.

---

| 1.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/31

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 8 June 2022 — Hungary v Commission

(Case T-104/22 R)

(Interim measures - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - European Structural and Investment Funds - Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 - Documents originating in a Member State - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Prima facie case - Urgency - Balancing of interests)

(2022/C 294/45)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: Hungary (represented by: M. Fehér and G. Koós, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Ehrbar, A. Spina and A. Tokár, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its application, based on Articles 278 and 279 TFEU, the applicant seeks suspension of operation of the European Commission’s Decision of 14 December 2021, adopted in accordance with 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), concerning the confirmatory application GestDem 2021/2808, which is aimed at ensuring public access to documents originating from its authorities.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | Operation of the European Commission’s decision of 14 December 2021, adopted in accordance with 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, concerning the confirmatory application GestDem 2021/2808, which is aimed at ensuring public access to documents originating from the Hungarian authorities, is suspended in so far as that decision grants access to documents originating from those authorities. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Operation of the European Commission’s decision of 14 December 2021, adopted in accordance with 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, concerning the confirmatory application GestDem 2021/2808, which is aimed at ensuring public access to documents originating from the Hungarian authorities, is suspended in so far as that decision grants access to documents originating from those authorities.

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

2.

The costs are reserved.

---

| 1.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/31

---

Action brought on 18 February 2022 — Arhs developments v Commission

(Case T-88/22)

(2022/C 294/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Arhs developments SA (Belvaux, Luxembourg) (represented by: P. Teerlinck, M. Gherghinaru and L. Panepinto, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Decision ARES (2022) 1027365, dated 11 February 2022, by which the Commission decided that the applicant’s tender has not been successful in the Procurement procedure DIMOS V — Lot 2 (BUDG. Ref: BUDG19/PO/04, COM. Ref: BUDG/2020/OP/0001); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Decision ARES (2022) 1027365, dated 11 February 2022, by which the Commission decided that the applicant’s tender has not been successful in the Procurement procedure DIMOS V — Lot 2 (BUDG. Ref: BUDG19/PO/04, COM. Ref: BUDG/2020/OP/0001);

| — | order the Commission to pay to the applicant the amount of EUR 6 945 492,50, to be augmented with compensatory interest from the date of the adoption of the contested decision until the date of the judgment of the General Court which will contain the judicial assessment of the amount of damage, and then with default interest from the date of the judgment establishing the obligation to make good the damage, until full payment; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay to the applicant the amount of EUR 6 945 492,50, to be augmented with compensatory interest from the date of the adoption of the contested decision until the date of the judgment of the General Court which will contain the judicial assessment of the amount of damage, and then with default interest from the date of the judgment establishing the obligation to make good the damage, until full payment;

| — | order the Commission to bear its own costs as well as the applicant’s costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to bear its own costs as well as the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging violation of Article 167(2) of the Financial Regulation, (1) of the principles of transparency, equal treatment and non-discrimination laid down in Article 160(1) thereof, of points 18.2 and 20 of Annex I (Procurement) thereto, and of the obligation to state reasons.

| — | The applicant submits that the Decision ARES (2022) 1027365, dated 11 February 2022, was adopted in breach of Article 167(2) of the Financial Regulation, of the principles of transparency, equal treatment and non-discrimination laid down in Article 160(1) of the Financial Regulation and of points 18.2 and 20 of Annex I (Procurement) to the Financial Regulation, given that the Commission used the service level agreement (SLA) as a selection criterion, whereas the requirements provided for in this document can, under no circumstances, qualify as a selection criterion. Indeed, SLAs, by definition, refer to the quality of the service to be performed and not to the tenderers’ capacity to perform the service. Insofar as the Commission erroneously used the SLA as a selection criterion, the entire award procedure is illegal. |
| --- | --- |

—

The applicant submits that the Decision ARES (2022) 1027365, dated 11 February 2022, was adopted in breach of Article 167(2) of the Financial Regulation, of the principles of transparency, equal treatment and non-discrimination laid down in Article 160(1) of the Financial Regulation and of points 18.2 and 20 of Annex I (Procurement) to the Financial Regulation, given that the Commission used the service level agreement (SLA) as a selection criterion, whereas the requirements provided for in this document can, under no circumstances, qualify as a selection criterion. Indeed, SLAs, by definition, refer to the quality of the service to be performed and not to the tenderers’ capacity to perform the service. Insofar as the Commission erroneously used the SLA as a selection criterion, the entire award procedure is illegal.

| — | Furthermore, it is argued that the Commission infringed the aforementioned provisions and the obligation to state reasons, since the justifications it provided with regard to the qualification of the SLA as a selection criterion are erroneous and insufficient. |
| --- | --- |

—

Furthermore, it is argued that the Commission infringed the aforementioned provisions and the obligation to state reasons, since the justifications it provided with regard to the qualification of the SLA as a selection criterion are erroneous and insufficient.

| — | Consequently, the present plea in law comprises two parts:






  — | Firstly, the applicant argues that the SLA does not pertain to the tenderers’ capacity to perform the contract, but to the quality of the service to be performed; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

Consequently, the present plea in law comprises two parts:

—

Firstly, the applicant argues that the SLA does not pertain to the tenderers’ capacity to perform the contract, but to the quality of the service to be performed;

| — | Secondly, the justifications given by the Commission relating to the qualification of the SLA as a selection criterion are unfounded and violate the provisions referred to in the present plea in law. |
| --- | --- |

—

Secondly, the justifications given by the Commission relating to the qualification of the SLA as a selection criterion are unfounded and violate the provisions referred to in the present plea in law.

In support of the action for damages, the applicant argues that the illegality of the contested decision caused it harm, consisting in:

| — | The loss of an opportunity to be awarded a contract for the provision of services concerned by Lot 2 of the DIMOS V; |
| --- | --- |

—

The loss of an opportunity to be awarded a contract for the provision of services concerned by Lot 2 of the DIMOS V;

| — | The costs and expenses relating to the participation in the tendering procedure. |
| --- | --- |

—

The costs and expenses relating to the participation in the tendering procedure.

---

(1)  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).

---

| 1.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/32

---

Action brought on 11 May 2022 — Cham Wings Airlines v Council

(Case T-255/22)

(2022/C 294/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Cham Wings Airlines LLC (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: L. Cloquet, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/307 of 24 February 2022 amending Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus (1), as far as it applies to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/307 of 24 February 2022 amending Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus (1), as far as it applies to the applicant;

| — | Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/300 of 24 February 2022 implementing Article 8a of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus (2), as far as it applies to the applicant; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/300 of 24 February 2022 implementing Article 8a of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus (2), as far as it applies to the applicant; and

| — | Order the Council to pay all the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Council to pay all the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment of the facts by the defendant in that it took the view that the applicant contributes to activities by the Lukashenka regime that facilitate the illegal crossing of the external borders of the Union, while such view is plainly unfounded. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment of the facts by the defendant in that it took the view that the applicant contributes to activities by the Lukashenka regime that facilitate the illegal crossing of the external borders of the Union, while such view is plainly unfounded.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the general principle of proportionality, in that the economic consequences of the restrictive measures made against the applicant are disastrous and disproportionate compared to the purposes the contested acts are supposed to reach, which they fail to do. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the general principle of proportionality, in that the economic consequences of the restrictive measures made against the applicant are disastrous and disproportionate compared to the purposes the contested acts are supposed to reach, which they fail to do.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of the obligation to state reasons laid down in the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU, in that the reasoning given for the contested acts is purely a formality. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of the obligation to state reasons laid down in the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU, in that the reasoning given for the contested acts is purely a formality.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the right of defence and right to a fair trial in that the applicant was never able to secure a hearing prior to the imposing of the disputed restrictive measures, and in that it was unable to exercise correctly his right of defence, including its right to a fair trial, notably guaranteed by virtue of article 6 § 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights and article 48 § 2 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. If such prior hearing had taken place in a timely fashion, the applicant would have been able to inform the Council of its communication of 13 November 2021 to the EU Commission and of the shutdown of its activities in Minsk. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the right of defence and right to a fair trial in that the applicant was never able to secure a hearing prior to the imposing of the disputed restrictive measures, and in that it was unable to exercise correctly his right of defence, including its right to a fair trial, notably guaranteed by virtue of article 6 § 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights and article 48 § 2 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. If such prior hearing had taken place in a timely fashion, the applicant would have been able to inform the Council of its communication of 13 November 2021 to the EU Commission and of the shutdown of its activities in Minsk.

---

(1)  OJ 2022, L 46, p. 97.

(2)  OJ 2022, L 46, p. 3.

---

| 1.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/33

---

Action brought on 13 May 2022 — Xpand Consortium and Others v Commission

(Case T-281/22)

(2022/C 294/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Xpand Consortium (Brussels, Belgium), NTT Data Belgique (Brussels), Sopra Steria Benelux (Brussels), Fujitsu Technology Solutions (Brussels) (represented by: M. Troncoso Ferrer, L. Lence de Frutos and A. Rebollar Corrales, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul the European Commission’s decision of 3 March 2022 cancelling the procurement procedure with reference BUDG19/PO/04; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the European Commission’s decision of 3 March 2022 cancelling the procurement procedure with reference BUDG19/PO/04;

| — | order the defendant to pay all the legal fees and costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay all the legal fees and costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging an infringement of the duty to state reasons and a manifest error of assessment committed by the European Commission, on the grounds that the service level agreement is a valid selection criterion. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging an infringement of the duty to state reasons and a manifest error of assessment committed by the European Commission, on the grounds that the service level agreement is a valid selection criterion.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations, on the grounds that the European Commission (i) limited itself in its interpretation of the concepts contained in the tendering documents during the procurement procedure with reference BUDG19/PO/04 and then changed its position and (ii) led Xpand Consortium to entertain justified expectations about the legality of the service level agreement as a selection criterion. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations, on the grounds that the European Commission (i) limited itself in its interpretation of the concepts contained in the tendering documents during the procurement procedure with reference BUDG19/PO/04 and then changed its position and (ii) led Xpand Consortium to entertain justified expectations about the legality of the service level agreement as a selection criterion.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of sound administration, on the grounds that the European Commission did not (i) communicate the cancellation of procurement procedure with reference BUDG19/PO/04 as soon as possible, as required by Article 171 of the Financial Regulation (1) and (ii) notify Xpand Consortium of the European Commission’s Decision of 3 March 2022 cancelling the procurement procedure with reference BUDG19/PO/04 and the reasons for adopting said decision as soon as possible. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of sound administration, on the grounds that the European Commission did not (i) communicate the cancellation of procurement procedure with reference BUDG19/PO/04 as soon as possible, as required by Article 171 of the Financial Regulation (1) and (ii) notify Xpand Consortium of the European Commission’s Decision of 3 March 2022 cancelling the procurement procedure with reference BUDG19/PO/04 and the reasons for adopting said decision as soon as possible.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principles of proportionality and equal treatment, on the grounds that (i) by cancelling procurement procedure with reference BUDG19/PO/04 the European Commission adopted the most onerous and disadvantaged measure whereas there were other proportionate measures and (ii) by launching a new procurement procedure with the same object the European Commission is giving an undue competitive advantage to Xpand Consortium’s rivals in the tender. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principles of proportionality and equal treatment, on the grounds that (i) by cancelling procurement procedure with reference BUDG19/PO/04 the European Commission adopted the most onerous and disadvantaged measure whereas there were other proportionate measures and (ii) by launching a new procurement procedure with the same object the European Commission is giving an undue competitive advantage to Xpand Consortium’s rivals in the tender.

---

(1)  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).

---

| 1.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/34

---

Action brought on 8 June 2022 — Deutsche Bank v EUIPO — Operación y Auditoria (avanza Tu negocio)

(Case T-341/22)

(2022/C 294/49)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Deutsche Bank, SA Española (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: I. Valdelomar Serrano, J. Rodriguez Fuensalida, P. Ramells Higueras and A. Figuerola Moure, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Operación y Auditoria, SA de CV, SOFOM, ENR (Mexico City, Mexico)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark avanza Tu negocio — Application for registration No 18 208 813

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 March 2022 in Case R 1808/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council was erroneously applied in the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council was erroneously applied in the contested decision;

| — | reject the protection in respect of all services sought in the application for registration of EU trade mark No 18 208 813 avanza Tu negocio (figurative) in Class 36; and |
| --- | --- |

—

reject the protection in respect of all services sought in the application for registration of EU trade mark No 18 208 813 avanza Tu negocio (figurative) in Class 36; and

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the representation costs, incurred by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the representation costs, incurred by the applicant.

Plea in law

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

---

| 1.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/35

---

Action brought on 9 June 2022 — Rauch Furnace Technology v EUIPO (Musto et Bureau (melting crucible)

(Case T-347/22)

(2022/C 294/50)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Rauch Furnace Technology GmbH (Gmunden, Austria) (represented by: M. Traxler, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Musto et Bureau Srl (Osteria Grande, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant

Design at issue: Community design No 7 737 143-0001 (melting crucible)

Proceedings before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 March 2022 in Case R 1697/2021-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision together with the declaration of invalidity of Community design No 7 737 143-0001; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision together with the declaration of invalidity of Community design No 7 737 143-0001;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of essential procedural requirements; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of essential procedural requirements;

| — | Infringement of Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002.

---

| 1.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/36

---

Action brought on 9 June 2022 — PT Indonesia Ruipu Nickel and Chrome Alloy v Commission

(Case T-348/22)

(2022/C 294/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: PT Indonesia Ruipu Nickel and Chrome Alloy (Jakarta, Indonesia) (represented by: R. Antonini, E. Monard and B. Maniatis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/433 of 15 March 2022 imposing definitive countervailing duties on imports of stainless steel cold-rolled flat products originating in India and Indonesia and amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2012 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of stainless steel cold-rolled flat products originating in India and Indonesia (1); and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/433 of 15 March 2022 imposing definitive countervailing duties on imports of stainless steel cold-rolled flat products originating in India and Indonesia and amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2012 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of stainless steel cold-rolled flat products originating in India and Indonesia (1); and

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

—

order the Commission to bear the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Articles 2(a) and (b), 3(1)(a), 4(3) and (5) and 28 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 (2) (‘basic Regulation’) by countervailing schemes that were not countervailable subsidies within the meaning of the basic Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Articles 2(a) and (b), 3(1)(a), 4(3) and (5) and 28 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 (2) (‘basic Regulation’) by countervailing schemes that were not countervailable subsidies within the meaning of the basic Regulation.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission used erroneous benchmarks in the determination of benefit and calculation of the amount of the countervailable subsidies, in violation of Articles 3(2), 6(a), (b), and (d), and 15(1) and (2) of the basic Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission used erroneous benchmarks in the determination of benefit and calculation of the amount of the countervailable subsidies, in violation of Articles 3(2), 6(a), (b), and (d), and 15(1) and (2) of the basic Regulation.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to allocate the amount of subsidy concerning the provision of nickel ore over the production of the product concerned during the investigation period, in violation of Articles 7(2) and 15(1) and (2) of the basic Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to allocate the amount of subsidy concerning the provision of nickel ore over the production of the product concerned during the investigation period, in violation of Articles 7(2) and 15(1) and (2) of the basic Regulation.

---

(1)  OJ 2022 L 88, p. 24.

(2)  Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Union (OJ 2016 L 176, p. 55).

---

| 1.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/36

---

Action brought on 10 June 2022 — adp Merkur v EUIPO — Play’n GO Marks (GAME OF GLADIATORS)

(Case T-350/22)

(2022/C 294/52)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: adp Merkur GmbH (Espelkamp, Germany) (represented by: K. Mandel, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Play’n GO Marks ltd. (Sliema, Malta)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark GAME OF GLADIATORS — Application for registration No 18 022 754

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 April 2022 in Case R 2289/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 47(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 1.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/37

---

Action brought on 13 June 2022 — De Dietrich Process Systems v EUIPO — Koch-Glitsch (SCHEIBEL)

(Case T-351/22)

(2022/C 294/53)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: De Dietrich Process Systems GmbH (Mainz, Germany) (represented by: M. Körner, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Koch-Glitsch LP (Wichita, Kansas, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark SCHEIBEL — European Union trade mark No 3 790 375

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 April 2022 in Case R 1107/2021-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and dismiss the European Union trade mark proprietor’s appeal against the decision of the Cancellation Division of the EUIPO dated 29 April 2021 (Case No 42 180 C) declaring European Union trade mark No 3 790 375 (‘SCHEIBEL’) invalid in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and dismiss the European Union trade mark proprietor’s appeal against the decision of the Cancellation Division of the EUIPO dated 29 April 2021 (Case No 42 180 C) declaring European Union trade mark No 3 790 375 (‘SCHEIBEL’) invalid in its entirety;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

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

—

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

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

—

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

---

| 1.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/38

---

Action brought on 13 June 2022 — De Dietrich Process Systems v EUIPO — Koch-Glitsch (KARR)

(Case T-352/22)

(2022/C 294/54)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: De Dietrich Process Systems GmbH (Mainz, Germany) (represented by: M. Körner, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Koch-Glitsch LP (Wichita, Kansas, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark KARR — European Union trade mark No 3 790 359

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 April 2022 in Case R 1105/2021-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and dismiss the European Union trade mark proprietor’s appeal against the decision of the Cancellation Division of the EUIPO dated 29 April 2021 (Case No 42 121 C) declaring European Union trade mark No 3 790 359 (‘KARR’) invalid in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and dismiss the European Union trade mark proprietor’s appeal against the decision of the Cancellation Division of the EUIPO dated 29 April 2021 (Case No 42 121 C) declaring European Union trade mark No 3 790 359 (‘KARR’) invalid in its entirety;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

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

—

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

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

—

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

---

| 1.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/38

---

Action brought on 1 June 2022 — XH v Commission

(Case T-353/22)

(2022/C 294/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: XH (represented by: K. Górny-Salwarowska, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of 10 November 2021 (IA no 31-2021) concerning non-inclusion of the applicant’s name in the list of the promoted officials in 2021, upheld by the decision No R/72/22 issued by the Appointing Authority on 8 June 2022 in response to the complaint filed by the applicant on 5 February 2021; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 10 November 2021 (IA no 31-2021) concerning non-inclusion of the applicant’s name in the list of the promoted officials in 2021, upheld by the decision No R/72/22 issued by the Appointing Authority on 8 June 2022 in response to the complaint filed by the applicant on 5 February 2021;

| — | compensate loss and damages of the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

compensate loss and damages of the applicant;

| — | order the defendant the payment of all the costs and expenses under Article 268 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant the payment of all the costs and expenses under Article 268 TFEU.

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 error of law and the irregularity of the contested promotion procedure 2021: the violation of GIP 45 Decision C (2013) 8968 laying down general provisions implementing Article 45 of the Staff Regulations; the violation of Article 45(1) Staff Regulations in the light of Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and the absence of actual comparison of the merits. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging error of law and the irregularity of the contested promotion procedure 2021: the violation of GIP 45 Decision C (2013) 8968 laying down general provisions implementing Article 45 of the Staff Regulations; the violation of Article 45(1) Staff Regulations in the light of Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and the absence of actual comparison of the merits.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment in applying the promotion criteria provided for in Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, in the light of Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment in applying the promotion criteria provided for in Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, in the light of Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

---

| 1.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/39

---

Action brought on 9 June 2022 — Bindl v Commission

(Case T-354/22)

(2022/C 294/56)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Thomas Bindl (Munich, Germany) (represented by: T. Herbrich, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare invalid the transfers, initiated by the defendant when the applicant visited the website ‘https://futureu.europa.eu’ on 30 March 2022 and on 8 June 2022 and registered for the ‘GoGreen’ event on 30 March 2022, of the applicant’s personal data to recipients established in third countries without ensuring an adequate level of protection for the applicant, in breach of Chapter V of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725; (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

declare invalid the transfers, initiated by the defendant when the applicant visited the website ‘https://futureu.europa.eu’ on 30 March 2022 and on 8 June 2022 and registered for the ‘GoGreen’ event on 30 March 2022, of the applicant’s personal data to recipients established in third countries without ensuring an adequate level of protection for the applicant, in breach of Chapter V of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725; (1)

| — | find that the defendant unlawfully failed to act on the applicant’s request for information of 1 April 2022 regarding the defendant’s processing of his personal data and the appropriate safeguards under Article 48 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 relating to transfers to recipients established in third countries; |
| --- | --- |

—

find that the defendant unlawfully failed to act on the applicant’s request for information of 1 April 2022 regarding the defendant’s processing of his personal data and the appropriate safeguards under Article 48 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 relating to transfers to recipients established in third countries;

| — | order the defendant to pay compensation in the amount of EUR 1 200,00plus interest in the amount of 2 percentage points above the respective interest rate set by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations, from the date of delivery of judgment, for the damage caused to the applicant by the misapplication of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay compensation in the amount of EUR 1 200,00plus interest in the amount of 2 percentage points above the respective interest rate set by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations, from the date of delivery of judgment, for the damage caused to the applicant by the misapplication of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging misapplication of the first sentence of Article 46 and of Article 48(1) and (2)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725.






  — | The defendant transferred the applicant’s personal data to recipients established in the United States of America when the applicant visited the website ‘https://futureu.europa.eu’. The United States is a third country in respect of which the Commission has not adopted any adequacy decision. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging misapplication of the first sentence of Article 46 and of Article 48(1) and (2)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725.

—

The defendant transferred the applicant’s personal data to recipients established in the United States of America when the applicant visited the website ‘https://futureu.europa.eu’. The United States is a third country in respect of which the Commission has not adopted any adequacy decision.

| — | A transfer of the applicant’s personal data to recipients established in the United States carried out on the basis of standard contractual clauses in accordance with Article 48(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725, in the absence of additional technical and organisational safeguards, does not constitute an appropriate safeguard ensuring an adequate level of protection in the United States. |
| --- | --- |

—

A transfer of the applicant’s personal data to recipients established in the United States carried out on the basis of standard contractual clauses in accordance with Article 48(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725, in the absence of additional technical and organisational safeguards, does not constitute an appropriate safeguard ensuring an adequate level of protection in the United States.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s fundamental rights under Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’).






  — | The limitations on the applicant’s fundamental rights under Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter, resulting from the fact that US authorities are permitted under US law to access and use data transferred from the European Union to the United States, are not regulated in such a way as to fulfil requirements that would be essentially equivalent to those existing in EU law under the second sentence of Article 52(1) of the Charter. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s fundamental rights under Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’).

—

The limitations on the applicant’s fundamental rights under Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter, resulting from the fact that US authorities are permitted under US law to access and use data transferred from the European Union to the United States, are not regulated in such a way as to fulfil requirements that would be essentially equivalent to those existing in EU law under the second sentence of Article 52(1) of the Charter.

| — | Neither 50 US Code § 1881a (Section 702 FISA) nor Executive Order 12333 ensures that Union citizens have the opportunity or right to oppose access to their personal data or to enforce effectively their rights under Regulation (EU) 2018/1725. |
| --- | --- |

—

Neither 50 US Code § 1881a (Section 702 FISA) nor Executive Order 12333 ensures that Union citizens have the opportunity or right to oppose access to their personal data or to enforce effectively their rights under Regulation (EU) 2018/1725.

| — | The applicant’s right of access under Article 17(1) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 is an essential condition for the enjoyment of his fundamental rights under Article 7 and Article 8(1) of the Charter. The defendant is depriving the applicant of the possibility of enforcing his fundamental rights due to its failure to act on his request for information. The encroachment on the fundamental rights under Article 7 and Article 8(1) of the Charter which accompanied the defendant’s failure to act is therefore not justified. |
| --- | --- |

—

The applicant’s right of access under Article 17(1) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 is an essential condition for the enjoyment of his fundamental rights under Article 7 and Article 8(1) of the Charter. The defendant is depriving the applicant of the possibility of enforcing his fundamental rights due to its failure to act on his request for information. The encroachment on the fundamental rights under Article 7 and Article 8(1) of the Charter which accompanied the defendant’s failure to act is therefore not justified.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s fundamental rights under Article 47 of the Charter.






  — | US law does not provide for any possibility of judicial protection against access to Union citizens’ personal data by US security agencies and intelligence services. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s fundamental rights under Article 47 of the Charter.

—

US law does not provide for any possibility of judicial protection against access to Union citizens’ personal data by US security agencies and intelligence services.

| — | In view of the surveillance programmes of the US security agencies and intelligence services — for example, PRISM and UPSTREAM — which are based on 50 US Code § 1881a (Section 702 FISA) and Executive Order 12333, neither Presidential Policy Directive 28 nor Executive Order 12333 grants data subjects actionable rights before the courts against the US authorities. |
| --- | --- |

—

In view of the surveillance programmes of the US security agencies and intelligence services — for example, PRISM and UPSTREAM — which are based on 50 US Code § 1881a (Section 702 FISA) and Executive Order 12333, neither Presidential Policy Directive 28 nor Executive Order 12333 grants data subjects actionable rights before the courts against the US authorities.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging misapplication of Article 17(1) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 and of Article 14(3) and (4) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725.






  — | The defendant unlawfully failed to provide the applicant, following his request for information of 1 April 2022, with the information referred to in Article 17(1) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725, in particular regarding the safeguards under Article 48 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725, within the one-month period in accordance with the first sentence of Article 14(3) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725. |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging misapplication of Article 17(1) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 and of Article 14(3) and (4) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725.

—

The defendant unlawfully failed to provide the applicant, following his request for information of 1 April 2022, with the information referred to in Article 17(1) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725, in particular regarding the safeguards under Article 48 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725, within the one-month period in accordance with the first sentence of Article 14(3) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725.

| — | The defendant unlawfully failed either to communicate to the applicant under the second sentence of Article 14(3) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 the reasons for a possible extension of the period for providing the information, or to inform the applicant under Article 14(3) and (4) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725, within one month of receipt of the request, of the grounds for refusing to provide the information and of judicial and non-judicial remedies. |
| --- | --- |

—

The defendant unlawfully failed either to communicate to the applicant under the second sentence of Article 14(3) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 the reasons for a possible extension of the period for providing the information, or to inform the applicant under Article 14(3) and (4) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725, within one month of receipt of the request, of the grounds for refusing to provide the information and of judicial and non-judicial remedies.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging non-material damage.
  The applicant claims that he suffered non-material damage in the amount of EUR 1 200 by reason of the defendant’s refusal to provide the requested information, the uncontrolled transfer of the applicant’s personal data by the defendant to recipients established in the United States, and the associated uncertainty regarding unlawful surveillance of Internet traffic. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging non-material damage.

The applicant claims that he suffered non-material damage in the amount of EUR 1 200 by reason of the defendant’s refusal to provide the requested information, the uncontrolled transfer of the applicant’s personal data by the defendant to recipients established in the United States, and the associated uncertainty regarding unlawful surveillance of Internet traffic.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2018 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by the Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 and Decision No 1247/2002/EC (OJ 2018 L 295, p. 39).

---

| 1.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/41

---

Action brought on 16 June 2022 — LG Chem v Commission

(Case T-356/22)

(2022/C 294/57)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: LG Chem, Ltd. (Seoul, South Korea) (represented by: P. Vander Schueren and T. Martin-Brieu, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Declare the action admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the action admissible;

| — | Annul the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/547 of 5 April 2022 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of super absorbent polymers originating in the Republic of Korea (1) (‘Contested Regulation’), as far as it applies to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/547 of 5 April 2022 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of super absorbent polymers originating in the Republic of Korea (1) (‘Contested Regulation’), as far as it applies to the applicant;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in relation to these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in relation to these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed manifest errors of assessment, breached Article 3(3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (2) (‘basic Regulation’), and violated the applicant’s rights of defence when analysing the price effect of imports from Korea. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed manifest errors of assessment, breached Article 3(3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (2) (‘basic Regulation’), and violated the applicant’s rights of defence when analysing the price effect of imports from Korea.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed manifest errors of assessment, acted in breach of Articles 3(2), 3(5), 3(6) and 3(7) of the basic Regulation and failed to state reasons by analysing the injury situation of Union producers in a biased manner and by attributing the alleged injury to Korean imports, rather than other known factors. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed manifest errors of assessment, acted in breach of Articles 3(2), 3(5), 3(6) and 3(7) of the basic Regulation and failed to state reasons by analysing the injury situation of Union producers in a biased manner and by attributing the alleged injury to Korean imports, rather than other known factors.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed manifest errors of assessment, acted in breach of Articles 3(3) and 9(4) of the basic Regulation and violated the applicant’s rights of defence by determining the injury margin based on a simplified product control number, by failing to provide adequate non-confidential summaries of the injury margin calculations and by failing to reflect other known factors of injury in its injury margin determination. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed manifest errors of assessment, acted in breach of Articles 3(3) and 9(4) of the basic Regulation and violated the applicant’s rights of defence by determining the injury margin based on a simplified product control number, by failing to provide adequate non-confidential summaries of the injury margin calculations and by failing to reflect other known factors of injury in its injury margin determination.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant conducted the investigation in breach of the applicant’s rights of defence and in breach of the right to sound administration. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant conducted the investigation in breach of the applicant’s rights of defence and in breach of the right to sound administration.

---

(1)  OJ 2022, L 107, p. 27.

(2)  OJ 2016, L 176, p. 21.

---

| 1.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/42

---

Action brought on 16 June 2022 — Das Neves v Commission

(Case T-357/22)

(2022/C 294/58)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: José das Neves (La Hulpe, Belgium) (represented by: J.-P. Vandersteen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul the decision of 12 October 2021 taken against him by the [confidential] (1); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 12 October 2021 taken against him by the [confidential] (1);

| — | order the defendant to pay him the amount of EUR 20 000 by way of compensation for the financial and non-material damage suffered; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay him the amount of EUR 20 000 by way of compensation for the financial and non-material damage suffered;

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

—

order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his action against the decision of the Commission of 12 October 2021 issuing him with a warning, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment of a conflict of interest. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment of a conflict of interest.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a misuse of power. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a misuse of power.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 21 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 21 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union.

---

(1)  Confidential information omitted.

---

| 1.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/42

---

Action brought on 16 June 2022 — PQ v EEAS

(Case T-358/22)

(2022/C 294/59)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: European External Action Service

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision not to promote the applicant to grade AD 12 in the 2021 promotion exercise; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision not to promote the applicant to grade AD 12 in the 2021 promotion exercise;

| — | in so far as necessary, cancel the decision to promote the officials included in the list of officials promoted to grade AD 12 in the 2021 promotion exercise; |
| --- | --- |

—

in so far as necessary, cancel the decision to promote the officials included in the list of officials promoted to grade AD 12 in the 2021 promotion exercise;

| — | order the European External Action Service to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European External Action Service 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 breach of the obligation to state reasons. The applicant submits, in that regard, that the absence of any statement of reasons results from the implied rejection of the complaint lodged by the applicant against the contested decision. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging breach of the obligation to state reasons. The applicant submits, in that regard, that the absence of any statement of reasons results from the implied rejection of the complaint lodged by the applicant against the contested decision.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of sound administration, Article 45 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) and the principle of equal treatment, as well as a manifest error of assessment. According to the applicant, the contested decision was adopted in breach of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and is the result of a manifest error of assessment in so far as, first, the applicant has consistently demonstrated outstanding merit whereas the contested decision places him in a situation of slow career development and, second, the only reproach made in his last staff report taken into account resulted from a manifest error of assessment which was recognised by the appointing authority in its reply of 3 March 2022 to a complaint made by the applicant on 28 October 2021. Finally, the applicant states that the European External Action Service has still not established a system of staff reports and promotions which allows a comparative examination under Article 45 of the Staff Regulations in accordance with the requirements laid down by the case-law. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of sound administration, Article 45 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) and the principle of equal treatment, as well as a manifest error of assessment. According to the applicant, the contested decision was adopted in breach of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and is the result of a manifest error of assessment in so far as, first, the applicant has consistently demonstrated outstanding merit whereas the contested decision places him in a situation of slow career development and, second, the only reproach made in his last staff report taken into account resulted from a manifest error of assessment which was recognised by the appointing authority in its reply of 3 March 2022 to a complaint made by the applicant on 28 October 2021. Finally, the applicant states that the European External Action Service has still not established a system of staff reports and promotions which allows a comparative examination under Article 45 of the Staff Regulations in accordance with the requirements laid down by the case-law.

---

| 1.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/43

---

Action brought on 16 June 2022 — Zubitskiy v Council

(Case T-359/22)

(2022/C 294/60)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Evgeny Borisovich Zubitskiy (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: P. Zeller and D. Reingewirtz, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare Article 1(2) of Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/329 of 25 February 2022 (1) in that it adds criteria (f) and (g) of Article 2(1) of Decision 2014/145/CFSP unlawful and inapplicable to Mr Evgeny Borisovich Zubitskiy; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare Article 1(2) of Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/329 of 25 February 2022 (1) in that it adds criteria (f) and (g) of Article 2(1) of Decision 2014/145/CFSP unlawful and inapplicable to Mr Evgeny Borisovich Zubitskiy;

| — | annul Regulation (EU) 2022/581 of 8 April 2022 (2) in so far as it concerns Mr Evgeny Borisovich Zubitskiy (Annex I of Regulation (EU) 269/2014 amended — No 913); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Regulation (EU) 2022/581 of 8 April 2022 (2) in so far as it concerns Mr Evgeny Borisovich Zubitskiy (Annex I of Regulation (EU) 269/2014 amended — No 913);

| — | order the Council to pay all of the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay all of the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging unlawfulness of Article 2(1) of Decision (CFSP) 2022/329 of 25 February 2022 and the consequent lack of a legal basis as regards adding criteria (f) and (g) to Decision (CFSP) 2014/145 of 17 March 2014, as amended. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging unlawfulness of Article 2(1) of Decision (CFSP) 2022/329 of 25 February 2022 and the consequent lack of a legal basis as regards adding criteria (f) and (g) to Decision (CFSP) 2014/145 of 17 March 2014, as amended.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to state reasons for Regulation (EU) 2022/581 of 8 April 2022, in so far as it concerns the applicant and the infringement of Article 296 TFEU as a result. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to state reasons for Regulation (EU) 2022/581 of 8 April 2022, in so far as it concerns the applicant and the infringement of Article 296 TFEU as a result.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging an error of law and the infringement of Article 215 TFEU, in that the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2022/581 of 8 April 2022, in so far as it concerns the applicant, is not necessary for the implementation of the decisions taken under Article 29 TEU and in particular Decision (CFSP) 2022/329 of 25 February 2022. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging an error of law and the infringement of Article 215 TFEU, in that the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2022/581 of 8 April 2022, in so far as it concerns the applicant, is not necessary for the implementation of the decisions taken under Article 29 TEU and in particular Decision (CFSP) 2022/329 of 25 February 2022.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in that the elements constituting criteria (f) and (g) of Decision (CFSP) 2022/329 of 25 February 2022, which is the basis for the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2022/581 of 8 April 2022, in so far as it concerns the applicant, are not met. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in that the elements constituting criteria (f) and (g) of Decision (CFSP) 2022/329 of 25 February 2022, which is the basis for the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2022/581 of 8 April 2022, in so far as it concerns the applicant, are not met.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging material inaccuracy in the facts, in that the alleged evidence relied upon by the Council in adopting Regulation (EU) 2022/581 of 8 April 2022, in so far as it concerns the applicant (i) is based solely on information, sometimes more than 5 years old, taken from online sites (some of which, in particular rucompromat, are not objective) and (ii) some of which are factually inaccurate. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging material inaccuracy in the facts, in that the alleged evidence relied upon by the Council in adopting Regulation (EU) 2022/581 of 8 April 2022, in so far as it concerns the applicant (i) is based solely on information, sometimes more than 5 years old, taken from online sites (some of which, in particular rucompromat, are not objective) and (ii) some of which are factually inaccurate.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s fundamental rights in that Regulation (EU) 2022/581 of 8 April 2022, in so far as it concerns the applicant, is an unjustified and disproportionate restriction on his fundamental rights including the right to property, enshrined in Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and freedom to conduct a business enshrined in Article 16 of that Charter. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s fundamental rights in that Regulation (EU) 2022/581 of 8 April 2022, in so far as it concerns the applicant, is an unjustified and disproportionate restriction on his fundamental rights including the right to property, enshrined in Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and freedom to conduct a business enshrined in Article 16 of that Charter.

---

(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/329 of 25 February 2022, amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 50, p. 1).

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/581 of 8 April 2022, implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 110, p. 3).

---

| 1.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/44

---

Action brought on 16 June 2022 — Berezkin v Council

(Case T-360/22)

(2022/C 294/61)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Grigory Viktorovitsj Berezkin (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: J. Grand d’Esnon, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/582 (1) of 8 April 2022 in so far as it sets out the applicant’s name in the Annex to Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP of 17 March 2014; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/582 (1) of 8 April 2022 in so far as it sets out the applicant’s name in the Annex to Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP of 17 March 2014;

| — | annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/581 (2) of 8 April 2022 in so far as it includes the applicant’s name in Annex I to Council Regulation (EU) No 2014/269 of 17 March 2014; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/581 (2) of 8 April 2022 in so far as it includes the applicant’s name in Annex I to Council Regulation (EU) No 2014/269 of 17 March 2014;

| — | order the Council of the European Union to pay EUR 1 for non-material damage; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council of the European Union to pay EUR 1 for non-material damage;

| — | order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the sanctions taken against the applicant are unlawful in that they are as a result of a manifest error of assessment, on the ground that the applicant has no link to the events taking place in Ukraine and does not support the Government of the Russian Federation. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the sanctions taken against the applicant are unlawful in that they are as a result of a manifest error of assessment, on the ground that the applicant has no link to the events taking place in Ukraine and does not support the Government of the Russian Federation.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a breach of the right to effective judicial protection and the Council’s obligation to state reasons. The applicant claims that the only sources provided by the Council are press articles and website excerpts and cannot therefore satisfy the criteria of proof justifying the adoption of sanctions. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a breach of the right to effective judicial protection and the Council’s obligation to state reasons. The applicant claims that the only sources provided by the Council are press articles and website excerpts and cannot therefore satisfy the criteria of proof justifying the adoption of sanctions.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality and the principle of equal treatment. According to the applicant, there is no material link between him and Russia’s policy in Ukraine and the sanctions are, as a result, unrelated to any of the objectives of the Decision and Regulation of 17 March 2014. (3) |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality and the principle of equal treatment. According to the applicant, there is no material link between him and Russia’s policy in Ukraine and the sanctions are, as a result, unrelated to any of the objectives of the Decision and Regulation of 17 March 2014. (3)

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of legality. In that regard, the applicant alleges that the criteria under points (f) and (g) of the Decision and the Regulation of 17 March 2014 are unlawful in that they breach the Council’s obligations under Article 215(2) TFEU, as well as the principle of legal certainty. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of legality. In that regard, the applicant alleges that the criteria under points (f) and (g) of the Decision and the Regulation of 17 March 2014 are unlawful in that they breach the Council’s obligations under Article 215(2) TFEU, as well as the principle of legal certainty.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s fundamental rights and in particular, the right to property and his freedom to come and go. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s fundamental rights and in particular, the right to property and his freedom to come and go.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging breach of the applicant’s rights of defence in that the Council did not communicate to him individually the specific details and reasons for his inclusion on the list of sanctioned individuals. The applicant was therefore not in a position to put forward his observations on those details and reasons. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging breach of the applicant’s rights of defence in that the Council did not communicate to him individually the specific details and reasons for his inclusion on the list of sanctioned individuals. The applicant was therefore not in a position to put forward his observations on those details and reasons.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, concerning a claim for compensation. The applicant considers that he has suffered serious reputational damage for which he seeks compensation. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, concerning a claim for compensation. The applicant considers that he has suffered serious reputational damage for which he seeks compensation.

---

(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/582 of 8 April 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 110, p. 55).

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/581 of 8 April 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 110, p. 3).

(3)  Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 of 17 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 78, p. 6).

---

| 1.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/45

---

Action brought on 17 June 2022 — Akhmedov v Council

(Case T-363/22)

(2022/C 294/62)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Farkhad Teimurovich Akhmedov (Baku, Azerbaijan) (represented by: W. Julié, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/582 of 8 April 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (1) (‘Contested Decision’), in so far as it concerns the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/582 of 8 April 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (1) (‘Contested Decision’), in so far as it concerns the applicant;

| — | Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/581 of 8 April 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (2), in so far as it concerns the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/581 of 8 April 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (2), in so far as it concerns the applicant;

| — | Order the defendant to compensate the material and non-material damage suffered by the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to compensate the material and non-material damage suffered by the applicant;

| — | Order the defendant to bear the full costs and expenses of the proceedings, including those incurred by the applicant for his defence. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to bear the full costs and expenses of the proceedings, including those incurred by the applicant for his defence.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that Article 2(1)(g) of Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP of 17 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (3), as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/329 of 25 February 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (4), and Article 3(1)(g) of Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 of 17 March, 2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (5), as amended by Council Regulation (EU) 2022/330 of 25 February 2022 amending Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (6), are illegal and breach the principles of proportionality, legal certainty and equal treatment. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that Article 2(1)(g) of Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP of 17 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (3), as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/329 of 25 February 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (4), and Article 3(1)(g) of Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 of 17 March, 2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (5), as amended by Council Regulation (EU) 2022/330 of 25 February 2022 amending Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (6), are illegal and breach the principles of proportionality, legal certainty and equal treatment.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a breach of the obligation to state reasons. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a breach of the obligation to state reasons.

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

3.

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

| 4. | Fourth plea of law, alleging a disproportionate infringement of the right to property. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea of law, alleging a disproportionate infringement of the right to property.

---

(1)  OJ 2022, L 110, p. 55.

(2)  OJ 2022, L 110, p. 3.

(3)  OJ 2014, L 78, p. 16.

(4)  OJ 2022, L 50, p. 1.

(5)  OJ 2014, L 78, p. 6.

(6)  OJ 2022, L 51, p. 1.

---