# Official Journal C 255/3 Au

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 255 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 633 August 2020 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 255

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 633 August 2020

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2020/C 255/01 | Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union | 1 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

2020/C 255/01

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

Official Journal of the European Union

1

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2020/C 255/02 | Case C-727/17: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 May 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Kielcach — Poland) — Syndyk Masy Upadłości ECO-WIND Construction S.A. w upadłości, formerly ECO-WIND Construction S.A. v Samorządowe Kolegium Odwoławcze w Kielcach (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive (EU) 2015/1535 — Standards and technical regulations — Wind generators — Directive 2006/123/EC — Concept of service — Environment — Directive 2009/28/EC — Promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources — Mandatory national overall targets — National rule on the authorisation procedures applicable to plants for the production of electricity from renewable energy sources — Proportionality — Legislation of a Member State laying down restrictions on the location of wind turbines) | 2 |
| 2020/C 255/03 | Case C-535/18: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 May 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — IL and Others v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Aarhus Convention — Directive 2011/92/EU — Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment — Public participation in the decision-making process — Irregularities vitiating the procedure for approving a project — Access to justice — Limitations laid down by national law — Directive 2000/60/EC — EU action in the field of water policy — Deterioration of a body of groundwater — Arrangements for assessment — Right of individuals to take measures in order to prevent pollution — Standing to bring proceedings before the national courts) | 3 |
| 2020/C 255/04 | Case C-654/18: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 May 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart — Germany) — Interseroh Dienstleistungs GmbH v SAA Sonderabfallagentur Baden-Württemberg GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Shipment of waste — Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 — Procedure of prior written notification and consent — General information requirements — Annex IIIA — Mixture of paper, paperboard and paper products — Entry B3020 of Annex IX to the Basel Convention — Impurities — Contamination of a mixture by other materials — Environmentally sound method of recovery) | 4 |
| 2020/C 255/05 | Case C-684/18: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 28 May 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti — Romania) — World Comm Trading Gfz SRL v Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală (ANAF), Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Ploieşti (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 90 — Articles 184 to 186 — Principle of neutrality of VAT — Adjustment of the initial tax deduction — Discounts granted for intra-Community and internal supplies of good) | 5 |
| 2020/C 255/06 | Case C-796/18: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 May 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Informatikgesellschaft für Software-Entwicklung (ISE) mbH v Stadt Köln (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Directive 2014/24/EU — Article 2(1)(5) — Article 12(4) — Article 18(1) — Concept of contract for pecuniary interest — Contract between two contracting authorities pursuing common public interest objectives — Making available of software for the coordination of fire-fighting operations — Absence of monetary payment — Link to a cooperation agreement providing for the mutual provision of additional modules of this software free of charge — Principle of equal treatment — Prohibition on placing a private undertaking in a privileged position in relation to its competitors) | 6 |
| 2020/C 255/07 | Case C-33/19: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 28 May 2020 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Railway safety — Directive 2004/49/EC — Article 21(1) and (2) — Failure to adopt the provisions necessary to ensure the organisational independence of the investigating body and its autonomous access to sufficient resources) | 7 |
| 2020/C 255/08 | Case C-309/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 28 May 2020 — Asociación de fabricantes de morcilla de Burgos v European Commission (Appeal — Article 73(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court — Order of the General Court finding an action manifestly inadmissible for lack of a handwritten signature — Paper version of the application including a printed authenticated electronic signature) | 7 |
| 2020/C 255/09 | Case C-634/19 P: Appeal brought on 25 August 2019 by CJ against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 27 June 2019 in Case T-1/19, CJ v Court of Justice of the European Union | 8 |
| 2020/C 255/10 | Cases C-818/19 and C-878/19: Requests for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven kasatsionen sad (Bulgaria) and the Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 6 November 2019 and 3 December 2019 — Marvik-Pastrogor EOOD and RODES-08 EOOD | 8 |
| 2020/C 255/11 | Case C-26/20 P: Appeal brought on 20 January 2020 by Rezon OOD against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 20 November 2019 in Case T-101/19, Rezon v EUIPO (imot.bg) | 8 |
| 2020/C 255/12 | Case C-165/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 16 April 2020 — ET, as insolvency administrator of Air Berlin PLC & Co. Luftverkehrs KG (AB KG) v Federal Republic of Germany | 9 |
| 2020/C 255/13 | Case C-184/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vilniaus apygardos administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 28 April 2020 — OT v Vyriausioji tarnybinės etikos komisija | 10 |
| 2020/C 255/14 | Case C-187/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Ravensburg (Germany) lodged on 28 April 2020 — JL v BMW Bank GmbH, DT v Volkswagen Bank GmbH | 10 |
| 2020/C 255/15 | Case C-208/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 14 May 2020 — Toplofikatsia Sofia EAD, Chez Elektro Balgaria AD and Agentsia za kontrol na prosrocheni zadalzhenia EOOD | 12 |
| 2020/C 255/16 | Case C-227/20: Action brought on 1 June 2020 — European Commission v Italian Republic | 13 |
| 2020/C 255/17 | Case C-230/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) (Latvijas) lodged on 3 June 2020 — AAS BTA Báltica Insúmanse Company v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests | 14 |
| | General Court |
| 2020/C 255/18 | Case T-717/18: Judgment of the General Court of 10 June 2020 — B.D v EUIPO — Philicon-97 (PHILIBON) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark PHILIBON — Earlier national figurative mark PHILICON — Relative ground for refusal — Well-known trade mark within the meaning of Article 6bis of the Paris Convention — Article 8(2)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(2)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 15 |
| 2020/C 255/19 | Case T-718/18: Judgment of the General Court of 10 June 2020 — Boyer v EUIPO — Philicon-97 (PHILIBON DEPUIS 1957 www.philibon.com) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark PHILIBON DEPUIS 1957 www.philibon.com — Earlier national figurative mark PHILICON — Relative ground for refusal — Well-known trade mark within the meaning of Article 6bis of the Paris Convention — Article 8(2)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(2)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 15 |
| 2020/C 255/20 | Case T-105/19: Judgment of the General Court of 10 June 2020 — Louis Vuitton Malletier v EUIPO — Wisniewski (Device of a chequerboard Pattern) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark representing a chequerboard pattern — Absolute grounds for refusal — No distinctive character — Well-known facts — Distinctive character acquired through use — Overall assessment of the evidence of the distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(1)(b) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Article 59(1) and (2) of Regulation 2017/1001) | 16 |
| 2020/C 255/21 | Case T-577/19: Judgment of the General Court of 10 June 2020 — Leinfelder Uhren München v EUIPO — Schafft (Leinfelder) (European Union trade mark — Revocation proceedings — European Union word mark Leinfelder — Lack of genuine use of the mark — Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Abuse of rights) | 17 |
| 2020/C 255/22 | Case T-561/19: Order of the General Court of 11 June 2020 — Lípidos Santiga v Commission (Action for annulment — Energy — Directive (EU) 2018/2001 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources — Limit on biofuels and biomass fuels produced from food and feed crops — Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/807 — Definition of raw materials presenting a high indirect land-use change (ILUC) risk — Palm oil — Standing to bring proceedings — Lack of individual concern — Inadmissibility) | 17 |
| 2020/C 255/23 | Case T-652/19 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 11 June 2020 — Elevolution — Engenharia v Commission (Interim measures — Public works contracts — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Lack of urgency) | 18 |
| 2020/C 255/24 | Case T-77/20 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 8 June 2020 — Ascenza Agro v Commission (Application for interim relief — Plant protection products — Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 — Implementing regulation (EU) 2020/17 — Non-renewal of approval of the active substance chlorpyriphos-methyl — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Lack of any urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Absence) | 18 |
| 2020/C 255/25 | Case T-77/20 RII: Order of the President of the General Court of 8 June 2020 — Industrias Afrasa v Commission (Application for interim measures — Plant protection products — Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 — Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/17 — Non-renewal of approval of the active substance chlorpyrifos-methyl — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Lack of urgency — Serious and irreparable harm — None) | 19 |
| 2020/C 255/26 | Case T-283/20: Action brought on 13 May 2020 — Billions Europe and Others v Commission | 20 |
| 2020/C 255/27 | Case T-296/20: Action brought on 12 May 2020 — Foz v Council | 21 |
| 2020/C 255/28 | Case T-297/20: Action brought on 22 May 2020 — Fashioneast and AM.VI. v EUIPO — Moschillo (RICH JOHN RICHMOND) | 22 |
| 2020/C 255/29 | Case T-325/20: Action brought on 25 mai 2020 — Unger Marketing International v EUIPO — Orben Wasseraufbereitung (Water purifiers) | 23 |
| 2020/C 255/30 | Case T-332/20: Action brought on 29 May 2020 — König Ludwig International v EUIPO (Royal Bavarian Beer) | 23 |
| 2020/C 255/31 | Case T-333/20: Action brought on the 1st of June 2020 — Fidia farmaceutici v EUIPO — Giuliani (IALO TSP) | 24 |
| 2020/C 255/32 | Case T-337/20: Action brought on 27 May 2020 — Hochmann Marketing v EUIPO (bittorrent) | 25 |
| 2020/C 255/33 | Case T-341/20: Action brought on 29 May 2020 — EAB v EUIPO (RADIOSHUTTLE) | 26 |
| 2020/C 255/34 | Case T-355/20: Action brought on 5 June 2020 — Krasnyj Octyabr v EUIPO — Spółdzielnia Pokój (Pokój TRADYCJA JAKOŚĆ KRÓWKA SŁODKIE CHWILE Z DZIECIŃSTWA TRADYCYJNA RECEPTURA) | 26 |
| 2020/C 255/35 | Case T-356/20: Action brought on 8 June 2020 — Jiruš v EUIPO — Nile Clothing (Racing Syndicate) | 27 |
| 2020/C 255/36 | Case T-359/20: Action brought on 8 June 2020 — Team Beverage v EUIPO — Zurich Deutscher Herold Lebensversicherung (Team Beverage) | 28 |
| 2020/C 255/37 | Case T-361/20: Action brought on 10 June 2020 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Europull (GREEN COAST) | 28 |
| 2020/C 255/38 | Case T-362/20: Action brought on 11 June 2020 — Acciona v EUIPO — Agencia Negociadora PB (REACCIONA) | 29 |
| 2020/C 255/39 | Case T-363/20: Action brought on 9 June 2020 — Krasnyj Octyabr v EUIPO — Spółdzielnia Pokój (KRÓWKA MLECZNA Milk FUDGE) | 30 |
| 2020/C 255/40 | Case T-365/20: Action brought on 11 June 2020 — Birkenstock Sales v EUIPO (Form of a pattern of a sole of a shoe) | 31 |
| 2020/C 255/41 | Case T-366/20: Action brought on 12 June 2020. — 1031023 B.C. v EUIPO — Bodegas San Valero (Representation of a round element similar to a brushstroke) | 31 |
| 2020/C 255/42 | Case T-368/20: Action brought on 12 June 2020 — Smiley Miley v EUIPO — Cyrus Trademarks (MILEY CYRUS) | 32 |
| 2020/C 255/43 | Case T-369/20: Action brought on 13 June 2020 — EFFAS v EUIPO — CFA Institute (CEFA Certified European Financial Analyst) | 33 |
| 2020/C 255/44 | Case T-370/20: Action brought on 11 June 2020 — KL v EIB | 33 |
| 2020/C 255/45 | Case T-374/20: Action brought on 15 June 2020 — KM v Commission | 34 |
| 2020/C 255/46 | Case T-378/20: Action brought on 19 June 2020 — Ryanair v Commission | 35 |
| 2020/C 255/47 | Case T-379/20: Action brought on 19 June 2020 — Ryanair v Commission | 36 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2020/C 255/02

Case C-727/17: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 May 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Kielcach — Poland) — Syndyk Masy Upadłości ECO-WIND Construction S.A. w upadłości, formerly ECO-WIND Construction S.A. v Samorządowe Kolegium Odwoławcze w Kielcach (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive (EU) 2015/1535 — Standards and technical regulations — Wind generators — Directive 2006/123/EC — Concept of service — Environment — Directive 2009/28/EC — Promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources — Mandatory national overall targets — National rule on the authorisation procedures applicable to plants for the production of electricity from renewable energy sources — Proportionality — Legislation of a Member State laying down restrictions on the location of wind turbines)

2

2020/C 255/03

Case C-535/18: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 May 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — IL and Others v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Aarhus Convention — Directive 2011/92/EU — Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment — Public participation in the decision-making process — Irregularities vitiating the procedure for approving a project — Access to justice — Limitations laid down by national law — Directive 2000/60/EC — EU action in the field of water policy — Deterioration of a body of groundwater — Arrangements for assessment — Right of individuals to take measures in order to prevent pollution — Standing to bring proceedings before the national courts)

3

2020/C 255/04

Case C-654/18: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 May 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart — Germany) — Interseroh Dienstleistungs GmbH v SAA Sonderabfallagentur Baden-Württemberg GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Shipment of waste — Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 — Procedure of prior written notification and consent — General information requirements — Annex IIIA — Mixture of paper, paperboard and paper products — Entry B3020 of Annex IX to the Basel Convention — Impurities — Contamination of a mixture by other materials — Environmentally sound method of recovery)

4

2020/C 255/05

Case C-684/18: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 28 May 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti — Romania) — World Comm Trading Gfz SRL v Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală (ANAF), Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Ploieşti (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 90 — Articles 184 to 186 — Principle of neutrality of VAT — Adjustment of the initial tax deduction — Discounts granted for intra-Community and internal supplies of good)

5

2020/C 255/06

Case C-796/18: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 May 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Informatikgesellschaft für Software-Entwicklung (ISE) mbH v Stadt Köln (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Directive 2014/24/EU — Article 2(1)(5) — Article 12(4) — Article 18(1) — Concept of contract for pecuniary interest — Contract between two contracting authorities pursuing common public interest objectives — Making available of software for the coordination of fire-fighting operations — Absence of monetary payment — Link to a cooperation agreement providing for the mutual provision of additional modules of this software free of charge — Principle of equal treatment — Prohibition on placing a private undertaking in a privileged position in relation to its competitors)

6

2020/C 255/07

Case C-33/19: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 28 May 2020 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Railway safety — Directive 2004/49/EC — Article 21(1) and (2) — Failure to adopt the provisions necessary to ensure the organisational independence of the investigating body and its autonomous access to sufficient resources)

7

2020/C 255/08

Case C-309/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 28 May 2020 — Asociación de fabricantes de morcilla de Burgos v European Commission (Appeal — Article 73(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court — Order of the General Court finding an action manifestly inadmissible for lack of a handwritten signature — Paper version of the application including a printed authenticated electronic signature)

7

2020/C 255/09

Case C-634/19 P: Appeal brought on 25 August 2019 by CJ against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 27 June 2019 in Case T-1/19, CJ v Court of Justice of the European Union

8

2020/C 255/10

Cases C-818/19 and C-878/19: Requests for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven kasatsionen sad (Bulgaria) and the Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 6 November 2019 and 3 December 2019 — Marvik-Pastrogor EOOD and RODES-08 EOOD

8

2020/C 255/11

Case C-26/20 P: Appeal brought on 20 January 2020 by Rezon OOD against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 20 November 2019 in Case T-101/19, Rezon v EUIPO (imot.bg)

8

2020/C 255/12

Case C-165/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 16 April 2020 — ET, as insolvency administrator of Air Berlin PLC & Co. Luftverkehrs KG (AB KG) v Federal Republic of Germany

9

2020/C 255/13

Case C-184/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vilniaus apygardos administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 28 April 2020 — OT v Vyriausioji tarnybinės etikos komisija

OT

Vyriausioji tarnybinės etikos komisija

10

2020/C 255/14

Case C-187/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Ravensburg (Germany) lodged on 28 April 2020 — JL v BMW Bank GmbH, DT v Volkswagen Bank GmbH

10

2020/C 255/15

Case C-208/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 14 May 2020 — Toplofikatsia Sofia EAD, Chez Elektro Balgaria AD and Agentsia za kontrol na prosrocheni zadalzhenia EOOD

12

2020/C 255/16

Case C-227/20: Action brought on 1 June 2020 — European Commission v Italian Republic

13

2020/C 255/17

Case C-230/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) (Latvijas) lodged on 3 June 2020 — AAS BTA Báltica Insúmanse Company v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

14

General Court

2020/C 255/18

Case T-717/18: Judgment of the General Court of 10 June 2020 — B.D v EUIPO — Philicon-97 (PHILIBON) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark PHILIBON — Earlier national figurative mark PHILICON — Relative ground for refusal — Well-known trade mark within the meaning of Article 6bis of the Paris Convention — Article 8(2)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(2)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

15

2020/C 255/19

Case T-718/18: Judgment of the General Court of 10 June 2020 — Boyer v EUIPO — Philicon-97 (PHILIBON DEPUIS 1957 www.philibon.com) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark PHILIBON DEPUIS 1957 www.philibon.com — Earlier national figurative mark PHILICON — Relative ground for refusal — Well-known trade mark within the meaning of Article 6bis of the Paris Convention — Article 8(2)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(2)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

15

2020/C 255/20

Case T-105/19: Judgment of the General Court of 10 June 2020 — Louis Vuitton Malletier v EUIPO — Wisniewski (Device of a chequerboard Pattern) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark representing a chequerboard pattern — Absolute grounds for refusal — No distinctive character — Well-known facts — Distinctive character acquired through use — Overall assessment of the evidence of the distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(1)(b) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Article 59(1) and (2) of Regulation 2017/1001)

16

2020/C 255/21

Case T-577/19: Judgment of the General Court of 10 June 2020 — Leinfelder Uhren München v EUIPO — Schafft (Leinfelder) (European Union trade mark — Revocation proceedings — European Union word mark Leinfelder — Lack of genuine use of the mark — Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Abuse of rights)

17

2020/C 255/22

Case T-561/19: Order of the General Court of 11 June 2020 — Lípidos Santiga v Commission (Action for annulment — Energy — Directive (EU) 2018/2001 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources — Limit on biofuels and biomass fuels produced from food and feed crops — Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/807 — Definition of raw materials presenting a high indirect land-use change (ILUC) risk — Palm oil — Standing to bring proceedings — Lack of individual concern — Inadmissibility)

17

2020/C 255/23

Case T-652/19 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 11 June 2020 — Elevolution — Engenharia v Commission (Interim measures — Public works contracts — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Lack of urgency)

18

2020/C 255/24

Case T-77/20 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 8 June 2020 — Ascenza Agro v Commission (Application for interim relief — Plant protection products — Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 — Implementing regulation (EU) 2020/17 — Non-renewal of approval of the active substance chlorpyriphos-methyl — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Lack of any urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Absence)

18

2020/C 255/25

Case T-77/20 RII: Order of the President of the General Court of 8 June 2020 — Industrias Afrasa v Commission (Application for interim measures — Plant protection products — Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 — Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/17 — Non-renewal of approval of the active substance chlorpyrifos-methyl — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Lack of urgency — Serious and irreparable harm — None)

19

2020/C 255/26

Case T-283/20: Action brought on 13 May 2020 — Billions Europe and Others v Commission

20

2020/C 255/27

Case T-296/20: Action brought on 12 May 2020 — Foz v Council

21

2020/C 255/28

Case T-297/20: Action brought on 22 May 2020 — Fashioneast and AM.VI. v EUIPO — Moschillo (RICH JOHN RICHMOND)

22

2020/C 255/29

Case T-325/20: Action brought on 25 mai 2020 — Unger Marketing International v EUIPO — Orben Wasseraufbereitung (Water purifiers)

23

2020/C 255/30

Case T-332/20: Action brought on 29 May 2020 — König Ludwig International v EUIPO (Royal Bavarian Beer)

23

2020/C 255/31

Case T-333/20: Action brought on the 1st of June 2020 — Fidia farmaceutici v EUIPO — Giuliani (IALO TSP)

st

24

2020/C 255/32

Case T-337/20: Action brought on 27 May 2020 — Hochmann Marketing v EUIPO (bittorrent)

25

2020/C 255/33

Case T-341/20: Action brought on 29 May 2020 — EAB v EUIPO (RADIOSHUTTLE)

26

2020/C 255/34

Case T-355/20: Action brought on 5 June 2020 — Krasnyj Octyabr v EUIPO — Spółdzielnia Pokój (Pokój TRADYCJA JAKOŚĆ KRÓWKA SŁODKIE CHWILE Z DZIECIŃSTWA TRADYCYJNA RECEPTURA)

26

2020/C 255/35

Case T-356/20: Action brought on 8 June 2020 — Jiruš v EUIPO — Nile Clothing (Racing Syndicate)

27

2020/C 255/36

Case T-359/20: Action brought on 8 June 2020 — Team Beverage v EUIPO — Zurich Deutscher Herold Lebensversicherung (Team Beverage)

28

2020/C 255/37

Case T-361/20: Action brought on 10 June 2020 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Europull (GREEN COAST)

28

2020/C 255/38

Case T-362/20: Action brought on 11 June 2020 — Acciona v EUIPO — Agencia Negociadora PB (REACCIONA)

29

2020/C 255/39

Case T-363/20: Action brought on 9 June 2020 — Krasnyj Octyabr v EUIPO — Spółdzielnia Pokój (KRÓWKA MLECZNA Milk FUDGE)

30

2020/C 255/40

Case T-365/20: Action brought on 11 June 2020 — Birkenstock Sales v EUIPO (Form of a pattern of a sole of a shoe)

31

2020/C 255/41

Case T-366/20: Action brought on 12 June 2020. — 1031023 B.C. v EUIPO — Bodegas San Valero (Representation of a round element similar to a brushstroke)

31

2020/C 255/42

Case T-368/20: Action brought on 12 June 2020 — Smiley Miley v EUIPO — Cyrus Trademarks (MILEY CYRUS)

32

2020/C 255/43

Case T-369/20: Action brought on 13 June 2020 — EFFAS v EUIPO — CFA Institute (CEFA Certified European Financial Analyst)

33

2020/C 255/44

Case T-370/20: Action brought on 11 June 2020 — KL v EIB

33

2020/C 255/45

Case T-374/20: Action brought on 15 June 2020 — KM v Commission

34

2020/C 255/46

Case T-378/20: Action brought on 19 June 2020 — Ryanair v Commission

35

2020/C 255/47

Case T-379/20: Action brought on 19 June 2020 — Ryanair v Commission

36

---

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 3.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 255/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/1

---

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

(2020/C 255/01)

Last publication

OJ C 247, 27.7.2020

Past publications

OJ C 240, 20.7.2020

OJ C 230, 13.7.2020

OJ C 222, 6.7.2020

OJ C 215, 29.6.2020

OJ C 209, 22.6.2020

OJ C 201, 15.6.2020

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 3.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 255/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 May 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Kielcach — Poland) — Syndyk Masy Upadłości ECO-WIND Construction S.A. w upadłości, formerly ECO-WIND Construction S.A. v Samorządowe Kolegium Odwoławcze w Kielcach

(Case C-727/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive (EU) 2015/1535 - Standards and technical regulations - Wind generators - Directive 2006/123/EC - Concept of ‘service’ - Environment - Directive 2009/28/EC - Promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources - Mandatory national overall targets - National rule on the authorisation procedures applicable to plants for the production of electricity from renewable energy sources - Proportionality - Legislation of a Member State laying down restrictions on the location of wind turbines)

(2020/C 255/02)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Kielcach

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Syndyk Masy Upadłości ECO-WIND Construction S.A. w upadłości, formerly ECO-WIND Construction S.A.

Defendant: Samorządowe Kolegium Odwoławcze w Kielcach

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 1(1)(f) of Directive (EU) 2015/1535 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 September 2015 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical regulations and of rules on Information Society services must be interpreted as meaning that the requirement that the installation of a wind turbine is subject to compliance with the condition of a minimum distance between it and buildings with a residential function does not constitute a technical regulation which must be notified under Article 5 of that directive, provided that that requirement does not lead to a purely marginal use of wind generators, which it is for the referring court to determine; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 1(1)(f) of Directive (EU) 2015/1535 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 September 2015 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical regulations and of rules on Information Society services must be interpreted as meaning that the requirement that the installation of a wind turbine is subject to compliance with the condition of a minimum distance between it and buildings with a residential function does not constitute a technical regulation which must be notified under Article 5 of that directive, provided that that requirement does not lead to a purely marginal use of wind generators, which it is for the referring court to determine;

| 2. | Article 15(2)(a) of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market must be interpreted as meaning that legislation which makes the installation of a wind turbine subject to compliance with the condition of a minimum distance between that wind turbine and buildings with a residential function cannot be categorised as rules which make access to, or exercise of, a service activity subject to a territorial limit in the form, in particular, of limits fixed according to a minimum distance between service providers, which the Member States must notify to the European Commission in accordance with Article 15(7) of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 15(2)(a) of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market must be interpreted as meaning that legislation which makes the installation of a wind turbine subject to compliance with the condition of a minimum distance between that wind turbine and buildings with a residential function cannot be categorised as rules which make access to, or exercise of, a service activity subject to a territorial limit in the form, in particular, of limits fixed according to a minimum distance between service providers, which the Member States must notify to the European Commission in accordance with Article 15(7) of that directive;

| 3. | The first subparagraph of Article 3(1) and the first subparagraph of Article 13(1) of Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC, as amended by Directive (EU) 2015/1513 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 September 2015 must be interpreted as not precluding legislation which makes the installation of a wind turbine subject to compliance with the condition of a minimum distance between that wind turbine and buildings with a residential function, provided that that legislation is necessary and proportionate in the light of the mandatory national overall target of the Member State concerned, which it is for the referring court to determine. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The first subparagraph of Article 3(1) and the first subparagraph of Article 13(1) of Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC, as amended by Directive (EU) 2015/1513 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 September 2015 must be interpreted as not precluding legislation which makes the installation of a wind turbine subject to compliance with the condition of a minimum distance between that wind turbine and buildings with a residential function, provided that that legislation is necessary and proportionate in the light of the mandatory national overall target of the Member State concerned, which it is for the referring court to determine.

---

(1)  OJ C 134, 16.4.2018.

---

| 3.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 255/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/3

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 May 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — IL and Others v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

(Case C-535/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Aarhus Convention - Directive 2011/92/EU - Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment - Public participation in the decision-making process - Irregularities vitiating the procedure for approving a project - Access to justice - Limitations laid down by national law - Directive 2000/60/EC - EU action in the field of water policy - Deterioration of a body of groundwater - Arrangements for assessment - Right of individuals to take measures in order to prevent pollution - Standing to bring proceedings before the national courts)

(2020/C 255/03)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Claimants: IL, JK, KJ, LI, NG, MH, OF, PE; Heirs of QD, consisting of RC and SB; TA, UZ, VY, WX

Defendant: Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 11(1)(b) of Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment must be interpreted as permitting Member States to provide that, when a procedural defect vitiating the decision approving a project does not alter the meaning of that decision, an application for annulment of that decision is admissible only if the irregularity at issue has denied the claimant his or her right to participate in the environmental decision-making process, guaranteed by Article 6 of that directive. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 11(1)(b) of Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment must be interpreted as permitting Member States to provide that, when a procedural defect vitiating the decision approving a project does not alter the meaning of that decision, an application for annulment of that decision is admissible only if the irregularity at issue has denied the claimant his or her right to participate in the environmental decision-making process, guaranteed by Article 6 of that directive.

| 2. | Article 4 of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy must be interpreted as precluding a situation where it is only after a project has been approved that the competent authority carries out the checks to establish whether the requirements laid down in that framework have been met, including the requirement to prevent the deterioration in the status of bodies of water, both surface water and groundwater, which are affected by the project.
  Article 6 of Directive 2011/92 must be interpreted as meaning that the information to be made available to the public during the procedure for approving a project must include the data that is necessary in order to assess the effects of that project on the water, in the light of the criteria and requirements laid down in, inter alia, Article 4(1) of Directive 2000/60. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 4 of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy must be interpreted as precluding a situation where it is only after a project has been approved that the competent authority carries out the checks to establish whether the requirements laid down in that framework have been met, including the requirement to prevent the deterioration in the status of bodies of water, both surface water and groundwater, which are affected by the project.

Article 6 of Directive 2011/92 must be interpreted as meaning that the information to be made available to the public during the procedure for approving a project must include the data that is necessary in order to assess the effects of that project on the water, in the light of the criteria and requirements laid down in, inter alia, Article 4(1) of Directive 2000/60.

| 3. | Article 4(1)(b)(i) of Directive 2000/60 must be interpreted as meaning that, first, the exceedance of at least one of the quality standards or threshold values referred to in Article 3(1) of Directive 2006/118/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the protection of groundwater against pollution and deterioration and, second, a foreseeable increase in the concentration of a pollutant when the threshold set for that pollutant has already been exceeded must be regarded as a deterioration in the chemical status of a body of groundwater as a result of a project. The values measured at each monitoring point must be taken into account individually. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 4(1)(b)(i) of Directive 2000/60 must be interpreted as meaning that, first, the exceedance of at least one of the quality standards or threshold values referred to in Article 3(1) of Directive 2006/118/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the protection of groundwater against pollution and deterioration and, second, a foreseeable increase in the concentration of a pollutant when the threshold set for that pollutant has already been exceeded must be regarded as a deterioration in the chemical status of a body of groundwater as a result of a project. The values measured at each monitoring point must be taken into account individually.

| 4. | Part (b) of the first paragraph of Article 1 of Directive 2000/60 and the first indent of the second paragraph of Article 1 of that directive, together with Article 4(1)(b) thereof, read in the light of Article 19 TEU and Article 288 TFEU, must be interpreted as meaning that the members of the public concerned by a project must be able to assert, before the competent national courts, that there has been a breach of the requirements to prevent the deterioration of bodies of water and to improve the status of those bodies of water, if that breach directly concerns them. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Part (b) of the first paragraph of Article 1 of Directive 2000/60 and the first indent of the second paragraph of Article 1 of that directive, together with Article 4(1)(b) thereof, read in the light of Article 19 TEU and Article 288 TFEU, must be interpreted as meaning that the members of the public concerned by a project must be able to assert, before the competent national courts, that there has been a breach of the requirements to prevent the deterioration of bodies of water and to improve the status of those bodies of water, if that breach directly concerns them.

---

(1)  OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.

---

| 3.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 255/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 May 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart — Germany) — Interseroh Dienstleistungs GmbH v SAA Sonderabfallagentur Baden-Württemberg GmbH

(Case C-654/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Shipment of waste - Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 - Procedure of prior written notification and consent - General information requirements - Annex IIIA - Mixture of paper, paperboard and paper products - Entry B3020 of Annex IX to the Basel Convention - Impurities - Contamination of a mixture by other materials - Environmentally sound method of recovery)

(2020/C 255/04)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Interseroh Dienstleistungs GmbH

Defendant: SAA Sonderabfallagentur Baden-Württemberg GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 3(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/2002 of 10 November 2015, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not apply to a mixture of paper, paperboard and paper product wastes, each of which comes under one of the first three indents of entry B3020 of Annex IX to the Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal, signed in Basel on 22 March 1989, approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 93/98/EEC of 1 February 1993, reproduced in List B of Part 1 of Annex V to that regulation, and which also contains up to 10 % impurities. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 3(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/2002 of 10 November 2015, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not apply to a mixture of paper, paperboard and paper product wastes, each of which comes under one of the first three indents of entry B3020 of Annex IX to the Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal, signed in Basel on 22 March 1989, approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 93/98/EEC of 1 February 1993, reproduced in List B of Part 1 of Annex V to that regulation, and which also contains up to 10 % impurities.

| 2. | Article 3(2)(b) of Regulation No 1013/2006, as amended by Regulation 2015/2002, must be interpreted as meaning that it applies to such a mixture of wastes provided that, first, that mixture does not contain materials which come under the fourth indent of entry B3020 of Annex IX to that convention, reproduced in List B of Part 1 of Annex V to that regulation, and, second, the requirements in paragraph 1 of Annex IIIA to that regulation are met, which it is for the referring court to verify. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 3(2)(b) of Regulation No 1013/2006, as amended by Regulation 2015/2002, must be interpreted as meaning that it applies to such a mixture of wastes provided that, first, that mixture does not contain materials which come under the fourth indent of entry B3020 of Annex IX to that convention, reproduced in List B of Part 1 of Annex V to that regulation, and, second, the requirements in paragraph 1 of Annex IIIA to that regulation are met, which it is for the referring court to verify.

---

(1)  OJ C 35, 28.1.2019.

---

| 3.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 255/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 28 May 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti — Romania) — World Comm Trading Gfz SRL v Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală (ANAF), Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Ploieşti

(Case C-684/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 90 - Articles 184 to 186 - Principle of neutrality of VAT - Adjustment of the initial tax deduction - Discounts granted for intra-Community and internal supplies of good)

(2020/C 255/05)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Bucureşti

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: World Comm Trading Gfz SRL

Defendants: Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală (ANAF), Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Ploieşti

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 185 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the national tax authorities must require a taxable person to adjust the deduction of the value added tax initially made where, following the obtaining by that person of discounts on internal supplies of goods, those authorities consider that the deduction initially made was greater than that which that taxable person was entitled to make. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 185 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the national tax authorities must require a taxable person to adjust the deduction of the value added tax initially made where, following the obtaining by that person of discounts on internal supplies of goods, those authorities consider that the deduction initially made was greater than that which that taxable person was entitled to make.

| 2. | Article 185 of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that a adjustment of a deduction of value added tax (VAT) initially made is required in respect of a taxable person established in a Member State, even where that taxable person’s supplier has ceased his activities in that Member State and that supplier can therefore no longer claim repayment of part of the VAT he has paid. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 185 of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that a adjustment of a deduction of value added tax (VAT) initially made is required in respect of a taxable person established in a Member State, even where that taxable person’s supplier has ceased his activities in that Member State and that supplier can therefore no longer claim repayment of part of the VAT he has paid.

---

(1)  OJ C 44, 4.2.2019.

---

| 3.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 255/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 May 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Informatikgesellschaft für Software-Entwicklung (ISE) mbH v Stadt Köln

(Case C-796/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Directive 2014/24/EU - Article 2(1)(5) - Article 12(4) - Article 18(1) - Concept of contract for pecuniary interest - Contract between two contracting authorities pursuing common public interest objectives - Making available of software for the coordination of fire-fighting operations - Absence of monetary payment - Link to a cooperation agreement providing for the mutual provision of additional modules of this software free of charge - Principle of equal treatment - Prohibition on placing a private undertaking in a privileged position in relation to its competitors)

(2020/C 255/06)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Informatikgesellschaft für Software-Entwicklung (ISE) mbH

Defendant: Stadt Köln

In the presence of: Land Berlin

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC, must be interpreted as meaning that an agreement which, first, provides for a contracting authority to make software available free of charge to another contracting authority and, second, is linked to a cooperation agreement under which each party to that agreement is required to make available free of charge to the other party any future developments of that software which it may devise, constitutes a ‘public contract’ within the meaning of Article 2(1)(5) of that Directive where it follows both from the terms of those agreements and from the applicable national legislation that the software will in principle be subject to adaptation |
| --- | --- |

1.

Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC, must be interpreted as meaning that an agreement which, first, provides for a contracting authority to make software available free of charge to another contracting authority and, second, is linked to a cooperation agreement under which each party to that agreement is required to make available free of charge to the other party any future developments of that software which it may devise, constitutes a ‘public contract’ within the meaning of Article 2(1)(5) of that Directive where it follows both from the terms of those agreements and from the applicable national legislation that the software will in principle be subject to adaptation

| 2. | Article 12(4) of Directive 2014/24 must be interpreted as meaning that cooperation between contracting authorities may be excluded from the scope of the rules on the award of public contracts laid down by that directive where that cooperation relates to activities ancillary to public services which must be provided, even on an individual basis, by each member of that cooperation, provided that those ancillary activities contribute to the effective realisation of those public services. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 12(4) of Directive 2014/24 must be interpreted as meaning that cooperation between contracting authorities may be excluded from the scope of the rules on the award of public contracts laid down by that directive where that cooperation relates to activities ancillary to public services which must be provided, even on an individual basis, by each member of that cooperation, provided that those ancillary activities contribute to the effective realisation of those public services.

| 3. | Article 12(4) of Directive 2014/24, read in conjunction with recital 33, second paragraph, and Article 18(1) of that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that cooperation between contracting authorities must not have the effect, in accordance with the principle of equal treatment, of placing a private undertaking in a privileged position in relation to its competitors. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 12(4) of Directive 2014/24, read in conjunction with recital 33, second paragraph, and Article 18(1) of that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that cooperation between contracting authorities must not have the effect, in accordance with the principle of equal treatment, of placing a private undertaking in a privileged position in relation to its competitors.

---

(1)  OJ C 93, 11.3.2019.

---

| 3.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 255/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 28 May 2020 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria

(Case C-33/19) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Railway safety - Directive 2004/49/EC - Article 21(1) and (2) - Failure to adopt the provisions necessary to ensure the organisational independence of the investigating body and its autonomous access to sufficient resources)

(2020/C 255/07)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: C. Vrignon, C. Georgieva-Kecsmar and J. Hottiaux, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Bulgaria (represented by: L. Zaharieva and E. Petranova, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to ensure the organisational independence of the investigating body from the manager of the railway infrastructure controlled by the Minister for Transport, Information Technology and Communications and the independence of that body from that manager as regards access to the resources necessary for the performance of its tasks, the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 21, paragraphs 1 and 2 of Directive 2004/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on safety on the Community’s railways and amending Council Directive 95/18/EC on the licensing of railway undertakings and Directive 2001/14/EC on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification (Railway Safety Directive); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to ensure the organisational independence of the investigating body from the manager of the railway infrastructure controlled by the Minister for Transport, Information Technology and Communications and the independence of that body from that manager as regards access to the resources necessary for the performance of its tasks, the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 21, paragraphs 1 and 2 of Directive 2004/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on safety on the Community’s railways and amending Council Directive 95/18/EC on the licensing of railway undertakings and Directive 2001/14/EC on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification (Railway Safety Directive);

| 2. | Orders the Republic of Bulgaria to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Republic of Bulgaria to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 122, 1.4.2019.

---

| 3.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 255/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 28 May 2020 — Asociación de fabricantes de morcilla de Burgos v European Commission

(Case C-309/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Article 73(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court - Order of the General Court finding an action manifestly inadmissible for lack of a handwritten signature - Paper version of the application including a printed authenticated electronic signature)

(2020/C 255/08)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Asociación de fabricantes de morcilla de Burgos (represented by: J. Azcárate Olano and E. Almarza Nantes, abogados)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and I. Naglis, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders the Asociación de fabricantes de morcilla de Burgos to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Asociación de fabricantes de morcilla de Burgos to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 263, 5.8.2019.

---

| 3.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 255/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/8

---

Appeal brought on 25 August 2019 by CJ against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 27 June 2019 in Case T-1/19, CJ v Court of Justice of the European Union

(Case C-634/19 P)

(2020/C 255/09)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: CJ (represented by: V. Kolias, dikigoros)

Other party to the proceedings: Court of Justice of the European Union

By order of 16 June 2020 the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) held that the appeal is dismissed as manifestly unfounded and that CJ shall bear his own costs.

---

| 3.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 255/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/8

---

Requests for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven kasatsionen sad (Bulgaria) and the Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 6 November 2019 and 3 December 2019 — Marvik-Pastrogor EOOD and RODES-08 EOOD

(Cases C-818/19 and C-878/19)

(2020/C 255/10)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring courts

Varhoven kasatsionen sad, Sofiyski rayonen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Marvik-Pastrogor EOOD, RODES-08 EOOD

Defendants: Darzhavata, predstavlyavana ot Ministara na finansite, Narodno sabranie na Republika Bulgaria

By order of 30 April 2020, the Court (Tenth Chamber) declared that it manifestly lacks jurisdiction to answer the questions referred.

---

| 3.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 255/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/8

---

Appeal brought on 20 January 2020 by Rezon OOD against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 20 November 2019 in Case T-101/19, Rezon v EUIPO (imot.bg)

(Case C-26/20 P)

(2020/C 255/11)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Appellant: Rezon EOOD (represented by: M. Yordanova-Harizanova, advokat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

By order of 21 April 2020, the Court (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) declared the present appeal manifestly inadmissible.

---

| 3.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 255/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/9

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 16 April 2020 — ET, as insolvency administrator of Air Berlin PLC & Co. Luftverkehrs KG (AB KG) v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-165/20)

(2020/C 255/12)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ET, as insolvency administrator of Air Berlin PLC & Co. Luftverkehrs KG (AB KG)

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

Questions referred

| 1. | Having regard to recital 20 of Directive 2008/101, are Directive 2003/87/EC (1) and Directive 2008/101/EC (2) to be interpreted as precluding the annulment of the free allocation of aviation allowances to an aircraft operator for the years 2018 to 2020 if the allocation for the years 2013 to 2020 has been made and the aircraft operator ceased its aviation activities in 2017 due to insolvency?
  Is Article 3f(1) of Directive 2003/87 to be interpreted as meaning that the annulment of the allocation decision after aviation activities have been ceased due to insolvency is dependent on whether there has been a continuation of the aviation activities by other air transport operators? Is Article 3f(1) of Directive 2003/87 to be interpreted as meaning that there has been a continuation of aviation activities if landing rights at so-called coordinated airports (slots) have been sold in part (for the insolvent air carrier’s short- and medium-haul operations) to three other air transport operators? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Having regard to recital 20 of Directive 2008/101, are Directive 2003/87/EC (1) and Directive 2008/101/EC (2) to be interpreted as precluding the annulment of the free allocation of aviation allowances to an aircraft operator for the years 2018 to 2020 if the allocation for the years 2013 to 2020 has been made and the aircraft operator ceased its aviation activities in 2017 due to insolvency?

Is Article 3f(1) of Directive 2003/87 to be interpreted as meaning that the annulment of the allocation decision after aviation activities have been ceased due to insolvency is dependent on whether there has been a continuation of the aviation activities by other air transport operators? Is Article 3f(1) of Directive 2003/87 to be interpreted as meaning that there has been a continuation of aviation activities if landing rights at so-called coordinated airports (slots) have been sold in part (for the insolvent air carrier’s short- and medium-haul operations) to three other air transport operators?

| 2. | If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:
  Are the provisions in Article 10(5), Article 29, Article 55(1)(a) and (3) and Article 56 of Regulation (EU) No 389/2013 (3) compatible with Directives 2003/87 and 2008/101 and valid if they preclude, in the event that the air transport operator has ceased flight operations due to insolvency, the issuing of free aviation allowances that have been allocated but not yet issued? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:

Are the provisions in Article 10(5), Article 29, Article 55(1)(a) and (3) and Article 56 of Regulation (EU) No 389/2013 (3) compatible with Directives 2003/87 and 2008/101 and valid if they preclude, in the event that the air transport operator has ceased flight operations due to insolvency, the issuing of free aviation allowances that have been allocated but not yet issued?

| 3. | If Question 1 is answered in the negative:
  Are Directives 2003/87 and 2008/101 to be interpreted as meaning that an annulment of the decision on the free allocation of aviation allowances is mandatory under EU law? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If Question 1 is answered in the negative:

Are Directives 2003/87 and 2008/101 to be interpreted as meaning that an annulment of the decision on the free allocation of aviation allowances is mandatory under EU law?

| 4. | In the event that Question 1 is answered in the affirmative and in the event that Question 3 is answered in the negative:
  Are Article 3c(3a), Article 28a(1) and (2) and Article 28b(2) of Directive 2003/87, as amended by Directive (EU) 2018/410, (4) to be interpreted as meaning that, for aircraft operators, the third trading period does not end at the end of 2020, but rather continues until 2023? |
| --- | --- |

4.

In the event that Question 1 is answered in the affirmative and in the event that Question 3 is answered in the negative:

Are Article 3c(3a), Article 28a(1) and (2) and Article 28b(2) of Directive 2003/87, as amended by Directive (EU) 2018/410, (4) to be interpreted as meaning that, for aircraft operators, the third trading period does not end at the end of 2020, but rather continues until 2023?

| 5. | If Question 4 is answered in the negative:
  Can entitlements to a further free allocation of emission allowances for aircraft operators for the third trading period be met after the end of the third trading period with allowances of the fourth trading period where the existence of the allowance entitlement is established by a court only after expiry of the third trading period, or do allowance entitlements that have not yet been met lapse on expiry of the third trading period? |
| --- | --- |

5.

If Question 4 is answered in the negative:

Can entitlements to a further free allocation of emission allowances for aircraft operators for the third trading period be met after the end of the third trading period with allowances of the fourth trading period where the existence of the allowance entitlement is established by a court only after expiry of the third trading period, or do allowance entitlements that have not yet been met lapse on expiry of the third trading period?

---

(1)  Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32).

(2)  Directive 2008/101/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 amending Directive 2003/87/EC so as to include aviation activities in the scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community (OJ 2009 L 8, p. 3).

(3)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 389/2013 of 2 May 2013 establishing a Union Registry pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Decisions No 280/2004/EC and No 406/2009/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Commission Regulations (EU) No 920/2010 and No 1193/2011 (OJ 2013 L 122, p. 1).

(4)  Directive (EU) 2018/410 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2018 amending Directive 2003/87/EC to enhance cost-effective emission reductions and low-carbon investments, and Decision (EU) 2015/1814 (OJ 2018 L 76, p. 3).

---

| 3.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 255/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vilniaus apygardos administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 28 April 2020 — OT v Vyriausioji tarnybinės etikos komisija

(Case C-184/20)

(2020/C 255/13)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Vilniaus apygardos administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: OT

Defendant: Vyriausioji tarnybinės etikos komisija

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the condition laid down in Article 6(1)(e) of the Regulation (1) that processing is necessary for the performance of a task carried out in the public interest or in the exercise of official authority vested in the controller, with regard to the requirements laid down in Article 6(3) of the Regulation, including the requirement that the Member-State law must meet an objective of public interest and be proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued, and also with regard to Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter, (2) be interpreted as meaning that national law may not require the disclosure of declarations of private interest and their publication on the website of the controller, the Vyriausioji tarnybinės etikos komisija (Chief Official Ethics Commission), thereby providing access to those data to all individuals who have access to the Internet? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must the condition laid down in Article 6(1)(e) of the Regulation (1) that processing is necessary for the performance of a task carried out in the public interest or in the exercise of official authority vested in the controller, with regard to the requirements laid down in Article 6(3) of the Regulation, including the requirement that the Member-State law must meet an objective of public interest and be proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued, and also with regard to Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter, (2) be interpreted as meaning that national law may not require the disclosure of declarations of private interest and their publication on the website of the controller, the Vyriausioji tarnybinės etikos komisija (Chief Official Ethics Commission), thereby providing access to those data to all individuals who have access to the Internet?

| 2. | Must the prohibition of the processing of special categories of personal data established in Article 9(1) of the Regulation, regard being had to the conditions established in Article 9(2) of the Regulation, including the condition established in point (g) thereof that processing must be necessary for reasons of substantial public interest, on the basis of EU or Member-State law which must be proportionate to the aim pursued, must respect the essence of the right to data protection and must provide for suitable and specific measures to safeguard the fundamental rights and the interests of the data subject, be interpreted, also with regard to Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter, as meaning that national law may not require the disclosure of data relating to declarations of private interests which may disclose personal data, including data which make it possible to determine a person’s political views, trade-union membership, sexual orientation and other personal information, and their publication on the website of the controller, the Vyriausioji tarnybinės etikos komisija, providing access to those data to all individuals who have access to the Internet? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must the prohibition of the processing of special categories of personal data established in Article 9(1) of the Regulation, regard being had to the conditions established in Article 9(2) of the Regulation, including the condition established in point (g) thereof that processing must be necessary for reasons of substantial public interest, on the basis of EU or Member-State law which must be proportionate to the aim pursued, must respect the essence of the right to data protection and must provide for suitable and specific measures to safeguard the fundamental rights and the interests of the data subject, be interpreted, also with regard to Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter, as meaning that national law may not require the disclosure of data relating to declarations of private interests which may disclose personal data, including data which make it possible to determine a person’s political views, trade-union membership, sexual orientation and other personal information, and their publication on the website of the controller, the Vyriausioji tarnybinės etikos komisija, providing access to those data to all individuals who have access to the Internet?

---

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

(2)  Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (OJ 2012 C 326, p. 391).

---

| 3.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 255/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Ravensburg (Germany) lodged on 28 April 2020 — JL v BMW Bank GmbH, DT v Volkswagen Bank GmbH

(Case C-187/20)

(2020/C 255/14)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Ravensburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: JL, DT

Defendants: BMW Bank GmbH, Volkswagen Bank GmbH

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 10(2)(a) of Directive 2008/48/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC (‘Directive 2008/48/EC’) to be interpreted as meaning that, with regard to the type of credit, it may be necessary to specify that it is a linked credit agreement and/or that it is a fixed-term credit agreement? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 10(2)(a) of Directive 2008/48/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC (‘Directive 2008/48/EC’) to be interpreted as meaning that, with regard to the type of credit, it may be necessary to specify that it is a linked credit agreement and/or that it is a fixed-term credit agreement?

| 2. | Is Article 10(2)(d) of Directive 2008/48/EC to be interpreted as meaning that, with regard to the conditions governing the drawdown of the credit in the case of linked credit agreements for financing the purchase of an item, it is necessary to specify, in the event that the credit amount is disbursed to the seller, that the borrower is released from his liability to pay the purchase price to the extent of the amount disbursed and that the seller must hand over the purchased item to him if the purchase price has been paid in full? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is Article 10(2)(d) of Directive 2008/48/EC to be interpreted as meaning that, with regard to the conditions governing the drawdown of the credit in the case of linked credit agreements for financing the purchase of an item, it is necessary to specify, in the event that the credit amount is disbursed to the seller, that the borrower is released from his liability to pay the purchase price to the extent of the amount disbursed and that the seller must hand over the purchased item to him if the purchase price has been paid in full?

| 3. | Is Article 10(2)(l) of Directive 2008/48/EC to be interpreted as meaning that the credit agreement






  (a) | must specify the interest rate applicable in the case of late payments as applicable at the time of the conclusion of the credit agreement as an absolute number or, at the very least, the current reference interest rate (in this case, the base rate in accordance with Paragraph 247 of the Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (Civil Code; ‘the BGB’)), from which the interest rate applicable in the case of late payments is obtained by adding a premium (in this case, a premium of five percentage points in accordance with Paragraph 288(1), second sentence, of the BGB), as an absolute number; and |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Is Article 10(2)(l) of Directive 2008/48/EC to be interpreted as meaning that the credit agreement

(a)

must specify the interest rate applicable in the case of late payments as applicable at the time of the conclusion of the credit agreement as an absolute number or, at the very least, the current reference interest rate (in this case, the base rate in accordance with Paragraph 247 of the Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (Civil Code; ‘the BGB’)), from which the interest rate applicable in the case of late payments is obtained by adding a premium (in this case, a premium of five percentage points in accordance with Paragraph 288(1), second sentence, of the BGB), as an absolute number; and

| (b) | must explain the specific arrangements for adjustment of the interest rate applicable in the case of late payments or, at the very least, must reference the national standards from which such arrangements follow (Paragraph 247 and Paragraph 288(1), second sentence, of the BGB)? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

must explain the specific arrangements for adjustment of the interest rate applicable in the case of late payments or, at the very least, must reference the national standards from which such arrangements follow (Paragraph 247 and Paragraph 288(1), second sentence, of the BGB)?

| 4. | (a) | Is Article 10(2)(r) of Directive 2008/48/EC to be interpreted as meaning that the credit agreement must specify a particular method that the consumer can understand for calculating the compensation payable in the event of early repayment of the loan, so that the consumer can calculate at least approximately the compensation payable in the event of early termination? |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

(a)

Is Article 10(2)(r) of Directive 2008/48/EC to be interpreted as meaning that the credit agreement must specify a particular method that the consumer can understand for calculating the compensation payable in the event of early repayment of the loan, so that the consumer can calculate at least approximately the compensation payable in the event of early termination?

| (b) | (if Question (a) above is answered in the affirmative:):
  Do Article 10(2)(r) and the second sentence of Article 14(1) of Directive 2008/48/EC preclude national legislation pursuant to which, in the case of incomplete information within the meaning of Article 10(2)(r) of that directive, the period for withdrawal nevertheless commences on conclusion of the agreement and only the creditor’s right to compensation for early repayment of the credit is lost? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

(if Question (a) above is answered in the affirmative:):

Do Article 10(2)(r) and the second sentence of Article 14(1) of Directive 2008/48/EC preclude national legislation pursuant to which, in the case of incomplete information within the meaning of Article 10(2)(r) of that directive, the period for withdrawal nevertheless commences on conclusion of the agreement and only the creditor’s right to compensation for early repayment of the credit is lost?

| 5. | Is Article 10(2)(s) of Directive 2008/48/EC to be interpreted as meaning






  (a) | that the credit agreement must also specify the rights of termination of the parties to the credit agreement regulated under national law, including in particular the borrower’s right of termination with good cause under Paragraph 314 of the BGB, in the case of fixed-term loan agreements, and that express reference must be made to the paragraph in which that right of termination is regulated? |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.

Is Article 10(2)(s) of Directive 2008/48/EC to be interpreted as meaning

(a)

that the credit agreement must also specify the rights of termination of the parties to the credit agreement regulated under national law, including in particular the borrower’s right of termination with good cause under Paragraph 314 of the BGB, in the case of fixed-term loan agreements, and that express reference must be made to the paragraph in which that right of termination is regulated?

| (b) | (if Question (a) above is answered in the negative):
  that it does not preclude national legislation which stipulates the designation of a national special right of termination as mandatory information within the meaning of Article 10(2)(s) of Directive 2008/48/EC? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

(if Question (a) above is answered in the negative):

that it does not preclude national legislation which stipulates the designation of a national special right of termination as mandatory information within the meaning of Article 10(2)(s) of Directive 2008/48/EC?

| (c) | that the credit agreement must indicate the time limit for and form of the declaration of termination prescribed for the purpose of exercising the right of termination for all rights of termination of the parties to the credit agreement? |
| --- | --- |

(c)

that the credit agreement must indicate the time limit for and form of the declaration of termination prescribed for the purpose of exercising the right of termination for all rights of termination of the parties to the credit agreement?

| 6. | Is Article 10(2)(t) of Directive 2008/48/EC to be interpreted as meaning that the essential formal requirements for a complaint and/or redress in the out-of-court complaint and/or redress procedure must be specified in the credit agreement? Is it insufficient in this respect if reference is made to rules of procedure, which can be accessed on the internet, for out-of-court complaint and/or redress procedures? |
| --- | --- |

6.

Is Article 10(2)(t) of Directive 2008/48/EC to be interpreted as meaning that the essential formal requirements for a complaint and/or redress in the out-of-court complaint and/or redress procedure must be specified in the credit agreement? Is it insufficient in this respect if reference is made to rules of procedure, which can be accessed on the internet, for out-of-court complaint and/or redress procedures?

| 7. | In the case of a consumer credit agreement, is the creditor precluded from invoking the plea of forfeiture in respect of the exercise of the right of withdrawal of the consumer pursuant to the first sentence of Article 14(1) of Directive 2008/48/EC






  (a) | if some of the mandatory information required under Article 10(2) of Directive 2008/48/EC has been neither properly included in the credit agreement nor subsequently duly provided and the period of withdrawal pursuant to Article 14(1) of Directive 2008/48/EC has therefore not begun? |
| --- | --- | --- |

7.

In the case of a consumer credit agreement, is the creditor precluded from invoking the plea of forfeiture in respect of the exercise of the right of withdrawal of the consumer pursuant to the first sentence of Article 14(1) of Directive 2008/48/EC

(a)

if some of the mandatory information required under Article 10(2) of Directive 2008/48/EC has been neither properly included in the credit agreement nor subsequently duly provided and the period of withdrawal pursuant to Article 14(1) of Directive 2008/48/EC has therefore not begun?

| (b) | (if Question (a) above is answered in the negative):
  if the forfeiture is decisively based on the lapse of time since conclusion of the agreement and/or on the complete fulfilment of the agreement by both parties and/or on the creditor’s disposal of the recovered loan amount or the return of the loan security and/or (in the case of a purchase agreement linked with the credit agreement) on the use or sale of the financed object by the consumer, but the consumer had no knowledge of the continued existence of his right of withdrawal in the relevant period and when the relevant circumstances arose and is also not responsible for that lack of knowledge, and the creditor could also not assume that the consumer has such knowledge? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

(if Question (a) above is answered in the negative):

if the forfeiture is decisively based on the lapse of time since conclusion of the agreement and/or on the complete fulfilment of the agreement by both parties and/or on the creditor’s disposal of the recovered loan amount or the return of the loan security and/or (in the case of a purchase agreement linked with the credit agreement) on the use or sale of the financed object by the consumer, but the consumer had no knowledge of the continued existence of his right of withdrawal in the relevant period and when the relevant circumstances arose and is also not responsible for that lack of knowledge, and the creditor could also not assume that the consumer has such knowledge?

| 8. | In the case of a consumer credit agreement, is the creditor precluded from invoking the plea of abuse of rights in respect of the exercise of the right of withdrawal of the consumer in accordance with the first sentence of Article 14(1) of Directive 2008/48/EC






  (a) | if some of the mandatory information required under Article 10(2) of Directive 2008/48/EC has been neither properly included in the credit agreement nor subsequently duly provided and the period of withdrawal pursuant to Article 14(1) of Directive 2008/48/EC has therefore not begun? |
| --- | --- | --- |

8.

In the case of a consumer credit agreement, is the creditor precluded from invoking the plea of abuse of rights in respect of the exercise of the right of withdrawal of the consumer in accordance with the first sentence of Article 14(1) of Directive 2008/48/EC

(a)

if some of the mandatory information required under Article 10(2) of Directive 2008/48/EC has been neither properly included in the credit agreement nor subsequently duly provided and the period of withdrawal pursuant to Article 14(1) of Directive 2008/48/EC has therefore not begun?

| (b) | (if Question (a) above is answered in the negative):
  if the abuse of rights is decisively based on the lapse of time since conclusion of the agreement and/or on the complete fulfilment of the agreement by both parties and/or on the creditor’s disposal of the recovered loan amount or the return of the loan security and/or (in the case of a purchase agreement linked with the credit agreement) on the use or sale of the financed object by the consumer, but the consumer had no knowledge of the continued existence of his right of withdrawal in the relevant period and when the relevant circumstances arose and is also not responsible for that lack of knowledge, and the creditor could also not assume that the consumer has such knowledge? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

(if Question (a) above is answered in the negative):

if the abuse of rights is decisively based on the lapse of time since conclusion of the agreement and/or on the complete fulfilment of the agreement by both parties and/or on the creditor’s disposal of the recovered loan amount or the return of the loan security and/or (in the case of a purchase agreement linked with the credit agreement) on the use or sale of the financed object by the consumer, but the consumer had no knowledge of the continued existence of his right of withdrawal in the relevant period and when the relevant circumstances arose and is also not responsible for that lack of knowledge, and the creditor could also not assume that the consumer has such knowledge?

---

(1)  Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC (OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66).

---

| 3.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 255/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/12

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 14 May 2020 — ‘Toplofikatsia Sofia’ EAD, ‘Chez Elektro Balgaria’ AD and ‘Agentsia za kontrol na prosrocheni zadalzhenia’ EOOD

(Case C-208/20)

(2020/C 255/15)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski rayonen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants:‘Toplofikatsia Sofia’ EAD, ‘Chez Elektro Balgaria’ AD and ‘Agentsia za kontrol na prosrocheni zadalzhenia’ EOOD

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 20(2)(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in conjunction with the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the principles of non-discrimination and the equivalence of procedural measures in national judicial proceedings and Article 1[(1)](a) of Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 (1) on cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters be interpreted as meaning that, where the national law of the court seised provides that the latter is to obtain, of its own motion, information regarding the defendant’s address in its own State and it is established that the defendant is in another State of the European Union, the national court seised is obliged to obtain information regarding the defendant’s address from the competent authorities of the State in which he resides? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 20(2)(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in conjunction with the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the principles of non-discrimination and the equivalence of procedural measures in national judicial proceedings and Article 1[(1)](a) of Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 (1) on cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters be interpreted as meaning that, where the national law of the court seised provides that the latter is to obtain, of its own motion, information regarding the defendant’s address in its own State and it is established that the defendant is in another State of the European Union, the national court seised is obliged to obtain information regarding the defendant’s address from the competent authorities of the State in which he resides?

| 2. | Must Article 5(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (2) of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, in conjunction with the principle that the national court must guarantee procedural rights for the effective protection of rights arising from EU law, be interpreted as meaning that, when determining the habitual residence of a debtor as a condition required under national law for the conduct of unilateral formal proceedings in which evidence is not taken, such as order for payment procedures, the national court is obliged to interpret any reasonable suspicion that the debtor is habitually resident in another State of the European Union as a lack of a legal basis for issuing an order for payment or as a basis for the order for payment not acquiring the force of res judicata? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must Article 5(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (2) of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, in conjunction with the principle that the national court must guarantee procedural rights for the effective protection of rights arising from EU law, be interpreted as meaning that, when determining the habitual residence of a debtor as a condition required under national law for the conduct of unilateral formal proceedings in which evidence is not taken, such as order for payment procedures, the national court is obliged to interpret any reasonable suspicion that the debtor is habitually resident in another State of the European Union as a lack of a legal basis for issuing an order for payment or as a basis for the order for payment not acquiring the force of res judicata?

| 3. | Must Article 5(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, in conjunction with the principle that the national court must guarantee procedural rights for the effective protection of rights deriving from EU law, be interpreted as meaning that a national court, which, after having issued an order for payment against a particular debtor, has established that that debtor is unlikely to be habitually resident in the State of the court and, provided that this constitutes an obstacle to the issuing of an order for payment against such a debtor under national law, is obliged to annul, of its own motion, the order for payment issued, despite the absence of an express statutory provision to that effect? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Must Article 5(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, in conjunction with the principle that the national court must guarantee procedural rights for the effective protection of rights deriving from EU law, be interpreted as meaning that a national court, which, after having issued an order for payment against a particular debtor, has established that that debtor is unlikely to be habitually resident in the State of the court and, provided that this constitutes an obstacle to the issuing of an order for payment against such a debtor under national law, is obliged to annul, of its own motion, the order for payment issued, despite the absence of an express statutory provision to that effect?

| 4. | If the third question is answered in the negative, are the provisions referred to in that question to be interpreted as obliging the national court to annul the order for payment issued where it has carried out a check and established with certainty that the debtor is not habitually resident in the State of the court seised? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If the third question is answered in the negative, are the provisions referred to in that question to be interpreted as obliging the national court to annul the order for payment issued where it has carried out a check and established with certainty that the debtor is not habitually resident in the State of the court seised?

---

(1)  OJ 2001 L 174, p. 1.

(2)  OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1.

---

| 3.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 255/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/13

---

Action brought on 1 June 2020 — European Commission v Italian Republic

(Case C-227/20)

(2020/C 255/16)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Trico and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Italian Republic

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by failing to adopt the rules on penalties applicable to infringements of Articles 4 and 7 of Regulation No 511/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on compliance measures for users from the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization in the Union, (1) by failing to adopt all the measures necessary to ensure that those rules are applied and that the penalties provided for are effective, proportionate and dissuasive, and by failing to notify the Commission of those rules on penalties by 11 June 2015, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11 of Regulation No 511/2014; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to adopt the rules on penalties applicable to infringements of Articles 4 and 7 of Regulation No 511/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on compliance measures for users from the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization in the Union, (1) by failing to adopt all the measures necessary to ensure that those rules are applied and that the penalties provided for are effective, proportionate and dissuasive, and by failing to notify the Commission of those rules on penalties by 11 June 2015, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11 of Regulation No 511/2014;

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

—

order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission claims that the measures specifying penalties for infringement of Articles 4 and 7 of Regulation No 511/2014 have not yet been adopted by the Italian Republic, despite the fact that, first, those measures should have been laid down in the national legislation of the Member States since 11 June 2014 and, second, those measures should have been followed by the Member States implementing ‘all the measures necessary to ensure that they are applied’, as stated in the last sentence of Article 11(1) of Regulation No 511/2014.

Furthermore, the infringement of Article 11 of that regulation also concerns the Italian Republic’s failure to notify the Commission of the measures on penalties. In that regard, according to the final paragraph of Article 11 of Regulation No 511/2014, the Italian Republic was obliged to notify the Commission of the rules ‘referred to in paragraph 1’ of that provision, that is to say the ‘rules on penalties applicable to infringements of Articles 4 and 7’ by 11 June 2015.

---

(1)  OJ 2014 L 150, p. 59.

---

| 3.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 255/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) (Latvijas) lodged on 3 June 2020 — AAS ‘BTA Báltica Insúmanse Company’ v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

(Case C-230/20)

(2020/C 255/17)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa (Senāts)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: AAS ‘BTA Báltica Insúmanse Company’

Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the guarantor referred to in Article 195 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, (1) as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2700/2000 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2000, be regarded as a debtor within the meaning of Article 221(3) [of the regulation] to whom, therefore, the time limit established in Article 221(3) applies? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must the guarantor referred to in Article 195 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, (1) as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2700/2000 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2000, be regarded as a debtor within the meaning of Article 221(3) [of the regulation] to whom, therefore, the time limit established in Article 221(3) applies?

| 2. | If the answer to question 1 is in the negative, can the guarantor be regarded, pursuant to Article 232(1)(a) of the regulation, as the person subject to enforcement of the decision or the debt, or the person concerned by the enforcement, to whom, the Member State’s rules on enforcement, including those on time limits, therefore apply? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to question 1 is in the negative, can the guarantor be regarded, pursuant to Article 232(1)(a) of the regulation, as the person subject to enforcement of the decision or the debt, or the person concerned by the enforcement, to whom, the Member State’s rules on enforcement, including those on time limits, therefore apply?

| 3. | If, under the applicable laws of the European Union, the guarantor is not regarded as a debtor within the meaning of Article 221(3) of the regulation or as the subject of the enforcement of the decision or as a person concerned by the enforcement, can the requirement implied by the principle of legal certainty, which requires a reasonable limitation period to be observed, be applied to the guarantor? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If, under the applicable laws of the European Union, the guarantor is not regarded as a debtor within the meaning of Article 221(3) of the regulation or as the subject of the enforcement of the decision or as a person concerned by the enforcement, can the requirement implied by the principle of legal certainty, which requires a reasonable limitation period to be observed, be applied to the guarantor?

---

(1)  OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1, Special edition in Latvian: Chapter 02 Volume 004 P. 307.

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 2700/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2000 amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 2000 L 311, p. 17, Special edition in Latvian: Chapter 02 Volume 010 P. 239).

---

General Court

| 3.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 255/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/15

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 June 2020 — B.D v EUIPO — Philicon-97 (PHILIBON)

(Case T-717/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark PHILIBON - Earlier national figurative mark PHILICON - Relative ground for refusal - Well-known trade mark within the meaning of Article 6bis of the Paris Convention - Article 8(2)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(2)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2020/C 255/18)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: B.D. — Boyer Developpement (Moissac, France) (represented by: É. Junca, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: L. Lapinskaite, A. Folliard-Monguiral, H. O’Neill and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Philicon-97 AD (Plovdiv, Bulgaria) (represented by: V. Pavlov and M. Lazarov, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 October 2018 (Case R 375/2018-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Philicon 97 and B. D. — Boyer Developpement.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders B. D. — Boyer Developpement to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders B. D. — Boyer Developpement to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 54, 11.2.2019.

---

| 3.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 255/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/15

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 June 2020 — Boyer v EUIPO — Philicon-97 (PHILIBON DEPUIS 1957 www.philibon.com)

(Case T-718/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark PHILIBON DEPUIS 1957 www.philibon.com - Earlier national figurative mark PHILICON - Relative ground for refusal - Well-known trade mark within the meaning of Article 6bis of the Paris Convention - Article 8(2)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(2)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2020/C 255/19)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Boyer (Moissac, France) (represented by: É. Junca, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: L. Lapinskaite, A. Folliard-Monguiral, H. O’Neill and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Philicon-97 AD (Plovdiv, Bulgaria) (represented by: V. Pavlov and M. Lazarov, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 October 2018 (Case R 374/2018-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Philicon 97 and Boyer.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

Orders Boyer to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 54, 11.2.2019.

---

| 3.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 255/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/16

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 June 2020 — Louis Vuitton Malletier v EUIPO — Wisniewski (Device of a chequerboard Pattern)

(Case T-105/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark representing a chequerboard pattern - Absolute grounds for refusal - No distinctive character - Well-known facts - Distinctive character acquired through use - Overall assessment of the evidence of the distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(1)(b) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Article 59(1) and (2) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2020/C 255/20)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Louis Vuitton Malletier (Paris, France) (represented by: P. Roncaglia, G. Lazzeretti, F. Rossi, N. Parrotta and P.-Y. Gautier, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Norbert Wisniewski (Warsaw, Poland)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 November 2018 (Case R 274/2017-2) relating to invalidity proceedings between Mr Wisniewski and Louis Vuitton Malletier.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 22 November 2018 (Case R 274/2017-2); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 22 November 2018 (Case R 274/2017-2);

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

2.

Orders EUIPO to bear the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 139, 15.4.2019.

---

| 3.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 255/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/17

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 June 2020 — Leinfelder Uhren München v EUIPO — Schafft (Leinfelder)

(Case T-577/19) (1)

(European Union trade mark - Revocation proceedings - European Union word mark Leinfelder - Lack of genuine use of the mark - Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Abuse of rights)

(2020/C 255/21)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Leinfelder Uhren München GmbH & Co. KG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: S. Lüft, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Thomas Schafft (Munich) (represented by: V. Sandulache, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 May 2019 (Joined Cases R 1930/2018 2 and R 1937/2018 2), concerning revocation proceedings between Mr Schafft and Leinfelder Uhren München.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Leinfelder Uhren München GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Leinfelder Uhren München GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 328, 30.9.2019.

---

| 3.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 255/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/17

---

Order of the General Court of 11 June 2020 — Lípidos Santiga v Commission

(Case T-561/19) (1)

(Action for annulment - Energy - Directive (EU) 2018/2001 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources - Limit on biofuels and biomass fuels produced from food and feed crops - Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/807 - Definition of raw materials presenting a high indirect land-use change (ILUC) risk - Palm oil - Standing to bring proceedings - Lack of individual concern - Inadmissibility)

(2020/C 255/22)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Lípidos Santiga, SA (Santa Perpètua de Mogoda, Spain) (represented by: P. Muñiz Fernández, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland and Y. Marinova, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking the partial annulment of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/807 of 13 March 2019 supplementing Directive (EU) 2018/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the determination of high indirect land-use change-risk feedstock for which a significant expansion of the production area into land with high carbon stock is observed and the certification of low indirect land-use change-risk biofuels, bioliquids and biomass fuels (OJ 2019 L 133, p. 1).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Lípidos Santiga, SA, is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Lípidos Santiga, SA, is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 328, 30.9.2019.

---

| 3.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 255/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/18

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 11 June 2020 — Elevolution — Engenharia v Commission

(Case T-652/19 R)

(Interim measures - Public works contracts - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Lack of urgency)

(2020/C 255/23)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Dintilhac and I. Melo Sampaio, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking suspension of operation of the Commission’s decision of 12 July 2019 excluding the applicant for a period of three years from procurement and grant award procedures financed by the European Development Fund (EDF) in the context of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/323 of 2 March 2015 on the financial regulation applicable to the 11th European Development Fund (OJ 2015 L 58, p. 17) and ordering the publication of the notification of exclusion on the Commission’s website.

Operative part of the order

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the application for interim measures. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application for interim measures.

| 2. | Reserves the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Reserves the costs.

---

| 3.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 255/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/18

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 8 June 2020 — Ascenza Agro v Commission

(Case T-77/20 R)

(Application for interim relief - Plant protection products - Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 - Implementing regulation (EU) 2020/17 - Non-renewal of approval of the active substance chlorpyriphos-methyl - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Lack of any urgency - Serious and irreparable damage - Absence)

(2020/C 255/24)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ascenza Agro, SA (Setúbal, Portugal) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, P. Sellar, lawyers, and G. McElwee, Solicitor)

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

Re:

Application based on Articles 278 and 279 TFEU, seeking suspension of the operation of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/17 of 10 January 2020 concerning the non-renewal of the approval of the active substance chlorpyrifos-methyl, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 (OJ 2020 L 7, p. 11).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

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

2.

The costs are reserved.

---

| 3.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 255/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/19

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 8 June 2020 — Industrias Afrasa v Commission

(Case T-77/20 RII)

(Application for interim measures - Plant protection products - Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/17 - Non-renewal of approval of the active substance chlorpyrifos-methyl - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Lack of urgency - Serious and irreparable harm - None)

(2020/C 255/25)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Industrias Afrasa, SA (Paterna, Spain) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, P. Sellar, lawyers, and G. McElwee, Solicitor)

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

Re:

Application based on Articles 278 and 279 TFEU, seeking suspension of the operation of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/17 of 10 January 2020 concerning the non-renewal of approval of the active substance chlorpyrifos-methyl, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 (OJ 2020 L 7, p. 11).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

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

2.

The costs are reserved.

---

| 3.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 255/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/20

---

Action brought on 13 May 2020 — Billions Europe and Others v Commission

(Case T-283/20)

(2020/C 255/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Billions Europe Ltd (Stockton-on-Tees, United Kingdom), and seven other applicants (represented by: J. Montfort, T. Delille, and P. Chopova-Leprêtre, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/217 (1) (‘the contested Regulation’) insofar as it concerns Titanium Dioxide, i.e. Recital (5) of the contested Regulation, Annexes I and II to the contested Regulation, the amendments to Part 1 of Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 (2) in Annex III to the contested Regulation, and the entry for Titanium Dioxide in Part 3 of Annex VI to Regulation No 1272/2008 introduced by Annex III to the contested Regulation; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/217 (1) (‘the contested Regulation’) insofar as it concerns Titanium Dioxide, i.e. Recital (5) of the contested Regulation, Annexes I and II to the contested Regulation, the amendments to Part 1 of Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 (2) in Annex III to the contested Regulation, and the entry for Titanium Dioxide in Part 3 of Annex VI to Regulation No 1272/2008 introduced by Annex III to the contested Regulation;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the contested Regulation was adopted in breach of several mandatory provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 regulating the classification of substances in the human health hazard ‘carcinogenicity’, including, in particular, Article 36 and Section 3.6 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008.






  — | The Committee for Risk Assessment (‘RAC’) committed several serious factual errors in assessing the available information and failed to satisfactorily establish that the available data are ‘reliable and acceptable’ and suggest that TiO2 has the intrinsic property to cause cancer. Had the RAC not committed such errors, it would necessarily have issued an opinion supporting ‘no classification’ of TiO2. Therefore, TiO2 could not be lawfully classified. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested Regulation was adopted in breach of several mandatory provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 regulating the classification of substances in the human health hazard ‘carcinogenicity’, including, in particular, Article 36 and Section 3.6 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008.

—

The Committee for Risk Assessment (‘RAC’) committed several serious factual errors in assessing the available information and failed to satisfactorily establish that the available data are ‘reliable and acceptable’ and suggest that TiO2 has the intrinsic property to cause cancer. Had the RAC not committed such errors, it would necessarily have issued an opinion supporting ‘no classification’ of TiO2. Therefore, TiO2 could not be lawfully classified.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging the contested Regulation breaches the principle of legal certainty. The economic operators, including the applicants, are prevented from knowing the exact extent of their obligations and taking appropriate legal steps accordingly. This uncertainty is present, with respect to the scope of the harmonised classification, the intended use of the Notes, and the impact of the contested Regulation on the legal and regulatory status of the products made with or containing TiO2 and the hazard classification of the waste of such products. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging the contested Regulation breaches the principle of legal certainty. The economic operators, including the applicants, are prevented from knowing the exact extent of their obligations and taking appropriate legal steps accordingly. This uncertainty is present, with respect to the scope of the harmonised classification, the intended use of the Notes, and the impact of the contested Regulation on the legal and regulatory status of the products made with or containing TiO2 and the hazard classification of the waste of such products.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the contested Regulation was adopted in breach of the principle of proportionality, in that it is unnecessary (as carcinogenic effects were only observed in animal studies conducted under such extreme lung overload conditions that could never be achieved in worst-case real life conditions) and that the disadvantages caused by the harmonised classification of TiO2 are disproportionate to the aims it pursues. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the contested Regulation was adopted in breach of the principle of proportionality, in that it is unnecessary (as carcinogenic effects were only observed in animal studies conducted under such extreme lung overload conditions that could never be achieved in worst-case real life conditions) and that the disadvantages caused by the harmonised classification of TiO2 are disproportionate to the aims it pursues.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that, in adopting the contested Regulation, the Commission incorrectly exercised its margin of discretion and breached its duty of care. To justify the contested Regulation, the Commission simply relied upon the RAC Opinion on TiO2 without making a sufficient assessment of the probative value of such RAC Opinion, in breach of its duties in that regard.






  — | The Commission opted for a broad interpretation of the classification, labelling and packaging requirements regulating the human health hazard ‘carcinogenicity’ and what could constitute an ‘intrinsic property’ of a substance. It merely relied on the RAC, without assessing the scope and impact of such broad interpretation or setting appropriate boundaries that would allow a proper implementation. Doing so, the Commission based the contested Regulation on materially inaccurate facts and failed to take into consideration all the relevant factors and circumstances of the situation. |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that, in adopting the contested Regulation, the Commission incorrectly exercised its margin of discretion and breached its duty of care. To justify the contested Regulation, the Commission simply relied upon the RAC Opinion on TiO2 without making a sufficient assessment of the probative value of such RAC Opinion, in breach of its duties in that regard.

—

The Commission opted for a broad interpretation of the classification, labelling and packaging requirements regulating the human health hazard ‘carcinogenicity’ and what could constitute an ‘intrinsic property’ of a substance. It merely relied on the RAC, without assessing the scope and impact of such broad interpretation or setting appropriate boundaries that would allow a proper implementation. Doing so, the Commission based the contested Regulation on materially inaccurate facts and failed to take into consideration all the relevant factors and circumstances of the situation.

| 5. | Fitfh plea in law, alleging that, in adopting the contested Regulation, the Commission breached Article 37(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008, its duty of sound administration, and the right of the applicants to be heard. In particular, the applicants have been denied an adequate opportunity to comment meaningfully on the RAC Opinion itself, which significantly deviated from the original classification proposal both with regard to the scientific rationale used and to the final conclusion on the classification of TiO2. By contrast, had the applicants been given a sufficient and formal opportunity to comment on the RAC Opinion in the course of its adoption, such comments would have likely led to another outcome in the decision-making process. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fitfh plea in law, alleging that, in adopting the contested Regulation, the Commission breached Article 37(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008, its duty of sound administration, and the right of the applicants to be heard. In particular, the applicants have been denied an adequate opportunity to comment meaningfully on the RAC Opinion itself, which significantly deviated from the original classification proposal both with regard to the scientific rationale used and to the final conclusion on the classification of TiO2. By contrast, had the applicants been given a sufficient and formal opportunity to comment on the RAC Opinion in the course of its adoption, such comments would have likely led to another outcome in the decision-making process.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging that, in adopting the contested Regulation without the prior conduct and documentation of an Impact Assessment, the Commission breached its commitments under the Interinstitutional Agreement on better-law-making, (3) and the principle of sound administration. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that, in adopting the contested Regulation without the prior conduct and documentation of an Impact Assessment, the Commission breached its commitments under the Interinstitutional Agreement on better-law-making, (3) and the principle of sound administration.

---

(1)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/217 of 4 October 2019 amending, for the purposes of its adaptation to technical and scientific progress, Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures and correcting that Regulation (OJ 2020 L 44, p. 1)

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures, amending and repealing Directives 67/548/EEC and 1999/45/EC, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (OJ 2008 L 353, p. 1).

(3)  Interinstitutional Agreement between the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission on Better Law-Making of 13 April 2016 (OJ 2016 L 123, p. 1).

---

| 3.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 255/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/21

---

Action brought on 12 May 2020 — Foz v Council

(Case T-296/20)

(2020/C 255/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Amer Foz (Dubai, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: L. Cloquet, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2020/212 of 17 February 2020 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (1), as far as it applies to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2020/212 of 17 February 2020 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (1), as far as it applies to the applicant;

| — | annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/211 of 17 February 2020 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (2), as far as it applies to the applicant; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/211 of 17 February 2020 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (2), as far as it applies to the applicant; and

| — | sentence the Council to bear the full costs and expenses of the proceedings, including those set forth by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

sentence the Council to bear the full costs and expenses of the proceedings, including those set forth by the applicant.

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 a manifest error in assessing the facts.






  — | The applicant puts forward that the Council made a manifest error in assessing the facts by considering that he is supporting and benefiting from the Assad regime. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a manifest error in assessing the facts.

—

The applicant puts forward that the Council made a manifest error in assessing the facts by considering that he is supporting and benefiting from the Assad regime.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the general principle of proportionality.






  — | The applicant puts forward that the economic consequences of the sanctions taken against him are disastrous and disproportionate compared to the purposes the contested acts. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the general principle of proportionality.

—

The applicant puts forward that the economic consequences of the sanctions taken against him are disastrous and disproportionate compared to the purposes the contested acts.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a disproportionate infringement of the right of ownership and of exercise of a profession. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a disproportionate infringement of the right of ownership and of exercise of a profession.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging an abuse of power. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging an abuse of power.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the obligation to state reasons. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the obligation to state reasons.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the rights of defense and of the right to a fair trial. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the rights of defense and of the right to a fair trial.

---

(1)  OJ 2020 L 43I, p. 6.

(2)  OJ 2020 L 43I, p. 1.

---

| 3.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 255/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/22

---

Action brought on 22 May 2020 — Fashioneast and AM.VI. v EUIPO — Moschillo (RICH JOHN RICHMOND)

(Case T-297/20)

(2020/C 255/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Fashioneast Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), AM.VI. Srl (Naples, Italy) (represented by: A. Camusso and M. Baghetti, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Moschillo Srl (Avellino, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark RICH JOHN RICHMOND — European Union trade mark No 3 815 149

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 March 2020 in Case R 1381/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | declare the Applicant be discharged from the payment of all the fees and costs of the appeal and cancellation proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the Applicant be discharged from the payment of all the fees and costs of the appeal and cancellation proceedings;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs of the procedure.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 3.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 255/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/23

---

Action brought on 25 mai 2020 — Unger Marketing International v EUIPO — Orben Wasseraufbereitung (Water purifiers)

(Case T-325/20)

(2020/C 255/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Unger Marketing International LLC (Bridgeport, Connecticut, United States) (represented by: T. Huber and K. von Seydlitz-Brandl, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Orben Wasseraufbereitung GmbH & Co. KG (Wiesbaden, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Design at issue: European Union design No 2 555 425-0002

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 February 2020 in Case R 740/2018-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Unger, |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Unger,

| — | order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear the costs of the proceedings including those incurred by the applicant, in case the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal should become an intervening party in this case. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear the costs of the proceedings including those incurred by the applicant, in case the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal should become an intervening party in this case.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;

| — | Infringement of Article 65(1)(f) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 65(1)(f) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002.

---

| 3.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 255/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/23

---

Action brought on 29 May 2020 — König Ludwig International v EUIPO (Royal Bavarian Beer)

(Case T-332/20)

(2020/C 255/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: König Ludwig International GmbH & Co. KG (Geltendorf, Germany) (represented by: O. Spuhler and J. Stock, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the mark Royal Bavarian Beer — Application for registration No 1 384 147

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 April 2020 in Case R 1714/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in combination with Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and the right to be heard; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in combination with Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and the right to be heard;

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

—

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

| — | Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b) and 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b) and 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 1(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

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

---

| 3.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 255/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/24

---

Action brought on the 1st of June 2020 — Fidia farmaceutici v EUIPO — Giuliani (IALO TSP)

(Case T-333/20)

(2020/C 255/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Fidia farmaceutici SpA (Abano Terme, Italy) (represented by: R. Kunz-Hallstein and H. Kunz-Hallstein, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Giuliani SpA (Milano, Italy)

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 IALO TSP — Application for registration No 17 676 271

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 March 2020 in Case R 2107/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs; in the alternative, if the other party before the Board of Appeal intervenes, order EUIPO and the intervener jointly and severally to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs; in the alternative, if the other party before the Board of Appeal intervenes, order EUIPO and the intervener jointly and severally to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 165(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Articles 32(f) and 39(5) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 165(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Articles 32(f) and 39(5) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;

| — | Infringement of Article 166(4)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Articles 32(f) and 39(5) of the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 166(4)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Articles 32(f) and 39(5) of the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;

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

—

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

| — | Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in the failure to state reasons in the contested decision of the Board of Appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in the failure to state reasons in the contested decision of the Board of Appeal;

| — | Infringement of the principles of equal treatment and sound administration. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the principles of equal treatment and sound administration.

---

| 3.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 255/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/25

---

Action brought on 27 May 2020 — Hochmann Marketing v EUIPO (bittorrent)

(Case T-337/20)

(2020/C 255/32)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Hochmann Marketing GmbH (Neu-Isenburg, Germany) (represented by: J. Jennings, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘bittorrent’ — EU word mark No 3 216 439

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 March 2020 in Case R 187/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Serious error of law, since conversion into an Austrian trade mark is not clearly excluded; |
| --- | --- |

—

Serious error of law, since conversion into an Austrian trade mark is not clearly excluded;

| — | Infringement of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and an arbitrary assumption that the applicant had at no stage made a substantiated claim that use in Austria is to be assumed; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and an arbitrary assumption that the applicant had at no stage made a substantiated claim that use in Austria is to be assumed;

| — | Infringement of Article 103(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 103(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Serious procedural error and error of law in so far as the Board of Appeal disregarded EUIPO’s finding and understanding that conversion into a German mark was lawful; |
| --- | --- |

—

Serious procedural error and error of law in so far as the Board of Appeal disregarded EUIPO’s finding and understanding that conversion into a German mark was lawful;

| — | Infringement of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union through repeated disregard for the evidence of use submitted in Case C-118/18 P; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union through repeated disregard for the evidence of use submitted in Case C-118/18 P;

| — | Procedural error and infringement of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, since the applicant does have a financial interest in the outcome of the proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

Procedural error and infringement of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, since the applicant does have a financial interest in the outcome of the proceedings;

| — | Serious procedural error and error of law for having taken into account the arguments in the intervener’s submission of 23 September 2019 alleging that the applicant’s national trade mark application had been made in bad faith; |
| --- | --- |

—

Serious procedural error and error of law for having taken into account the arguments in the intervener’s submission of 23 September 2019 alleging that the applicant’s national trade mark application had been made in bad faith;

| — | Serious error of law for excluding conversion under Article 139(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the basis of the judgment in Case C-149/11; |
| --- | --- |

—

Serious error of law for excluding conversion under Article 139(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the basis of the judgment in Case C-149/11;

| — | Serious procedural error and error of law, since it was only after the Austrian mark was annulled that EUIPO requested that the applicant set out its position and EUIPO is still yet to express a view on the arguments put forward by the applicant in its conversion application; |
| --- | --- |

—

Serious procedural error and error of law, since it was only after the Austrian mark was annulled that EUIPO requested that the applicant set out its position and EUIPO is still yet to express a view on the arguments put forward by the applicant in its conversion application;

| — | Error of law as regards the decision on costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Error of law as regards the decision on costs.

---

| 3.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 255/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/26

---

Action brought on 29 May 2020 — EAB v EUIPO (RADIOSHUTTLE)

(Case T-341/20)

(2020/C 255/33)

Language of the case: Swedish

Parties

Applicant: EAB AB (Smålandsstenar, Sweden) (represented by: J. Norderyd and C. Sundén, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for registration of EU word mark RADIOSHUTTLE — Application No 179 709 13

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 March 2020 in Case R 1428/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision, and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision, and

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b), 7(1)(c) and 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b), 7(1)(c) and 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 3.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 255/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/26

---

Action brought on 5 June 2020 — Krasnyj Octyabr v EUIPO — Spółdzielnia ‘Pokój’ (Pokój TRADYCJA JAKOŚĆ KRÓWKA SŁODKIE CHWILE Z DZIECIŃSTWA TRADYCYJNA RECEPTURA)

(Case T-355/20)

(2020/C 255/34)

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 (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Spółdzielnia ‘Pokój’ (Bielsko-Biała, Poland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative Pokój TRADYCJA JAKOŚĆ KRÓWKA SŁODKIE CHWILE Z DZIECIŃSTWA TRADYCYJNA RECEPTURA — European Union trade mark No 15 371 305

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 April 2020 in Case R 1974/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 60(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 60(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 3.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 255/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/27

---

Action brought on 8 June 2020 — Jiruš v EUIPO — Nile Clothing (Racing Syndicate)

(Case T-356/20)

(2020/C 255/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Václav Jiruš (Vitín, Czech Republic) (represented by: J. Zedníková, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nile Clothing AG (Sutz, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark Racing Syndicate — European Union trade mark No 11 801 065

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 March 2020 in Case R 1488/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and refer the case back for reconsideration; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and refer the case back for reconsideration;

| — | oblige the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to compensate the applicant for all costs of proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

oblige the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to compensate the applicant for all costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 72(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 72(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

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

—

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

---

| 3.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 255/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/28

---

Action brought on 8 June 2020 — Team Beverage v EUIPO — Zurich Deutscher Herold Lebensversicherung (Team Beverage)

(Case T-359/20)

(2020/C 255/36)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Team Beverage AG (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch, N. Willich und N. Achilles, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Zurich Deutscher Herold Lebensversicherung AG (Bonn, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark Team Beverage — Application for registration No 17 665 704

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 April 2020 in Case R 2727/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Articles 18 and 47 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in conjunction with Article 10 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 18 and 47 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in conjunction with Article 10 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;

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

—

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

---

| 3.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 255/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/28

---

Action brought on 10 June 2020 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Europull (GREEN COAST)

(Case T-361/20)

(2020/C 255/37)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

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

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Europull Srl (Carpi, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Figurative mark GREEN COAST — EU trade mark No 14 936 694

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 March 2020 in Case R 1555/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision, in so far as, by dismissing the applicant’s appeal, it confirms the Cancellation Division’s decision No 13 595 C declaring the invalidity of the mark and confirms the cancellation of EU trade mark No 14 936 694 GREEN COAST (figurative), in Class 25; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision, in so far as, by dismissing the applicant’s appeal, it confirms the Cancellation Division’s decision No 13 595 C declaring the invalidity of the mark and confirms the cancellation of EU trade mark No 14 936 694 GREEN COAST (figurative), in Class 25;

| — | order any party or parties who oppose this application to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order any party or parties who oppose this application to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | The contested decision infringes the regulations on the substantiation of the earlier right (Italian mark with application No MO1997C000283 and Registration No 0001247661), in essence, in paragraph 22 of that decision, by finding that right to be substantiated, and also in paragraphs 15 to 21, which contain the main reasons for that conclusion; |
| --- | --- |

—

The contested decision infringes the regulations on the substantiation of the earlier right (Italian mark with application No MO1997C000283 and Registration No 0001247661), in essence, in paragraph 22 of that decision, by finding that right to be substantiated, and also in paragraphs 15 to 21, which contain the main reasons for that conclusion;

| — | Infringement of Article 12(2)(a) and Article 2(2)(b)(i) — to which it refers — and also Article 7(2)(a)(ii) — mutatis mutandis — of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 12(2)(a) and Article 2(2)(b)(i) — to which it refers — and also Article 7(2)(a)(ii) — mutatis mutandis — of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625.

| — | Infringement of Article 18(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 18(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and the Council.

---

| 3.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 255/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/29

---

Action brought on 11 June 2020 — Acciona v EUIPO — Agencia Negociadora PB (REACCIONA)

(Case T-362/20)

(2020/C 255/38)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Acciona, SA (Alcobendas, Spain) (represented by J. C. Erdozain López, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Agencia Negociadora PB, SL (Las Rozas, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Word mark REACCIONA — European Union trade mark No 8 605 578

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 April 2020 in Case R 652/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and, in the event that it appears before the Court and contests the present action, the intervener to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and, in the event that it appears before the Court and contests the present action, the intervener to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 3.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 255/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/30

---

Action brought on 9 June 2020 — Krasnyj Octyabr v EUIPO — Spółdzielnia ‘Pokój’ (KRÓWKA MLECZNA Milk FUDGE)

(Case T-363/20)

(2020/C 255/39)

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 (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Spółdzielnia ‘Pokój’ (Bielsko-Biała, Poland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark KRÓWKA MLECZNA Milk FUDGE — European Union trade mark No 15 371 255

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 April 2020 in Case R 1532/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 60(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 60(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of the right to be heard. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the right to be heard.

---

| 3.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 255/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/31

---

Action brought on 11 June 2020 — Birkenstock Sales v EUIPO (Form of a pattern of a sole of a shoe)

(Case T-365/20)

(2020/C 255/40)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Birkenstock Sales GmbH (Linz am Rhein, Germany) (represented by: C. Menebröcker und K. Middelhoff, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for an EU position mark (Form of a pattern of a sole of a shoe) — Application for registration No 14 576 284

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 March 2020 in Case R 1706/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 3.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 255/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/31

---

Action brought on 12 June 2020. — 1031023 B.C. v EUIPO — Bodegas San Valero (Representation of a round element similar to a brushstroke)

(Case T-366/20)

(2020/C 255/41)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: 1031023 B.C. Ltd (Richmond, British Columbia, Canada) (represented by: M. González Gordon, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bodegas San Valero, S. Coop. (Cariñena, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark (Representation of a round element similar to a brushstroke) — Application for registration No 17 890 405

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 March 2020 in Case R 2142/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | admit the application and the documents attached thereto and consider the appeal to have been lodged in due time and form against the contested decision and, after completing the appropriate procedural steps, give judgment upholding the applicant’s claims and granting EU trade mark application No 17 890 405. |
| --- | --- |

—

admit the application and the documents attached thereto and consider the appeal to have been lodged in due time and form against the contested decision and, after completing the appropriate procedural steps, give judgment upholding the applicant’s claims and granting EU trade mark application No 17 890 405.

Plea in law

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

---

| 3.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 255/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/32

---

Action brought on 12 June 2020 — Smiley Miley v EUIPO — Cyrus Trademarks (MILEY CYRUS)

(Case T-368/20)

(2020/C 255/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Smiley Miley, Inc. (Nashville, Tennessee, United States) (represented by: J. Devaureix, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cyrus Trademarks Ltd (Road Town, British Virgin Islands)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark MILEY CYRUS — Application for registration No 12 807 111

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 April 2020 in Case R 2520/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | admit the notice of claim, with all documents annexed and the correspondent copies; |
| --- | --- |

—

admit the notice of claim, with all documents annexed and the correspondent copies;

| — | admit all the evidence attached to the writ of notice of claim; |
| --- | --- |

—

admit all the evidence attached to the writ of notice of claim;

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and eventually the intervener to bear the costs of these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and eventually the intervener to bear the costs of these proceedings.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 3.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 255/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/33

---

Action brought on 13 June 2020 — EFFAS v EUIPO — CFA Institute

(CEFA Certified European Financial Analyst)

(Case T-369/20)

(2020/C 255/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Federation of Financial Analysts'Societies (EFFAS) (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: S. Merico and G. Macías Bonilla, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: CFA Institute (Charlottesville, Virginia, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark CEFA Certified European Financial Analyst — Application for registration No 14 902 341

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 March 2020 in Case R 1082/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 3.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 255/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/33

---

Action brought on 11 June 2020 — KL v EIB

(Case T-370/20)

(2020/C 255/44)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: European Investment Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

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

—

declare the present action admissible and well founded;

Consequently,

| — | annul the EIB’s decisions of 8 February and 8 March 2019 declaring the applicant fit to work and absent without justification since 18 February 2019; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the EIB’s decisions of 8 February and 8 March 2019 declaring the applicant fit to work and absent without justification since 18 February 2019;

| — | in so far as is necessary, annul the decision of the President of the EIB of 16 March 2020 confirming the findings of the Conciliation Board and, therefore, the decisions of 8 February and 8 March 2019; |
| --- | --- |

—

in so far as is necessary, annul the decision of the President of the EIB of 16 March 2020 confirming the findings of the Conciliation Board and, therefore, the decisions of 8 February and 8 March 2019;

Accordingly,

| — | order the defendant to make retrospective payment of the invalidity pension in principle from 1 February 2019 onwards; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to make retrospective payment of the invalidity pension in principle from 1 February 2019 onwards;

| — | order the defendant to pay default interest on the invalidity pension payable since 1 February 2019 until such time as payment has been made in full, the default interest rate being the interest rate applied by the European Central Bank plus two percentage points; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay default interest on the invalidity pension payable since 1 February 2019 until such time as payment has been made in full, the default interest rate being the interest rate applied by the European Central Bank plus two percentage points;

| — | order the EIB to pay compensation in respect of the non-material damage suffered by the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the EIB to pay compensation in respect of the non-material damage suffered by the applicant;

| — | order the EIB to pay the costs in their entirety. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the EIB to pay the costs in their entirety.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea, alleging infringement of Articles 46-1 and 48-1 of the Staff Pension Scheme Regulations and of Article 11(1) and (3) of the administrative provisions, as well as manifest error of assessment. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea, alleging infringement of Articles 46-1 and 48-1 of the Staff Pension Scheme Regulations and of Article 11(1) and (3) of the administrative provisions, as well as manifest error of assessment.

| 2. | Second plea, alleging infringement of the duty to have regard for the welfare of staff. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea, alleging infringement of the duty to have regard for the welfare of staff.

---

| 3.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 255/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/34

---

Action brought on 15 June 2020 — KM v Commission

(Case T-374/20)

(2020/C 255/45)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: KM (represented by: M. Müller-Trawinski, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the defendant’s decision of 7 October 2019 in the form of the decision of the ‘Autorité Investie du Pouvoir de Nomination (AIPN)’ No R/627/19 of 20 March 2020, whereby the defendant refuses to grant the applicant a survivor’s pension, and order the defendant, having regard to the interpretation of the law given by the General Court, to decide anew and to grant the applicant a survivor’s pension; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the defendant’s decision of 7 October 2019 in the form of the decision of the ‘Autorité Investie du Pouvoir de Nomination (AIPN)’ No R/627/19 of 20 March 2020, whereby the defendant refuses to grant the applicant a survivor’s pension, and order the defendant, having regard to the interpretation of the law given by the General Court, to decide anew and to grant the applicant a survivor’s pension;

| — | 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 the following pleas in law:

| 1. | First plea in law
  In the first plea in law, the applicant alleges that it is discriminatory to require couples of the opposite sex to marry, but in respect of all other couples to allow any form of durable, registered partnership to be sufficient, in order to qualify for a pension. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law

In the first plea in law, the applicant alleges that it is discriminatory to require couples of the opposite sex to marry, but in respect of all other couples to allow any form of durable, registered partnership to be sufficient, in order to qualify for a pension.

| 2. | Second plea in law
  In the second plea in law, the applicant argues that Article 18 in conjunction with Article 20 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union are discriminatory and, therefore, null and void because in respect of an active official one year of marriage is sufficient to be regarded as a stable relationship which on the death of the official entitles his or her spouse to a survivor’s pension, whereas in respect of spouses of officials who marry those officials only after their retirement, five years of marriage must be demonstrated to benefit from a survivor’s pension. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law

In the second plea in law, the applicant argues that Article 18 in conjunction with Article 20 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union are discriminatory and, therefore, null and void because in respect of an active official one year of marriage is sufficient to be regarded as a stable relationship which on the death of the official entitles his or her spouse to a survivor’s pension, whereas in respect of spouses of officials who marry those officials only after their retirement, five years of marriage must be demonstrated to benefit from a survivor’s pension.

---

| 3.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 255/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/35

---

Action brought on 19 June 2020 — Ryanair v Commission

(Case T-378/20)

(2020/C 255/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the European Commission’s decision (EU) of 15 April 2020 on State aid SA.56795 (1); and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the European Commission’s decision (EU) of 15 April 2020 on State aid SA.56795 (1); and

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

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the European Commission violated the legal requirement that aid authorised under Article 107(2)(b) TFEU shall make good the damage caused by exceptional occurrences and not only the damage suffered by one victim of such occurrences. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the European Commission violated the legal requirement that aid authorised under Article 107(2)(b) TFEU shall make good the damage caused by exceptional occurrences and not only the damage suffered by one victim of such occurrences.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the European Commission committed a manifest error of assessment in its review of the proportionality of the aid to the damage caused by the COVID-19 crisis. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the European Commission committed a manifest error of assessment in its review of the proportionality of the aid to the damage caused by the COVID-19 crisis.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the European Commission violated specific provisions of the TFEU and the general principles of European law regarding the prohibition of discrimination, free provision of services and free establishment that have underpinned the liberalisation of air transport in the EU since the late 1980s. The liberalisation of the air transport market in the EU has allowed the growth of truly pan-European low-fares airlines. The European Commission ignored the damage caused by the COVID-19 crisis to such pan-European airlines and their role in the air connectivity of Denmark by authorising Denmark to reserve aid only to SAS. Article 107(2)(b) TFEU provides for an exception to the prohibition of State aid under Article 107(1) TFEU, but it does not provide for an exception to the other rules and principles of the TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the European Commission violated specific provisions of the TFEU and the general principles of European law regarding the prohibition of discrimination, free provision of services and free establishment that have underpinned the liberalisation of air transport in the EU since the late 1980s. The liberalisation of the air transport market in the EU has allowed the growth of truly pan-European low-fares airlines. The European Commission ignored the damage caused by the COVID-19 crisis to such pan-European airlines and their role in the air connectivity of Denmark by authorising Denmark to reserve aid only to SAS. Article 107(2)(b) TFEU provides for an exception to the prohibition of State aid under Article 107(1) TFEU, but it does not provide for an exception to the other rules and principles of the TFEU.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the European Commission failed to initiate a formal investigation procedure despite serious difficulties and violated the applicant’s procedural rights. |
| --- | --- |

4.

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

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the decision violated the Commission’s duty to state reasons. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the decision violated the Commission’s duty to state reasons.

---

(1)  European Commission Decision (EU) of 15 April 2020 on State aid SA.56795 -- Denmark — Compensation for the damage caused by the COVID-19 outbreak to Scandinavian Airlines (not yet published in the Official Journal)

---

| 3.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 255/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/36

---

Action brought on 19 June 2020 — Ryanair v Commission

(Case T-379/20)

(2020/C 255/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the European Commission’s decision (EU) of 24 April 2020 on State aid SA.57061 (1); and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the European Commission’s decision (EU) of 24 April 2020 on State aid SA.57061 (1); and

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

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

The applicant has also requested that its action be determined under the expedited procedure as referred to in Article 23a of the Statute of the Court of Justice.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law, which are similar to those raised in case T-378/20, Ryanair v Commission.

---

(1)  European Commission Decision (EU) of 24 April 2020 on State aid SA.57061 -- Sweden — Compensation for the damage caused by the COVID-19 outbreak to Scandinavian Airlines (not yet published in the Official Journal)

---