# Official Journal C 94/13 M

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 94 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6613 March 2023 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 94

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6613 March 2023

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2023/C 94/01 | 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

2023/C 94/01

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 |
| 2023/C 94/02 | Case C-158/21, Puig Gordi and Others: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 31 January 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Criminal proceedings against Lluís Puig Gordi and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Surrender procedures between Member States — Conditions for execution — Jurisdiction of the issuing judicial authority — Second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Right of access to a tribunal previously established by law — Possibility of issuing a new European arrest warrant relating to the same person) | 2 |
| 2023/C 94/03 | Case C-205/21, Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti (Recording of biometric and genetic data by the police): Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 January 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against V.S. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data — Directive (EU) 2016/680 — Article 4(1)(a) to (c) — Principles relating to processing of personal data — Purpose limitation — Data minimisation — Article 6(a) — Clear distinction between personal data of different categories of data subjects — Article 8 — Lawfulness of processing — Article 10 — Transposition — Processing of biometric data and genetic data — Concept of processing authorised by Member State law — Concept of strictly necessary — Discretion — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Articles 7, 8, 47, 48 and 52 — Right to effective judicial protection — Presumption of innocence — Limitation — Intentional criminal offence subject to public prosecution — Accused persons — Collection of photographic and dactyloscopic data in order for them to be entered in a record and taking of a biological sample for the purpose of creating a DNA profile — Procedure for enforcement of collection — Systematic nature of the collection) | 4 |
| 2023/C 94/04 | Case C-284/21 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 31 January 2023 — European Commission v Anthony Braesch and Others (Appeal — State aid — Articles 107 and 108 TFEU — Restructuring aid — Banking sector — Preliminary examination stage — Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market — Restructuring plan — Commitments given by the Member State concerned — Burden-sharing measures — Conversion of subordinated debts into equity — Bondholders — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU — Locus standi — Natural or legal person directly and individually concerned — Breach of the procedural rights of interested parties — Failure to initiate the formal investigation procedure — Article 108(2) TFEU — Concept of parties concerned — Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 — Article 1(h) — Concept of interested party — National measures taken into account by the European Commission — Inadmissibility of the action) | 5 |
| 2023/C 94/05 | Case C-403/21, NV Construct: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 January 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiliul Naţional de Soluţionare a Contestaţiilor — Romania) — SC NV Construct SRL v Județul Timiș (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 267 TFEU — Definition of court or tribunal of a Member State — Criteria — Independence and compulsory nature of the jurisdiction of the national body concerned — Stability of the members of that body — Directive 2014/24/EU — Public procurement procedures — Article 58 — Selection criteria — Possibility of including, amongst those criteria, obligations under special laws applicable to the activities connected with the contract in question and not set out as a criterion for selection in the procurement documents — Article 63(1) — Tenderer relying on the capacities of another entity in order to meet the requirements of the contracting authority — Not possible to require recourse to subcontracting) | 6 |
| 2023/C 94/06 | Case C-469/21, CGCOF: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 26 January 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Consejo General de Colegios Oficiales de Farmacéuticos de España (CGCOF) v Administracíon General del Estado (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Medicinal products for human use — Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/161 — Repositories system containing information on safety features — Creation of an interface integrated into the national repository and managed by the public authorities — Obligation to use a specific application for certain medicinal products) | 7 |
| 2023/C 94/07 | Case C-613/21 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 26 January 2023 — European Parliament v Fernando Carbajo Ferrero (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Procedure for appointment to a post of Director — Vacancy notice and recruitment notice — Rejection of the candidate’s application and appointment of another candidate — Irregularity in the recruitment procedure — Manifest error of assessment — Transparency — Equal treatment) | 8 |
| 2023/C 94/08 | Case C-682/21, HSC Baltic and Others: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 January 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas — Lithuania) — HSC Baltic UAB, Mitnija UAB, Montuotojas UAB v Vilniaus miesto savivaldybės administracija (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Directive 2014/24/EU — Article 57(4)(g) — Optional ground for exclusion linked to deficiencies in the context of a prior contract — Contract awarded to a group of economic operators — Early termination of that contract — Automatic inclusion of all members of the group on a list of unreliable suppliers — Principle of proportionality — Directive 89/665/EEC — Article 1(1) and (3) — Right to an effective remedy) | 8 |
| 2023/C 94/09 | Case C-410/22: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 17 January 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Słupsku — Poland) — KL and Others v Skarb Państwa — Sąd Okręgowy w Koszalinie, Sąd Rejonowy w Szczecinku and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Requirement to state the reasons justifying the need for an answer from the Court — Lack of sufficient information — Manifest inadmissibility) | 9 |
| 2023/C 94/10 | Case C-476/22: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 17 January 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Bydgoszczy — Poland) — D.-F. sp. z o.o. v D.L. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Requirement to state the reasons justifying the need for an answer from the Court — Lack of sufficient information — Manifest inadmissibility) | 10 |
| 2023/C 94/11 | Case C-580/22 P: Appeal brought on 1 September 2022 by bonnanwalt Vermögens- und Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 16 June 2022 in Case T-83/20 bonnanwalt Vermögens- und Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office | 10 |
| 2023/C 94/12 | Case C-696/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Romania) lodged on 8 November 2022 — C SPRL v AJFP Cluj and DGRFP Cluj-Napoca | 11 |
| 2023/C 94/13 | Case C-701/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Romania) lodged on 15 November 2022 — SC AA SRL v MFE | 12 |
| 2023/C 94/14 | Case C-723/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München (Germany) lodged on 24 November 2022 — Citadines Betriebs GmbH v MPLC Deutschland GmbH | 13 |
| 2023/C 94/15 | Case C-725/22 P: Appeal brought on 24 November 2022 by AO Nevinnomysskiy Azot, AO Novomoskovskaya Aktsionernaya Kompania NAK Azot against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 14 September 2022 in Case T-865/19, Nevinnomysskiy Azot and NAK Azot v Commission | 13 |
| 2023/C 94/16 | Case C-728/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 24 November 2022 — Associazione Nazionale Italiana Bingo — Anib, Play Game Srl v Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli | 14 |
| 2023/C 94/17 | Case C-729/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 24 November 2022 — Associazione Concessionari Bingo — Ascob Srl and Others v Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli | 16 |
| 2023/C 94/18 | Case C-730/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 24 November 2022 — Coral Srl v Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli | 17 |
| 2023/C 94/19 | Case C-731/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Austria) lodged on 25 November 2022 — IJ and PO GesbR, IJ v Agrarmarkt Austria | 17 |
| 2023/C 94/20 | Case C-734/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 29 November 2022 — Republic of Austria v GM | 18 |
| 2023/C 94/21 | Case C-736/22 P: Appeal brought on 30 November 2022 by the Portuguese Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 21 September 2022 in Case T-95/21 Portugal v Commission | 19 |
| 2023/C 94/22 | Case C-754/22 P: Appeal brought on 9 December 2022 by OG, OH, OI and OJ against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 7 October 2022 in Case T-101/22, OG and Others v Commission | 20 |
| 2023/C 94/23 | Case C-755/22, Nárokuj: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresní soud Praha-západ (Czech Republic) lodged on 13 December 2022 — Nárokuj s.r.o. v EC Financial Services, a.s. | 21 |
| 2023/C 94/24 | Case C-761/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Bochum (Germany) lodged on 15 December 2022 — Verband Wirtschaft im Wettbewerb Verein für Lauterkeit in Handel und Industrie e.V. v Roller GmbH & Co. KG | 22 |
| 2023/C 94/25 | Case C-767/22, 1Dream: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Satversmes tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 12 December 2022 — 1Dream OÜ, DS, DL, VS, JG v Latvijas Republikas Saeima | 23 |
| 2023/C 94/26 | Case C-768/22: Action brought on 16 December 2022 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic | 23 |
| 2023/C 94/27 | Case C-783/22 P: Appeal brought on 23 Decemer 2022 by Trebor Robert Bilkiewicz against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 26 October 2022 in Case T-273/21, The Bazooka Companies v EUIPO | 24 |
| 2023/C 94/28 | Case C-790/22, Bürgermeister der Landeshauptstadt Innsbruck: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 28 December 2022 — R GmbH v Bürgermeister der Landeshauptstadt Innsbruck | 25 |
| 2023/C 94/29 | Case C-6/23, Baramlay: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 2 January 2023 — X v Agrárminiszter | 25 |
| 2023/C 94/30 | Case C-29/23 P: Appeal brought on 18 January 2023 by Ferriera Valsabbia SpA and Valsabbia Investimenti SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 9 November 2022 in Case T-655/19, Ferriera Valsabbia and Valsabbia Investimenti v Commission | 26 |
| 2023/C 94/31 | Case C-30/23 P: Appeal brought on 18 January 2023 by Alfa Acciai SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 9 November 2022 in Case T-656/19, Alfa Acciai v Commission | 27 |
| 2023/C 94/32 | Case C-31/23 P: Appeal brought on 19 January 2023 by Ferriere Nord SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 9 November 2022 in Case T-667/19 Ferriere Nord v Commission | 28 |
| 2023/C 94/33 | Case C-47/23: Action brought on 31 January 2023 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany | 30 |
| | General Court |
| 2023/C 94/34 | Case T-640/16 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2023 — GEA Group v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European markets for tin-based heat stabilisers and for heat stabilisers with epoxidised soybean oil and esters as their base — Application of the ceiling of 10 % of turnover to one of the entities forming the undertaking — Annulment of the decision amending the fine imposed in the initial infringement decision — Admissibility — Interest in bringing proceedings — Fines — Limitation period — Concept of an undertaking — Joint and several liability for payment of the fine — Rights of the defence — Right to a hearing — Equal treatment — Date by which the fine is payable in the event of amendment — Statement of reasons) | 32 |
| 2023/C 94/35 | Case T-163/21: Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2023 — De Capitani v Council (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents concerning an ongoing legislative procedure — Council working groups — Documents concerning a legislative proposal to amend Directive 2013/34/EU on the annual financial statements, consolidated financial statements and related reports of certain types of undertakings — Partial refusal to grant access — Action for annulment — Interest in bringing proceedings — Admissibility — First subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001 — Exception relating to the protection of the decision-making process) | 32 |
| 2023/C 94/36 | Case T-528/21: Judgment of the General Court of 18 January 2023 — Neratax v EUIPO — Intrum Hellas and Others (ELLO ERMOL, Ello creamy, ELLO, MORFAT Creamy and MORFAT) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word marks ELLO and MORFAT and EU figurative marks ELLO ERMOL, Ello creamy and MORFAT Creamy — Absolute ground for invalidity — Bad faith — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 33 |
| 2023/C 94/37 | Case T-666/21: Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2023 — Società Navigazione Siciliana v Commission (State aid — Maritime transport — Exemption in part from registration duties payable for the transfer of business between undertakings — Decision declaring the aid to be illegal and incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Advantage — Recipient of the aid — Service of general economic interest — Obligation to state reasons — Non-contractual liability — Excessive length of the procedure) | 34 |
| 2023/C 94/38 | Case T-703/21: Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2023 — Zielonogórski Klub Żużlowy Sportowa v EUIPO — Falubaz Polska (FALUBAZ) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark FALUBAZ — Absolute ground for invalidity — Bad faith — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 35 |
| 2023/C 94/39 | Case T-805/21: Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2023 — NS v Parliament (Civil service — Officials — Reassignment — Interests of the service — Correspondence between the grade and the post — Loss of an allowance — Right to be heard — Obligation to state reasons — Misuse of powers and abuse of procedure) | 35 |
| 2023/C 94/40 | Case T-320/22: Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2023 — Scania CV v EUIPO (V8) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark V8 — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — No distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001) | 36 |
| 2023/C 94/41 | Case T-351/22: Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2023 — De Dietrich Process Systems v EUIPO — Koch-Glitsch (SCHEIBEL) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark SCHEIBEL — Absolute ground for invalidity — Article 7(1)(c) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) and Article 59(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 36 |
| 2023/C 94/42 | Case T-352/22: Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2023 — De Dietrich Process Systems v EUIPO — Koch-Glitsch (KARR) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark KARR — Absolute ground for invalidity — Article 7(1)(c) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) and Article 59(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 37 |
| 2023/C 94/43 | Case T-675/22: Action brought on 31 October 2022 — Flynn v ECB | 37 |
| 2023/C 94/44 | Case T-804/22: Action brought on 23 December 2022 — Gemelli v Parliament | 38 |
| 2023/C 94/45 | Case T-805/22: Action brought on 23 December 2022 — Graziani v Parliament | 39 |
| 2023/C 94/46 | Case T-806/22: Action brought on 23 December 2022 — Iacono v Parliament | 40 |
| 2023/C 94/47 | Case T-807/22: Action brought on 23 December 2022 — Lombardo v Parliament | 41 |
| 2023/C 94/48 | Case T-808/22: Action brought on 23 December 2022 — Mantovani v Parliament | 41 |
| 2023/C 94/49 | Case T-809/22: Action brought on 23 December 2022 — Napoletano v Parliament | 42 |
| 2023/C 94/50 | Case T-810/22: Action brought on 23 December 2022 — Nobilia v Parliament | 43 |
| 2023/C 94/51 | Case T-811/22: Action brought on 23 December 2022 — Pettinari v Parliament | 44 |
| 2023/C 94/52 | Case T-812/22: Action brought on 23 December 2022 — Viola v Parliament | 44 |
| 2023/C 94/53 | Case T-813/22: Action brought on 23 December 2022 — Sbarbati v Parliament | 45 |
| 2023/C 94/54 | Case T-814/22: Action brought on 23 December 2022 — Ventre v Parliament | 46 |
| 2023/C 94/55 | Case T-815/22: Action brought on 23 December 2022 — Aita v Parliament | 47 |
| 2023/C 94/56 | Case T-816/22: Action brought on 23 December 2022 — Arroni v Parliament | 47 |
| 2023/C 94/57 | Case T-817/22: Action brought on 23 December 2022 — Bonsignore v Parliament | 48 |
| 2023/C 94/58 | Case T-818/22: Action brought on 23 December 2022 — Carollo v Parliament | 49 |
| 2023/C 94/59 | Case T-819/22: Action brought on 23 December 2022 — Catasta v Parliament | 50 |
| 2023/C 94/60 | Case T-820/22: Action brought on 23 December 2022 — Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament | 50 |
| 2023/C 94/61 | Case T-821/22: Action brought on 23 December 2022 — Di Meo v Parliament | 51 |
| 2023/C 94/62 | Case T-822/22: Action brought on 23 December 2022 — Di Prima v Parliament | 52 |
| 2023/C 94/63 | Case T-823/22: Action brought on 23 December 2022 — Dupuis v Parliament | 53 |
| 2023/C 94/64 | Case T-824/22: Action brought on 23 December 2022 — Filippi v Parliament | 53 |
| 2023/C 94/65 | Case T-825/22: Action brought on 29 December 2022 — Cucurnia v Parliament | 54 |
| 2023/C 94/66 | Case T-826/22: Action brought on 29 December 2022 — Gallenzi v Parliament | 55 |
| 2023/C 94/67 | Case T-12/23: Action brought on 19 January 2023 — Beauty Boutique v EUIPO — Lightningbolt Europe (Device of a lightning) | 56 |
| 2023/C 94/68 | Case T-15/23: Action brought on 20 January 2023 — Romania v Commission | 56 |
| 2023/C 94/69 | Case T-23/23: Action brought on 24 January 2023 — Noyan Abr Arvan v Council | 57 |
| 2023/C 94/70 | Case T-24/23: Action brought on 25 January 2023 — UF v Commission | 58 |
| 2023/C 94/71 | Case T-25/23: Action brought on 27 January 2023 — Orgatex v EUIPO — Longton (Ground marking) | 59 |
| 2023/C 94/72 | Case T-26/23: Action brought on 30 January 2023 — Feed v EUIPO — The Feed.com (Feed.) | 59 |
| 2023/C 94/73 | Case T-27/23: Action brought on 30 January 2023 — Feed v EUIPO — The Feed.com (THE FEED) | 60 |
| 2023/C 94/74 | Case T-29/23: Action brought on 30 January 2023 — Vobro v EUIPO — Mieszko (CHERRY Passion) | 61 |
| 2023/C 94/75 | Case T-31/23: Action brought on 30 January 2023 — QN v eu-LISA | 62 |
| 2023/C 94/76 | Case T-33/23: Action brought on 30 January 2023 — Domator24 v EUIPO — Acer (PREDATOR) | 63 |
| 2023/C 94/77 | Case T-35/23: Action brought on 1 February 2023 — Daimler Truck v EUIPO (YOUR PERFORMANCE PLUS) | 64 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2023/C 94/02

Case C-158/21, Puig Gordi and Others: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 31 January 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Criminal proceedings against Lluís Puig Gordi and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Surrender procedures between Member States — Conditions for execution — Jurisdiction of the issuing judicial authority — Second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Right of access to a tribunal previously established by law — Possibility of issuing a new European arrest warrant relating to the same person)

2

2023/C 94/03

Case C-205/21, Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti (Recording of biometric and genetic data by the police): Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 January 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against V.S. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data — Directive (EU) 2016/680 — Article 4(1)(a) to (c) — Principles relating to processing of personal data — Purpose limitation — Data minimisation — Article 6(a) — Clear distinction between personal data of different categories of data subjects — Article 8 — Lawfulness of processing — Article 10 — Transposition — Processing of biometric data and genetic data — Concept of processing authorised by Member State law — Concept of strictly necessary — Discretion — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Articles 7, 8, 47, 48 and 52 — Right to effective judicial protection — Presumption of innocence — Limitation — Intentional criminal offence subject to public prosecution — Accused persons — Collection of photographic and dactyloscopic data in order for them to be entered in a record and taking of a biological sample for the purpose of creating a DNA profile — Procedure for enforcement of collection — Systematic nature of the collection)

4

2023/C 94/04

Case C-284/21 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 31 January 2023 — European Commission v Anthony Braesch and Others (Appeal — State aid — Articles 107 and 108 TFEU — Restructuring aid — Banking sector — Preliminary examination stage — Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market — Restructuring plan — Commitments given by the Member State concerned — Burden-sharing measures — Conversion of subordinated debts into equity — Bondholders — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU — Locus standi — Natural or legal person directly and individually concerned — Breach of the procedural rights of interested parties — Failure to initiate the formal investigation procedure — Article 108(2) TFEU — Concept of parties concerned — Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 — Article 1(h) — Concept of interested party — National measures taken into account by the European Commission — Inadmissibility of the action)

5

2023/C 94/05

Case C-403/21, NV Construct: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 January 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiliul Naţional de Soluţionare a Contestaţiilor — Romania) — SC NV Construct SRL v Județul Timiș (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 267 TFEU — Definition of court or tribunal of a Member State — Criteria — Independence and compulsory nature of the jurisdiction of the national body concerned — Stability of the members of that body — Directive 2014/24/EU — Public procurement procedures — Article 58 — Selection criteria — Possibility of including, amongst those criteria, obligations under special laws applicable to the activities connected with the contract in question and not set out as a criterion for selection in the procurement documents — Article 63(1) — Tenderer relying on the capacities of another entity in order to meet the requirements of the contracting authority — Not possible to require recourse to subcontracting)

6

2023/C 94/06

Case C-469/21, CGCOF: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 26 January 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Consejo General de Colegios Oficiales de Farmacéuticos de España (CGCOF) v Administracíon General del Estado (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Medicinal products for human use — Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/161 — Repositories system containing information on safety features — Creation of an interface integrated into the national repository and managed by the public authorities — Obligation to use a specific application for certain medicinal products)

7

2023/C 94/07

Case C-613/21 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 26 January 2023 — European Parliament v Fernando Carbajo Ferrero (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Procedure for appointment to a post of Director — Vacancy notice and recruitment notice — Rejection of the candidate’s application and appointment of another candidate — Irregularity in the recruitment procedure — Manifest error of assessment — Transparency — Equal treatment)

8

2023/C 94/08

Case C-682/21, HSC Baltic and Others: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 January 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas — Lithuania) — HSC Baltic UAB, Mitnija UAB, Montuotojas UAB v Vilniaus miesto savivaldybės administracija (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Directive 2014/24/EU — Article 57(4)(g) — Optional ground for exclusion linked to deficiencies in the context of a prior contract — Contract awarded to a group of economic operators — Early termination of that contract — Automatic inclusion of all members of the group on a list of unreliable suppliers — Principle of proportionality — Directive 89/665/EEC — Article 1(1) and (3) — Right to an effective remedy)

8

2023/C 94/09

Case C-410/22: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 17 January 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Słupsku — Poland) — KL and Others v Skarb Państwa — Sąd Okręgowy w Koszalinie, Sąd Rejonowy w Szczecinku and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Requirement to state the reasons justifying the need for an answer from the Court — Lack of sufficient information — Manifest inadmissibility)

9

2023/C 94/10

Case C-476/22: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 17 January 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Bydgoszczy — Poland) — D.-F. sp. z o.o. v D.L. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Requirement to state the reasons justifying the need for an answer from the Court — Lack of sufficient information — Manifest inadmissibility)

10

2023/C 94/11

Case C-580/22 P: Appeal brought on 1 September 2022 by bonnanwalt Vermögens- und Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 16 June 2022 in Case T-83/20 bonnanwalt Vermögens- und Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office

10

2023/C 94/12

Case C-696/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Romania) lodged on 8 November 2022 — C SPRL v AJFP Cluj and DGRFP Cluj-Napoca

11

2023/C 94/13

Case C-701/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Romania) lodged on 15 November 2022 — SC AA SRL v MFE

12

2023/C 94/14

Case C-723/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München (Germany) lodged on 24 November 2022 — Citadines Betriebs GmbH v MPLC Deutschland GmbH

13

2023/C 94/15

Case C-725/22 P: Appeal brought on 24 November 2022 by AO Nevinnomysskiy Azot, AO Novomoskovskaya Aktsionernaya Kompania NAK Azot against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 14 September 2022 in Case T-865/19, Nevinnomysskiy Azot and NAK Azot v Commission

13

2023/C 94/16

Case C-728/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 24 November 2022 — Associazione Nazionale Italiana Bingo — Anib, Play Game Srl v Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli

14

2023/C 94/17

Case C-729/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 24 November 2022 — Associazione Concessionari Bingo — Ascob Srl and Others v Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli

16

2023/C 94/18

Case C-730/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 24 November 2022 — Coral Srl v Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli

17

2023/C 94/19

Case C-731/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Austria) lodged on 25 November 2022 — IJ and PO GesbR, IJ v Agrarmarkt Austria

17

2023/C 94/20

Case C-734/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 29 November 2022 — Republic of Austria v GM

18

2023/C 94/21

Case C-736/22 P: Appeal brought on 30 November 2022 by the Portuguese Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 21 September 2022 in Case T-95/21 Portugal v Commission

19

2023/C 94/22

Case C-754/22 P: Appeal brought on 9 December 2022 by OG, OH, OI and OJ against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 7 October 2022 in Case T-101/22, OG and Others v Commission

20

2023/C 94/23

Case C-755/22, Nárokuj: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresní soud Praha-západ (Czech Republic) lodged on 13 December 2022 — Nárokuj s.r.o. v EC Financial Services, a.s.

21

2023/C 94/24

Case C-761/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Bochum (Germany) lodged on 15 December 2022 — Verband Wirtschaft im Wettbewerb Verein für Lauterkeit in Handel und Industrie e.V. v Roller GmbH & Co. KG

22

2023/C 94/25

Case C-767/22, 1Dream: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Satversmes tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 12 December 2022 — 1Dream OÜ, DS, DL, VS, JG v Latvijas Republikas Saeima

23

2023/C 94/26

Case C-768/22: Action brought on 16 December 2022 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

23

2023/C 94/27

Case C-783/22 P: Appeal brought on 23 Decemer 2022 by Trebor Robert Bilkiewicz against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 26 October 2022 in Case T-273/21, The Bazooka Companies v EUIPO

24

2023/C 94/28

Case C-790/22, Bürgermeister der Landeshauptstadt Innsbruck: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 28 December 2022 — R GmbH v Bürgermeister der Landeshauptstadt Innsbruck

25

2023/C 94/29

Case C-6/23, Baramlay: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 2 January 2023 — X v Agrárminiszter

25

2023/C 94/30

Case C-29/23 P: Appeal brought on 18 January 2023 by Ferriera Valsabbia SpA and Valsabbia Investimenti SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 9 November 2022 in Case T-655/19, Ferriera Valsabbia and Valsabbia Investimenti v Commission

26

2023/C 94/31

Case C-30/23 P: Appeal brought on 18 January 2023 by Alfa Acciai SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 9 November 2022 in Case T-656/19, Alfa Acciai v Commission

27

2023/C 94/32

Case C-31/23 P: Appeal brought on 19 January 2023 by Ferriere Nord SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 9 November 2022 in Case T-667/19 Ferriere Nord v Commission

28

2023/C 94/33

Case C-47/23: Action brought on 31 January 2023 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany

30

General Court

2023/C 94/34

Case T-640/16 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2023 — GEA Group v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European markets for tin-based heat stabilisers and for heat stabilisers with epoxidised soybean oil and esters as their base — Application of the ceiling of 10 % of turnover to one of the entities forming the undertaking — Annulment of the decision amending the fine imposed in the initial infringement decision — Admissibility — Interest in bringing proceedings — Fines — Limitation period — Concept of an undertaking — Joint and several liability for payment of the fine — Rights of the defence — Right to a hearing — Equal treatment — Date by which the fine is payable in the event of amendment — Statement of reasons)

32

2023/C 94/35

Case T-163/21: Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2023 — De Capitani v Council (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents concerning an ongoing legislative procedure — Council working groups — Documents concerning a legislative proposal to amend Directive 2013/34/EU on the annual financial statements, consolidated financial statements and related reports of certain types of undertakings — Partial refusal to grant access — Action for annulment — Interest in bringing proceedings — Admissibility — First subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001 — Exception relating to the protection of the decision-making process)

32

2023/C 94/36

Case T-528/21: Judgment of the General Court of 18 January 2023 — Neratax v EUIPO — Intrum Hellas and Others (ELLO ERMOL, Ello creamy, ELLO, MORFAT Creamy and MORFAT) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word marks ELLO and MORFAT and EU figurative marks ELLO ERMOL, Ello creamy and MORFAT Creamy — Absolute ground for invalidity — Bad faith — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

33

2023/C 94/37

Case T-666/21: Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2023 — Società Navigazione Siciliana v Commission (State aid — Maritime transport — Exemption in part from registration duties payable for the transfer of business between undertakings — Decision declaring the aid to be illegal and incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Advantage — Recipient of the aid — Service of general economic interest — Obligation to state reasons — Non-contractual liability — Excessive length of the procedure)

34

2023/C 94/38

Case T-703/21: Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2023 — Zielonogórski Klub Żużlowy Sportowa v EUIPO — Falubaz Polska (FALUBAZ) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark FALUBAZ — Absolute ground for invalidity — Bad faith — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

35

2023/C 94/39

Case T-805/21: Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2023 — NS v Parliament (Civil service — Officials — Reassignment — Interests of the service — Correspondence between the grade and the post — Loss of an allowance — Right to be heard — Obligation to state reasons — Misuse of powers and abuse of procedure)

35

2023/C 94/40

Case T-320/22: Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2023 — Scania CV v EUIPO (V8) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark V8 — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — No distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001)

36

2023/C 94/41

Case T-351/22: Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2023 — De Dietrich Process Systems v EUIPO — Koch-Glitsch (SCHEIBEL) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark SCHEIBEL — Absolute ground for invalidity — Article 7(1)(c) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) and Article 59(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

36

2023/C 94/42

Case T-352/22: Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2023 — De Dietrich Process Systems v EUIPO — Koch-Glitsch (KARR) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark KARR — Absolute ground for invalidity — Article 7(1)(c) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) and Article 59(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

37

2023/C 94/43

Case T-675/22: Action brought on 31 October 2022 — Flynn v ECB

37

2023/C 94/44

Case T-804/22: Action brought on 23 December 2022 — Gemelli v Parliament

38

2023/C 94/45

Case T-805/22: Action brought on 23 December 2022 — Graziani v Parliament

39

2023/C 94/46

Case T-806/22: Action brought on 23 December 2022 — Iacono v Parliament

40

2023/C 94/47

Case T-807/22: Action brought on 23 December 2022 — Lombardo v Parliament

41

2023/C 94/48

Case T-808/22: Action brought on 23 December 2022 — Mantovani v Parliament

41

2023/C 94/49

Case T-809/22: Action brought on 23 December 2022 — Napoletano v Parliament

42

2023/C 94/50

Case T-810/22: Action brought on 23 December 2022 — Nobilia v Parliament

43

2023/C 94/51

Case T-811/22: Action brought on 23 December 2022 — Pettinari v Parliament

44

2023/C 94/52

Case T-812/22: Action brought on 23 December 2022 — Viola v Parliament

44

2023/C 94/53

Case T-813/22: Action brought on 23 December 2022 — Sbarbati v Parliament

45

2023/C 94/54

Case T-814/22: Action brought on 23 December 2022 — Ventre v Parliament

46

2023/C 94/55

Case T-815/22: Action brought on 23 December 2022 — Aita v Parliament

47

2023/C 94/56

Case T-816/22: Action brought on 23 December 2022 — Arroni v Parliament

47

2023/C 94/57

Case T-817/22: Action brought on 23 December 2022 — Bonsignore v Parliament

48

2023/C 94/58

Case T-818/22: Action brought on 23 December 2022 — Carollo v Parliament

49

2023/C 94/59

Case T-819/22: Action brought on 23 December 2022 — Catasta v Parliament

50

2023/C 94/60

Case T-820/22: Action brought on 23 December 2022 — Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament

50

2023/C 94/61

Case T-821/22: Action brought on 23 December 2022 — Di Meo v Parliament

51

2023/C 94/62

Case T-822/22: Action brought on 23 December 2022 — Di Prima v Parliament

52

2023/C 94/63

Case T-823/22: Action brought on 23 December 2022 — Dupuis v Parliament

53

2023/C 94/64

Case T-824/22: Action brought on 23 December 2022 — Filippi v Parliament

53

2023/C 94/65

Case T-825/22: Action brought on 29 December 2022 — Cucurnia v Parliament

54

2023/C 94/66

Case T-826/22: Action brought on 29 December 2022 — Gallenzi v Parliament

55

2023/C 94/67

Case T-12/23: Action brought on 19 January 2023 — Beauty Boutique v EUIPO — Lightningbolt Europe (Device of a lightning)

56

2023/C 94/68

Case T-15/23: Action brought on 20 January 2023 — Romania v Commission

56

2023/C 94/69

Case T-23/23: Action brought on 24 January 2023 — Noyan Abr Arvan v Council

57

2023/C 94/70

Case T-24/23: Action brought on 25 January 2023 — UF v Commission

58

2023/C 94/71

Case T-25/23: Action brought on 27 January 2023 — Orgatex v EUIPO — Longton (Ground marking)

59

2023/C 94/72

Case T-26/23: Action brought on 30 January 2023 — Feed v EUIPO — The Feed.com (Feed.)

59

2023/C 94/73

Case T-27/23: Action brought on 30 January 2023 — Feed v EUIPO — The Feed.com (THE FEED)

60

2023/C 94/74

Case T-29/23: Action brought on 30 January 2023 — Vobro v EUIPO — Mieszko (CHERRY Passion)

61

2023/C 94/75

Case T-31/23: Action brought on 30 January 2023 — QN v eu-LISA

62

2023/C 94/76

Case T-33/23: Action brought on 30 January 2023 — Domator24 v EUIPO — Acer (PREDATOR)

63

2023/C 94/77

Case T-35/23: Action brought on 1 February 2023 — Daimler Truck v EUIPO (YOUR PERFORMANCE PLUS)

64

---

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 13.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/1

---

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

(2023/C 94/01)

Last publication

OJ C 83, 6.3.2023

Past publications

OJ C 71, 27.2.2023

OJ C 63, 20.2.2023

OJ C 54, 13.2.2023

OJ C 45, 6.2.2023

OJ C 35, 30.1.2023

OJ C 24, 23.1.2023

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 13.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 31 January 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Criminal proceedings against Lluís Puig Gordi and Others

(Case C-158/21, (1) Puig Gordi and Others)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - European arrest warrant - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Surrender procedures between Member States - Conditions for execution - Jurisdiction of the issuing judicial authority - Second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Right of access to a tribunal previously established by law - Possibility of issuing a new European arrest warrant relating to the same person)

(2023/C 94/02)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties in the main criminal proceedings

Lluís Puig Gordi, Carles Puigdemont Casamajó, Antoni Comín Oliveres, Clara Ponsatí Obiols, Meritxell Serret Aleu, Marta Rovira Vergés, Anna Gabriel Sabaté

Intervening parties: Ministerio Fiscal, Abogacía del Estado, Partido político VOX

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009,
  must be interpreted as meaning that an executing judicial authority does not have the power to refuse to execute a European arrest warrant on the basis of a ground for non-execution which arises not from Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended, but solely from the law of the executing Member State. However, that judicial authority may apply a national provision which provides that the execution of a European arrest warrant is to be refused where that execution would lead to an infringement of a fundamental right enshrined in EU law, provided that the scope of that provision does not go beyond the scope of Article 1(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended, as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009,

must be interpreted as meaning that an executing judicial authority does not have the power to refuse to execute a European arrest warrant on the basis of a ground for non-execution which arises not from Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended, but solely from the law of the executing Member State. However, that judicial authority may apply a national provision which provides that the execution of a European arrest warrant is to be refused where that execution would lead to an infringement of a fundamental right enshrined in EU law, provided that the scope of that provision does not go beyond the scope of Article 1(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended, as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Union.

| 2. | Article 1(1) and (2) and Article 6(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299,
  must be interpreted as meaning that the executing judicial authority may not verify whether a European arrest warrant has been issued by a judicial authority which had jurisdiction for that purpose and refuse to execute that European arrest warrant where it considers that that is not the case. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 1(1) and (2) and Article 6(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299,

must be interpreted as meaning that the executing judicial authority may not verify whether a European arrest warrant has been issued by a judicial authority which had jurisdiction for that purpose and refuse to execute that European arrest warrant where it considers that that is not the case.

| 3. | Article 1(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, read in conjunction with the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,
  must be interpreted as meaning that the executing judicial authority called upon to decide on the surrender of a person for whom a European arrest warrant has been issued may not refuse to execute that warrant on the ground that that person is at risk, following his or her surrender to the issuing Member State, of being tried by a court which lacks jurisdiction for that purpose unless,






  — | first, that judicial authority has objective, reliable, specific and properly updated information showing that there are systemic or generalised deficiencies in the operation of the judicial system of the issuing Member State or deficiencies affecting the judicial protection of an objectively identifiable group of persons to which the person concerned belongs, in the light of the requirement for a tribunal established by law, which mean that the individuals concerned are generally deprived, in that Member State, of an effective legal remedy enabling a review of the jurisdiction of the criminal court called upon to try them, and |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Article 1(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, read in conjunction with the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

must be interpreted as meaning that the executing judicial authority called upon to decide on the surrender of a person for whom a European arrest warrant has been issued may not refuse to execute that warrant on the ground that that person is at risk, following his or her surrender to the issuing Member State, of being tried by a court which lacks jurisdiction for that purpose unless,

—

first, that judicial authority has objective, reliable, specific and properly updated information showing that there are systemic or generalised deficiencies in the operation of the judicial system of the issuing Member State or deficiencies affecting the judicial protection of an objectively identifiable group of persons to which the person concerned belongs, in the light of the requirement for a tribunal established by law, which mean that the individuals concerned are generally deprived, in that Member State, of an effective legal remedy enabling a review of the jurisdiction of the criminal court called upon to try them, and

| — | secondly, that judicial authority finds that, in the particular circumstances of the case in question, there are substantial grounds for believing that, taking into account, inter alia, the information that is provided by the person for whom that European arrest warrant has been issued and that relates to his or her personal situation, to the nature of the offence for which that person is prosecuted, to the factual context in which that European arrest warrant was issued or to any other relevant circumstance, the court which is likely to be called upon to hear the proceedings to which that person will be subject in the issuing Member State manifestly lacks jurisdiction for that purpose. |
| --- | --- |

—

secondly, that judicial authority finds that, in the particular circumstances of the case in question, there are substantial grounds for believing that, taking into account, inter alia, the information that is provided by the person for whom that European arrest warrant has been issued and that relates to his or her personal situation, to the nature of the offence for which that person is prosecuted, to the factual context in which that European arrest warrant was issued or to any other relevant circumstance, the court which is likely to be called upon to hear the proceedings to which that person will be subject in the issuing Member State manifestly lacks jurisdiction for that purpose.

The fact that the person concerned was able, before the courts of the issuing Member State, to rely on his or her fundamental rights in order to challenge the jurisdiction of the issuing judicial authority and the European arrest warrant issued for him or her is of no decisive importance in that regard.

| 4. | Article 1(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, read in conjunction with the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights,
  must be interpreted as meaning that in a situation where a person for whom a European arrest warrant has been issued alleges that he or she is at risk, following his or her surrender to the issuing Member State, of being tried by a court lacking jurisdiction for that purpose, the existence of a report by the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention which does not directly relate to that person’s situation may not, in itself, be justification for the executing judicial authority to refuse to execute that European arrest warrant, but such a report may, however, be taken into account by that judicial authority, among other elements, in order to assess whether there are systemic or generalised deficiencies in the operation of the judicial system of that Member State or deficiencies affecting the judicial protection of an objectively identifiable group of persons to which that person belongs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Article 1(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, read in conjunction with the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights,

must be interpreted as meaning that in a situation where a person for whom a European arrest warrant has been issued alleges that he or she is at risk, following his or her surrender to the issuing Member State, of being tried by a court lacking jurisdiction for that purpose, the existence of a report by the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention which does not directly relate to that person’s situation may not, in itself, be justification for the executing judicial authority to refuse to execute that European arrest warrant, but such a report may, however, be taken into account by that judicial authority, among other elements, in order to assess whether there are systemic or generalised deficiencies in the operation of the judicial system of that Member State or deficiencies affecting the judicial protection of an objectively identifiable group of persons to which that person belongs.

| 5. | Article 15(2) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299,
  must be interpreted as precluding the executing judicial authority from refusing to execute a European arrest warrant on the ground that the person for whom that warrant has been issued is at risk, following his or her surrender to the issuing Member State, of being tried by a court lacking jurisdiction for that purpose, without having first requested that the issuing judicial authority provide supplementary information. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Article 15(2) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299,

must be interpreted as precluding the executing judicial authority from refusing to execute a European arrest warrant on the ground that the person for whom that warrant has been issued is at risk, following his or her surrender to the issuing Member State, of being tried by a court lacking jurisdiction for that purpose, without having first requested that the issuing judicial authority provide supplementary information.

| 6. | Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299,
  must be interpreted as not precluding the issuing of several successive European arrest warrants against a requested person with a view to obtaining his or her surrender by a Member State after the execution of a first European arrest warrant concerning that person has been refused by that Member State, provided that the execution of a new European arrest warrant does not result in an infringement of Article 1(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended, and provided that the issuing of the latter European arrest warrant is proportionate. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299,

must be interpreted as not precluding the issuing of several successive European arrest warrants against a requested person with a view to obtaining his or her surrender by a Member State after the execution of a first European arrest warrant concerning that person has been refused by that Member State, provided that the execution of a new European arrest warrant does not result in an infringement of Article 1(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended, and provided that the issuing of the latter European arrest warrant is proportionate.

---

(1)  OJ C 217, 7.6.2021.

---

| 13.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 January 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against V.S.

(Case C-205/21, (1) Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti (Recording of biometric and genetic data by the police))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data - Directive (EU) 2016/680 - Article 4(1)(a) to (c) - Principles relating to processing of personal data - Purpose limitation - Data minimisation - Article 6(a) - Clear distinction between personal data of different categories of data subjects - Article 8 - Lawfulness of processing - Article 10 - Transposition - Processing of biometric data and genetic data - Concept of ‘processing authorised by Member State law’ - Concept of ‘strictly necessary’ - Discretion - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Articles 7, 8, 47, 48 and 52 - Right to effective judicial protection - Presumption of innocence - Limitation - Intentional criminal offence subject to public prosecution - Accused persons - Collection of photographic and dactyloscopic data in order for them to be entered in a record and taking of a biological sample for the purpose of creating a DNA profile - Procedure for enforcement of collection - Systematic nature of the collection)

(2023/C 94/03)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

Criminal proceedings against

V.S.

Third party: Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti, Glavna direktsia za borba s organiziranata prestapnost

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 10(a) of Directive (EU) 2016/680 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 by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA, read in the light of Article 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,
  must be interpreted as meaning that the processing of biometric and genetic data by the police authorities with a view to their investigative activities, for purposes of combating crime and maintaining law and order, is authorised by Member State law, within the meaning of Article 10(a) of Directive 2016/680, provided that the law of that Member State contains a sufficiently clear and precise legal basis to authorise that processing. The fact that the national legislative act containing such a legal basis refers, furthermore, to 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), and not to Directive 2016/680, is not capable, in itself, of calling the existence of such authorisation into question, provided that it is apparent, in a sufficiently clear, precise and unequivocal manner, from the interpretation of the set of applicable provisions of national law that the processing of biometric and genetic data at issue falls within the scope of that directive, and not of that regulation. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 10(a) of Directive (EU) 2016/680 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 by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA, read in the light of Article 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

must be interpreted as meaning that the processing of biometric and genetic data by the police authorities with a view to their investigative activities, for purposes of combating crime and maintaining law and order, is authorised by Member State law, within the meaning of Article 10(a) of Directive 2016/680, provided that the law of that Member State contains a sufficiently clear and precise legal basis to authorise that processing. The fact that the national legislative act containing such a legal basis refers, furthermore, to 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), and not to Directive 2016/680, is not capable, in itself, of calling the existence of such authorisation into question, provided that it is apparent, in a sufficiently clear, precise and unequivocal manner, from the interpretation of the set of applicable provisions of national law that the processing of biometric and genetic data at issue falls within the scope of that directive, and not of that regulation.

| 2. | Article 6(a) of Directive 2016/680 and Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union
  must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which provides that, if the person accused of an intentional offence subject to public prosecution refuses to cooperate voluntarily in the collection of the biometric and genetic data concerning him or her in order for them to be entered in a record, the criminal court having jurisdiction must authorise a measure enforcing their collection, without having the power to assess whether there are serious grounds for believing that the person concerned has committed the offence of which he or she is accused, provided that national law subsequently guarantees effective judicial review of the conditions for that accusation, from which the authorisation to collect those data arises. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 6(a) of Directive 2016/680 and Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which provides that, if the person accused of an intentional offence subject to public prosecution refuses to cooperate voluntarily in the collection of the biometric and genetic data concerning him or her in order for them to be entered in a record, the criminal court having jurisdiction must authorise a measure enforcing their collection, without having the power to assess whether there are serious grounds for believing that the person concerned has committed the offence of which he or she is accused, provided that national law subsequently guarantees effective judicial review of the conditions for that accusation, from which the authorisation to collect those data arises.

| 3. | Article 10 of Directive 2016/680, read in conjunction with Article 4(1)(a) to (c) and Article 8(1) and (2) thereof,
  must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which provides for the systematic collection of biometric and genetic data of any person accused of an intentional offence subject to public prosecution in order for them to be entered in a record, without laying down an obligation on the competent authority to verify whether and demonstrate that, first, their collection is strictly necessary for achieving the specific objectives pursued and, second, those objectives cannot be achieved by measures constituting a less serious interference with the rights and freedoms of the person concerned. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 10 of Directive 2016/680, read in conjunction with Article 4(1)(a) to (c) and Article 8(1) and (2) thereof,

must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which provides for the systematic collection of biometric and genetic data of any person accused of an intentional offence subject to public prosecution in order for them to be entered in a record, without laying down an obligation on the competent authority to verify whether and demonstrate that, first, their collection is strictly necessary for achieving the specific objectives pursued and, second, those objectives cannot be achieved by measures constituting a less serious interference with the rights and freedoms of the person concerned.

---

(1)  OJ C 252, 28.6.2021.

---

| 13.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 31 January 2023 — European Commission v Anthony Braesch and Others

(Case C-284/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Articles 107 and 108 TFEU - Restructuring aid - Banking sector - Preliminary examination stage - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market - Restructuring plan - Commitments given by the Member State concerned - Burden-sharing measures - Conversion of subordinated debts into equity - Bondholders - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU - Locus standi - Natural or legal person directly and individually concerned - Breach of the procedural rights of interested parties - Failure to initiate the formal investigation procedure - Article 108(2) TFEU - Concept of ‘parties concerned’ - Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 - Article 1(h) - Concept of ‘interested party’ - National measures taken into account by the European Commission - Inadmissibility of the action)

(2023/C 94/04)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: K. Blanck and A. Bouchagiar, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Anthony Braesch, Trinity Investments DAC, Bybrook Capital Master Fund LP, Bybrook Capital Hazelton Master Fund LP, Bybrook Capital Badminton Fund LP (represented by: A. Champsaur, avocate, and by G. Faella, L. Prosperetti and M. Siragusa, avvocati)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 24 February 2021, Braesch and Others v Commission (T-161/18, EU:T:2021:102); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 24 February 2021, Braesch and Others v Commission (T-161/18, EU:T:2021:102);

| 2. | Dismisses as inadmissible the action brought at first instance by Mr Anthony Braesch, Trinity Investments DAC, Bybrook Capital Master Fund LP, Bybrook Capital Hazelton Master Fund LP and Bybrook Capital Badminton Fund LP seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2017) 4690 final of 4 July 2017 on State Aid SA.47677 (2017/N) — Italy — New aid and amended restructuring plan of Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses as inadmissible the action brought at first instance by Mr Anthony Braesch, Trinity Investments DAC, Bybrook Capital Master Fund LP, Bybrook Capital Hazelton Master Fund LP and Bybrook Capital Badminton Fund LP seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2017) 4690 final of 4 July 2017 on State Aid SA.47677 (2017/N) — Italy — New aid and amended restructuring plan of Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena;

| 3. | Orders Mr Braesch, Trinity Investments DAC, Bybrook Capital Master Fund LP, Bybrook Capital Hazelton Master Fund LP and Bybrook Capital Badminton Fund LP to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in relation to both the proceedings at first instance and those on appeal. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Mr Braesch, Trinity Investments DAC, Bybrook Capital Master Fund LP, Bybrook Capital Hazelton Master Fund LP and Bybrook Capital Badminton Fund LP to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in relation to both the proceedings at first instance and those on appeal.

---

(1)  OJ C 252, 28.6.2021.

---

| 13.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 January 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiliul Naţional de Soluţionare a Contestaţiilor — Romania) — SC NV Construct SRL v Județul Timiș

(Case C-403/21, (1) NV Construct)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 267 TFEU - Definition of ‘court or tribunal of a Member State’ - Criteria - Independence and compulsory nature of the jurisdiction of the national body concerned - Stability of the members of that body - Directive 2014/24/EU - Public procurement procedures - Article 58 - Selection criteria - Possibility of including, amongst those criteria, obligations under special laws applicable to the activities connected with the contract in question and not set out as a criterion for selection in the procurement documents - Article 63(1) - Tenderer relying on the capacities of another entity in order to meet the requirements of the contracting authority - Not possible to require recourse to subcontracting)

(2023/C 94/05)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Consiliul Naţional de Soluţionare a Contestaţiilor

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SC NV Construct SRL

Defendant: Județul Timiș

Intervening parties: SC Proiect — Construct Regiunea Transilvania SRL

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 58 of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC, read in conjunction with the principles of proportionality and of transparency guaranteed by the first subparagraph of Article 18(1) of that directive
  must be interpreted as meaning that the contracting authority has the option of imposing as selection criteria obligations under special laws applicable to the activities that may be required to be carried out in the context of performing the public contract and are not of significant importance |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 58 of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC, read in conjunction with the principles of proportionality and of transparency guaranteed by the first subparagraph of Article 18(1) of that directive

must be interpreted as meaning that the contracting authority has the option of imposing as selection criteria obligations under special laws applicable to the activities that may be required to be carried out in the context of performing the public contract and are not of significant importance

| 2. | The principles of proportionality and of transparency guaranteed by the first subparagraph of Article 18(1) of Directive 2014/24
  must be interpreted as precluding procurement documents from being automatically supplemented with qualification criteria arising under special laws applicable to activities relating to the contract to be awarded which were not set out in the procurement documents and which the contracting authority decided not to impose on the economic operators concerned. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The principles of proportionality and of transparency guaranteed by the first subparagraph of Article 18(1) of Directive 2014/24

must be interpreted as precluding procurement documents from being automatically supplemented with qualification criteria arising under special laws applicable to activities relating to the contract to be awarded which were not set out in the procurement documents and which the contracting authority decided not to impose on the economic operators concerned.

| 3. | Article 63(1) of Directive 2014/24
  must be interpreted as precluding the exclusion of a tenderer from a procurement procedure on the ground that it has not designated the subcontractor to which it intends to entrust the performance of obligations under special laws applicable to the activities related to the contract in question and not provided for in the procurement documents, where that tenderer has stated in its offer that it would perform those obligations by relying on the capacities of another entity without however having a subcontract agreement with that entity. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 63(1) of Directive 2014/24

must be interpreted as precluding the exclusion of a tenderer from a procurement procedure on the ground that it has not designated the subcontractor to which it intends to entrust the performance of obligations under special laws applicable to the activities related to the contract in question and not provided for in the procurement documents, where that tenderer has stated in its offer that it would perform those obligations by relying on the capacities of another entity without however having a subcontract agreement with that entity.

---

(1)  OJ C 401, 4.10.2021.

---

| 13.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 26 January 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Consejo General de Colegios Oficiales de Farmacéuticos de España (CGCOF) v Administracíon General del Estado

(Case C-469/21, (1) CGCOF)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Medicinal products for human use - Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/161 - Repositories system containing information on safety features - Creation of an interface integrated into the national repository and managed by the public authorities - Obligation to use a specific application for certain medicinal products)

(2023/C 94/06)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Consejo General de Colegios Oficiales de Farmacéuticos de España (CGCOF)

Defendant: Administracíon General del Estado

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/161 of 2 October 2015 supplementing Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council by laying down detailed rules for the safety features appearing on the packaging of medicinal products for human use, in particular Articles 25, 31, 32, 35, 36 and 44 thereof,
  must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation providing for the creation of an interface, as a tool for accessing the national repository, that is owned and managed by the public authorities. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/161 of 2 October 2015 supplementing Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council by laying down detailed rules for the safety features appearing on the packaging of medicinal products for human use, in particular Articles 25, 31, 32, 35, 36 and 44 thereof,

must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation providing for the creation of an interface, as a tool for accessing the national repository, that is owned and managed by the public authorities.

| 2. | Delegated Regulation 2016/161, in particular Articles 25, 31, 32, 35, 36 and 44 thereof,
  must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which (i) requires pharmacies to use an interface owned and managed by the public authorities when they supply medicinal products financed by the national health system and (ii) requires the entity managing the national repository to integrate that interface into the national repository. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Delegated Regulation 2016/161, in particular Articles 25, 31, 32, 35, 36 and 44 thereof,

must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which (i) requires pharmacies to use an interface owned and managed by the public authorities when they supply medicinal products financed by the national health system and (ii) requires the entity managing the national repository to integrate that interface into the national repository.

---

(1)  OJ C 24, 17.1.2022.

---

| 13.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 26 January 2023 — European Parliament v Fernando Carbajo Ferrero

(Case C-613/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Procedure for appointment to a post of Director - Vacancy notice and recruitment notice - Rejection of the candidate’s application and appointment of another candidate - Irregularity in the recruitment procedure - Manifest error of assessment - Transparency - Equal treatment)

(2023/C 94/07)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: European Parliament (represented by: C. González Argüelles, R. Schiano and I. Terwinghe, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Fernando Carbajo Ferrero (represented by: L. Levi, avocate)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders the European Parliament to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Fernando Carbajo Ferrero. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Parliament to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Fernando Carbajo Ferrero.

---

(1)  OJ C 37, 24.1.2022.

---

| 13.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 January 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas — Lithuania) — ‘HSC Baltic’ UAB, ‘Mitnija’ UAB, ‘Montuotojas’ UAB v Vilniaus miesto savivaldybės administracija

(Case C-682/21, (1) HSC Baltic and Others)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Directive 2014/24/EU - Article 57(4)(g) - Optional ground for exclusion linked to deficiencies in the context of a prior contract - Contract awarded to a group of economic operators - Early termination of that contract - Automatic inclusion of all members of the group on a list of unreliable suppliers - Principle of proportionality - Directive 89/665/EEC - Article 1(1) and (3) - Right to an effective remedy)

(2023/C 94/08)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants:‘HSC Baltic’ UAB, ‘Mitnija’ UAB, ‘Montuotojas’ UAB

Defendant: Vilniaus miesto savivaldybės administracija

Intervening parties:‘Active Construction Management’ UAB, in liquidation, ‘Vilniaus vystymo kompanija’ UAB

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 18(1) and Article 57(4)(g) of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC
  must be interpreted as precluding national rules or practice under which, when the contracting authority terminates early a public contract awarded to a group of economic operators on account of significant or persistent deficiencies which have resulted in the non-performance of a substantive requirement in relation to that contract, each member of that group is automatically entered on a list of unreliable suppliers and thereby temporarily prevented, in principle, from participating in new public procurement procedures. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 18(1) and Article 57(4)(g) of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC

must be interpreted as precluding national rules or practice under which, when the contracting authority terminates early a public contract awarded to a group of economic operators on account of significant or persistent deficiencies which have resulted in the non-performance of a substantive requirement in relation to that contract, each member of that group is automatically entered on a list of unreliable suppliers and thereby temporarily prevented, in principle, from participating in new public procurement procedures.

| 2. | Article 18(1) and Article 57(4)(g) of Directive 2014/24
  must be interpreted as meaning that an economic operator which is a member of a group which submitted the successful tender for a public contract may, in the event that contract is terminated early for failure to comply with a substantive requirement, rely, for the purpose of demonstrating that its entry on a list of unreliable suppliers is unjustified, on any factor, including any factor concerning third parties, such as the lead partner of that group, which is capable of showing that it was not the cause of the deficiencies which resulted in the early termination of that contract and that it could not reasonably be required to do more than it did in order to remedy those deficiencies. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 18(1) and Article 57(4)(g) of Directive 2014/24

must be interpreted as meaning that an economic operator which is a member of a group which submitted the successful tender for a public contract may, in the event that contract is terminated early for failure to comply with a substantive requirement, rely, for the purpose of demonstrating that its entry on a list of unreliable suppliers is unjustified, on any factor, including any factor concerning third parties, such as the lead partner of that group, which is capable of showing that it was not the cause of the deficiencies which resulted in the early termination of that contract and that it could not reasonably be required to do more than it did in order to remedy those deficiencies.

| 3. | Article 1(1) and (3) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Directive 2014/23/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014,
  must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State which provides, when laying down conditions for the application of the optional ground for exclusion provided for in Article 57(4)(g) of Directive 2014/24, that the members of a group of economic operators which submitted a successful tender for a public contract are, in the event of early termination of that contract for failure to comply with a substantive requirement, entered on a list of unreliable suppliers and accordingly temporarily excluded, in principle, from participating in new public procurement procedures, must ensure the right of those operators to bring an effective action against their entry on that list. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 1(1) and (3) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Directive 2014/23/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014,

must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State which provides, when laying down conditions for the application of the optional ground for exclusion provided for in Article 57(4)(g) of Directive 2014/24, that the members of a group of economic operators which submitted a successful tender for a public contract are, in the event of early termination of that contract for failure to comply with a substantive requirement, entered on a list of unreliable suppliers and accordingly temporarily excluded, in principle, from participating in new public procurement procedures, must ensure the right of those operators to bring an effective action against their entry on that list.

---

(1)  OJ C 84, 21.2.2022.

---

| 13.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/9

---

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 17 January 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Słupsku — Poland) — KL and Others v Skarb Państwa — Sąd Okręgowy w Koszalinie, Sąd Rejonowy w Szczecinku and Others

(Case C-410/22) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Requirement to state the reasons justifying the need for an answer from the Court - Lack of sufficient information - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2023/C 94/09)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Słupsku

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: KL and Others

Defendants: Skarb Państwa — Sąd Okręgowy w Koszalinie, Sąd Rejonowy w Szczecinku and Others

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy Wydział Cywilny w Słupsku (Regional Court, Słupsk, Poland), made by decision of 17 September 2021, is manifestly inadmissible.

---

(1)  Date lodged: 20.6.2022.

---

| 13.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/10

---

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 17 January 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Bydgoszczy — Poland) — D.-F. sp. z o.o. v D.L.

(Case C-476/22) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Requirement to state the reasons justifying the need for an answer from the Court - Lack of sufficient information - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2023/C 94/10)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy w Bydgoszczy

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: D.-F. sp. z o.o.

Defendant: D.L.

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy Wydział Cywilny w Bydgoszczy (District Court (Civil Division), Bydgoszcz, Poland), made by decision of 6 June 2022, is manifestly inadmissible.

---

(1)  Date lodged: 15.7.2022.

---

| 13.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/10

---

Appeal brought on 1 September 2022 by bonnanwalt Vermögens- und Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 16 June 2022 in Case T-83/20 bonnanwalt Vermögens- und Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office

(Case C-580/22 P)

(2023/C 94/11)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: bonnanwalt Vermögens- und Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH (represented by: T. Wendt, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Bayerischer Rundfunk, Hessischer Rundfunk, Mitteldeutscher Rundfunk, Norddeutscher Rundfunk, Rundfunk Berlin-brandenburg, Saarländischer Rundfunk, Südwestrundfunk, Westdeutscher Rundfunk Köln, Radio Bremen

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | allow the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

allow the appeal;

| — | set aside the order under appeal of the General Court of 16. June 2022 in Case T-83/20, and, since the state of the proceedings so permits, in continuation of the action brought at first instance, declare EU trade mark No 10 237 543 to be revoked with effect from 15 November 2017, also in respect of the services ‘Provision of news programmes and reports’; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the order under appeal of the General Court of 16. June 2022 in Case T-83/20, and, since the state of the proceedings so permits, in continuation of the action brought at first instance, declare EU trade mark No 10 237 543 to be revoked with effect from 15 November 2017, also in respect of the services ‘Provision of news programmes and reports’;

| — | order the EU trade-mark proprietors to pay the costs of the proceedings before the European Union Intellectual Property Office, the General Court and the Court of Justice; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the EU trade-mark proprietors to pay the costs of the proceedings before the European Union Intellectual Property Office, the General Court and the Court of Justice;

| — | in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court for further proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court for further proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant relies on two grounds in support of its appeal:

First, the appellant submits that in the order under appeal it is wrongly assumed that the independence of the lawyer representing a party, which is to be examined in the context of the third paragraph of Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, is manifestly impaired where the represented party is a legal person whose managing director is the owner of the law firm with which the lawyer representing that party is employed.

It is wrongly assumed in the order under appeal that the independence of the lawyer representing a party, which is to be examined in the context of the third paragraph of Article 19(3) of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, is also manifestly impaired where the client is indeed a legal person whose managing director is the proprietor of the law firm at which the lawyer is employed, but the subject matter of the dispute relates to an actio popularis the pursuit of which is in the public interest.

The order under appeal fails to take into consideration that the pursuit of an actio popularis constitutes a factor which, in the opinion of the Court of Justice — alone or in conjunction with other factors — is suitable for classifying situations and permits a view to be taken as to whether the independence of the representative is manifestly impaired.

Second, the appellant submits that the order under appeal is based on a failure to comply with the obligation, arising from Article 47(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to give a party who, in the opinion of the General Court or the Court of Justice, is not properly represented by a lawyer for the purpose of Article 51(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court in conjunction with Article 19(3) and (4) of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, notice of that fact before the adoption of a decision dismissing the action or appeal and to afford that party the opportunity to be properly represented.

Appeal allowed to proceed

By order of the Court (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) of 30 January 2023 the appeal was granted in its entirety.

---

| 13.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/11

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Romania) lodged on 8 November 2022 — C SPRL v AJFP Cluj and DGRFP Cluj-Napoca

(Case C-696/22)

(2023/C 94/12)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: C SPRL

Respondents: Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice (AJFP) Cluj and Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice (DGRFP) Cluj-Napoca

Questions referred

| 1. | Do Articles 63, 64 and 66 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax (1) preclude an administrative practice of a tax authority — such as the one in the present case, which imposed additional payment obligations on the taxable person, a professional limited liability company (SPRL) through which administrators of insolvency proceedings may exercise their profession — consisting in defining the chargeable event and the chargeability as being at the time at which the services were provided in the context of insolvency proceedings, where the insolvency administrator’s fee was determined by the insolvency court or the assembly of creditors, with the result that the taxable person is obliged to issue invoices no later than the fifteenth day of the month following the month in which the chargeable event occurred? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do Articles 63, 64 and 66 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax (1) preclude an administrative practice of a tax authority — such as the one in the present case, which imposed additional payment obligations on the taxable person, a professional limited liability company (SPRL) through which administrators of insolvency proceedings may exercise their profession — consisting in defining the chargeable event and the chargeability as being at the time at which the services were provided in the context of insolvency proceedings, where the insolvency administrator’s fee was determined by the insolvency court or the assembly of creditors, with the result that the taxable person is obliged to issue invoices no later than the fifteenth day of the month following the month in which the chargeable event occurred?

| 2. | Do Articles 63, 64 and 66 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax preclude an administrative practice of a tax authority, such as the one in the present case, consisting in imposing additional payment obligations on the taxable person — a professional limited liability company (SPRL) through which administrators of insolvency proceedings may exercise their profession — in so far as that taxable person issued invoices and collected VAT only on the date on which payments were received for services provided in the context of insolvency proceedings, even though the general assembly of creditors established that the payment of the insolvency administrator’s fee is subject to the availability of liquid assets in the debtors’ accounts? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Do Articles 63, 64 and 66 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax preclude an administrative practice of a tax authority, such as the one in the present case, consisting in imposing additional payment obligations on the taxable person — a professional limited liability company (SPRL) through which administrators of insolvency proceedings may exercise their profession — in so far as that taxable person issued invoices and collected VAT only on the date on which payments were received for services provided in the context of insolvency proceedings, even though the general assembly of creditors established that the payment of the insolvency administrator’s fee is subject to the availability of liquid assets in the debtors’ accounts?

| 3. | In the case of a co-branding agreement between a law firm and the taxable person, is it sufficient, for the purpose of granting the right to deduct, that the taxable person, when proving the existence of a direct and immediate link between the purchases made by the upstream taxable person and the downstream transactions, demonstrate, after the agreement, an increase in the turnover/value of the taxable transactions, without further supporting documentation? If so, what are the criteria to be taken into account in order to determine the actual scope of the right to deduct? |
| --- | --- |

3.

In the case of a co-branding agreement between a law firm and the taxable person, is it sufficient, for the purpose of granting the right to deduct, that the taxable person, when proving the existence of a direct and immediate link between the purchases made by the upstream taxable person and the downstream transactions, demonstrate, after the agreement, an increase in the turnover/value of the taxable transactions, without further supporting documentation? If so, what are the criteria to be taken into account in order to determine the actual scope of the right to deduct?

| 4. | Is the general EU-law principle of respect for the rights of the defence to be interpreted as meaning that, where, in the course of a national administrative procedure for ruling on a complaint against a notice of assessment that has established the payment of additional VAT, new factual and legal arguments are accepted as compared with those contained in the tax audit report on the basis of which the notice of assessment was issued, and the taxable person has been granted interim judicial protection measures, pending the decision of the court dealing with the substance of the case, by suspending the debt, the court hearing the action may take the view that there has been no breach of that principle without examining whether the outcome of that procedure might have been different, had it not been for such an irregularity? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is the general EU-law principle of respect for the rights of the defence to be interpreted as meaning that, where, in the course of a national administrative procedure for ruling on a complaint against a notice of assessment that has established the payment of additional VAT, new factual and legal arguments are accepted as compared with those contained in the tax audit report on the basis of which the notice of assessment was issued, and the taxable person has been granted interim judicial protection measures, pending the decision of the court dealing with the substance of the case, by suspending the debt, the court hearing the action may take the view that there has been no breach of that principle without examining whether the outcome of that procedure might have been different, had it not been for such an irregularity?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).

---

| 13.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/12

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Romania) lodged on 15 November 2022 — SC AA SRL v MFE

(Case C-701/22)

(2023/C 94/13)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SC AA SRL

Defendant: MFE

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the principle of sound financial management be interpreted, in conjunction with the principle of equivalence, as precluding a legal person, which operates a profit-making undertaking and is the recipient of non-repayable financing from the ERDF, from obtaining from the public authority of a Member State default interest (penalty interest) in relation to the late payment of eligible expenditure for a period in which an administrative act was in force that excluded reimbursement and which was subsequently annulled by a judicial decision? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must the principle of sound financial management be interpreted, in conjunction with the principle of equivalence, as precluding a legal person, which operates a profit-making undertaking and is the recipient of non-repayable financing from the ERDF, from obtaining from the public authority of a Member State default interest (penalty interest) in relation to the late payment of eligible expenditure for a period in which an administrative act was in force that excluded reimbursement and which was subsequently annulled by a judicial decision?

| 2. | If the answer to the first question is in the negative, is the fault of the recipient of the financing established by that decision relevant to the quantification of the amount of default interest, having regard to the fact that the same public authority responsible for the management of the European funds declared, ultimately, after the adoption of that decision, all the expenditure eligible? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the first question is in the negative, is the fault of the recipient of the financing established by that decision relevant to the quantification of the amount of default interest, having regard to the fact that the same public authority responsible for the management of the European funds declared, ultimately, after the adoption of that decision, all the expenditure eligible?

| 3. | In interpreting the principle of equivalence with regard to the point in time at which default interest is awarded to the recipient of the non-repayable financing from the ERDF, is it relevant that a rule of national law provides that, in the event of a finding of irregularity, the only consequence is that the financial benefit concerned is not granted or, as the case may be, is withdrawn (repayment of the undue amounts), to the extent to which it was granted, without receipt of interest, notwithstanding that the recipient of those amounts has enjoyed the advantage of their use up to the time of repayment, and that it is only where that repayment does not take place within the statutory time limit, that is, 30 days from the notification of the credit instrument, that the provisions of Article 42(1) and (2) of the Ordonanța de urgență a Guvernului nr. 66/2011 (Government Emergency Order No 66/2011) permit the receipt of interest after the expiry of that time limit? |
| --- | --- |

3.

In interpreting the principle of equivalence with regard to the point in time at which default interest is awarded to the recipient of the non-repayable financing from the ERDF, is it relevant that a rule of national law provides that, in the event of a finding of irregularity, the only consequence is that the financial benefit concerned is not granted or, as the case may be, is withdrawn (repayment of the undue amounts), to the extent to which it was granted, without receipt of interest, notwithstanding that the recipient of those amounts has enjoyed the advantage of their use up to the time of repayment, and that it is only where that repayment does not take place within the statutory time limit, that is, 30 days from the notification of the credit instrument, that the provisions of Article 42(1) and (2) of the Ordonanța de urgență a Guvernului nr. 66/2011 (Government Emergency Order No 66/2011) permit the receipt of interest after the expiry of that time limit?

| 4. | Do the provisions of the third paragraph of Article 288 TFEU preclude, in circumstances such as those of the present case, the applicability of Directive 2011/7/EU (1) from being extended by a national rule also to the case of a contract for the grant of non-repayable financing from the ERDF concluded between the public authority responsible for the management of European funds and a legal person operating a profit-making undertaking? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Do the provisions of the third paragraph of Article 288 TFEU preclude, in circumstances such as those of the present case, the applicability of Directive 2011/7/EU (1) from being extended by a national rule also to the case of a contract for the grant of non-repayable financing from the ERDF concluded between the public authority responsible for the management of European funds and a legal person operating a profit-making undertaking?

---

(1)  Directive 2011/7/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on combating late payment in commercial transactions (recast) (OJ 2011 L 48, p. 1).

---

| 13.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/13

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München (Germany) lodged on 24 November 2022 — Citadines Betriebs GmbH v MPLC Deutschland GmbH

(Case C-723/22)

(2023/C 94/14)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Citadines Betriebs GmbH

Respondent: MPLC Deutschland GmbH

Question referred

Must Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 March 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (1) be interpreted as precluding a national provision or practice according to which the provision of physical facilities for enabling or making a communication — such as television sets in hotel rooms or hotel fitness rooms — is regarded as communication to the public when, while the transmission signal, in addition, is retransmitted to the physical facilities via the hotel’s own cable distribution system, that cable retransmission takes place lawfully on the basis of a licence acquired by the hotel?

---

(1)  OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10.

---

| 13.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/13

---

Appeal brought on 24 November 2022 by AO Nevinnomysskiy Azot, AO Novomoskovskaya Aktsionernaya Kompania NAK ‘Azot’ against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 14 September 2022 in Case T-865/19, Nevinnomysskiy Azot and NAK ‘Azot’ v Commission

(Case C-725/22 P)

(2023/C 94/15)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: AO Nevinnomysskiy Azot, AO Novomoskovskaya Aktsionernaya Kompania NAK ‘Azot’ (represented by: P. Vander Schueren, advocate, A. de Moncuit and T. Martin-Brieu, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Fertilizers Europe

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

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

—

set aside the judgment under appeal;

| — | annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1688 of 8 October 2019 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of mixtures of urea and ammonium nitrate originating in Russia, Trinidad and Tobago and the United States of America (1) in part relating to the first, second, third and fourth parts of the first plea as well as to the first and fourth parts of the fourth plea put forward by the appellants in their action before the General Court, given that the state of the proceedings so permits; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1688 of 8 October 2019 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of mixtures of urea and ammonium nitrate originating in Russia, Trinidad and Tobago and the United States of America (1) in part relating to the first, second, third and fourth parts of the first plea as well as to the first and fourth parts of the fourth plea put forward by the appellants in their action before the General Court, given that the state of the proceedings so permits;

| — | in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court for reconsideration; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court for reconsideration;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of the appeal and of the proceedings before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the appeal and of the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the appellants rely on five pleas in law.

First, alleging that the General Court erred in its interpretation of Article 2(9) of the Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (2) (‘the Basic Regulation’).

Second, alleging that the General Court incorrectly declared the alleged infringement of Article 2(3) to (5) of the Basic Regulation by the Commission inadmissible, exceeded power of judicial review, failed to address the appellants’ claim and erred in interpretation of Articles 2(10) and/or 2(10)(k) of the Basic Regulation.

Third, alleging that the General Court committed a legal error in interpretation of Articles 5(1), 5(3), 5(6), 5(9) and 7(2)(a) of the Basic Regulation.

Fourth, alleging that the General Court did not address or distorted the evidence by finding that the complaint demonstrated the existence of dual pricing in Russia.

Fifth, alleging that the General Court distorted the clear meaning of the submitted evidence and violated its duty to state reasons by finding that subsidized natural gas purchases in Trinidad and Tobago do not amount to a dual pricing scheme within the meaning of Article 7(2)(a) of the Basic Regulation and erred in its interpretation.

---

(1)  OJ 2019 L 258, p. 21.

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

---

| 13.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 24 November 2022 — Associazione Nazionale Italiana Bingo — Anib, Play Game Srl v Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli

(Case C-728/22)

(2023/C 94/16)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Associazione Nazionale Italiana Bingo — Anib, Play Game Srl

Defendants: Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli

Questions referred

| 1. | ‘Must Directive 2014/23/EU on the award of concession contracts, (1) as well as the general principles that follow from the Treaty, namely Articles 15, 16, 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 3 of the Treaty on European Union and Articles 8, 49, 56, 12, 145 and 151 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, be interpreted as applying to concessions for the operation of the bingo game which were awarded under a selective tender procedure in 2000, expired and were subsequently repeatedly extended in their effects by legislative provisions which entered into force after the Directive had entered into force and the period for transposition thereof had expired?’ |
| --- | --- |

1.

‘Must Directive 2014/23/EU on the award of concession contracts, (1) as well as the general principles that follow from the Treaty, namely Articles 15, 16, 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 3 of the Treaty on European Union and Articles 8, 49, 56, 12, 145 and 151 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, be interpreted as applying to concessions for the operation of the bingo game which were awarded under a selective tender procedure in 2000, expired and were subsequently repeatedly extended in their effects by legislative provisions which entered into force after the Directive had entered into force and the period for transposition thereof had expired?’

| 2. | ‘If the first question is answered in the affirmative, does Directive 2014/23/EU preclude an interpretation or application of domestic legislative provisions, or implementing practices based on those provisions, that would deprive the administration of the discretion to initiate, at the request of the interested parties, an administrative procedure to amend the conditions for the exercise of the concessions, with or without a new tender procedure, depending on whether or not the renegotiation of the contractual balance qualifies as a substantial change, in cases where unforeseen and unforeseeable events not attributable to the parties occur that have a significant impact on the normal conditions of operating risk, for as long as those conditions persist and for the time required to reinstate, where possible, the concessions’ original operating conditions?’ |
| --- | --- |

2.

‘If the first question is answered in the affirmative, does Directive 2014/23/EU preclude an interpretation or application of domestic legislative provisions, or implementing practices based on those provisions, that would deprive the administration of the discretion to initiate, at the request of the interested parties, an administrative procedure to amend the conditions for the exercise of the concessions, with or without a new tender procedure, depending on whether or not the renegotiation of the contractual balance qualifies as a substantial change, in cases where unforeseen and unforeseeable events not attributable to the parties occur that have a significant impact on the normal conditions of operating risk, for as long as those conditions persist and for the time required to reinstate, where possible, the concessions’ original operating conditions?’

| 3. | ‘Does Directive 89/665/EC, (2) as amended by Directive 2014/23/EU, preclude an interpretation or application of domestic national provisions, or implementing practices based on those provisions, under which the legislature or the public administration may make participation in the procedure for the re-award of gaming concessions conditional on the concessionaire’s membership of the technical extension scheme, including in cases where it is not possible to renegotiate the operating conditions of the concession in order to bring them back into equilibrium as a result of unforeseen and unforeseeable events not attributable to the parties that have a significant impact on the normal conditions of operating risk, for as long as those conditions persist and for the time required to reinstate, where possible, the concessions’ original operating conditions?’ |
| --- | --- |

3.

‘Does Directive 89/665/EC, (2) as amended by Directive 2014/23/EU, preclude an interpretation or application of domestic national provisions, or implementing practices based on those provisions, under which the legislature or the public administration may make participation in the procedure for the re-award of gaming concessions conditional on the concessionaire’s membership of the technical extension scheme, including in cases where it is not possible to renegotiate the operating conditions of the concession in order to bring them back into equilibrium as a result of unforeseen and unforeseeable events not attributable to the parties that have a significant impact on the normal conditions of operating risk, for as long as those conditions persist and for the time required to reinstate, where possible, the concessions’ original operating conditions?’

| 4. | ‘In any event, do Articles 49 and 56 TFEU and the principles of certainty and effectiveness of legal protection, as well as the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, preclude an interpretation or application of domestic legislative provisions, or implementing practices based on those provisions, that would deprive the administration of the discretion to initiate, at the request of the interested parties, an administrative procedure to amend the conditions for the exercise of the concessions, with or without a new tender procedure, depending on whether or not the renegotiation of the contractual balance qualifies as a substantial change, in cases where unforeseen and unforeseeable events not attributable to the parties occur that have a significant impact on the normal conditions of operating risk, for as long as those conditions persist and for the time required to reinstate, where possible, the concessions’ original operating conditions?’ |
| --- | --- |

4.

‘In any event, do Articles 49 and 56 TFEU and the principles of certainty and effectiveness of legal protection, as well as the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, preclude an interpretation or application of domestic legislative provisions, or implementing practices based on those provisions, that would deprive the administration of the discretion to initiate, at the request of the interested parties, an administrative procedure to amend the conditions for the exercise of the concessions, with or without a new tender procedure, depending on whether or not the renegotiation of the contractual balance qualifies as a substantial change, in cases where unforeseen and unforeseeable events not attributable to the parties occur that have a significant impact on the normal conditions of operating risk, for as long as those conditions persist and for the time required to reinstate, where possible, the concessions’ original operating conditions?’

| 5. | ‘Do Articles 49 and 56 TFEU and the principles of certainty and effectiveness of legal protection, as well as the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, preclude an interpretation or application of domestic national provisions, or implementing practices based on those provisions, under which the legislature or the public administration may make participation in the procedure for the re-award of gaming concessions conditional on the concessionaire’s membership of the technical extension scheme, including in cases where it is not possible to renegotiate the operating conditions of the concession in order to bring them back into equilibrium as a result of unforeseen and unforeseeable events not attributable to the parties that have a significant impact on the normal conditions of operating risk, for as long as those conditions persist and for the time required to reinstate, where possible, the concessions’ original operating conditions?’ |
| --- | --- |

5.

‘Do Articles 49 and 56 TFEU and the principles of certainty and effectiveness of legal protection, as well as the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, preclude an interpretation or application of domestic national provisions, or implementing practices based on those provisions, under which the legislature or the public administration may make participation in the procedure for the re-award of gaming concessions conditional on the concessionaire’s membership of the technical extension scheme, including in cases where it is not possible to renegotiate the operating conditions of the concession in order to bring them back into equilibrium as a result of unforeseen and unforeseeable events not attributable to the parties that have a significant impact on the normal conditions of operating risk, for as long as those conditions persist and for the time required to reinstate, where possible, the concessions’ original operating conditions?’

| 6. | ‘More generally, do Articles 49 and 56 TFEU and the principles of certainty and effectiveness of legal protection, as well as the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, preclude national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which imposes upon bingo hall operators the payment of an onerous technical extension fee on a monthly basis that is not provided for in the original concession documents, the amount of which is identical for all types of operator and is amended from time to time by the legislature without any proven relationship to the characteristics or performance of individual concession relationships?’ |
| --- | --- |

6.

‘More generally, do Articles 49 and 56 TFEU and the principles of certainty and effectiveness of legal protection, as well as the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, preclude national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which imposes upon bingo hall operators the payment of an onerous technical extension fee on a monthly basis that is not provided for in the original concession documents, the amount of which is identical for all types of operator and is amended from time to time by the legislature without any proven relationship to the characteristics or performance of individual concession relationships?’

---

(1)  OJ 2014 L 94, p. 1.

(2)  Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33).

---

| 13.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/16

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 24 November 2022 — Associazione Concessionari Bingo — Ascob Srl and Others v Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli

(Case C-729/22)

(2023/C 94/17)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Associazione Concessionari Bingo — Ascob Srl and Others

Defendants: Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli

Questions referred

| 1. | ‘Are Directive 2014/23/EU on the award of concession contracts (1) and the general principles deriving from the Treaty, namely Articles 49 and 56 TFEU, to be interpreted as applying to concessions for the operation of a bingo game which were awarded by means of a selective procedure in 2000, have expired and were then repeatedly extended by legislative provisions which entered into force after the Directive’s entry into force and after the expiry of the period prescribed for its transposition?’ |
| --- | --- |

1.

‘Are Directive 2014/23/EU on the award of concession contracts (1) and the general principles deriving from the Treaty, namely Articles 49 and 56 TFEU, to be interpreted as applying to concessions for the operation of a bingo game which were awarded by means of a selective procedure in 2000, have expired and were then repeatedly extended by legislative provisions which entered into force after the Directive’s entry into force and after the expiry of the period prescribed for its transposition?’

| 2. | ‘If the first question is answered in the affirmative, does Directive 2014/23/EU preclude an interpretation or application of domestic legislative provisions, or implementing practices based on those provisions, that would deprive the administration of the discretion to initiate, at the request of the interested parties, an administrative procedure to amend the conditions for the exercise of the concessions, with or without a new tender procedure, depending on whether or not the renegotiation of the contractual balance qualifies as a substantial change, in cases where unforeseen and unforeseeable events not attributable to the parties occur that have a significant impact on the normal conditions of operating risk, for as long as those conditions persist and for the time required to reinstate, where possible, the concessions’ original operating conditions?’ |
| --- | --- |

2.

‘If the first question is answered in the affirmative, does Directive 2014/23/EU preclude an interpretation or application of domestic legislative provisions, or implementing practices based on those provisions, that would deprive the administration of the discretion to initiate, at the request of the interested parties, an administrative procedure to amend the conditions for the exercise of the concessions, with or without a new tender procedure, depending on whether or not the renegotiation of the contractual balance qualifies as a substantial change, in cases where unforeseen and unforeseeable events not attributable to the parties occur that have a significant impact on the normal conditions of operating risk, for as long as those conditions persist and for the time required to reinstate, where possible, the concessions’ original operating conditions?’

| 3. | ‘Does Directive 89/665/EC, (2) as amended by Directive 2014/23/EU, preclude an interpretation or application of domestic national provisions, or implementing practices based on those provisions, under which the legislature or the public administration may make participation in the procedure for the re-award of gaming concessions conditional on the concessionaire’s membership of the technical extension scheme, including in cases where it is not possible to renegotiate the operating conditions of the concession in order to bring them back into equilibrium as a result of unforeseen and unforeseeable events not attributable to the parties that have a significant impact on the normal conditions of operating risk, for as long as those conditions persist and for the time required to reinstate, where possible, the concessions’ original operating conditions?’ |
| --- | --- |

3.

‘Does Directive 89/665/EC, (2) as amended by Directive 2014/23/EU, preclude an interpretation or application of domestic national provisions, or implementing practices based on those provisions, under which the legislature or the public administration may make participation in the procedure for the re-award of gaming concessions conditional on the concessionaire’s membership of the technical extension scheme, including in cases where it is not possible to renegotiate the operating conditions of the concession in order to bring them back into equilibrium as a result of unforeseen and unforeseeable events not attributable to the parties that have a significant impact on the normal conditions of operating risk, for as long as those conditions persist and for the time required to reinstate, where possible, the concessions’ original operating conditions?’

| 4. | ‘In any event, do Articles 49 and 56 TFEU and the principles of certainty and effectiveness of legal protection, as well as the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, preclude an interpretation or application of domestic legislative provisions, or implementing practices based on those provisions, that would deprive the administration of the discretion to initiate, at the request of the interested parties, an administrative procedure to amend the conditions for the exercise of the concessions, with or without a new tender procedure, depending on whether or not the renegotiation of the contractual balance qualifies as a substantial change, in cases where unforeseen and unforeseeable events not attributable to the parties occur that have a significant impact on the normal conditions of operating risk, for as long as those conditions persist and for the time required to reinstate, where possible, the concessions’ original operating conditions?’ |
| --- | --- |

4.

‘In any event, do Articles 49 and 56 TFEU and the principles of certainty and effectiveness of legal protection, as well as the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, preclude an interpretation or application of domestic legislative provisions, or implementing practices based on those provisions, that would deprive the administration of the discretion to initiate, at the request of the interested parties, an administrative procedure to amend the conditions for the exercise of the concessions, with or without a new tender procedure, depending on whether or not the renegotiation of the contractual balance qualifies as a substantial change, in cases where unforeseen and unforeseeable events not attributable to the parties occur that have a significant impact on the normal conditions of operating risk, for as long as those conditions persist and for the time required to reinstate, where possible, the concessions’ original operating conditions?’

| 5. | ‘Do Articles 49 and 56 TFEU and the principles of certainty and effectiveness of legal protection, as well as the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, preclude an interpretation or application of domestic national provisions, or implementing practices based on those provisions, under which the legislature or the public administration may make participation in the procedure for the re-award of gaming concessions conditional on the concessionaire’s membership of the technical extension scheme, including in cases where it is not possible to renegotiate the operating conditions of the concession in order to bring them back into equilibrium as a result of unforeseen and unforeseeable events not attributable to the parties that have a significant impact on the normal conditions of operating risk, for as long as those conditions persist and for the time required to reinstate, where possible, the concessions’ original operating conditions?’ |
| --- | --- |

5.

‘Do Articles 49 and 56 TFEU and the principles of certainty and effectiveness of legal protection, as well as the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, preclude an interpretation or application of domestic national provisions, or implementing practices based on those provisions, under which the legislature or the public administration may make participation in the procedure for the re-award of gaming concessions conditional on the concessionaire’s membership of the technical extension scheme, including in cases where it is not possible to renegotiate the operating conditions of the concession in order to bring them back into equilibrium as a result of unforeseen and unforeseeable events not attributable to the parties that have a significant impact on the normal conditions of operating risk, for as long as those conditions persist and for the time required to reinstate, where possible, the concessions’ original operating conditions?’

| 6. | ‘More generally, do Articles 49 and 56 TFEU and the principles of certainty and effectiveness of legal protection, as well as the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, preclude national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which imposes upon bingo hall operators the payment of an onerous technical extension fee on a monthly basis that is not provided for in the original concession documents, the amount of which is identical for all types of operator and is amended from time to time by the legislature without any proven relationship to the characteristics or performance of individual concession relationships?’ |
| --- | --- |

6.

‘More generally, do Articles 49 and 56 TFEU and the principles of certainty and effectiveness of legal protection, as well as the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, preclude national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which imposes upon bingo hall operators the payment of an onerous technical extension fee on a monthly basis that is not provided for in the original concession documents, the amount of which is identical for all types of operator and is amended from time to time by the legislature without any proven relationship to the characteristics or performance of individual concession relationships?’

---

(1)  OJ 2014 L 94, p. 1.

(2)  Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33).

---

| 13.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/17

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 24 November 2022 — Coral Srl v Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli

(Case C-730/22)

(2023/C 94/18)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Coral Srl

Defendants: Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli

Question referred

‘Does Directive 2014/23/EU, (1) where it is considered to be applicable and, in any event, the general principles deriving from Articles 26, 49, 56 and 63 TFEU as interpreted and applied by the case-law of the Court of Justice, in particular in the light of the principle of non-discrimination, the principle of proportionality and the protection of competition and the free movement of services and capital, preclude the application of national rules under which the national legislature or the public administration may, during the so-called “technical extension” renewed several times in the last decade in the sector of gaming concessions, unilaterally affect ongoing relations, introducing the obligation to pay fees for the concessions, which were originally not due, and subsequently increasing the fees on several occasions, and always setting them as a fixed amount for all concessionaires irrespective of turnover, as well as imposing further constraints on the activities of concessionaires such as prohibiting the transfer of premises and making participation in the future procedure for the re-award of concessions subject to participation by the operators in the extension?’

---

(1)  Directive 2014/23/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the award of concession contracts (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 1).

---

| 13.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/17

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Austria) lodged on 25 November 2022 — IJ and PO GesbR, IJ v Agrarmarkt Austria

(Case C-731/22)

(2023/C 94/19)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: IJ and PO GesbR, IJ

Defendant Authority: Agrarmarkt Austria

Question referred

Is Article 4(1), (b) and (c), read in conjunction with Article 33(1) of Regulation 1307/2013 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that an area is to be regarded as being managed by, and at the disposal of, the farmer if, although that area is owned by the farmer and the farmer also carries out the initial soil cultivation and crop cultivation, as well as the ongoing irrigation of the crop cultures, the area is divided into parcels of different sizes and handed over — from the beginning of the season in April/early May until the end of the season in October — to various users for maintenance and harvesting in consideration for a fixed fee, but without the farmer being entitled to a direct share in the success of the harvest?

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 637/2008 and Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 608).

---

| 13.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/18

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 29 November 2022 — Republic of Austria v GM

(Case C-734/22)

(2023/C 94/20)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law: Republic of Austria

Respondent to the appeal on a point of law: GM

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 (1) directly applicable to claims by which the Republic of Austria seeks to recover aid it granted under a contract to funding applicants within the framework of an agri-environmental aid programme under Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 (2) by means of private-law remedies because the recipient infringed contractual obligations? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 (1) directly applicable to claims by which the Republic of Austria seeks to recover aid it granted under a contract to funding applicants within the framework of an agri-environmental aid programme under Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 (2) by means of private-law remedies because the recipient infringed contractual obligations?

| 2. | If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, must the third subparagraph of Article 3(1) of the regulation referred to in Question 1 be interpreted as meaning that there is an interruption of the limitation period by the investigation or legal proceedings also when the party who issued the aid, after making its first extrajudicial claim for repayment, asks the recipient of the aid again, if need be several times, to make the repayment, and issues an extrajudicial demand for payment instead of asserting its repayment claim in court? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, must the third subparagraph of Article 3(1) of the regulation referred to in Question 1 be interpreted as meaning that there is an interruption of the limitation period by the investigation or legal proceedings also when the party who issued the aid, after making its first extrajudicial claim for repayment, asks the recipient of the aid again, if need be several times, to make the repayment, and issues an extrajudicial demand for payment instead of asserting its repayment claim in court?

| 3. | If the answer to the first question is in the negative, is the application of a limitation period of 30 years provided for by national civil law in respect of the recovery claims referred to in Question 1 compatible with EU law, in particular with the principle of proportionality? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the answer to the first question is in the negative, is the application of a limitation period of 30 years provided for by national civil law in respect of the recovery claims referred to in Question 1 compatible with EU law, in particular with the principle of proportionality?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests (OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1).

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2005 L 277, p. 1).

---

| 13.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/19

---

Appeal brought on 30 November 2022 by the Portuguese Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 21 September 2022 in Case T-95/21 Portugal v Commission

(Case C-736/22 P)

(2023/C 94/21)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Appellant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: P. Barros da Costa, L. Borrego and A. Soares de Freitas, acting as Agents, and M. Gorjão-Henriques and A. Saavedra, advogados)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court of 21 September 2022 in Case T-95/21 Portugal v Commission, EU:T:2022:567, dismissing the action brought by the Portuguese Republic seeking annulment of Article 1 and Articles 4 to 6 of the European Commission’s Decision of 4 December 2020 on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex2018/NN) implemented by Portugal in favour of the Madeira Free Zone (MFZ) — Regime III; (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of 21 September 2022 in Case T-95/21 Portugal v Commission, EU:T:2022:567, dismissing the action brought by the Portuguese Republic seeking annulment of Article 1 and Articles 4 to 6 of the European Commission’s Decision of 4 December 2020 on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex2018/NN) implemented by Portugal in favour of the Madeira Free Zone (MFZ) — Regime III; (1)

| — | order the European Commission to pay the costs in their entirety, including those incurred by the Portuguese Republic and those relating to the application for interim measures (T-95/21 R). |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs in their entirety, including those incurred by the Portuguese Republic and those relating to the application for interim measures (T-95/21 R).

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

| 1. | Error of law in the application of Article 108(1) TFEU and Article 1(b)(ii), Article 21 and Article 23 of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589, (2)
  in that the aid at issue is existing aid and not new aid







  — | MFZ Regime III comprises a regime of existing aid (and not new aid), authorised by the Commission in its Decisions of 2007 and 2013. The General Court erred in law by relieving the Commission of the requirement of submitting MFZ Regime III to a review of existing aid, to which Article 108(1) TFEU and Articles 21 to 23 of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 refer. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

—

MFZ Regime III comprises a regime of existing aid (and not new aid), authorised by the Commission in its Decisions of 2007 and 2013. The General Court erred in law by relieving the Commission of the requirement of submitting MFZ Regime III to a review of existing aid, to which Article 108(1) TFEU and Articles 21 to 23 of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 refer.

| 2. | Error of law consisting in the misinterpretation of the requirement relating to the origin of the profits to which corporation tax is applied, since the MFZ Regime has been applied in compliance with the Commission’s decisions of 2007 and 2013 and with Articles 107 and 108 TFEU







  — | The requirement that profits be the result of activities effectively and materially performed in Madeira should not be interpreted as meaning that only the additional costs incurred by undertakings registered in the MFZ associated with remoteness are to be taken into consideration, that the tax benefits are to apply solely to profits derived from transactions directly subject to those additional costs, or that activities performed outside Madeira by MFZ licensed undertakings engaged in international activities are to be excluded. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

—

The requirement that profits be the result of activities effectively and materially performed in Madeira should not be interpreted as meaning that only the additional costs incurred by undertakings registered in the MFZ associated with remoteness are to be taken into consideration, that the tax benefits are to apply solely to profits derived from transactions directly subject to those additional costs, or that activities performed outside Madeira by MFZ licensed undertakings engaged in international activities are to be excluded.

| 3. | Error of law consisting in a failure to state reasons or an insufficient or contradictory statement of reasons — Lack of consistency between the OECD’s international legal requirements in tax matters and the interpretation given to the concept of ‘activities effectively and materially [performed] in the region’







  — | The General Court erred by failing to explain the consistency between the OECD’s (and the European Union’s) international legal requirements in tax matters and the interpretation given to the concept of ‘activities effectively and materially [performed] in the region’ in the context of the State aid scheme. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

—

The General Court erred by failing to explain the consistency between the OECD’s (and the European Union’s) international legal requirements in tax matters and the interpretation given to the concept of ‘activities effectively and materially [performed] in the region’ in the context of the State aid scheme.

| 4. | Error of law in the interpretation of the criterion of ‘activities effectively and materially [performed] in the region’ on account of a failure to take into consideration the case-law of the Court of Justice on the centre of main interests, the spillover effect and fundamental freedoms







  — | The General Court erred in law by disregarding the case-law of the Court of Justice on the ‘centre of main interests’ of an undertaking in its interpretation of ‘activities effectively and materially [performed] in the region’. The General Court erred in its interpretation of EU rules, which interpretation conflicts with the fundamental principles of EU law, specifically freedom of establishment and free movement of persons, services and capital, under Article 45 TFEU et seq., and the Commission’s decision-making practice in matters of State aid for outermost regions. |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

—

The General Court erred in law by disregarding the case-law of the Court of Justice on the ‘centre of main interests’ of an undertaking in its interpretation of ‘activities effectively and materially [performed] in the region’. The General Court erred in its interpretation of EU rules, which interpretation conflicts with the fundamental principles of EU law, specifically freedom of establishment and free movement of persons, services and capital, under Article 45 TFEU et seq., and the Commission’s decision-making practice in matters of State aid for outermost regions.

| 5. | Errors of law consisting in the absence or insufficiency of the statement of reasons and/or distortion of evidence and/or substitution of the grounds of the decision — criterion relating to job creation/maintenance







  — | The General Court erred in finding that the Commission did not impose the use of the full-time equivalent (‘FTE’) and annual labour unit (‘ALU’) methods on the Portuguese authorities. The contested decision and the preliminary decision to open the formal investigation procedure directly contradict that interpretation. |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.

—

The General Court erred in finding that the Commission did not impose the use of the full-time equivalent (‘FTE’) and annual labour unit (‘ALU’) methods on the Portuguese authorities. The contested decision and the preliminary decision to open the formal investigation procedure directly contradict that interpretation.

| 6. | In the alternative, error of law consisting in the misinterpretation of the criterion relating to job creation/maintenance and/or contradictory and/or insufficient statement of reasons







  — | For the purposes of assessing the job creation or maintenance criterion under MFZ Regime III, the contested decision errs in law by applying the methodology for defining jobs as ‘FTE’ or ‘ALU’, since the concept of ‘job’ applicable to the MFZ Regime is that under national employment legislation. |
| --- | --- | --- |

6.

—

For the purposes of assessing the job creation or maintenance criterion under MFZ Regime III, the contested decision errs in law by applying the methodology for defining jobs as ‘FTE’ or ‘ALU’, since the concept of ‘job’ applicable to the MFZ Regime is that under national employment legislation.

| 7. | Error of law, in that the national authorities provided the Commission with ‘a method allowing the reality and permanence of the jobs declared to be checked’ for the purposes of Regime III







  — | The judgment under appeal is vitiated by an error of law, in that the General Court found that the Commission merely claimed that the national authorities had failed to adopt a method allowing the reality and permanence of the jobs declared by the beneficiaries of Regime II to be checked, whereas the Commission concluded that there had been a failure to comply with the job creation/maintenance criterion through the uncritical application of the concepts of FTE and ALU. |
| --- | --- | --- |

7.

—

The judgment under appeal is vitiated by an error of law, in that the General Court found that the Commission merely claimed that the national authorities had failed to adopt a method allowing the reality and permanence of the jobs declared by the beneficiaries of Regime II to be checked, whereas the Commission concluded that there had been a failure to comply with the job creation/maintenance criterion through the uncritical application of the concepts of FTE and ALU.

| 8. | Error of law consisting in the reversal of the burden of proof







  — | The General Court reversed the burden of proof, in so far as it was for the Commission to prove that the Portuguese authorities were not in a position to check the reality or the permanence of the jobs declared. It was for the Commission to identify which MFZ licensed undertakings benefitted from the allegedly misused aid. |
| --- | --- | --- |

8.

—

The General Court reversed the burden of proof, in so far as it was for the Commission to prove that the Portuguese authorities were not in a position to check the reality or the permanence of the jobs declared. It was for the Commission to identify which MFZ licensed undertakings benefitted from the allegedly misused aid.

| 9. | The judgment under appeal infringes the rights of the defence of the general principles of European Union law







  — | The judgment under appeal infringes the rights of defence of the Portuguese Republic and the general principles of EU law of legal certainty, legitimate expectations and sound administration. |
| --- | --- | --- |

9.

—

The judgment under appeal infringes the rights of defence of the Portuguese Republic and the general principles of EU law of legal certainty, legitimate expectations and sound administration.

---

(1)  Commission Decision of 4 December 2020 on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex2018/NN) implemented by Portugal for Zona Franca da Madeira (ZFM) — Regime III.

(2)  Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9).

---

| 13.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/20

---

Appeal brought on 9 December 2022 by OG, OH, OI and OJ against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 7 October 2022 in Case T-101/22, OG and Others v Commission

(Case C-754/22 P)

(2023/C 94/22)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellants: OG, OH, OI and OJ (represented by: D. Gómez Fernández, abogado)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court of Justice should:

| — | set aside the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 October 2022, delivered in Case T-101/22, OG and Others v Commission, not published, EU:T:2022:661; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 October 2022, delivered in Case T-101/22, OG and Others v Commission, not published, EU:T:2022:661;

| — | if the Court of Justice considers that the state of the proceedings so permits, take a decision on the substance of the case, uphold the form of order sought at first instance and therefore annul Article 1 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2288 of 21 December 2021 amending the Annex to Regulation (EU) 2021/953 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the acceptance period of vaccination certificates issued in the EU Digital COVID Certificate format indicating the completion of the primary vaccination series (1) and also annul Articles 1 to 3 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/503 of 29 March 2022 amending Regulation (EU) 2021/953 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards exempting minors from the acceptance period of vaccination certificates issued in the EU Digital COVID Certificate format; (2) |
| --- | --- |

—

if the Court of Justice considers that the state of the proceedings so permits, take a decision on the substance of the case, uphold the form of order sought at first instance and therefore annul Article 1 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2288 of 21 December 2021 amending the Annex to Regulation (EU) 2021/953 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the acceptance period of vaccination certificates issued in the EU Digital COVID Certificate format indicating the completion of the primary vaccination series (1) and also annul Articles 1 to 3 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/503 of 29 March 2022 amending Regulation (EU) 2021/953 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards exempting minors from the acceptance period of vaccination certificates issued in the EU Digital COVID Certificate format; (2)

| — | in the alternative, if the Court of Justice considers that the state of the proceedings does not permit it to take a decision on the substance of the case, refer the case back to the General Court for it to rule on the forms of order sought in the actions for annulment at first instance; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, if the Court of Justice considers that the state of the proceedings does not permit it to take a decision on the substance of the case, refer the case back to the General Court for it to rule on the forms of order sought in the actions for annulment at first instance;

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

—

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

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of their appeal, the appellants submit that the order of the General Court of 7 October 2022 in Case T-101/22 misapplies the requirements for standing to bring proceedings under the fourth paragraph of Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, based on the following arguments:

| 1. | The contested Delegated Regulations directly affect the appellants’ legal sphere because it is not the Member States which decided that the vaccination certificates would expire 270 days after the completion of the primary vaccination series. It is the Delegated Regulations approved by the Commission which decided that and which have also caused that automatic loss of validity. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The contested Delegated Regulations directly affect the appellants’ legal sphere because it is not the Member States which decided that the vaccination certificates would expire 270 days after the completion of the primary vaccination series. It is the Delegated Regulations approved by the Commission which decided that and which have also caused that automatic loss of validity.

| 2. | The Delegated Regulations automatically remove the validity of the vaccination certificates without the involvement of a Member State unless the holder of the certificate agrees to have a booster vaccine, which means that it is a measure indirectly imposing a vaccination, thus affecting the appellants’ legal sphere. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Delegated Regulations automatically remove the validity of the vaccination certificates without the involvement of a Member State unless the holder of the certificate agrees to have a booster vaccine, which means that it is a measure indirectly imposing a vaccination, thus affecting the appellants’ legal sphere.

---

(1)  OJ 2021 L 458, p. 459.

(2)  OJ 2022 L 102, p. 8.

---

| 13.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/21

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresní soud Praha-západ (Czech Republic) lodged on 13 December 2022 — Nárokuj s.r.o. v EC Financial Services, a.s.

(Case C-755/22, Nárokuj)

(2023/C 94/23)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Okresní soud Praha-západ

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Nárokuj s.r.o.

Defendant: EC Financial Services, a.s.

Question referred

Is the purpose 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 to penalise credit providers for a failure to fully examine a consumer’s creditworthiness, even in cases when the consumer fully paid up the credit and raised no objections against the agreement while paying?

---

(1)  OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66.

---

| 13.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/22

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Bochum (Germany) lodged on 15 December 2022 — Verband Wirtschaft im Wettbewerb Verein für Lauterkeit in Handel und Industrie e.V. v Roller GmbH & Co. KG

(Case C-761/22)

(2023/C 94/24)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Bochum

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Verband Wirtschaft im Wettbewerb Verein für Lauterkeit in Handel und Industrie e.V.

Defendant: Roller GmbH & Co. KG

Questions referred

| 1. | Does Article 6(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1369 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2017 setting a framework for energy labelling and repealing Directive 2010/30/EU directly impose an obligation on suppliers or dealers of products relevant to energy labelling to indicate the energy efficiency class and the range of energy efficiency classes in their advertising, without specific expression being given to that standard by means of a delegated act? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does Article 6(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1369 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2017 setting a framework for energy labelling and repealing Directive 2010/30/EU directly impose an obligation on suppliers or dealers of products relevant to energy labelling to indicate the energy efficiency class and the range of energy efficiency classes in their advertising, without specific expression being given to that standard by means of a delegated act?

| 2. | (a) | In the event that the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative:
  Does an obligation, already to be assumed directly from Article 6(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1369 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2017 setting a framework for energy labelling and repealing Directive 2010/30/EU, for suppliers or dealers of products relevant to energy labelling to indicate the energy efficiency class and the range of energy efficiency classes in their advertising result in suppliers or dealers being entitled to a certain amount of leeway regarding how that information is presented until the new delegated acts enter into force? |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

(a)

In the event that the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative:

Does an obligation, already to be assumed directly from Article 6(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1369 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2017 setting a framework for energy labelling and repealing Directive 2010/30/EU, for suppliers or dealers of products relevant to energy labelling to indicate the energy efficiency class and the range of energy efficiency classes in their advertising result in suppliers or dealers being entitled to a certain amount of leeway regarding how that information is presented until the new delegated acts enter into force?

| (b) | In the event that the answer to question [2](a) is in the affirmative:
  Which possibility or possibilities of presenting the required information on energy efficiency class and range of energy efficiency classes in compliance with EU law are open to suppliers and dealers until the new delegated acts enter into force? Is the combination of energy efficiency class and colour design chosen by the defendant according to Annex K 1 to the statement of claim sufficient, if applicable? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

In the event that the answer to question [2](a) is in the affirmative:

Which possibility or possibilities of presenting the required information on energy efficiency class and range of energy efficiency classes in compliance with EU law are open to suppliers and dealers until the new delegated acts enter into force? Is the combination of energy efficiency class and colour design chosen by the defendant according to Annex K 1 to the statement of claim sufficient, if applicable?

| 3. | In the event that the answer to question 1 is in the negative:
  Is the obligation for suppliers or dealers of products relevant to energy labelling to indicate the energy efficiency class and the range of energy efficiency classes in their advertising completely suspended until the new delegated acts enter into force? |
| --- | --- |

3.

In the event that the answer to question 1 is in the negative:

Is the obligation for suppliers or dealers of products relevant to energy labelling to indicate the energy efficiency class and the range of energy efficiency classes in their advertising completely suspended until the new delegated acts enter into force?

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) 2017/1369 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2017 setting a framework for energy labelling and repealing Directive 2010/30/EU (OJ 2017 L 198, p. 1).

---

| 13.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/23

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Satversmes tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 12 December 2022 — 1Dream OÜ, DS, DL, VS, JG v Latvijas Republikas Saeima

(Case C-767/22, 1Dream)

(2023/C 94/25)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Satversmes tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants before the Satversmes tiesa: 1Dream OÜ, DS, DL, VS, JG

Respondent: Latvijas Republikas Saeima

Questions referred

| 1. | Does national legislation pursuant to which a national court rules on the confiscation of the proceeds of crime in separate proceedings relating to the illegally obtained assets, which are separated from the main criminal proceedings before it is established that a criminal offence has been committed and before anyone has been found guilty of that offence, and which also provides for confiscation based on materials taken from the criminal case file, fall within the scope of Directive 2014/42, (1) in particular Article 4 thereof, and Framework Decision 2005/212, (2) in particular Article 2 thereof? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does national legislation pursuant to which a national court rules on the confiscation of the proceeds of crime in separate proceedings relating to the illegally obtained assets, which are separated from the main criminal proceedings before it is established that a criminal offence has been committed and before anyone has been found guilty of that offence, and which also provides for confiscation based on materials taken from the criminal case file, fall within the scope of Directive 2014/42, (1) in particular Article 4 thereof, and Framework Decision 2005/212, (2) in particular Article 2 thereof?

| 2. | If the first question is answered in the affirmative, is the legislation on access to materials in the case file in proceedings relating to illegally obtained assets to be considered compatible with the right to a fair trial enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter and in Article 8(1) of Directive 2014/42? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the first question is answered in the affirmative, is the legislation on access to materials in the case file in proceedings relating to illegally obtained assets to be considered compatible with the right to a fair trial enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter and in Article 8(1) of Directive 2014/42?

| 3. | Is the principle of the primacy of European Union law to be interpreted as precluding the constitutional court of a Member State, which is seised of an action for a declaration of unconstitutionality brought against national legislation which has been held to be incompatible with European Union law, from ruling that the principle of legal certainty is applicable and that the legal effects of that legislation are to be maintained in relation to the period during which it was in force? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is the principle of the primacy of European Union law to be interpreted as precluding the constitutional court of a Member State, which is seised of an action for a declaration of unconstitutionality brought against national legislation which has been held to be incompatible with European Union law, from ruling that the principle of legal certainty is applicable and that the legal effects of that legislation are to be maintained in relation to the period during which it was in force?

---

(1)  Directive 2014/42/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the freezing and confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime in the European Union (OJ 2014 L 127, p. 39).

(2)  Council Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA of 24 February 2005 on Confiscation of Crime-Related Proceeds, Instrumentalities and Property (OJ 2005 L 68, p. 49).

---

| 13.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/23

---

Action brought on 16 December 2022 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-768/22)

(2023/C 94/26)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Armati, P. Caro de Sousa, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Portuguese Republic

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:

| — | declare that, by maintaining in force Article 2 of Law No 25/2018 of 14 June 2018, which adds a paragraph 7 to Article 25 of Law 31/2009 of 3 July 2009, the wording of which was given by Law No 40/2015, which provides that ‘The holders of civil engineering qualifications, referred to in Annex VI to Directive 2005/36/EC (1)
  of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, who began their training in the academic years referred to therein, and can demonstrate, under the provisions of Decree No 73/73 of 28 February, their involvement, between 1 November 2009 and 1 November 2017, in an architectural design project granted municipal approval, shall be able to develop designs specifically provided for in the aforementioned decree, under the conditions laid down therein, and in compliance with the statutory rules in force in respect of that activity, but shall remain, however, subject to the obligations laid down in the present Law and, where applicable, to proof of fulfilment thereof before the competent administrative authorities’, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49(1) of Annex VI to Directive 2005/36/EC and Article 59(3) of that directive, as well as Articles 45, 49 and 56 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by maintaining in force Article 2 of Law No 25/2018 of 14 June 2018, which adds a paragraph 7 to Article 25 of Law 31/2009 of 3 July 2009, the wording of which was given by Law No 40/2015, which provides that ‘The holders of civil engineering qualifications, referred to in Annex VI to Directive 2005/36/EC (1)
  of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, who began their training in the academic years referred to therein, and can demonstrate, under the provisions of Decree No 73/73 of 28 February, their involvement, between 1 November 2009 and 1 November 2017, in an architectural design project granted municipal approval, shall be able to develop designs specifically provided for in the aforementioned decree, under the conditions laid down therein, and in compliance with the statutory rules in force in respect of that activity, but shall remain, however, subject to the obligations laid down in the present Law and, where applicable, to proof of fulfilment thereof before the competent administrative authorities’, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49(1) of Annex VI to Directive 2005/36/EC and Article 59(3) of that directive, as well as Articles 45, 49 and 56 TFEU.

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

—

order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Engineers whose qualifications are listed in Annex VI to Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications acquired rights to carry out architectural design projects throughout the European Union (‘acquired rights’). Engineers may only have such acquired rights if they qualified at the latest in the academic year indicated in Annex VI to the directive.

In 2018, the Portuguese Republic passed legislation (Law No 25/2018 of 14 June 2018) which considerably restricted the rights acquired by those engineers, access to the profession of architect and the free movement of persons. In particular, Article 2 of that law:

| (a) | Limits those acquired rights to civil engineers who began their training in the academic years referred to in the directive, with the result that all civil engineers who began their training in earlier academic years are deprived of the possibility of exercising their acquired rights; and |
| --- | --- |

(a)

Limits those acquired rights to civil engineers who began their training in the academic years referred to in the directive, with the result that all civil engineers who began their training in earlier academic years are deprived of the possibility of exercising their acquired rights; and

| (b) | Requires, in a discriminatory manner and without any basis in the directive, that, in order to carry out an architectural design project, a civil engineer must have been involved, between 1 November 2009 and 1 November 2017, in an architectural design project granted municipal approval. That requirement is particularly difficult to satisfy given that, since 2015, local authorities in Portugal have systematically rejected architectural projects submitted by engineers who benefit from acquired rights under Directive 2005/36/EC.
  On 24 January 2019, the Commission issued a letter of formal notice to the Portuguese Republic. Subsequently, a reasoned opinion was sent to the Portuguese Republic on 29 February 2020, to which the Portuguese Republic failed to respond. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Requires, in a discriminatory manner and without any basis in the directive, that, in order to carry out an architectural design project, a civil engineer must have been involved, between 1 November 2009 and 1 November 2017, in an architectural design project granted municipal approval. That requirement is particularly difficult to satisfy given that, since 2015, local authorities in Portugal have systematically rejected architectural projects submitted by engineers who benefit from acquired rights under Directive 2005/36/EC.

On 24 January 2019, the Commission issued a letter of formal notice to the Portuguese Republic. Subsequently, a reasoned opinion was sent to the Portuguese Republic on 29 February 2020, to which the Portuguese Republic failed to respond.

---

(1)  OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22.

---

| 13.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/24

---

Appeal brought on 23 Decemer 2022 by Trebor Robert Bilkiewicz against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 26 October 2022 in Case T-273/21, The Bazooka Companies v EUIPO

(Case C-783/22 P)

(2023/C 94/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Trebor Robert Bilkiewicz (represented by: P. Ratnicki-Kiczka, adwokat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, The Bazooka Companies, Inc.

By order of 2 February 2023, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal was not allowed to proceed and that the Appellant should bear his own costs.

---

| 13.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/25

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 28 December 2022 — R GmbH v Bürgermeister der Landeshauptstadt Innsbruck

(Case C-790/22, Bürgermeister der Landeshauptstadt Innsbruck)

(2023/C 94/28)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law: R GmbH

Respondent authority: Bürgermeister der Landeshauptstadt Innsbruck

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 14(2)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002, (1) read in conjunction with Article 14(5) thereof, be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State or an interpretation of that legislation whereby a food is to be regarded as unfit for human consumption if its usability in accordance with its intended purpose is not guaranteed, without any of the reasons set out in Article 14(5) of Regulation No 178/2002 for food being unacceptable for human consumption (contamination by extraneous matter or otherwise, or putrefaction, deterioration or decay) having to be present?
  If the first question is answered in the negative: |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 14(2)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002, (1) read in conjunction with Article 14(5) thereof, be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State or an interpretation of that legislation whereby a food is to be regarded as unfit for human consumption if its usability in accordance with its intended purpose is not guaranteed, without any of the reasons set out in Article 14(5) of Regulation No 178/2002 for food being unacceptable for human consumption (contamination by extraneous matter or otherwise, or putrefaction, deterioration or decay) having to be present?

If the first question is answered in the negative:

| 2. | Must Article 14(2)(b) of Regulation No 178/2002, read in conjunction with Article 14(5) thereof, be interpreted as meaning that a food must be considered to be unfit for human consumption if, when consumed as intended, it significantly exceeds (fivefold, in the case of an average adult with a body weight of 70 kg) a level regarded by the European Food Safety Authority, in its evaluation of a food additive (contained in the food), as the acceptable daily intake (ADI)? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must Article 14(2)(b) of Regulation No 178/2002, read in conjunction with Article 14(5) thereof, be interpreted as meaning that a food must be considered to be unfit for human consumption if, when consumed as intended, it significantly exceeds (fivefold, in the case of an average adult with a body weight of 70 kg) a level regarded by the European Food Safety Authority, in its evaluation of a food additive (contained in the food), as the acceptable daily intake (ADI)?

---

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

---

| 13.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/25

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 2 January 2023 — X v Agrárminiszter

(Case C-6/23, Baramlay) (1)

(2023/C 94/29)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Kúria

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant and appellant on a point of law: X

Defendant and respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Agrárminiszter

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 50(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 637/2008 and Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 (‘Regulation No 1307/2013’) (2) be interpreted as allowing a Member State to lay down, as an eligibility criterion, the requirement that the beneficiary of the support must work continuously as a farmer, as his or her main activity and as a sole trader, from the date of submission of the application for payment of 90 % of the support until the end of the operating period? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 50(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 637/2008 and Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 (‘Regulation No 1307/2013’) (2) be interpreted as allowing a Member State to lay down, as an eligibility criterion, the requirement that the beneficiary of the support must work continuously as a farmer, as his or her main activity and as a sole trader, from the date of submission of the application for payment of 90 % of the support until the end of the operating period?

| 2. | If the first question is answered in the negative, is that eligibility criterion to be construed as a commitment by the beneficiary? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the first question is answered in the negative, is that eligibility criterion to be construed as a commitment by the beneficiary?

| 3. | If the second question is answered in the affirmative, must Articles 64(1) and 77(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008 (3) be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of non-compliance with the commitment, an administrative penalty may be imposed, the amount of which is to be determined, having regard to the principle of proportionality, on the basis of Articles 64(4)(b) and 77(4)(b) of that regulation, that is to say, that those provisions must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which provides for recovery of the support in full, without account being taken of the period concerned by the non-compliance? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the second question is answered in the affirmative, must Articles 64(1) and 77(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008 (3) be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of non-compliance with the commitment, an administrative penalty may be imposed, the amount of which is to be determined, having regard to the principle of proportionality, on the basis of Articles 64(4)(b) and 77(4)(b) of that regulation, that is to say, that those provisions must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which provides for recovery of the support in full, without account being taken of the period concerned by the non-compliance?

| 4. | Must Articles 64(2)(e) and 77(2)(e) [of Regulation No 1306/2013] be interpreted as meaning that ‘non-compliance ... of a minor nature’ includes a situation in which the beneficiary of the support failed to comply for 176 days, over the 5-year period of the commitment, with the requirement relating to the continued exercise of the activity as his or her main activity, taking into account the fact that, throughout that period, he or she exercised only an agricultural activity, from which his or her income was derived? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Must Articles 64(2)(e) and 77(2)(e) [of Regulation No 1306/2013] be interpreted as meaning that ‘non-compliance ... of a minor nature’ includes a situation in which the beneficiary of the support failed to comply for 176 days, over the 5-year period of the commitment, with the requirement relating to the continued exercise of the activity as his or her main activity, taking into account the fact that, throughout that period, he or she exercised only an agricultural activity, from which his or her income was derived?

---

(1)  The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.

(2)  OJ 2013 L 347, p. 608.

(3)  OJ 2013 L 347, p. 549.

---

| 13.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/26

---

Appeal brought on 18 January 2023 by Ferriera Valsabbia SpA and Valsabbia Investimenti SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 9 November 2022 in Case T-655/19, Ferriera Valsabbia and Valsabbia Investimenti v Commission

(Case C-29/23 P)

(2023/C 94/30)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellants: Ferriera Valsabbia SpA, Valsabbia Investimenti SpA (represented by: D. Fosselard, avocat and avvocato, D. Slater, avocat and Solicitor, and G. Carnazza, avvocata)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court of Justice should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 9 November 2022 in Case T-655/19, Ferriera Valsabbia and Valsabbia Investimenti v Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 9 November 2022 in Case T-655/19, Ferriera Valsabbia and Valsabbia Investimenti v Commission;

| — | give final judgment in the matter, pursuant to Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, and annul Commission Decision C(2019) 4969 final of 4 July 2019 relating to an alleged infringement of Article 65 of the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community issued in Case AT.37956 — Reinforcing bars, in so far as that decision concerns the appellants; |
| --- | --- |

—

give final judgment in the matter, pursuant to Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, and annul Commission Decision C(2019) 4969 final of 4 July 2019 relating to an alleged infringement of Article 65 of the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community issued in Case AT.37956 — Reinforcing bars, in so far as that decision concerns the appellants;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs incurred before the General Court and the Court of Justice, in accordance with Article 138 of the Rules of Procedure. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs incurred before the General Court and the Court of Justice, in accordance with Article 138 of the Rules of Procedure.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellants rely on three grounds:

First ground:
  Infringement of Article 266 TFEU. Infringement of Articles 14 and 27(1) of Regulation No 1/2003 (1) and of Articles 11, 12 and 14 of Regulation No 773/2004. (2) Incorrect and contradictory statement of reasons. Failure to give a ruling. Manifest error in law and manifest error of assessment.

The General Court made a manifest error in law and erred in its statement of reasons in its judgment, at times failing to give a ruling on certain complaints raised by the appellants, in so far as it held that the Commission, by organising a new hearing on the substance of the case, in the presence of representatives of the Member States, in 2018, had rectified a procedural irregularity criticised by the Court of Justice in its judgment of 21 September 2017, Ferriera Valsabbia and Others v Commission, (C-86/15 P and C-87/15 P, EU:C:2017:717).

Second ground:
  Misinterpretation and infringement of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and of Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Manifest error in law and misuse of powers. Failure to give a ruling and infringement of Article 296 TFEU.

The General Court found that the duration of the procedure, both as regards the administrative phase in isolation and the procedure as a whole, was not excessive and that that duration did not infringe the appellants’ rights of defence, and in doing so made an error of law, a manifest error of assessment and, in certain respects, erred in its statement of reasons in the judgment by failing to give a ruling on certain complaints raised by the appellants against the Commission’s decision.

Third ground:
  Infringement of Article 296 TFEU. Error and contradiction in the statement of reasons in the judgment. Failure to give a ruling and a manifest error of assessment.

The General Court made another manifest error in law and a manifest error of assessment and erred in its statement of reasons in its judgment by finding that the statement of reasons in the Commission’s decision was sufficient.

---

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

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty (OJ 2004 L 123, p. 18).

---

| 13.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/27

---

Appeal brought on 18 January 2023 by Alfa Acciai SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 9 November 2022 in Case T-656/19, Alfa Acciai v Commission

(Case C-30/23 P)

(2023/C 94/31)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellants: Alfa Acciai SpA (represented by: D. Fosselard, avocat and avvocato, D. Slater, avocat and Solicitor, and G. Carnazza and S. D’Ecclesiis, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 9 November 2022 in Case T-656/19, Alfa Acciai v Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 9 November 2022 in Case T-656/19, Alfa Acciai v Commission;

| — | give final judgment in the matter, pursuant to Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, and annul Commission Decision C(2019) 4969 final of 4 July 2019 relating to an alleged infringement of Article 65 of the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community issued in Case AT.37956 — Reinforcing bars, in so far as that decision concerns the appellant; |
| --- | --- |

—

give final judgment in the matter, pursuant to Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, and annul Commission Decision C(2019) 4969 final of 4 July 2019 relating to an alleged infringement of Article 65 of the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community issued in Case AT.37956 — Reinforcing bars, in so far as that decision concerns the appellant;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs incurred before the General Court and the Court of Justice, in accordance with Article 138 of the Rules of Procedure. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs incurred before the General Court and the Court of Justice, in accordance with Article 138 of the Rules of Procedure.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on three grounds:

First ground:
  Infringement of Article 266 TFEU. Infringement of Articles 14 and 27(1) of Regulation No 1/2003 (1) and of Articles 11, 12 and 14 of Regulation No 773/2004. (2) Incorrect and contradictory statement of reasons. Failure to give a ruling. Manifest error in law and manifest error of assessment.

The General Court made a manifest error in law and erred in its statement of reasons in its judgment, at times failing to give a ruling on certain complaints raised by the appellant, in so far as it held that the Commission, by organising a new hearing on the substance of the case, in the presence of representatives of the Member States, in 2018, had rectified a procedural irregularity criticised by the Court of Justice in its judgment of 21 September 2017, Ferriera Valsabbia and Others v Commission, (C-86/15 P and C-87/15 P, EU:C:2017:717).

Second ground:
  Misinterpretation and infringement of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and of Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Manifest error in law and misuse of powers. Failure to give a ruling and infringement of Article 296 TFEU.

The General Court found that the duration of the procedure, both as regards the administrative phase in isolation and the procedure as a whole, was not excessive and that that duration did not infringe the appellant’s rights of defence, and in doing so made an error of law, a manifest error of assessment and, in certain respects, erred in its statement of reasons in the judgment by failing to give a ruling on certain complaints raised by the appellant against the Commission’s decision.

Third ground:
  Infringement of Article 296 TFEU. Error and contradiction in the statement of reasons in the judgment. Failure to give a ruling and a manifest error of assessment.

The General Court made another manifest error in law and a manifest error of assessment and erred in its statement of reasons in its judgment by finding that the statement of reasons in the Commission’s decision was sufficient.

---

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

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty (OJ 2004 L 123, p. 18).

---

| 13.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/28

---

Appeal brought on 19 January 2023 by Ferriere Nord SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 9 November 2022 in Case T-667/19 Ferriere Nord v Commission

(Case C-31/23 P)

(2023/C 94/32)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Ferriere Nord SpA (represented by: W. Viscardini, G. Donà and B. Comparini, avvocati)

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

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

| — | principally, set aside the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 9 November 2022, delivered in Case T-667/19, to the extent that it rejected Ferriere Nord’s principal application to annul the European Commission decision of 4 July 2019 C(2019) 4969 final; |
| --- | --- |

—

principally, set aside the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 9 November 2022, delivered in Case T-667/19, to the extent that it rejected Ferriere Nord’s principal application to annul the European Commission decision of 4 July 2019 C(2019) 4969 final;

| — | consequently, annul that Commission decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

consequently, annul that Commission decision;

| — | in the alternative, set aside the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 9 November 2022, delivered in Case T-667/19, to the extent that it rejected Ferriere Nord’s application in the alternative to annul the European Commission decision of 4 July 2019 C(2019) 4969 final in part and, as a result, reduce the amount of the fine imposed; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, set aside the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 9 November 2022, delivered in Case T-667/19, to the extent that it rejected Ferriere Nord’s application in the alternative to annul the European Commission decision of 4 July 2019 C(2019) 4969 final in part and, as a result, reduce the amount of the fine imposed;

| — | consequently, annul in part that Commission decision and, as a result, reduce the amount of the fine imposed; |
| --- | --- |

—

consequently, annul in part that Commission decision and, as a result, reduce the amount of the fine imposed;

| — | in any event, order the Commission to pay the costs incurred before the General Court and the Court of Justice. |
| --- | --- |

—

in any event, order the Commission to pay the costs incurred before the General Court and the Court of Justice.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

| (A) | Grounds seeking the setting aside of the judgment of the General Court as a whole in so far as it rejected the pleas of Ferriere Nord seeking the annulment of the Commission Decision of 4 July 2019 as a whole







  I | Infringement of the rights of the defence and of the applicable provisions of law (Article 266 TFEU, Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘ECHR’), Article 14 and 27 of Regulation No 1/2003, (1) Articles 11, 12, 13 and 14 of Regulation No 773/2004) (2) with regard to the hearing of 23 April 2018 and the opinion of the Advisory Committee. Failure to observe the principle of the presumption of innocence. No examination of the evidence and, in any event, no statement of reasons in that regard. Manifest distortion, as shown by the documents in the file, of the facts and evidence. Failure to state reasons. Arbitrary assessments. |
| --- | --- | --- |

(A)

Grounds seeking the setting aside of the judgment of the General Court as a whole in so far as it rejected the pleas of Ferriere Nord seeking the annulment of the Commission Decision of 4 July 2019 as a whole

I

Infringement of the rights of the defence and of the applicable provisions of law (Article 266 TFEU, Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘ECHR’), Article 14 and 27 of Regulation No 1/2003, (1) Articles 11, 12, 13 and 14 of Regulation No 773/2004) (2) with regard to the hearing of 23 April 2018 and the opinion of the Advisory Committee. Failure to observe the principle of the presumption of innocence. No examination of the evidence and, in any event, no statement of reasons in that regard. Manifest distortion, as shown by the documents in the file, of the facts and evidence. Failure to state reasons. Arbitrary assessments.

| II | Failure to observe the principle that a procedure must be concluded within a reasonable time. Infringement of the rights of the defence (Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter, Article 6 ECHR). Manifest distortion, as shown by the documents in the file, of the facts and evidence. Failure to state reasons. |
| --- | --- |

II

Failure to observe the principle that a procedure must be concluded within a reasonable time. Infringement of the rights of the defence (Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter, Article 6 ECHR). Manifest distortion, as shown by the documents in the file, of the facts and evidence. Failure to state reasons.

| III | Failure to state reasons for or error in the statement of reasons for reopening the procedure and adopting the penalty decision (Articles 7 and 23 of Regulation No 1/2003). Misuse of power. Failure to observe the principle of proportionality. Infringement of Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter and Article 6 ECHR. Failure to state reasons. Impermissible addition of grounds. Failure to assess facts and evidence. Reversal of the burden of proof. |
| --- | --- |

III

Failure to state reasons for or error in the statement of reasons for reopening the procedure and adopting the penalty decision (Articles 7 and 23 of Regulation No 1/2003). Misuse of power. Failure to observe the principle of proportionality. Infringement of Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter and Article 6 ECHR. Failure to state reasons. Impermissible addition of grounds. Failure to assess facts and evidence. Reversal of the burden of proof.

| IV | Failure to observe the non bis in idem principle (Article 50 of the Charter). |
| --- | --- |

IV

Failure to observe the non bis in idem principle (Article 50 of the Charter).

| V | Plea of illegality in respect of Article 25 of Regulation No 1/2003 raised under Article 277 TFEU (Article 41 and 47 of the Charter, Article 6 ECHR, Article 5 TEU). Loss of the power to make findings and to impose sanctions (Articles 7 and 23 of Regulation No 1/2003). |
| --- | --- |

V

Plea of illegality in respect of Article 25 of Regulation No 1/2003 raised under Article 277 TFEU (Article 41 and 47 of the Charter, Article 6 ECHR, Article 5 TEU). Loss of the power to make findings and to impose sanctions (Articles 7 and 23 of Regulation No 1/2003).

| (B) | Grounds seeking the setting aside in part of the judgment of the General Court in so far as it rejected the pleas of Ferriere Nord seeking the annulment in part of the Commission Decision of 4 July 2019 and, consequently, a reduction in the amount of the fine imposed.







  VI | Unlawfulness of the increase in the fine on account of further infringements of the rights of the defence (Articles 41, 47 and 48 of the Charter, Article 6 ECHR, Article 27 of Regulation No 1/2003, Article 11 of Regulation No 773/2004). Failure to examine evidence and, in any event, failure to state reasons in that regard. Manifest distortion, as shown by the documents in the file, of the facts and evidence. Failure to state reasons. |
| --- | --- | --- |

(B)

Grounds seeking the setting aside in part of the judgment of the General Court in so far as it rejected the pleas of Ferriere Nord seeking the annulment in part of the Commission Decision of 4 July 2019 and, consequently, a reduction in the amount of the fine imposed.

VI

Unlawfulness of the increase in the fine on account of further infringements of the rights of the defence (Articles 41, 47 and 48 of the Charter, Article 6 ECHR, Article 27 of Regulation No 1/2003, Article 11 of Regulation No 773/2004). Failure to examine evidence and, in any event, failure to state reasons in that regard. Manifest distortion, as shown by the documents in the file, of the facts and evidence. Failure to state reasons.

| VII | Unlawfulness of the increase in the fine on account of further wrongful conduct for other reasons. Failure to observe the principle of proportionality. Excessive amount. Failure to state reasons. |
| --- | --- |

VII

Unlawfulness of the increase in the fine on account of further wrongful conduct for other reasons. Failure to observe the principle of proportionality. Excessive amount. Failure to state reasons.

| VIII | Infringement of the principle of equal treatment in the reduction of the amount of the fine on account of mitigating circumstances. Late statement of reasons. |
| --- | --- |

VIII

Infringement of the principle of equal treatment in the reduction of the amount of the fine on account of mitigating circumstances. Late statement of reasons.

---

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

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty (OJ 2004 L 123, p. 18).

---

| 13.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/30

---

Action brought on 31 January 2023 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-47/23)

(2023/C 94/33)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: C. Hermes and M. Noll-Ehlers, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court should:

| — | find that the Federal Republic of Germany infringed its obligations under Article 6(2) and the second subparagraph of Article 4(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC (1) in relation to habitat types 6510 (Lowland hay meadows) and 6520 (Mountain hay meadows) protected by the Natura 2000 network in so far as it |
| --- | --- |

—

find that the Federal Republic of Germany infringed its obligations under Article 6(2) and the second subparagraph of Article 4(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC (1) in relation to habitat types 6510 (Lowland hay meadows) and 6520 (Mountain hay meadows) protected by the Natura 2000 network in so far as it

| — | generally and structurally failed to take appropriate measures to avoid the deterioration of habitat types 6510 and 6520 in the designated sites, and it |
| --- | --- |

—

generally and structurally failed to take appropriate measures to avoid the deterioration of habitat types 6510 and 6520 in the designated sites, and it

| — | generally and structurally failed to send updated data to the Commission for habitat types 6510 and 6520 in the designated sites; |
| --- | --- |

—

generally and structurally failed to send updated data to the Commission for habitat types 6510 and 6520 in the designated sites;

| — | order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its action, the Commission claims that the Federal Republic of Germany has systematically infringed its obligation under Article 6(2) of Directive 92/43/EEC to protect Natura 2000 sites against deterioration of the natural habitats included therein, in particular in respect of two important habitat types of Community interest, namely Lowland hay meadows (LRT 6510) and Mountain hay meadows (LRT 6520).

That systematic infringement of the prohibition of deterioration follows, first, from data sent by Germany itself, showing that between 2006 and 2020 in more than a quarter of the Natura 2000 sites designated by Germany for the protection of those habitat types, approximately half the area of those habitats had been lost.

Secondly, the German authorities systematically failed to undertake regular surveillance of the conservation status of both habitat types inside the designated areas of conservation.

Thirdly, the German authorities systematically failed to regulate the main pressures for both habitat types, early mowing and overfertilisation, by means of legally binding protective measures.

In addition, Germany systematically infringed its obligation under the second subparagraph of Article 4(1) of Directive 92/43 to transmit regularly updated data for both habitat types.

---

(1)  Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7).

---

General Court

| 13.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2023 — GEA Group v Commission

(Case T-640/16 RENV) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European markets for tin-based heat stabilisers and for heat stabilisers with epoxidised soybean oil and esters as their base - Application of the ceiling of 10 % of turnover to one of the entities forming the undertaking - Annulment of the decision amending the fine imposed in the initial infringement decision - Admissibility - Interest in bringing proceedings - Fines - Limitation period - Concept of an ‘undertaking’ - Joint and several liability for payment of the fine - Rights of the defence - Right to a hearing - Equal treatment - Date by which the fine is payable in the event of amendment - Statement of reasons)

(2023/C 94/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: GEA Group AG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: I. du Mont and C. Wagner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Rossi, V. Bottka and T. Baumé, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2016) 3920 final of 29 June 2016 amending Decision C(2009) 8682 final of 11 November 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article [101 TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (AT.38589 — Heat stabilisers).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders GEA Group AG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in the proceedings T-640/16, T-640/16 RENV and C-823/18 P. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders GEA Group AG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in the proceedings T-640/16, T-640/16 RENV and C-823/18 P.

---

(1)  OJ C 392, 24.10.2016.

---

| 13.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2023 — De Capitani v Council

(Case T-163/21) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents concerning an ongoing legislative procedure - Council working groups - Documents concerning a legislative proposal to amend Directive 2013/34/EU on the annual financial statements, consolidated financial statements and related reports of certain types of undertakings - Partial refusal to grant access - Action for annulment - Interest in bringing proceedings - Admissibility - First subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001 - Exception relating to the protection of the decision-making process)

(2023/C 94/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Emilio De Capitani (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: O. Brouwer, lawyer, and S. Gallagher, Solicitor)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J. Bauerschmidt and K. Pavlaki, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: C. Pochet, L. Van den Broeck and M. Jacobs, acting as Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M. Bulterman, M.H.S. Gijzen and J. Langer, acting as Agents), Republic of Finland (represented by: M. Pere, acting as Agent), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: C. Meyer-Seitz and R. Shahsavan Eriksson, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of Decision SGS 21/000067 of the Council of the European Union of 14 January 2021, by which the Council refused him access to certain documents, coded ‘WK’, exchanged within the Council working groups in the context of legislative procedure 2016/0107 (COD), concerning the amendment of Directive 2013/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on the annual financial statements, consolidated financial statements and related reports of certain types of undertakings, amending Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC (OJ 2013 L 182, p. 19).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Decision SGS 21/000067 of the Council of the European Union of 14 January 2021; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Decision SGS 21/000067 of the Council of the European Union of 14 January 2021;

| 2. | Orders the Council to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Emilio De Capitani; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Council to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Emilio De Capitani;

| 3. | Orders the Kingdom of Belgium, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Kingdom of Belgium, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 206, 31.5.2021.

---

| 13.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 18 January 2023 — Neratax v EUIPO — Intrum Hellas and Others (ELLO ERMOL, Ello creamy, ELLO, MORFAT Creamy and MORFAT)

(Case T-528/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word marks ELLO and MORFAT and EU figurative marks ELLO ERMOL, Ello creamy and MORFAT Creamy - Absolute ground for invalidity - Bad faith - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2023/C 94/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Neratax LTD (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: V. Katsavos, lawyer)

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

Other party, intervener before the General Court: Intrum Hellas AE Daicheirisis Apaitiseon Apo Daneia kai Pistoseis, formerly Piraeus Bank SA (Athens, Greece) (represented by: P.-A. Koriatopoulou, lawyer)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Eurobank Ergasias SA (Athens), National Bank of Greece SA (Athens)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decisions of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 23 June 2021 (Cases R 1295/2020-4, R 1296/2020-4, R 1298/2020-4, R 1299/2020-4 and R 1302/2020-4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Neratax LTD to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and Intrum Hellas AE Daicheirisis Apaitiseon Apo Daneia kai Pistoseis. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Neratax LTD to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and Intrum Hellas AE Daicheirisis Apaitiseon Apo Daneia kai Pistoseis.

---

(1)  OJ C 462, 15.11.2021.

---

| 13.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2023 — Società Navigazione Siciliana v Commission

(Case T-666/21) (1)

(State aid - Maritime transport - Exemption in part from registration duties payable for the transfer of business between undertakings - Decision declaring the aid to be illegal and incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Advantage - Recipient of the aid - Service of general economic interest - Obligation to state reasons - Non-contractual liability - Excessive length of the procedure)

(2023/C 94/37)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Società Navigazione Siciliana SCpA (Trapani, Italy) (represented by: R. Nazzini, F. Ruggeri Laderchi, C. Labruna and L. Calini, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Braga da Cruz, C.-M. Carrega and D. Recchia, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action, the applicant seeks, first, under Article 263 TFEU, the annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2021) 4268 final of 17 June 2021 on the measures SA.32014, SA.32015, SA.32016 (2011/C) (ex 2011/NN) implemented by Italy for Siremar and its acquirer Società Navigazione Siciliana, in so far as the Commission declared incompatible certain tax exemptions provided for by Law No 163 of 1 October 2010 converting Decree-Law No 125 of 5 August 2010 and ordered their recovery, and, secondly, under Article 268 TFEU, compensation for damage that the applicant claims to have suffered from the excessive and unreasonable length of the formal investigation procedure.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Società Navigazione Siciliana SCpA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Società Navigazione Siciliana SCpA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 2, 3.1.2022.

---

| 13.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/35

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2023 — Zielonogórski Klub Żużlowy Sportowa v EUIPO — Falubaz Polska (FALUBAZ)

(Case T-703/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark FALUBAZ - Absolute ground for invalidity - Bad faith - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2023/C 94/38)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Zielonogórski Klub Żużlowy Sportowa S.A. (Zielona Góra, Poland) (represented by: T. Grucelski, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Falubaz Polska S.A. spółka komandytowo-akcyjna (Zielona Góra) (represented by: J. Kurzawski, lawyer)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 24 August 2021 (Case R 1681/2020-1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Zielonogórski Klub Żużlowy Sportowa S.A. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Zielonogórski Klub Żużlowy Sportowa S.A. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 11, 10.1.2022.

---

| 13.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/35

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2023 — NS v Parliament

(Case T-805/21) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Reassignment - Interests of the service - Correspondence between the grade and the post - Loss of an allowance - Right to be heard - Obligation to state reasons - Misuse of powers and abuse of procedure)

(2023/C 94/39)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: NS (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: I. Lázaro Betancor, L. Darie and K. Zejdová, acting as Agents)

Re:

By her action based on Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks, first, annulment of the decision of the European Parliament of 21 January 2021 by which she was reassigned to [confidential information redacted] and, in so far as necessary, of the decisions of 16 September 2021 rejecting her complaint and of 8 March 2021 on the recovery of the overpayment; second, the applicant seeks compensation for the damage she is alleged to have suffered as a result of those decisions.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

Orders NS to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 73, 14.2.2022.

---

| 13.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/36

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2023 — Scania CV v EUIPO (V8)

(Case T-320/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark V8 - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - No distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2023/C 94/40)

Language of the case: Swedish

Parties

Applicant: Scania CV (Södertälje, Sweden) (represented by: C. Langenius, P. Sundin and S. Falkner, lawyers)

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

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment and alteration of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 23 March 2022 (Case R 1868/2020-4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 284, 25.7.2022.

---

| 13.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/36

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2023 — De Dietrich Process Systems v EUIPO — Koch-Glitsch (SCHEIBEL)

(Case T-351/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark SCHEIBEL - Absolute ground for invalidity - Article 7(1)(c) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) and Article 59(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2023/C 94/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

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

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

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 1 April 2022 (Case R 1107/2021-1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 1 April 2022 (Case R 1107/2021-1); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 1 April 2022 (Case R 1107/2021-1);

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

2.

Orders EUIPO to bear the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 294, 1.8.2022.

---

| 13.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/37

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2023 — De Dietrich Process Systems v EUIPO — Koch-Glitsch (KARR)

(Case T-352/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark KARR - Absolute ground for invalidity - Article 7(1)(c) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) and Article 59(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2023/C 94/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

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

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

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 1 April 2022 (Case R 1105/2021-1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 1 April 2022 (Case R 1105/2021-1); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 1 April 2022 (Case R 1105/2021-1);

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

2.

Orders EUIPO to bear the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 294, 1.8.2022.

---

| 13.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/37

---

Action brought on 31 October 2022 — Flynn v ECB

(Case T-675/22)

(2023/C 94/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: James T. Flynn (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: E. Dornan, Barrister-at-Law, and K. Winters, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | issue an order granting annulment of the decision of the European Central Bank dated 1st September 2022 (hereafter the ‘Contested Decision’) refusing full disclosure of the correspondences and exchange of documents between the European Central Bank and the Central Bank of Ireland in respect of Decision 2013/211/EU of the European Central Bank (1) as requested by the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

issue an order granting annulment of the decision of the European Central Bank dated 1st September 2022 (hereafter the ‘Contested Decision’) refusing full disclosure of the correspondences and exchange of documents between the European Central Bank and the Central Bank of Ireland in respect of Decision 2013/211/EU of the European Central Bank (1) as requested by the applicant;

| — | issue an order providing for the payment of the applicant’s legal costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

issue an order providing for the payment of the applicant’s legal costs.

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, alleging that the Contested Decision is in breach of Article 4(1)(a), fourth indent, of Decision 2004/258/EC of the European Central Bank (2). The respondent erred in refusing the applicant access to the information requested on the ground that disclosure of the documents, in whole or in part, would undermine the public interest in protecting the integrity of euro banknotes. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision is in breach of Article 4(1)(a), fourth indent, of Decision 2004/258/EC of the European Central Bank (2). The respondent erred in refusing the applicant access to the information requested on the ground that disclosure of the documents, in whole or in part, would undermine the public interest in protecting the integrity of euro banknotes.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision is in breach of Article 4(l)(c) of Decision 2004/258. The respondent erred in refusing the applicant access to the documents requested, in whole or in part, on the ground that the exchange of views between the ECB and National Central Banks is confidential information protected by Community law. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision is in breach of Article 4(l)(c) of Decision 2004/258. The respondent erred in refusing the applicant access to the documents requested, in whole or in part, on the ground that the exchange of views between the ECB and National Central Banks is confidential information protected by Community law.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision is in breach of Article 4 of Decision 2004/258/EC. The respondent erred in finding no overriding public interest in disclosure, where the applicant has sought the documents in aid of judicial proceedings, and where refusal to disclose prevents or impedes the exercise of the right to information under Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council. (3) |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision is in breach of Article 4 of Decision 2004/258/EC. The respondent erred in finding no overriding public interest in disclosure, where the applicant has sought the documents in aid of judicial proceedings, and where refusal to disclose prevents or impedes the exercise of the right to information under Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council. (3)

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision fails to provide adequate reasons for the refusal of access to the documents requested. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision fails to provide adequate reasons for the refusal of access to the documents requested.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision in in breach of the right to good administration, and the right to an effective remedy, under Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union respectively. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision in in breach of the right to good administration, and the right to an effective remedy, under Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union respectively.

---

(1)  Decision 2013/211/EU of the European Central Bank of 19 April 2013 on the denominations, specifications, reproduction, exchange and withdrawal of euro banknotes (recast) (ECB/2013/10) (OJ 2013 L 118, p. 37).

(2)  Decision 2004/258/EC of the European Central Bank of 4 March 2004 on public access to European Central Bank documents (ECB/2004/3) (OJ 2004 L 80, p. 42).

(3)  Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings (OJ L 142, 1.6.2012, p. 1).

---

| 13.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/38

---

Action brought on 23 December 2022 — Gemelli v Parliament

(Case T-804/22)

(2023/C 94/44)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Vitaliano Gemelli (Rome, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the Communication adopted by the Head of the Members’ Salaries and Social Entitlements Unit, Directorate for Members’ Financial and Social Entitlements, Directorate-General for Finance of the European Parliament, concerning the recalculation of retirement pension rights notified by registered letter (Ref No. D311148), received on 13 October 2022, by which the European Parliament recalculated the applicant’s retirement pension rights and ordered the recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the previous pension calculation; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the Communication adopted by the Head of the Members’ Salaries and Social Entitlements Unit, Directorate for Members’ Financial and Social Entitlements, Directorate-General for Finance of the European Parliament, concerning the recalculation of retirement pension rights notified by registered letter (Ref No. D311148), received on 13 October 2022, by which the European Parliament recalculated the applicant’s retirement pension rights and ordered the recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the previous pension calculation;

| — | order the European Parliament to repay all the sums unduly withheld plus statutory interest from the date of retention until payment and order the European Parliament to comply with the judgment to be given and to undertake all necessary steps, acts or measures to ensure that the initial amount of the pension is restored immediately and in full; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to repay all the sums unduly withheld plus statutory interest from the date of retention until payment and order the European Parliament to comply with the judgment to be given and to undertake all necessary steps, acts or measures to ensure that the initial amount of the pension is restored immediately and in full;

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

—

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging lack of competence of the author of the act adversely affecting a member of staff, infringement of essential procedural requirements on the ground that the statement of reasons was inadequate and consequent infringement of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging lack of competence of the author of the act adversely affecting a member of staff, infringement of essential procedural requirements on the ground that the statement of reasons was inadequate and consequent infringement of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging lack of a legal basis and misapplication of Article 75 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging lack of a legal basis and misapplication of Article 75 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a manifest infringement of the principle of legal certainty, of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and acquired rights and the consequent breach of Article 1 of Additional Protocol No 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a manifest infringement of the principle of legal certainty, of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and acquired rights and the consequent breach of Article 1 of Additional Protocol No 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights.

---

| 13.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/39

---

Action brought on 23 December 2022 — Graziani v Parliament

(Case T-805/22)

(2023/C 94/45)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Carlo Alberto Graziani (Fiesole, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the Communication adopted by the Head of the Members’ Salaries and Social Entitlements Unit, Directorate for Members’ Financial and Social Entitlements, Directorate-General for Finance of the European Parliament, concerning the recalculation of retirement pension rights notified by registered letter (Ref No. D311142), received on 13 October 2022, by which the European Parliament recalculated the applicant’s retirement pension rights and ordered the recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the previous pension calculation; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the Communication adopted by the Head of the Members’ Salaries and Social Entitlements Unit, Directorate for Members’ Financial and Social Entitlements, Directorate-General for Finance of the European Parliament, concerning the recalculation of retirement pension rights notified by registered letter (Ref No. D311142), received on 13 October 2022, by which the European Parliament recalculated the applicant’s retirement pension rights and ordered the recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the previous pension calculation;

| — | order the European Parliament to repay all the sums unduly withheld plus statutory interest from the date of retention until payment and order the European Parliament to comply with the judgment to be given and to undertake all necessary steps, acts or measures to ensure that the initial amount of the pension is restored immediately and in full; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to repay all the sums unduly withheld plus statutory interest from the date of retention until payment and order the European Parliament to comply with the judgment to be given and to undertake all necessary steps, acts or measures to ensure that the initial amount of the pension is restored immediately and in full;

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

—

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging lack of competence of the author of the act adversely affecting a member of staff, infringement of essential procedural requirements on the ground that the statement of reasons was inadequate and consequent infringement of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging lack of competence of the author of the act adversely affecting a member of staff, infringement of essential procedural requirements on the ground that the statement of reasons was inadequate and consequent infringement of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging lack of a legal basis and misapplication of Article 75 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging lack of a legal basis and misapplication of Article 75 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a manifest infringement of the principle of legal certainty, of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and acquired rights and the consequent breach of Article 1 of Additional Protocol No 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a manifest infringement of the principle of legal certainty, of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and acquired rights and the consequent breach of Article 1 of Additional Protocol No 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights.

---

| 13.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/40

---

Action brought on 23 December 2022 — Iacono v Parliament

(Case T-806/22)

(2023/C 94/46)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Francesco Iacono (Forio, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the Communication adopted by the Head of the Members’ Salaries and Social Entitlements Unit, Directorate for Members’ Financial and Social Entitlements, Directorate-General for Finance of the European Parliament, concerning the recalculation of retirement pension rights notified by registered letter (Ref No. D311133), received on 13 October 2022, by which the European Parliament recalculated the applicant’s retirement pension rights and ordered the recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the previous pension calculation; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the Communication adopted by the Head of the Members’ Salaries and Social Entitlements Unit, Directorate for Members’ Financial and Social Entitlements, Directorate-General for Finance of the European Parliament, concerning the recalculation of retirement pension rights notified by registered letter (Ref No. D311133), received on 13 October 2022, by which the European Parliament recalculated the applicant’s retirement pension rights and ordered the recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the previous pension calculation;

| — | order the European Parliament to repay all the sums unduly withheld plus statutory interest from the date of retention until payment and order the European Parliament to comply with the judgment to be given and to undertake all necessary steps, acts or measures to ensure that the initial amount of the pension is restored immediately and in full; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to repay all the sums unduly withheld plus statutory interest from the date of retention until payment and order the European Parliament to comply with the judgment to be given and to undertake all necessary steps, acts or measures to ensure that the initial amount of the pension is restored immediately and in full;

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

—

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging lack of competence of the author of the act adversely affecting a member of staff, infringement of essential procedural requirements on the ground that the statement of reasons was inadequate and consequent infringement of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging lack of competence of the author of the act adversely affecting a member of staff, infringement of essential procedural requirements on the ground that the statement of reasons was inadequate and consequent infringement of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging lack of a legal basis and misapplication of Article 75 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging lack of a legal basis and misapplication of Article 75 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a manifest infringement of the principle of legal certainty, of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and acquired rights and the consequent breach of Article 1 of Additional Protocol No 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a manifest infringement of the principle of legal certainty, of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and acquired rights and the consequent breach of Article 1 of Additional Protocol No 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights.

---

| 13.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/41

---

Action brought on 23 December 2022 — Lombardo v Parliament

(Case T-807/22)

(2023/C 94/47)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Raffaele Lombardo (Catania, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the Communication adopted by the Head of the Members’ Salaries and Social Entitlements Unit, Directorate for Members’ Financial and Social Entitlements, Directorate-General for Finance of the European Parliament, concerning the recalculation of retirement pension rights notified by registered letter (Ref No. D311153), received on 13 October 2022, by which the European Parliament recalculated the applicant’s retirement pension rights and ordered the recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the previous pension calculation; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the Communication adopted by the Head of the Members’ Salaries and Social Entitlements Unit, Directorate for Members’ Financial and Social Entitlements, Directorate-General for Finance of the European Parliament, concerning the recalculation of retirement pension rights notified by registered letter (Ref No. D311153), received on 13 October 2022, by which the European Parliament recalculated the applicant’s retirement pension rights and ordered the recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the previous pension calculation;

| — | order the European Parliament to repay all the sums unduly withheld plus statutory interest from the date of retention until payment and order the European Parliament to comply with the judgment to be given and to undertake all necessary steps, acts or measures to ensure that the initial amount of the pension is restored immediately and in full; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to repay all the sums unduly withheld plus statutory interest from the date of retention until payment and order the European Parliament to comply with the judgment to be given and to undertake all necessary steps, acts or measures to ensure that the initial amount of the pension is restored immediately and in full;

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

—

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging lack of competence of the author of the act adversely affecting a member of staff, infringement of essential procedural requirements on the ground that the statement of reasons was inadequate and consequent infringement of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging lack of competence of the author of the act adversely affecting a member of staff, infringement of essential procedural requirements on the ground that the statement of reasons was inadequate and consequent infringement of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging lack of a legal basis and misapplication of Article 75 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging lack of a legal basis and misapplication of Article 75 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a manifest infringement of the principle of legal certainty, of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and acquired rights and the consequent breach of Article 1 of Additional Protocol No 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a manifest infringement of the principle of legal certainty, of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and acquired rights and the consequent breach of Article 1 of Additional Protocol No 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights.

---

| 13.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/41

---

Action brought on 23 December 2022 — Mantovani v Parliament

(Case T-808/22)

(2023/C 94/48)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Mario Mantovani (Arconate, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the Communication adopted by the Head of the Members’ Salaries and Social Entitlements Unit, Directorate for Members’ Financial and Social Entitlements, Directorate-General for Finance of the European Parliament, concerning the recalculation of retirement pension rights notified by registered letter (Ref No. D311144), received on 13 October 2022, by which the European Parliament recalculated the applicant’s retirement pension rights and ordered the recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the previous pension calculation; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the Communication adopted by the Head of the Members’ Salaries and Social Entitlements Unit, Directorate for Members’ Financial and Social Entitlements, Directorate-General for Finance of the European Parliament, concerning the recalculation of retirement pension rights notified by registered letter (Ref No. D311144), received on 13 October 2022, by which the European Parliament recalculated the applicant’s retirement pension rights and ordered the recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the previous pension calculation;

| — | order the European Parliament to repay all the sums unduly withheld plus statutory interest from the date of retention until payment and order the European Parliament to comply with the judgment to be given and to undertake all necessary steps, acts or measures to ensure that the initial amount of the pension is restored immediately and in full; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to repay all the sums unduly withheld plus statutory interest from the date of retention until payment and order the European Parliament to comply with the judgment to be given and to undertake all necessary steps, acts or measures to ensure that the initial amount of the pension is restored immediately and in full;

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

—

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging lack of competence of the author of the act adversely affecting a member of staff, infringement of essential procedural requirements on the ground that the statement of reasons was inadequate and consequent infringement of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging lack of competence of the author of the act adversely affecting a member of staff, infringement of essential procedural requirements on the ground that the statement of reasons was inadequate and consequent infringement of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging lack of a legal basis and misapplication of Article 75 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging lack of a legal basis and misapplication of Article 75 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a manifest infringement of the principle of legal certainty, of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and acquired rights and the consequent breach of Article 1 of Additional Protocol No 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a manifest infringement of the principle of legal certainty, of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and acquired rights and the consequent breach of Article 1 of Additional Protocol No 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights.

---

| 13.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/42

---

Action brought on 23 December 2022 — Napoletano v Parliament

(Case T-809/22)

(2023/C 94/49)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Pasqualina Napoletano (Anzio, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the Communication adopted by the Head of the Members’ Salaries and Social Entitlements Unit, Directorate for Members’ Financial and Social Entitlements, Directorate-General for Finance of the European Parliament, concerning the recalculation of retirement pension rights notified by registered letter (Ref No. D311128), received on 13 October 2022, by which the European Parliament recalculated the applicant’s retirement pension rights and ordered the recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the previous pension calculation; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the Communication adopted by the Head of the Members’ Salaries and Social Entitlements Unit, Directorate for Members’ Financial and Social Entitlements, Directorate-General for Finance of the European Parliament, concerning the recalculation of retirement pension rights notified by registered letter (Ref No. D311128), received on 13 October 2022, by which the European Parliament recalculated the applicant’s retirement pension rights and ordered the recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the previous pension calculation;

| — | order the European Parliament to repay all the sums unduly withheld plus statutory interest from the date of retention until payment and order the European Parliament to comply with the judgment to be given and to undertake all necessary steps, acts or measures to ensure that the initial amount of the pension is restored immediately and in full; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to repay all the sums unduly withheld plus statutory interest from the date of retention until payment and order the European Parliament to comply with the judgment to be given and to undertake all necessary steps, acts or measures to ensure that the initial amount of the pension is restored immediately and in full;

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

—

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging lack of competence of the author of the act adversely affecting a member of staff, infringement of essential procedural requirements on the ground that the statement of reasons was inadequate and consequent infringement of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging lack of competence of the author of the act adversely affecting a member of staff, infringement of essential procedural requirements on the ground that the statement of reasons was inadequate and consequent infringement of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging lack of a legal basis and misapplication of Article 75 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging lack of a legal basis and misapplication of Article 75 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a manifest infringement of the principle of legal certainty, of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and acquired rights and the consequent breach of Article 1 of Additional Protocol No 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a manifest infringement of the principle of legal certainty, of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and acquired rights and the consequent breach of Article 1 of Additional Protocol No 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights.

---

| 13.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/43

---

Action brought on 23 December 2022 — Nobilia v Parliament

(Case T-810/22)

(2023/C 94/50)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Mauro Nobilia (Rome, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the Communication adopted by the Head of the Members’ Salaries and Social Entitlements Unit, Directorate for Members’ Financial and Social Entitlements, Directorate-General for Finance of the European Parliament, concerning the recalculation of retirement pension rights notified by registered letter (Ref No. D311156), received on 13 October 2022, by which the European Parliament recalculated the applicant’s retirement pension rights and ordered the recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the previous pension calculation; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the Communication adopted by the Head of the Members’ Salaries and Social Entitlements Unit, Directorate for Members’ Financial and Social Entitlements, Directorate-General for Finance of the European Parliament, concerning the recalculation of retirement pension rights notified by registered letter (Ref No. D311156), received on 13 October 2022, by which the European Parliament recalculated the applicant’s retirement pension rights and ordered the recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the previous pension calculation;

| — | order the European Parliament to repay all the sums unduly withheld plus statutory interest from the date of retention until payment and order the European Parliament to comply with the judgment to be given and to undertake all necessary steps, acts or measures to ensure that the initial amount of the pension is restored immediately and in full; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to repay all the sums unduly withheld plus statutory interest from the date of retention until payment and order the European Parliament to comply with the judgment to be given and to undertake all necessary steps, acts or measures to ensure that the initial amount of the pension is restored immediately and in full;

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

—

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging lack of competence of the author of the act adversely affecting a member of staff, infringement of essential procedural requirements on the ground that the statement of reasons was inadequate and consequent infringement of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging lack of competence of the author of the act adversely affecting a member of staff, infringement of essential procedural requirements on the ground that the statement of reasons was inadequate and consequent infringement of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging lack of a legal basis and misapplication of Article 75 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging lack of a legal basis and misapplication of Article 75 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a manifest infringement of the principle of legal certainty, of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and acquired rights and the consequent breach of Article 1 of Additional Protocol No 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a manifest infringement of the principle of legal certainty, of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and acquired rights and the consequent breach of Article 1 of Additional Protocol No 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights.

---

| 13.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/44

---

Action brought on 23 December 2022 — Pettinari v Parliament

(Case T-811/22)

(2023/C 94/51)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Luciano Pettinari (Rome, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the Communication adopted by the Head of the Members’ Salaries and Social Entitlements Unit, Directorate for Members’ Financial and Social Entitlements, Directorate-General for Finance of the European Parliament, concerning the recalculation of retirement pension rights notified by registered letter (Ref No. D311127), received on 13 October 2022, by which the European Parliament recalculated the applicant’s retirement pension rights and ordered the recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the previous pension calculation; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the Communication adopted by the Head of the Members’ Salaries and Social Entitlements Unit, Directorate for Members’ Financial and Social Entitlements, Directorate-General for Finance of the European Parliament, concerning the recalculation of retirement pension rights notified by registered letter (Ref No. D311127), received on 13 October 2022, by which the European Parliament recalculated the applicant’s retirement pension rights and ordered the recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the previous pension calculation;

| — | order the European Parliament to repay all the sums unduly withheld plus statutory interest from the date of retention until payment and order the European Parliament to comply with the judgment to be given and to undertake all necessary steps, acts or measures to ensure that the initial amount of the pension is restored immediately and in full; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to repay all the sums unduly withheld plus statutory interest from the date of retention until payment and order the European Parliament to comply with the judgment to be given and to undertake all necessary steps, acts or measures to ensure that the initial amount of the pension is restored immediately and in full;

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

—

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging lack of competence of the author of the act adversely affecting a member of staff, infringement of essential procedural requirements on the ground that the statement of reasons was inadequate and consequent infringement of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging lack of competence of the author of the act adversely affecting a member of staff, infringement of essential procedural requirements on the ground that the statement of reasons was inadequate and consequent infringement of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging lack of a legal basis and misapplication of Article 75 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging lack of a legal basis and misapplication of Article 75 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a manifest infringement of the principle of legal certainty, of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and acquired rights and the consequent breach of Article 1 of Additional Protocol No 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a manifest infringement of the principle of legal certainty, of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and acquired rights and the consequent breach of Article 1 of Additional Protocol No 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights.

---

| 13.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/44

---

Action brought on 23 December 2022 — Viola v Parliament

(Case T-812/22)

(2023/C 94/52)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Vincenzo Viola (Palermo, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the Communication adopted by the Head of the Members’ Salaries and Social Entitlements Unit, Directorate for Members’ Financial and Social Entitlements, Directorate-General for Finance of the European Parliament, concerning the recalculation of retirement pension rights notified by registered letter (Ref No. D311141), received on 13 October 2022, by which the European Parliament recalculated the applicant’s retirement pension rights and ordered the recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the previous pension calculation; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the Communication adopted by the Head of the Members’ Salaries and Social Entitlements Unit, Directorate for Members’ Financial and Social Entitlements, Directorate-General for Finance of the European Parliament, concerning the recalculation of retirement pension rights notified by registered letter (Ref No. D311141), received on 13 October 2022, by which the European Parliament recalculated the applicant’s retirement pension rights and ordered the recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the previous pension calculation;

| — | order the European Parliament to repay all the sums unduly withheld plus statutory interest from the date of retention until payment and order the European Parliament to comply with the judgment to be given and to undertake all necessary steps, acts or measures to ensure that the initial amount of the pension is restored immediately and in full; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to repay all the sums unduly withheld plus statutory interest from the date of retention until payment and order the European Parliament to comply with the judgment to be given and to undertake all necessary steps, acts or measures to ensure that the initial amount of the pension is restored immediately and in full;

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

—

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging lack of competence of the author of the act adversely affecting a member of staff, infringement of essential procedural requirements on the ground that the statement of reasons was inadequate and consequent infringement of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging lack of competence of the author of the act adversely affecting a member of staff, infringement of essential procedural requirements on the ground that the statement of reasons was inadequate and consequent infringement of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging lack of a legal basis and misapplication of Article 75 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging lack of a legal basis and misapplication of Article 75 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a manifest infringement of the principle of legal certainty, of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and acquired rights and the consequent breach of Article 1 of Additional Protocol No 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a manifest infringement of the principle of legal certainty, of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and acquired rights and the consequent breach of Article 1 of Additional Protocol No 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights.

---

| 13.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/45

---

Action brought on 23 December 2022 — Sbarbati v Parliament

(Case T-813/22)

(2023/C 94/53)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Luciana Sbarbati (Chiaravalle, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the Communication adopted by the Head of the Members’ Salaries and Social Entitlements Unit, Directorate for Members’ Financial and Social Entitlements, Directorate-General for Finance of the European Parliament, concerning the recalculation of retirement pension rights notified by registered letter (Ref No. D311146), received on 13 October 2022, by which the European Parliament recalculated the applicant’s retirement pension rights and ordered the recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the previous pension calculation; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the Communication adopted by the Head of the Members’ Salaries and Social Entitlements Unit, Directorate for Members’ Financial and Social Entitlements, Directorate-General for Finance of the European Parliament, concerning the recalculation of retirement pension rights notified by registered letter (Ref No. D311146), received on 13 October 2022, by which the European Parliament recalculated the applicant’s retirement pension rights and ordered the recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the previous pension calculation;

| — | order the European Parliament to repay all the sums unduly withheld plus statutory interest from the date of retention until payment and order the European Parliament to comply with the judgment to be given and to undertake all necessary steps, acts or measures to ensure that the initial amount of the pension is restored immediately and in full; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to repay all the sums unduly withheld plus statutory interest from the date of retention until payment and order the European Parliament to comply with the judgment to be given and to undertake all necessary steps, acts or measures to ensure that the initial amount of the pension is restored immediately and in full;

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

—

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging lack of competence of the author of the act adversely affecting a member of staff, infringement of essential procedural requirements on the ground that the statement of reasons was inadequate and consequent infringement of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging lack of competence of the author of the act adversely affecting a member of staff, infringement of essential procedural requirements on the ground that the statement of reasons was inadequate and consequent infringement of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging lack of a legal basis and misapplication of Article 75 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging lack of a legal basis and misapplication of Article 75 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a manifest infringement of the principle of legal certainty, of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and acquired rights and the consequent breach of Article 1 of Additional Protocol No 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a manifest infringement of the principle of legal certainty, of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and acquired rights and the consequent breach of Article 1 of Additional Protocol No 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights.

---

| 13.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/46

---

Action brought on 23 December 2022 — Ventre v Parliament

(Case T-814/22)

(2023/C 94/54)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Riccardo Ventre (Formicola, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the Communication adopted by the Head of the Members’ Salaries and Social Entitlements Unit, Directorate for Members’ Financial and Social Entitlements, Directorate-General for Finance of the European Parliament, concerning the recalculation of retirement pension rights notified by registered letter (Ref No. D311164), received on 13 October 2022, by which the European Parliament recalculated the applicant’s retirement pension rights and ordered the recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the previous pension calculation; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the Communication adopted by the Head of the Members’ Salaries and Social Entitlements Unit, Directorate for Members’ Financial and Social Entitlements, Directorate-General for Finance of the European Parliament, concerning the recalculation of retirement pension rights notified by registered letter (Ref No. D311164), received on 13 October 2022, by which the European Parliament recalculated the applicant’s retirement pension rights and ordered the recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the previous pension calculation;

| — | order the European Parliament to repay all the sums unduly withheld plus statutory interest from the date of retention until payment and order the European Parliament to comply with the judgment to be given and to undertake all necessary steps, acts or measures to ensure that the initial amount of the pension is restored immediately and in full; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to repay all the sums unduly withheld plus statutory interest from the date of retention until payment and order the European Parliament to comply with the judgment to be given and to undertake all necessary steps, acts or measures to ensure that the initial amount of the pension is restored immediately and in full;

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

—

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging lack of competence of the author of the act adversely affecting a member of staff, infringement of essential procedural requirements on the ground that the statement of reasons was inadequate and consequent infringement of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging lack of competence of the author of the act adversely affecting a member of staff, infringement of essential procedural requirements on the ground that the statement of reasons was inadequate and consequent infringement of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging lack of a legal basis and misapplication of Article 75 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging lack of a legal basis and misapplication of Article 75 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a manifest infringement of the principle of legal certainty, of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and acquired rights and the consequent breach of Article 1 of Additional Protocol No 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a manifest infringement of the principle of legal certainty, of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and acquired rights and the consequent breach of Article 1 of Additional Protocol No 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights.

---

| 13.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/47

---

Action brought on 23 December 2022 — Aita v Parliament

(Case T-815/22)

(2023/C 94/55)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Vincenzo Aita (Campagna, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the Communication adopted by the Head of the Members’ Salaries and Social Entitlements Unit, Directorate for Members’ Financial and Social Entitlements, Directorate-General for Finance of the European Parliament, concerning the recalculation of retirement pension rights notified by registered letter (Ref No. D311174), received on 13 October 2022, by which the European Parliament recalculated the applicant’s retirement pension rights and ordered the recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the previous pension calculation; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the Communication adopted by the Head of the Members’ Salaries and Social Entitlements Unit, Directorate for Members’ Financial and Social Entitlements, Directorate-General for Finance of the European Parliament, concerning the recalculation of retirement pension rights notified by registered letter (Ref No. D311174), received on 13 October 2022, by which the European Parliament recalculated the applicant’s retirement pension rights and ordered the recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the previous pension calculation;

| — | order the European Parliament to repay all the sums unduly withheld plus statutory interest from the date of retention until payment and order the European Parliament to comply with the judgment to be given and to undertake all necessary steps, acts or measures to ensure that the initial amount of the pension is restored immediately and in full; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to repay all the sums unduly withheld plus statutory interest from the date of retention until payment and order the European Parliament to comply with the judgment to be given and to undertake all necessary steps, acts or measures to ensure that the initial amount of the pension is restored immediately and in full;

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

—

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging lack of competence of the author of the act adversely affecting a member of staff, infringement of essential procedural requirements on the ground that the statement of reasons was inadequate and consequent infringement of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging lack of competence of the author of the act adversely affecting a member of staff, infringement of essential procedural requirements on the ground that the statement of reasons was inadequate and consequent infringement of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging lack of a legal basis and misapplication of Article 75 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging lack of a legal basis and misapplication of Article 75 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a manifest infringement of the principle of legal certainty, of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and acquired rights and the consequent breach of Article 1 of Additional Protocol No 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a manifest infringement of the principle of legal certainty, of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and acquired rights and the consequent breach of Article 1 of Additional Protocol No 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights.

---

| 13.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/47

---

Action brought on 23 December 2022 — Arroni v Parliament

(Case T-816/22)

(2023/C 94/56)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Aldo Arroni (Milan, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the Communication adopted by the Head of the Members’ Salaries and Social Entitlements Unit, Directorate for Members’ Financial and Social Entitlements, Directorate-General for Finance of the European Parliament, concerning the recalculation of retirement pension rights notified by registered letter (Ref No. D311154), received on 13 October 2022, by which the European Parliament recalculated the applicant’s retirement pension rights and ordered the recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the previous pension calculation; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the Communication adopted by the Head of the Members’ Salaries and Social Entitlements Unit, Directorate for Members’ Financial and Social Entitlements, Directorate-General for Finance of the European Parliament, concerning the recalculation of retirement pension rights notified by registered letter (Ref No. D311154), received on 13 October 2022, by which the European Parliament recalculated the applicant’s retirement pension rights and ordered the recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the previous pension calculation;

| — | order the European Parliament to repay all the sums unduly withheld plus statutory interest from the date of retention until payment and order the European Parliament to comply with the judgment to be given and to undertake all necessary steps, acts or measures to ensure that the initial amount of the pension is restored immediately and in full; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to repay all the sums unduly withheld plus statutory interest from the date of retention until payment and order the European Parliament to comply with the judgment to be given and to undertake all necessary steps, acts or measures to ensure that the initial amount of the pension is restored immediately and in full;

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

—

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging lack of competence of the author of the act adversely affecting a member of staff, infringement of essential procedural requirements on the ground that the statement of reasons was inadequate and consequent infringement of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging lack of competence of the author of the act adversely affecting a member of staff, infringement of essential procedural requirements on the ground that the statement of reasons was inadequate and consequent infringement of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging lack of a legal basis and misapplication of Article 75 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging lack of a legal basis and misapplication of Article 75 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a manifest infringement of the principle of legal certainty, of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and acquired rights and the consequent breach of Article 1 of Additional Protocol No 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a manifest infringement of the principle of legal certainty, of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and acquired rights and the consequent breach of Article 1 of Additional Protocol No 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights.

---

| 13.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/48

---

Action brought on 23 December 2022 — Bonsignore v Parliament

(Case T-817/22)

(2023/C 94/57)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Vito Bonsignore (Turin, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the Communication adopted by the Head of the Members’ Salaries and Social Entitlements Unit, Directorate for Members’ Financial and Social Entitlements, Directorate-General for Finance of the European Parliament, concerning the recalculation of retirement pension rights notified by registered letter (Ref No. D311170), received on 13 October 2022, by which the European Parliament recalculated the applicant’s retirement pension rights and ordered the recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the previous pension calculation; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the Communication adopted by the Head of the Members’ Salaries and Social Entitlements Unit, Directorate for Members’ Financial and Social Entitlements, Directorate-General for Finance of the European Parliament, concerning the recalculation of retirement pension rights notified by registered letter (Ref No. D311170), received on 13 October 2022, by which the European Parliament recalculated the applicant’s retirement pension rights and ordered the recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the previous pension calculation;

| — | order the European Parliament to repay all the sums unduly withheld plus statutory interest from the date of retention until payment and order the European Parliament to comply with the judgment to be given and to undertake all necessary steps, acts or measures to ensure that the initial amount of the pension is restored immediately and in full; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to repay all the sums unduly withheld plus statutory interest from the date of retention until payment and order the European Parliament to comply with the judgment to be given and to undertake all necessary steps, acts or measures to ensure that the initial amount of the pension is restored immediately and in full;

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

—

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging lack of competence of the author of the act adversely affecting a member of staff, infringement of essential procedural requirements on the ground that the statement of reasons was inadequate and consequent infringement of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging lack of competence of the author of the act adversely affecting a member of staff, infringement of essential procedural requirements on the ground that the statement of reasons was inadequate and consequent infringement of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging lack of a legal basis and misapplication of Article 75 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging lack of a legal basis and misapplication of Article 75 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a manifest infringement of the principle of legal certainty, of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and acquired rights and the consequent breach of Article 1 of Additional Protocol No 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a manifest infringement of the principle of legal certainty, of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and acquired rights and the consequent breach of Article 1 of Additional Protocol No 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights.

---

| 13.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/49

---

Action brought on 23 December 2022 — Carollo v Parliament

(Case T-818/22)

(2023/C 94/58)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Giorgio Carollo (Torri di Quartesolo, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the Communication adopted by the Head of the Members’ Salaries and Social Entitlements Unit, Directorate for Members’ Financial and Social Entitlements, Directorate-General for Finance of the European Parliament, concerning the recalculation of retirement pension rights notified by registered letter (Ref No. D311159), received on 13 October 2022, by which the European Parliament recalculated the applicant’s retirement pension rights and ordered the recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the previous pension calculation; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the Communication adopted by the Head of the Members’ Salaries and Social Entitlements Unit, Directorate for Members’ Financial and Social Entitlements, Directorate-General for Finance of the European Parliament, concerning the recalculation of retirement pension rights notified by registered letter (Ref No. D311159), received on 13 October 2022, by which the European Parliament recalculated the applicant’s retirement pension rights and ordered the recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the previous pension calculation;

| — | order the European Parliament to repay all the sums unduly withheld plus statutory interest from the date of retention until payment and order the European Parliament to comply with the judgment to be given and to undertake all necessary steps, acts or measures to ensure that the initial amount of the pension is restored immediately and in full; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to repay all the sums unduly withheld plus statutory interest from the date of retention until payment and order the European Parliament to comply with the judgment to be given and to undertake all necessary steps, acts or measures to ensure that the initial amount of the pension is restored immediately and in full;

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

—

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging lack of competence of the author of the act adversely affecting a member of staff, infringement of essential procedural requirements on the ground that the statement of reasons was inadequate and consequent infringement of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging lack of competence of the author of the act adversely affecting a member of staff, infringement of essential procedural requirements on the ground that the statement of reasons was inadequate and consequent infringement of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging lack of a legal basis and misapplication of Article 75 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging lack of a legal basis and misapplication of Article 75 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a manifest infringement of the principle of legal certainty, of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and acquired rights and the consequent breach of Article 1 of Additional Protocol No 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a manifest infringement of the principle of legal certainty, of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and acquired rights and the consequent breach of Article 1 of Additional Protocol No 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights.

---

| 13.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/50

---

Action brought on 23 December 2022 — Catasta v Parliament

(Case T-819/22)

(2023/C 94/59)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Anna Catasta (Milan, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the Communication adopted by the Head of the Members’ Salaries and Social Entitlements Unit, Directorate for Members’ Financial and Social Entitlements, Directorate-General for Finance of the European Parliament, concerning the recalculation of retirement pension rights notified by registered letter (Ref No. D311125), received on 13 October 2022, by which the European Parliament recalculated the applicant’s retirement pension rights and ordered the recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the previous pension calculation; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the Communication adopted by the Head of the Members’ Salaries and Social Entitlements Unit, Directorate for Members’ Financial and Social Entitlements, Directorate-General for Finance of the European Parliament, concerning the recalculation of retirement pension rights notified by registered letter (Ref No. D311125), received on 13 October 2022, by which the European Parliament recalculated the applicant’s retirement pension rights and ordered the recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the previous pension calculation;

| — | order the European Parliament to repay all the sums unduly withheld plus statutory interest from the date of retention until payment and order the European Parliament to comply with the judgment to be given and to undertake all necessary steps, acts or measures to ensure that the initial amount of the pension is restored immediately and in full; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to repay all the sums unduly withheld plus statutory interest from the date of retention until payment and order the European Parliament to comply with the judgment to be given and to undertake all necessary steps, acts or measures to ensure that the initial amount of the pension is restored immediately and in full;

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

—

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging lack of competence of the author of the act adversely affecting a member of staff, infringement of essential procedural requirements on the ground that the statement of reasons was inadequate and consequent infringement of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging lack of competence of the author of the act adversely affecting a member of staff, infringement of essential procedural requirements on the ground that the statement of reasons was inadequate and consequent infringement of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging lack of a legal basis and misapplication of Article 75 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging lack of a legal basis and misapplication of Article 75 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a manifest infringement of the principle of legal certainty, of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and acquired rights and the consequent breach of Article 1 of Additional Protocol No 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a manifest infringement of the principle of legal certainty, of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and acquired rights and the consequent breach of Article 1 of Additional Protocol No 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights.

---

| 13.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/50

---

Action brought on 23 December 2022 — Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament

(Case T-820/22)

(2023/C 94/60)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Maria Teresa Coppo Gavazzi (Milan, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the Communication adopted by the Head of the Members’ Salaries and Social Entitlements Unit, Directorate for Members’ Financial and Social Entitlements, Directorate-General for Finance of the European Parliament, concerning the recalculation of retirement pension rights notified by registered letter (Ref No. D311149), received on 13 October 2022, by which the European Parliament recalculated the applicant’s retirement pension rights and ordered the recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the previous pension calculation; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the Communication adopted by the Head of the Members’ Salaries and Social Entitlements Unit, Directorate for Members’ Financial and Social Entitlements, Directorate-General for Finance of the European Parliament, concerning the recalculation of retirement pension rights notified by registered letter (Ref No. D311149), received on 13 October 2022, by which the European Parliament recalculated the applicant’s retirement pension rights and ordered the recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the previous pension calculation;

| — | order the European Parliament to repay all the sums unduly withheld plus statutory interest from the date of retention until payment and order the European Parliament to comply with the judgment to be given and to undertake all necessary steps, acts or measures to ensure that the initial amount of the pension is restored immediately and in full; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to repay all the sums unduly withheld plus statutory interest from the date of retention until payment and order the European Parliament to comply with the judgment to be given and to undertake all necessary steps, acts or measures to ensure that the initial amount of the pension is restored immediately and in full;

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

—

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging lack of competence of the author of the act adversely affecting a member of staff, infringement of essential procedural requirements on the ground that the statement of reasons was inadequate and consequent infringement of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging lack of competence of the author of the act adversely affecting a member of staff, infringement of essential procedural requirements on the ground that the statement of reasons was inadequate and consequent infringement of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging lack of a legal basis and misapplication of Article 75 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging lack of a legal basis and misapplication of Article 75 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a manifest infringement of the principle of legal certainty, of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and acquired rights and the consequent breach of Article 1 of Additional Protocol No 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a manifest infringement of the principle of legal certainty, of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and acquired rights and the consequent breach of Article 1 of Additional Protocol No 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights.

---

| 13.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/51

---

Action brought on 23 December 2022 — Di Meo v Parliament

(Case T-821/22)

(2023/C 94/61)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Maria Di Meo (Cellole, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the Communication adopted by the Head of the Members’ Salaries and Social Entitlements Unit, Directorate for Members’ Financial and Social Entitlements, Directorate-General for Finance of the European Parliament, concerning the recalculation of retirement pension rights notified by registered letter (Ref No. D311176), received on 13 October 2022, by which the European Parliament recalculated the applicant’s retirement pension rights and ordered the recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the previous pension calculation; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the Communication adopted by the Head of the Members’ Salaries and Social Entitlements Unit, Directorate for Members’ Financial and Social Entitlements, Directorate-General for Finance of the European Parliament, concerning the recalculation of retirement pension rights notified by registered letter (Ref No. D311176), received on 13 October 2022, by which the European Parliament recalculated the applicant’s retirement pension rights and ordered the recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the previous pension calculation;

| — | order the European Parliament to repay all the sums unduly withheld plus statutory interest from the date of retention until payment and order the European Parliament to comply with the judgment to be given and to undertake all necessary steps, acts or measures to ensure that the initial amount of the pension is restored immediately and in full; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to repay all the sums unduly withheld plus statutory interest from the date of retention until payment and order the European Parliament to comply with the judgment to be given and to undertake all necessary steps, acts or measures to ensure that the initial amount of the pension is restored immediately and in full;

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

—

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging lack of competence of the author of the act adversely affecting a member of staff, infringement of essential procedural requirements on the ground that the statement of reasons was inadequate and consequent infringement of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging lack of competence of the author of the act adversely affecting a member of staff, infringement of essential procedural requirements on the ground that the statement of reasons was inadequate and consequent infringement of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging lack of a legal basis and misapplication of Article 75 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging lack of a legal basis and misapplication of Article 75 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a manifest infringement of the principle of legal certainty, of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and acquired rights and the consequent breach of Article 1 of Additional Protocol No 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a manifest infringement of the principle of legal certainty, of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and acquired rights and the consequent breach of Article 1 of Additional Protocol No 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights.

---

| 13.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/52

---

Action brought on 23 December 2022 — Di Prima v Parliament

(Case T-822/22)

(2023/C 94/62)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Pietro Di Prima (Palermo, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the Communication adopted by the Head of the Members’ Salaries and Social Entitlements Unit, Directorate for Members’ Financial and Social Entitlements, Directorate-General for Finance of the European Parliament, concerning the recalculation of retirement pension rights notified by registered letter (Ref No. D311132), received on 13 October 2022, by which the European Parliament recalculated the applicant’s retirement pension rights and ordered the recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the previous pension calculation; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the Communication adopted by the Head of the Members’ Salaries and Social Entitlements Unit, Directorate for Members’ Financial and Social Entitlements, Directorate-General for Finance of the European Parliament, concerning the recalculation of retirement pension rights notified by registered letter (Ref No. D311132), received on 13 October 2022, by which the European Parliament recalculated the applicant’s retirement pension rights and ordered the recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the previous pension calculation;

| — | order the European Parliament to repay all the sums unduly withheld plus statutory interest from the date of retention until payment and order the European Parliament to comply with the judgment to be given and to undertake all necessary steps, acts or measures to ensure that the initial amount of the pension is restored immediately and in full; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to repay all the sums unduly withheld plus statutory interest from the date of retention until payment and order the European Parliament to comply with the judgment to be given and to undertake all necessary steps, acts or measures to ensure that the initial amount of the pension is restored immediately and in full;

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

—

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging lack of competence of the author of the act adversely affecting a member of staff, infringement of essential procedural requirements on the ground that the statement of reasons was inadequate and consequent infringement of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging lack of competence of the author of the act adversely affecting a member of staff, infringement of essential procedural requirements on the ground that the statement of reasons was inadequate and consequent infringement of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging lack of a legal basis and misapplication of Article 75 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging lack of a legal basis and misapplication of Article 75 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a manifest infringement of the principle of legal certainty, of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and acquired rights and the consequent breach of Article 1 of Additional Protocol No 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a manifest infringement of the principle of legal certainty, of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and acquired rights and the consequent breach of Article 1 of Additional Protocol No 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights.

---

| 13.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/53

---

Action brought on 23 December 2022 — Dupuis v Parliament

(Case T-823/22)

(2023/C 94/63)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Olivier Dupuis (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the Communication adopted by the Head of the Members’ Salaries and Social Entitlements Unit, Directorate for Members’ Financial and Social Entitlements, Directorate-General for Finance of the European Parliament, concerning the recalculation of retirement pension rights notified by registered letter (Ref No. D311143), received on 13 October 2022, by which the European Parliament recalculated the applicant’s retirement pension rights and ordered the recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the previous pension calculation; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the Communication adopted by the Head of the Members’ Salaries and Social Entitlements Unit, Directorate for Members’ Financial and Social Entitlements, Directorate-General for Finance of the European Parliament, concerning the recalculation of retirement pension rights notified by registered letter (Ref No. D311143), received on 13 October 2022, by which the European Parliament recalculated the applicant’s retirement pension rights and ordered the recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the previous pension calculation;

| — | order the European Parliament to repay all the sums unduly withheld plus statutory interest from the date of retention until payment and order the European Parliament to comply with the judgment to be given and to undertake all necessary steps, acts or measures to ensure that the initial amount of the pension is restored immediately and in full; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to repay all the sums unduly withheld plus statutory interest from the date of retention until payment and order the European Parliament to comply with the judgment to be given and to undertake all necessary steps, acts or measures to ensure that the initial amount of the pension is restored immediately and in full;

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

—

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging lack of competence of the author of the act adversely affecting a member of staff, infringement of essential procedural requirements on the ground that the statement of reasons was inadequate and consequent infringement of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging lack of competence of the author of the act adversely affecting a member of staff, infringement of essential procedural requirements on the ground that the statement of reasons was inadequate and consequent infringement of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging lack of a legal basis and misapplication of Article 75 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging lack of a legal basis and misapplication of Article 75 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a manifest infringement of the principle of legal certainty, of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and acquired rights and the consequent breach of Article 1 of Additional Protocol No 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a manifest infringement of the principle of legal certainty, of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and acquired rights and the consequent breach of Article 1 of Additional Protocol No 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights.

---

| 13.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/53

---

Action brought on 23 December 2022 — Filippi v Parliament

(Case T-824/22)

(2023/C 94/64)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Livio Filippi (Carpi, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the Communication adopted by the Head of the Members’ Salaries and Social Entitlements Unit, Directorate for Members’ Financial and Social Entitlements, Directorate-General for Finance of the European Parliament, concerning the recalculation of retirement pension rights notified by registered letter (Ref No. D311124), received on 13 October 2022, by which the European Parliament recalculated the applicant’s retirement pension rights and ordered the recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the previous pension calculation; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the Communication adopted by the Head of the Members’ Salaries and Social Entitlements Unit, Directorate for Members’ Financial and Social Entitlements, Directorate-General for Finance of the European Parliament, concerning the recalculation of retirement pension rights notified by registered letter (Ref No. D311124), received on 13 October 2022, by which the European Parliament recalculated the applicant’s retirement pension rights and ordered the recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the previous pension calculation;

| — | order the European Parliament to repay all the sums unduly withheld plus statutory interest from the date of retention until payment and order the European Parliament to comply with the judgment to be given and to undertake all necessary steps, acts or measures to ensure that the initial amount of the pension is restored immediately and in full; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to repay all the sums unduly withheld plus statutory interest from the date of retention until payment and order the European Parliament to comply with the judgment to be given and to undertake all necessary steps, acts or measures to ensure that the initial amount of the pension is restored immediately and in full;

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

—

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging lack of competence of the author of the act adversely affecting a member of staff, infringement of essential procedural requirements on the ground that the statement of reasons was inadequate and consequent infringement of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging lack of competence of the author of the act adversely affecting a member of staff, infringement of essential procedural requirements on the ground that the statement of reasons was inadequate and consequent infringement of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging lack of a legal basis and misapplication of Article 75 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging lack of a legal basis and misapplication of Article 75 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a manifest infringement of the principle of legal certainty, of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and acquired rights and the consequent breach of Article 1 of Additional Protocol No 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a manifest infringement of the principle of legal certainty, of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and acquired rights and the consequent breach of Article 1 of Additional Protocol No 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights.

---

| 13.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/54

---

Action brought on 29 December 2022 — Cucurnia v Parliament

(Case T-825/22)

(2023/C 94/65)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Fiammetta Cucurnia (Rome, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the Communication adopted by the Head of the Members’ Salaries and Social Entitlements Unit, Directorate for Members’ Financial and Social Entitlements, Directorate-General for Finance of the European Parliament, concerning the recalculation of retirement pension rights notified by registered letter (Ref No. D313509), received on 28 November 2022, by which the European Parliament recalculated the applicant’s retirement pension rights and ordered the recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the previous pension calculation; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the Communication adopted by the Head of the Members’ Salaries and Social Entitlements Unit, Directorate for Members’ Financial and Social Entitlements, Directorate-General for Finance of the European Parliament, concerning the recalculation of retirement pension rights notified by registered letter (Ref No. D313509), received on 28 November 2022, by which the European Parliament recalculated the applicant’s retirement pension rights and ordered the recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the previous pension calculation;

| — | order the European Parliament to repay all the sums unduly withheld plus statutory interest from the date of retention until payment and order the European Parliament to comply with the judgment to be given and to undertake all necessary steps, acts or measures to ensure that the initial amount of the pension is restored immediately and in full; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to repay all the sums unduly withheld plus statutory interest from the date of retention until payment and order the European Parliament to comply with the judgment to be given and to undertake all necessary steps, acts or measures to ensure that the initial amount of the pension is restored immediately and in full;

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

—

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging lack of competence of the author of the act adversely affecting a member of staff, infringement of essential procedural requirements on the ground that the statement of reasons was inadequate and consequent infringement of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging lack of competence of the author of the act adversely affecting a member of staff, infringement of essential procedural requirements on the ground that the statement of reasons was inadequate and consequent infringement of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging lack of a legal basis and misapplication of Article 75 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging lack of a legal basis and misapplication of Article 75 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a manifest infringement of the principle of legal certainty, of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and acquired rights and the consequent breach of Article 1 of Additional Protocol No 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a manifest infringement of the principle of legal certainty, of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and acquired rights and the consequent breach of Article 1 of Additional Protocol No 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights.

---

| 13.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/55

---

Action brought on 29 December 2022 — Gallenzi v Parliament

(Case T-826/22)

(2023/C 94/66)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Giorgio Gallenzi (Rome, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the Communication adopted by the Head of the Members’ Salaries and Social Entitlements Unit, Directorate for Members’ Financial and Social Entitlements, Directorate-General for Finance of the European Parliament, concerning the recalculation of retirement pension rights notified by registered letter (Ref No. D313497), received on 28 November 2022, by which the European Parliament recalculated the applicant’s retirement pension rights and ordered the recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the previous pension calculation; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the Communication adopted by the Head of the Members’ Salaries and Social Entitlements Unit, Directorate for Members’ Financial and Social Entitlements, Directorate-General for Finance of the European Parliament, concerning the recalculation of retirement pension rights notified by registered letter (Ref No. D313497), received on 28 November 2022, by which the European Parliament recalculated the applicant’s retirement pension rights and ordered the recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the previous pension calculation;

| — | order the European Parliament to repay all the sums unduly withheld plus statutory interest from the date of retention until payment and order the European Parliament to comply with the judgment to be given and to undertake all necessary steps, acts or measures to ensure that the initial amount of the pension is restored immediately and in full; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to repay all the sums unduly withheld plus statutory interest from the date of retention until payment and order the European Parliament to comply with the judgment to be given and to undertake all necessary steps, acts or measures to ensure that the initial amount of the pension is restored immediately and in full;

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

—

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging lack of competence of the author of the act adversely affecting a member of staff, infringement of essential procedural requirements on the ground that the statement of reasons was inadequate and consequent infringement of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging lack of competence of the author of the act adversely affecting a member of staff, infringement of essential procedural requirements on the ground that the statement of reasons was inadequate and consequent infringement of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging lack of a legal basis and misapplication of Article 75 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging lack of a legal basis and misapplication of Article 75 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a manifest infringement of the principle of legal certainty, of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and acquired rights and the consequent breach of Article 1 of Additional Protocol No 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a manifest infringement of the principle of legal certainty, of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and acquired rights and the consequent breach of Article 1 of Additional Protocol No 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights.

---

| 13.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/56

---

Action brought on 19 January 2023 — Beauty Boutique v EUIPO — Lightningbolt Europe (Device of a lightning)

(Case T-12/23)

(2023/C 94/67)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Beauty Boutique sp. z o.o. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: M. Nowakowski, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lightningbolt Europe SA (São Cosme Vale, Portugal)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark (device of a lightning) — Application for registration No 18 249 030

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 October 2022 in Case R 668/2022-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and the intervener (if applicable) to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the intervener (if applicable) 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.

---

| 13.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/56

---

Action brought on 20 January 2023 — Romania v Commission

(Case T-15/23)

(2023/C 94/68)

Language of the case: Romanian

Parties

Applicant: Romania (represented by: E. Gane, L.-E. Baţagoi, O.-C. Ichim and M. Chicu, Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul in part Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/2261 of 11 November 2022 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (1) in so far as representing one-off financial corrections applied to Romania on the ground of the infringement of EU law in connection with payments in claim years 2018 and 2019 (financial years 2019 and 2020) — in the amount of EUR 2 515 141,78; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul in part Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/2261 of 11 November 2022 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (1) in so far as representing one-off financial corrections applied to Romania on the ground of the infringement of EU law in connection with payments in claim years 2018 and 2019 (financial years 2019 and 2020) — in the amount of EUR 2 515 141,78;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging the inappropriate exercise by the Commission of its power to exclude sums from EU financing on the basis of Article 52 of Regulation No 1306/2013
  The Commission erred in assessing that — as regards measure 10 (on the basis of which agri-environment-climate payments are granted) and measure 13 (on the basis of which payments are granted for areas facing natural or other specific constraints) of the National Rural Development Programme (NRDP) 2014-2020 — the Romanian authorities had infringed Article 5(2)(b) of Regulation 640/2014. The EU institution erroneously found that the maximum eligible area was calculated in accordance with the administrative limits of the unităţi administrativ teritoriale (UAT) (administrative territorial units), leading to payments for ineligible areas. In addition, the Commission erred when assessing that — as regards measure 8, sub-measure 8.1 (on the basis of which support for afforestation is granted) of the NRDP 2014-2020 — the Romanian authorities had infringed Article 30 of Regulation 1306/2013 and Article 28(1)(b) of Regulation 809/2014, on the ground that there was double financing between the payment relating to the loss of agricultural income in the context of measure 8, sub-measure 8.1 and the greening payment. The EU institution erroneously found that those two payments were of the same nature and compensated the same costs. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging the inappropriate exercise by the Commission of its power to exclude sums from EU financing on the basis of Article 52 of Regulation No 1306/2013

The Commission erred in assessing that — as regards measure 10 (on the basis of which agri-environment-climate payments are granted) and measure 13 (on the basis of which payments are granted for areas facing natural or other specific constraints) of the National Rural Development Programme (NRDP) 2014-2020 — the Romanian authorities had infringed Article 5(2)(b) of Regulation 640/2014. The EU institution erroneously found that the maximum eligible area was calculated in accordance with the administrative limits of the unităţi administrativ teritoriale (UAT) (administrative territorial units), leading to payments for ineligible areas. In addition, the Commission erred when assessing that — as regards measure 8, sub-measure 8.1 (on the basis of which support for afforestation is granted) of the NRDP 2014-2020 — the Romanian authorities had infringed Article 30 of Regulation 1306/2013 and Article 28(1)(b) of Regulation 809/2014, on the ground that there was double financing between the payment relating to the loss of agricultural income in the context of measure 8, sub-measure 8.1 and the greening payment. The EU institution erroneously found that those two payments were of the same nature and compensated the same costs.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a failure to fulfil the obligation to state reasons laid down by the second paragraph of Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
  The Commission failed to fulfil the obligation to state reasons laid down by the second paragraph of Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, since it failed to provide a sufficient statement of reasons for its finding that the alleged infringements existed and failed to indicate in a satisfactory manner why the arguments consistently relied upon and restated by the Romanian authorities, competent in the context of the administrative dialogue which preceded the adoption of the contested decision, could not be accepted. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a failure to fulfil the obligation to state reasons laid down by the second paragraph of Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

The Commission failed to fulfil the obligation to state reasons laid down by the second paragraph of Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, since it failed to provide a sufficient statement of reasons for its finding that the alleged infringements existed and failed to indicate in a satisfactory manner why the arguments consistently relied upon and restated by the Romanian authorities, competent in the context of the administrative dialogue which preceded the adoption of the contested decision, could not be accepted.

---

(1)  Notified to the Romanian authorities on 14 November 2022 and published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ 2002 L 299, p. 20) (‘Decision 2022/2261’).

---

| 13.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/57

---

Action brought on 24 January 2023 — Noyan Abr Arvan v Council

(Case T-23/23)

(2023/C 94/69)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Noyan Abr Arvan Private JC (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: K. Adamantopoulos and P. Billiet, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/2231 of 14 November 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 359/2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Iran (1), in so far as it concerns the applicant’s inclusion in Annex I to Council Regulation (EU) No 359/2011; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/2231 of 14 November 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 359/2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Iran (1), in so far as it concerns the applicant’s inclusion in Annex I to Council Regulation (EU) No 359/2011;

| — | declare inapplicable Council Regulation (EU) No 359/2011 of 12 April 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Iran (2) (‘Regulation 359/2011’), in so far as it concerns the applicant’s inclusion in Annex I to Regulation 359/2011; and |
| --- | --- |

—

declare inapplicable Council Regulation (EU) No 359/2011 of 12 April 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Iran (2) (‘Regulation 359/2011’), in so far as it concerns the applicant’s inclusion in Annex I to Regulation 359/2011; and

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

—

order the Council of the European Union to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Council made a manifest misstatement of the facts and manifest error in the application of Articles 263 TFEU and Articles 3.1, 3.2 and 12.2 of Regulation 359/2011. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Council made a manifest misstatement of the facts and manifest error in the application of Articles 263 TFEU and Articles 3.1, 3.2 and 12.2 of Regulation 359/2011.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Council infringed its duty to give (adequate) reasons and to give reasons that meet applicable quality standards (in particular regarding the objectivity of applied criteria, the taking into account of the applicant’s interests, the proportionate character of decision making, the taking into account of EU suppliers interests, the equal treatment of the applicant, respect to the non-discrimination principle, avoidance of an arbitrary character in decision making and avoidance of an abuse of power in decision making), contrary to Articles 263 and 296 TFEU and Articles 3.1, 3.2 and 12.2 of Regulation 359/2011. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Council infringed its duty to give (adequate) reasons and to give reasons that meet applicable quality standards (in particular regarding the objectivity of applied criteria, the taking into account of the applicant’s interests, the proportionate character of decision making, the taking into account of EU suppliers interests, the equal treatment of the applicant, respect to the non-discrimination principle, avoidance of an arbitrary character in decision making and avoidance of an abuse of power in decision making), contrary to Articles 263 and 296 TFEU and Articles 3.1, 3.2 and 12.2 of Regulation 359/2011.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Council infringes the applicant’s right of defence, in particular the right to be heard and the right to effective judicial review, contrary to Articles 296 TFEU and Article 12.2 of Regulation 359/2011. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Council infringes the applicant’s right of defence, in particular the right to be heard and the right to effective judicial review, contrary to Articles 296 TFEU and Article 12.2 of Regulation 359/2011.

---

(1)  OJ 2022, L 293I, p. 16.

(2)  OJ 2011, L 100, p. 1.

---

| 13.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/58

---

Action brought on 25 January 2023 — UF v Commission

(Case T-24/23)

(2023/C 94/70)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of 6 April 2022 dismissing the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 6 April 2022 dismissing the applicant;

| — | order the European Commission to pay the applicant a sum set ex aequo et bono for the non-material damage caused and to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay the applicant a sum set ex aequo et bono for the non-material damage caused and to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons, the applicant’s rights of defence, the duty to have regard to the welfare of officials and the principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons, the applicant’s rights of defence, the duty to have regard to the welfare of officials and the principle of proportionality.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 2(c) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 2(c) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging misuse of powers. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging misuse of powers.

---

| 13.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/59

---

Action brought on 27 January 2023 — Orgatex v EUIPO — Longton (Ground marking)

(Case T-25/23)

(2023/C 94/71)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Orgatex GmbH & Co KG (Langenfeld, Germany) (represented by: G. Jacobs, M. Maybaum and M. Dümenil)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lawrence Longton (Brindle, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant

Design at issue: EU design — ‘Ground marking’ — EU design No 1112155-0001

Proceedings before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 November 2022 in Case R 110/2022-3

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 of the proceedings before the Court and the Board of Appeal, including, in particular, the applicant’s costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Court and the Board of Appeal, including, in particular, the applicant’s costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 25(1)(1) and Article 3(a) of Council Regulation (EU) No 6/2002. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 25(1)(1) and Article 3(a) of Council Regulation (EU) No 6/2002.

---

| 13.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/59

---

Action brought on 30 January 2023 — Feed v EUIPO — The Feed.com (Feed.)

(Case T-26/23)

(2023/C 94/72)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Feed SA (Paris, France) (represented by: V. Bouchara and A. Maier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: The Feed.com, Inc. (Broomfield, Colorado, 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 figurative mark Feed. — Application for registration No 18 096 681

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 November 2022 in Case R 552/2022-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and the company The Feed.com, Inc. to bear their own costs of the proceedings and to jointly pay those incurred by Feed SA, including the costs incurred for the proceedings before the EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the company The Feed.com, Inc. to bear their own costs of the proceedings and to jointly pay those incurred by Feed SA, including the costs incurred for the proceedings before the EUIPO.

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.

---

| 13.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/60

---

Action brought on 30 January 2023 — Feed v EUIPO — The Feed.com (THE FEED)

(Case T-27/23)

(2023/C 94/73)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Feed SA (Paris, France) (represented by: V. Bouchara and A. Maier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: The Feed.com, Inc. (Broomfield, Colorado, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark THE FEED — EU trade mark No 12 392 651

Proceedings before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 November 2022 in Case R 1905/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision in so far as:






  1. | it states that use of the mark THE FEED number 12 392 651 has been demonstrated for ‘online retail store services in connection with meal replacement foods, energy foods, nutritional bars, gels, mixes, supplements and beverages; sales of meal replacement foods, energy foods, nutritional bars, gels, mixes, supplements and beverages’; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in so far as:

1.

it states that use of the mark THE FEED number 12 392 651 has been demonstrated for ‘online retail store services in connection with meal replacement foods, energy foods, nutritional bars, gels, mixes, supplements and beverages; sales of meal replacement foods, energy foods, nutritional bars, gels, mixes, supplements and beverages’;

| 2. | it dismissed the action for revocation brought by the applicant in respect of the abovementioned services; |
| --- | --- |

2.

it dismissed the action for revocation brought by the applicant in respect of the abovementioned services;

| — | refer the case back to the EUIPO for a declaration of revocation of the mark THE FEED number 12 392 651 for ‘online retail store services in connection with meal replacement foods, energy foods, nutritional bars, gels, mixes, supplements and beverages; sales of meal replacement foods, energy foods, nutritional bars, gels, mixes, supplements and beverages’; |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back to the EUIPO for a declaration of revocation of the mark THE FEED number 12 392 651 for ‘online retail store services in connection with meal replacement foods, energy foods, nutritional bars, gels, mixes, supplements and beverages; sales of meal replacement foods, energy foods, nutritional bars, gels, mixes, supplements and beverages’;

| — | order EUIPO and The Feed.com, Inc. jointly and severally to reimburse the costs incurred by Feed SA in the context of the present proceedings and in the proceedings before EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and The Feed.com, Inc. jointly and severally to reimburse the costs incurred by Feed SA in the context of the present proceedings and in the proceedings before EUIPO.

Plea in law

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

---

| 13.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/61

---

Action brought on 30 January 2023 — Vobro v EUIPO — Mieszko (CHERRY Passion)

(Case T-29/23)

(2023/C 94/74)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Vobro sp. z o.o. (Brodnica, Poland) (represented by: M. Kondrat, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mieszko S.A. (Warsaw, Poland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark CHERRY Passion — Application for registration No 18 204 993

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 November 2022 in Case R 2073/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | refer the case back to the EUIPO for reconsideration or |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back to the EUIPO for reconsideration or

| — | alter the contested decision by stating that there are no relative grounds for refusal of registration of the EU trade mark No 18 204 993 CHERRY Passion for all goods in class 30 and the trademark shall be registered; |
| --- | --- |

—

alter the contested decision by stating that there are no relative grounds for refusal of registration of the EU trade mark No 18 204 993 CHERRY Passion for all goods in class 30 and the trademark shall be registered;

| — | award the costs in the applicant’s favour. |
| --- | --- |

—

award the costs in the applicant’s favour.

Pleas in law

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

—

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

| — | Infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and the principle of legal certainty; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and the principle of legal certainty;

| — | Infringement of Articles 94(1) and 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 94(1) and 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 13.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/62

---

Action brought on 30 January 2023 — QN v eu-LISA

(Case T-31/23)

(2023/C 94/75)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: QN (represented by: H. Tagaras, lawyer)

Defendant: European Agency for the Operational Management of Large-Scale IT Systems in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (eu-LISA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | uphold the application; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the application;

| — | annul the contested acts; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested acts;

| — | order the defendant to pay damages in the amount of EUR 4 000; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay damages in the amount of EUR 4 000;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action against the decision of the European Agency for the Operational Management of Large-Scale IT systems in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (eu-LISA) of 5 August 2022 to confirm the applicant’s staff report for 2021, the applicant relies on six pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons as a result of, inter alia, the lack of consistency in the contested measures, in particular with regard to the relationship between the numerical marks and the written assessment in the staff report. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons as a result of, inter alia, the lack of consistency in the contested measures, in particular with regard to the relationship between the numerical marks and the written assessment in the staff report.

| 2. | Second plea, alleging manifest errors of assessment regarding the applicant’s numerical mark on account of the lack of cohesion and consistency of that mark with the written assessment in the staff report. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea, alleging manifest errors of assessment regarding the applicant’s numerical mark on account of the lack of cohesion and consistency of that mark with the written assessment in the staff report.

| 3. | Third plea, alleging infringement of the rules governing the drawing up of staff reports, abuse of process and misuse of powers, and breach of the duty of impartiality, in particular on account of the fact that the applicant’s first reporting officer amended his draft report in the light of developments in another procedure concerning the applicant, namely an administrative investigation procedure. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea, alleging infringement of the rules governing the drawing up of staff reports, abuse of process and misuse of powers, and breach of the duty of impartiality, in particular on account of the fact that the applicant’s first reporting officer amended his draft report in the light of developments in another procedure concerning the applicant, namely an administrative investigation procedure.

| 4. | Fourth plea, alleging failure to observe the statutory time limits for drawing up the contested report. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea, alleging failure to observe the statutory time limits for drawing up the contested report.

| 5. | Fifth plea, alleging errors of fact and of calculation. The applicant submits in that regard that the application of incorrect coefficients and rounding rules led to an incorrect overall mark. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea, alleging errors of fact and of calculation. The applicant submits in that regard that the application of incorrect coefficients and rounding rules led to an incorrect overall mark.

| 6. | Sixth plea, alleging breach of the right to be heard, on the ground that the oral exchange between the applicant and his appeal assessor concerned only part of the observations made by the applicant on the draft report. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea, alleging breach of the right to be heard, on the ground that the oral exchange between the applicant and his appeal assessor concerned only part of the observations made by the applicant on the draft report.

---

| 13.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/63 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/63

---

Action brought on 30 January 2023 — Domator24 v EUIPO — Acer (PREDATOR)

(Case T-33/23)

(2023/C 94/76)

Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Domator24 sp. z o.o. (Zielona Góra, Poland) (represented by: T. Gawliczek, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Acer, Inc. (Taipei, Taiwan)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘PREDATOR’ — EU trade mark No 16 757 262

Proceedings before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 November 2022 in Case R 381/2022-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul in part the contested decision of EUIPO of 9 November 2022 (points 1 and 2 of the operative part) and find that not all of the conditions laid down in Article 53(1)(a), in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b), of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 are satisfied in the present case, and consequently uphold the first instance decision and dismiss the claim for a declaration of invalidity of the trade mark EUTM-016757262 ‘PREDATOR’ in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul in part the contested decision of EUIPO of 9 November 2022 (points 1 and 2 of the operative part) and find that not all of the conditions laid down in Article 53(1)(a), in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b), of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 are satisfied in the present case, and consequently uphold the first instance decision and dismiss the claim for a declaration of invalidity of the trade mark EUTM-016757262 ‘PREDATOR’ in its entirety;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before the Court and — pursuant to Article 190(2) of the Rules of Procedure — the costs necessarily incurred by the applicant for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before the Court and — pursuant to Article 190(2) of the Rules of Procedure — the costs necessarily incurred by the applicant for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal;

| — | if the intervener joins the proceedings, order that the intervener should bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

if the intervener joins the proceedings, order that the intervener should bear its own costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 53(1)(a), in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b), of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (codified version); |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 53(1)(a), in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b), of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (codified version);

| — | Infringement of the principle that evidence must be freely evaluated and infringement of Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, in conjunction with Article 55(1) and (2) and Article 22(2) of Delegated Commission Regulation (EU) 2018/625. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the principle that evidence must be freely evaluated and infringement of Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, in conjunction with Article 55(1) and (2) and Article 22(2) of Delegated Commission Regulation (EU) 2018/625.

---

| 13.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/64 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/64

---

Action brought on 1 February 2023 — Daimler Truck v EUIPO (YOUR PERFORMANCE PLUS)

(Case T-35/23)

(2023/C 94/77)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Daimler Truck AG (Leinfelden-Echterdingen, Germany) (represented by: P. Kohl, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark YOUR PERFORMANCE PLUS — Application No 18 464 821

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 December 2022 in Case R 527/2022-1

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, including the costs incurred in the course of the opposition and appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs, including the costs incurred in the course of the opposition and appeal proceedings.

Plea in law

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

---