# Official Journal C 24/17 J

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 24 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6517 January 2022 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 24

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6517 January 2022

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2022/C 24/01 | Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union | 1 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

2022/C 24/01

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

Official Journal of the European Union

1

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2022/C 24/02 | Case C-680/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 November 2021 — Fulmen v Council of the European Union, European Commission (Appeal — Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) — Restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran — Damage allegedly suffered by the appellant as a result of its name being included and maintained on the list of persons and entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Action for damages — Jurisdiction of the Court to rule on a claim seeking compensation for the damage allegedly caused by restrictive measures taken in decisions adopted pursuant to the CFSP — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals) | 2 |
| 2022/C 24/03 | Case C-681/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 November 2021 — Fereydoun Mahmoudian v Council of the European Union, European Commission (Appeal — Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) — Restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran — Damage allegedly suffered by the appellant as a result of his name being included and maintained on the list of persons and entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Action for damages — Jurisdiction of the Court to rule on a claim seeking compensation for the damage allegedly caused by restrictive measures taken in decisions adopted pursuant to the CFSP — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals) | 3 |
| 2022/C 24/04 | Joined Cases C-748/19 to C-754/19: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 November 2021 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie — Poland) — Criminal proceedings against WB (C-748/19), XA and YZ (C-749/19), DT (C-750/19), ZY (C-751/19), AX (C-752/19), BV (C-753/19) and CU (C-754/19) (References for a preliminary ruling — Rule of law — Independence of the judiciary — Second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU — National legislation providing the possibility for the Minister for Justice to second judges to higher courts and to terminate those secondments — Adjudicating panels in criminal cases including judges seconded by the Minister for Justice — Directive (EU) 2016/343 — Presumption of innocence) | 3 |
| 2022/C 24/05 | Case C-821/19: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 November 2021 — European Commission v Hungary (Actions for failure to fulfil obligations — Area of freedom, security and justice — Asylum policy — Directives 2013/32/EU and 2013/33/EU — Procedure for granting international protection — Grounds of inadmissibility — Concepts of safe third country and first country of asylum — Assistance given to asylum seekers — Criminalisation — Prohibition on entry to the border transit zone of the relevant Member State) | 4 |
| 2022/C 24/06 | Case C-107/20 P: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 18 November 2021 — Hellenic Republic v European Commission (Appeal — Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) — European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) — Expenditure excluded from EU financing — Expenditure incurred by the Hellenic Republic — Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 — Article 52(4)(c) — Flat-rate financial corrections — Period of 24 months — Expenditure covered by that period — Method of calculating the correction — Adjustment of the correction rate) | 5 |
| 2022/C 24/07 | Case C-212/20: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 18 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Woli w Warszawie — Poland) — M.P., B.P. v A. prowadzący działalność za pośrednictwem A. S.A. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Mortgage loan agreement indexed to a foreign currency — Contractual term relating to the buying and selling rates of a foreign currency — Requirement of intelligibility and transparency — Powers of the national court) | 5 |
| 2022/C 24/08 | Case C-306/20: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 18 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā apgabaltiesa, Latvia) — Visma Enterprise SIA v Konkurences padome (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Article 101(1) and (3) TFEU — Vertical agreements — Restriction by object or by effect — Exemption — Registration by the distributor of the potential transaction with the end user — Clause conferring on the distributor priority in progressing the sale process for 6 months from registration — Exception — Objection by the user — Jurisdiction of the Court — Purely internal situation — National legislation consistent with the solutions adopted by EU law) | 6 |
| 2022/C 24/09 | Case C-358/20: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 18 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Oradea — Romania) — Promexor Trade SRL v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Cluj — Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Bihor (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Right to deduct VAT — Revocation of the VAT identification of a taxable person — Refusal of the right of deduction — Formal requirements) | 7 |
| 2022/C 24/10 | Case C-413/20: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 18 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles — Belgium) — État belge v LO and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Air transport — Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 — Technical requirements and administrative procedures related to civil aviation aircrew — Points 9 and 10 of Subpart A of Appendix 3 to Annex I — Training course for the issue of a commercial pilot licence — Flying training — Instrument ground time — Calculation — Simulator training — Skill test — Principle of legal certainty — Temporal limitation of the effects of a preliminary ruling) | 8 |
| 2022/C 24/11 | Case C-479/21 PPU: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — European arrest warrants issued in respect of SN, SD (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Article 50 TEU — Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community — Article 217 TFEU — Trade and Cooperation Agreement with the United Kingdom — Protocol (No 21) on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Continuation under the Withdrawal Agreement, on a transitional basis, of the European arrest warrant regime in respect of the United Kingdom — Application to a European arrest warrant of provisions relating to the surrender mechanism established by the Trade and Cooperation Agreement with the United Kingdom — Regimes binding on Ireland) | 9 |
| 2022/C 24/12 | Case C-686/20: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 11 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Proximité d’Aulnay-sous-Bois — France) — YE and Others v Vueling Airlines SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights — Article 3(3) — Scope — Passengers travelling free of charge or at a reduced fare not available directly or indirectly to the public — Young child travelling free of charge — Article 2(f) — Definition of ticket) | 9 |
| 2022/C 24/13 | Case C-688/20: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 29 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Opatowie — Poland) — HG, TC v Ubezpieczeniowy Fundusz Gwarancyjny (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles — Directive 2009/103/EC — Article 3, first paragraph — Obligation to take out a contract of insurance — Scope — Unroadworthy vehicle, not registered and officially withdrawn from use) | 10 |
| 2022/C 24/14 | Case C-345/21 P: Appeal brought on 3 June 2021 by Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 24 March 2021 in Case T-282/19, Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v EUIPO | 11 |
| 2022/C 24/15 | Case C-452/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 21 July 2021 — J.K., B.K. v Przedsiębiorstwo Państwowe X | 11 |
| 2022/C 24/16 | Case C-469/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 29 July 2021 — Consejo General de Colegios Oficiales de Farmacéuticos de España v Administración General del Estado | 12 |
| 2022/C 24/17 | Case C-498/21 P: Appeal brought on 12 August 2021 by Birkenstock IP GmbH and Birkenstock Sales GmbH against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) made on 2 June 2021 in Case T-365/20, Birkenstock Sales GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office | 12 |
| 2022/C 24/18 | Case C-521/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy Poznań-Stare Miasto w Poznaniu (Poland) lodged on 23 August 2021 — MJ v AA | 13 |
| 2022/C 24/19 | Case C-541/21 P: Appeal brought on 30 August 2021 by Joëlle Mélin against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 30 June 2021 in Case T-51/20, Mélin v Parliament | 14 |
| 2022/C 24/20 | Case C-570/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Woli w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 13 September 2021 — I.S., K.S. v YYY. S.A. | 15 |
| 2022/C 24/21 | Case C-573/21 P: Appeal brought on 17 September 2021 by Marie-Christine Arnautu against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 14 July 2021 in Case T-740/20, Arnautu v Parliament | 16 |
| 2022/C 24/22 | Case C-620/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 6 October 2021 — Momtrade Ruse OOD v Direktor na Direktsia Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite | 17 |
| 2022/C 24/23 | Case C-621/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria) lodged on 6 October 2021 — WS v Intervyuirasht organ na Darzhavna agentsia za bezhantsite pri Ministerskia savet | 17 |
| 2022/C 24/24 | Case C-631/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof’s-Hertogenbosch (Netherlands) lodged on 14 October 2021 — Taxi Horn Tours BV v Gemeente Weert, Gemeente Nederweert, Touringcars VOF | 18 |
| 2022/C 24/25 | Case C-637/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 18 October 2021 — K.R.; Other party: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid | 19 |
| 2022/C 24/26 | Case C-646/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats ’s-Hertogenbosch (Netherlands) lodged on 25 October 2021 — K, L v Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid | 20 |
| 2022/C 24/27 | Case C-660/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal correctionnel de Villefranche-sur-Saône (France) lodged on 29 October 2021 — Procureur de la République v K.B., F.S. | 21 |
| 2022/C 24/28 | Case C-662/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 4 November 2021 — Booky.fi Oy | 22 |
| 2022/C 24/29 | Case C-666/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hovrätten för Nedre Norrland (Sweden) lodged on 5 November 2021 — AI and Åklagarmyndigheten | 22 |
| | General Court |
| 2022/C 24/30 | Case T-147/17: Judgment of the General Court of 17 November 2021 — Anastassopoulos and Others v Council and Commission (Non-contractual liability — Economic and monetary policy — Restructuring of Greek public debt — Private sector involvement — Collective action clauses — Private creditors — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals — Equal treatment — Natural and legal persons — Limitation periods — Whether European Union answerable for the measures at issue — Admissibility — Strict liability — Unusual and special damage) | 24 |
| 2022/C 24/31 | Case T-612/17: Judgment of the General Court of 10 November 2021 — Google and Alphabet v Commission (Google Shopping) (Competition — Abuse of dominant position — Online general search services and specialised product search services — Decision finding an infringement of Article 102 TFEU and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement — Leveraging abuse — Competition on the merits or anticompetitive practice — Conditions of access by competitors to a dominant undertaking’s service the use of which cannot be effectively replaced — Dominant undertaking favouring the display of results from its own specialised search service — Effects — Need to establish a counterfactual scenario — None — Objective justifications — None — Possibility of imposing a fine having regard to certain circumstances — Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Unlimited jurisdiction) | 25 |
| 2022/C 24/32 | Case T-160/19: Judgment of the General Court of 24 November 2021 — LTTE v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken with a view to combating terrorism — Freezing of funds — List of the persons, groups and entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Maintaining the applicant’s name on the list — Factual basis of the decisions to freeze funds — Error of assessment — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Right to effective judicial protection) | 26 |
| 2022/C 24/33 | Case T-298/19: Judgment of the General Court of 17 November 2021 — Think Schuhwerk v EUIPO (Representation of red shoe lace aglets) (EU Trade Mark — Application for a figurative EU trade mark representing red shoe lace aglets — Rejection of application — Absolute grounds for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Essentially identical previous application — No res judicata — Obligation to state reasons — Right to be heard — Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Examination of the facts by EUIPO of its own motion — Article 95 of Regulation 2017/1001) | 27 |
| 2022/C 24/34 | Case T-193/20: Judgment of the General Court of 10 November 2021 — Eternit v EUIPO — Eternit Österreich (Building panel) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered community design representing a building panel — Earlier design representing a panel for a noise-reduction wall — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — Sector concerned — Informed user — Degree of freedom of the designer — No different overall impression — Relevance of goods actually marketed — Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002) | 27 |
| 2022/C 24/35 | Case T-408/20: Judgment of the General Court of 17 November 2021 — KR v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Remuneration — Dependent child allowance — Article 2 of Annex VII of the Statute — Concept of dependent child — Refusal to grant dependent child status to a student receiving a grant — Actual maintenance of the child — Health insurance scheme) | 28 |
| 2022/C 24/36 | Case T-430/20: Judgment of the General Court of 17 November 2021 — KV v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Recruitment — Notice of open competition EPSO/AD/371/19 — Decision of the selection board to exclude the applicant from the next stage of the competition — Eligibility criterion related to professional experience — Compliance of the criterion used by the selection board with the competition notice) | 29 |
| 2022/C 24/37 | Case T-434/20: Judgment of the General Court of 24 November 2021 –Włodarczyk v EUIPO — Ave Investment (dziandruk) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark dziandruk — Absolute ground for invalidity — Absence of bad faith — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 29 |
| 2022/C 24/38 | Case T-504/20: Judgment of the General Court of 17 November 2021 — Soapland v EUIPO — Norma (Manòu) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark Manòu — Earlier national and international word marks MANOU — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Proof of genuine use of the earlier marks) | 30 |
| 2022/C 24/39 | Case T-517/20: Judgment of the General Court of 10 November 2021 — VF International v EUIPO — National Geographic Society (NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC — Earlier non-registered mark geographic — Relative ground for refusal — Use in the course of trade of a sign of more than mere local significance — Article 8(4) and Article 53(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) and Article 60(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 30 |
| 2022/C 24/40 | Case T-518/20: Judgment of the General Court of 10 November 2021 — VF International v EUIPO — National Geographic Society (NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC — Earlier non-registered mark GEOGRAPHIC — Relative ground for refusal — Use in the course of trade of a sign of more than mere local significance — Article 8(4) and Article 52(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(4) and Article 60(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 31 |
| 2022/C 24/41 | Case T-538/20: Judgment of the General Court of 17 November 2021 — Guasch Pubill v EUIPO — Nap-Kings (Table linen) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing table linen — Disclosure of earlier design — Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002 — Inadmissibility of the application for a declaration of invalidity — Article 52(3) of Regulation No 6/2002) | 32 |
| 2022/C 24/42 | Case T-551/20: Judgment of the General Court of 24 November 2021 — Jeronimo Martins Polska v EUIPO — Rivella International (Riviva) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark Riviva — Earlier EU word mark RIVELLA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Partial rejection of the application for registration — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) of Regulation 2017/1001)) | 32 |
| 2022/C 24/43 | Case T-616/20: Judgment of the General Court of 17 November 2021 — Société des produits Nestlé v EUIPO — Amigüitos pets & life (THE ONLY ONE by alphaspirit wild and perfect) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark THE ONLY ONE by alphaspirit wild and perfect — Earlier EU word mark ONE — Relative grounds for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Decision taken following the annulment of an earlier decision by the General Court — Article 72(6) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Res judicata) | 33 |
| 2022/C 24/44 | Case T-658/20: Judgment of the General Court of 17 November 2021 — Jakober v EUIPO (Shape of a cup) (EU trade mark — Application for a three-dimensional EU trade mark — Shape of a cup — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Lack of distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001)) | 34 |
| 2022/C 24/45 | Case T-247/16 RENV: Order of the General Court of 17 November 2021 — Trasta Komercbanka v ECB (Action for annulment — Prudential supervision of credit institutions — Specific supervisory tasks assigned to the ECB — Decision to withdraw a credit institution’s authorisation — Action becoming devoid of purpose — Interest in bringing proceedings ceasing to exist — No need to adjudicate) | 34 |
| 2022/C 24/46 | Case T-271/19: Order of the General Court of 12 November 2021 — Proodeftiki v Commission (State aid — Applicant having ceased to reply to the Court’s requests — No need to adjudicate) | 35 |
| 2022/C 24/47 | Case T-689/19: Order of the General Court of 11 November 2021 — ZU v EEAS (Action for annulment and for damages — Civil service — Officials — Commission staff serving in the EEAS — Request for reimbursement of mission expenses — Request for assistance — Rejection — Competence of the author of the act — Delegation of powers — Pre-litigation procedure — Designation of the defendant — Partial inadmissibility — Principle of sound financial management — Misuse of powers — Action in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law) | 36 |
| 2022/C 24/48 | Case T-136/20: Order of the General Court of 11 November 2021 — Ardex v EUIPO — Chen (ArtiX PAINTS) (EU trade mark — Revocation of the contested decision — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate) | 36 |
| 2022/C 24/49 | Case T-771/20: Order of the General Court of 10 November 2021 — KS and KD v Council and Others (Action for damages — Common foreign and security policy — Eulex Kosovo mission — Manifest lack of jurisdiction) | 37 |
| 2022/C 24/50 | Case T-5/21: Order of the General Court of 4 November 2021 — Stichting Comité N 65 Ondergronds Helvoirt v EEA (Action for annulment — Environment — Directive 2008/50/EC — Obligation of Member States to protect and improve ambient air quality — Refusal of the EEA to refer a question to the Court — Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 — Request for internal review — Inadmissibility) | 38 |
| 2022/C 24/51 | Case T-77/21: Order of the General Court of 11 November 2021 — QC v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Pension — Transfer of national pension rights — Decision establishing the number of pensionable years of service — Circumscribed powers — Action for annulment and for damages — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law — No action brought for failure to fulfil obligations — Inadmissibility — Request for directions to be issued — Clear lack of jurisdiction) | 38 |
| 2022/C 24/52 | Case T-96/21: Order of the General Court of 9 November 2021 — Amort and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — Medicinal products for human use — Conditional marketing authorisation for the medicinal product for human use Comirnaty — COVID-19 mRNA (nucleoside-modified) vaccine — No legal interest in bringing proceedings — No direct concern — No individual concern — Non-regulatory act — Inadmissibility) | 39 |
| 2022/C 24/53 | Case T-136/21: Order of the General Court of 9 November 2021 — Amort and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — Medicinal products for human use — Conditional marketing authorisation for the medicinal product for human use COVID-19 Vaccine Moderna — COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine (nucleoside-modified) — No legal interest in bringing proceedings — No direct concern — No individual concern — Non-regulatory act — Inadmissibility) | 40 |
| 2022/C 24/54 | Case T-165/21: Order of the General Court of 9 November 2021 — Amort and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — Medicinal products for human use — Conditional marketing authorisation for the medicinal product for human use COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca — COVID-19 Vaccine (ChAdOx1-S [recombinant]) — No legal interest in bringing proceedings — No direct concern — No individual concern — Non-regulatory act — Inadmissibility) | 41 |
| 2022/C 24/55 | Case T-267/21: Order of the General Court of 9 November 2021 — Amort and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — Medicinal products for human use — Conditional marketing authorisation for the medicinal product for human use COVID-19 Vaccine Janssen — COVID-19 vaccine (Ad26.COV2-S [recombinant]) — No interest in bringing proceedings — Lack of direct concern — Lack of individual concern — Non-regulatory act — Inadmissibility) | 42 |
| 2022/C 24/56 | Case T-653/21: Action brought on 6 October 2021 — Callaway v Commission | 42 |
| 2022/C 24/57 | Case T-661/21: Action brought on 7 October 2021 — ClientEarth v Commission | 44 |
| 2022/C 24/58 | Case T-663/21: Action brought on 8 October 2021 — Zegers v Commission | 44 |
| 2022/C 24/59 | Case T-702/21: Action brought on 30 October 2021 — Ekobulkos v Commission | 45 |
| 2022/C 24/60 | Case T-707/21: Action brought on 3 November 2021 — Hoteles Olivencia v EUIPO — Corporacion H10 Hotels (HOTELES HO) | 46 |
| 2022/C 24/61 | Case T-721/21: Action brought on 10 November 2021 — Sunrise Medical and Sunrise Medical Logistics v Commission | 47 |
| 2022/C 24/62 | Case T-730/21: Action brought on 12 November 2021 — Łosowski v EUIPO — Skawiński (KOMBI) | 48 |
| 2022/C 24/63 | Case T-740/21: Action brought on 19 November 2021 — Alcogroup and Alcodis v Commission | 48 |
| 2022/C 24/64 | Case T-491/19: Order of the General Court of 16 November 2021 — Vodafone Group and Others v Commission | 49 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2022/C 24/02

Case C-680/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 November 2021 — Fulmen v Council of the European Union, European Commission (Appeal — Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) — Restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran — Damage allegedly suffered by the appellant as a result of its name being included and maintained on the list of persons and entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Action for damages — Jurisdiction of the Court to rule on a claim seeking compensation for the damage allegedly caused by restrictive measures taken in decisions adopted pursuant to the CFSP — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals)

2

2022/C 24/03

Case C-681/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 November 2021 — Fereydoun Mahmoudian v Council of the European Union, European Commission (Appeal — Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) — Restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran — Damage allegedly suffered by the appellant as a result of his name being included and maintained on the list of persons and entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Action for damages — Jurisdiction of the Court to rule on a claim seeking compensation for the damage allegedly caused by restrictive measures taken in decisions adopted pursuant to the CFSP — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals)

3

2022/C 24/04

Joined Cases C-748/19 to C-754/19: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 November 2021 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie — Poland) — Criminal proceedings against WB (C-748/19), XA and YZ (C-749/19), DT (C-750/19), ZY (C-751/19), AX (C-752/19), BV (C-753/19) and CU (C-754/19) (References for a preliminary ruling — Rule of law — Independence of the judiciary — Second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU — National legislation providing the possibility for the Minister for Justice to second judges to higher courts and to terminate those secondments — Adjudicating panels in criminal cases including judges seconded by the Minister for Justice — Directive (EU) 2016/343 — Presumption of innocence)

3

2022/C 24/05

Case C-821/19: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 November 2021 — European Commission v Hungary (Actions for failure to fulfil obligations — Area of freedom, security and justice — Asylum policy — Directives 2013/32/EU and 2013/33/EU — Procedure for granting international protection — Grounds of inadmissibility — Concepts of safe third country and first country of asylum — Assistance given to asylum seekers — Criminalisation — Prohibition on entry to the border transit zone of the relevant Member State)

4

2022/C 24/06

Case C-107/20 P: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 18 November 2021 — Hellenic Republic v European Commission (Appeal — Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) — European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) — Expenditure excluded from EU financing — Expenditure incurred by the Hellenic Republic — Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 — Article 52(4)(c) — Flat-rate financial corrections — Period of 24 months — Expenditure covered by that period — Method of calculating the correction — Adjustment of the correction rate)

5

2022/C 24/07

Case C-212/20: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 18 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Woli w Warszawie — Poland) — M.P., B.P. v A. prowadzący działalność za pośrednictwem A. S.A. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Mortgage loan agreement indexed to a foreign currency — Contractual term relating to the buying and selling rates of a foreign currency — Requirement of intelligibility and transparency — Powers of the national court)

5

2022/C 24/08

Case C-306/20: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 18 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā apgabaltiesa, Latvia) — Visma Enterprise SIA v Konkurences padome (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Article 101(1) and (3) TFEU — Vertical agreements — Restriction by object or by effect — Exemption — Registration by the distributor of the potential transaction with the end user — Clause conferring on the distributor priority in progressing the sale process for 6 months from registration — Exception — Objection by the user — Jurisdiction of the Court — Purely internal situation — National legislation consistent with the solutions adopted by EU law)

6

2022/C 24/09

Case C-358/20: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 18 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Oradea — Romania) — Promexor Trade SRL v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Cluj — Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Bihor (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Right to deduct VAT — Revocation of the VAT identification of a taxable person — Refusal of the right of deduction — Formal requirements)

7

2022/C 24/10

Case C-413/20: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 18 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles — Belgium) — État belge v LO and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Air transport — Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 — Technical requirements and administrative procedures related to civil aviation aircrew — Points 9 and 10 of Subpart A of Appendix 3 to Annex I — Training course for the issue of a commercial pilot licence — Flying training — Instrument ground time — Calculation — Simulator training — Skill test — Principle of legal certainty — Temporal limitation of the effects of a preliminary ruling)

8

2022/C 24/11

Case C-479/21 PPU: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — European arrest warrants issued in respect of SN, SD (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Article 50 TEU — Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community — Article 217 TFEU — Trade and Cooperation Agreement with the United Kingdom — Protocol (No 21) on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Continuation under the Withdrawal Agreement, on a transitional basis, of the European arrest warrant regime in respect of the United Kingdom — Application to a European arrest warrant of provisions relating to the surrender mechanism established by the Trade and Cooperation Agreement with the United Kingdom — Regimes binding on Ireland)

9

2022/C 24/12

Case C-686/20: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 11 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Proximité d’Aulnay-sous-Bois — France) — YE and Others v Vueling Airlines SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights — Article 3(3) — Scope — Passengers travelling free of charge or at a reduced fare not available directly or indirectly to the public — Young child travelling free of charge — Article 2(f) — Definition of ticket)

9

2022/C 24/13

Case C-688/20: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 29 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Opatowie — Poland) — HG, TC v Ubezpieczeniowy Fundusz Gwarancyjny (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles — Directive 2009/103/EC — Article 3, first paragraph — Obligation to take out a contract of insurance — Scope — Unroadworthy vehicle, not registered and officially withdrawn from use)

10

2022/C 24/14

Case C-345/21 P: Appeal brought on 3 June 2021 by Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 24 March 2021 in Case T-282/19, Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v EUIPO

11

2022/C 24/15

Case C-452/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 21 July 2021 — J.K., B.K. v Przedsiębiorstwo Państwowe X

11

2022/C 24/16

Case C-469/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 29 July 2021 — Consejo General de Colegios Oficiales de Farmacéuticos de España v Administración General del Estado

12

2022/C 24/17

Case C-498/21 P: Appeal brought on 12 August 2021 by Birkenstock IP GmbH and Birkenstock Sales GmbH against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) made on 2 June 2021 in Case T-365/20, Birkenstock Sales GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office

12

2022/C 24/18

Case C-521/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy Poznań-Stare Miasto w Poznaniu (Poland) lodged on 23 August 2021 — MJ v AA

13

2022/C 24/19

Case C-541/21 P: Appeal brought on 30 August 2021 by Joëlle Mélin against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 30 June 2021 in Case T-51/20, Mélin v Parliament

14

2022/C 24/20

Case C-570/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Woli w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 13 September 2021 — I.S., K.S. v YYY. S.A.

15

2022/C 24/21

Case C-573/21 P: Appeal brought on 17 September 2021 by Marie-Christine Arnautu against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 14 July 2021 in Case T-740/20, Arnautu v Parliament

16

2022/C 24/22

Case C-620/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 6 October 2021 — Momtrade Ruse OOD v Direktor na Direktsia Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

17

2022/C 24/23

Case C-621/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria) lodged on 6 October 2021 — WS v Intervyuirasht organ na Darzhavna agentsia za bezhantsite pri Ministerskia savet

17

2022/C 24/24

Case C-631/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof’s-Hertogenbosch (Netherlands) lodged on 14 October 2021 — Taxi Horn Tours BV v Gemeente Weert, Gemeente Nederweert, Touringcars VOF

18

2022/C 24/25

Case C-637/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 18 October 2021 — K.R.; Other party: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

19

2022/C 24/26

Case C-646/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats ’s-Hertogenbosch (Netherlands) lodged on 25 October 2021 — K, L v Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

20

2022/C 24/27

Case C-660/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal correctionnel de Villefranche-sur-Saône (France) lodged on 29 October 2021 — Procureur de la République v K.B., F.S.

21

2022/C 24/28

Case C-662/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 4 November 2021 — Booky.fi Oy

22

2022/C 24/29

Case C-666/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hovrätten för Nedre Norrland (Sweden) lodged on 5 November 2021 — AI and Åklagarmyndigheten

22

General Court

2022/C 24/30

Case T-147/17: Judgment of the General Court of 17 November 2021 — Anastassopoulos and Others v Council and Commission (Non-contractual liability — Economic and monetary policy — Restructuring of Greek public debt — Private sector involvement — Collective action clauses — Private creditors — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals — Equal treatment — Natural and legal persons — Limitation periods — Whether European Union answerable for the measures at issue — Admissibility — Strict liability — Unusual and special damage)

24

2022/C 24/31

Case T-612/17: Judgment of the General Court of 10 November 2021 — Google and Alphabet v Commission (Google Shopping) (Competition — Abuse of dominant position — Online general search services and specialised product search services — Decision finding an infringement of Article 102 TFEU and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement — Leveraging abuse — Competition on the merits or anticompetitive practice — Conditions of access by competitors to a dominant undertaking’s service the use of which cannot be effectively replaced — Dominant undertaking favouring the display of results from its own specialised search service — Effects — Need to establish a counterfactual scenario — None — Objective justifications — None — Possibility of imposing a fine having regard to certain circumstances — Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Unlimited jurisdiction)

25

2022/C 24/32

Case T-160/19: Judgment of the General Court of 24 November 2021 — LTTE v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken with a view to combating terrorism — Freezing of funds — List of the persons, groups and entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Maintaining the applicant’s name on the list — Factual basis of the decisions to freeze funds — Error of assessment — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Right to effective judicial protection)

26

2022/C 24/33

Case T-298/19: Judgment of the General Court of 17 November 2021 — Think Schuhwerk v EUIPO (Representation of red shoe lace aglets) (EU Trade Mark — Application for a figurative EU trade mark representing red shoe lace aglets — Rejection of application — Absolute grounds for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Essentially identical previous application — No res judicata — Obligation to state reasons — Right to be heard — Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Examination of the facts by EUIPO of its own motion — Article 95 of Regulation 2017/1001)

27

2022/C 24/34

Case T-193/20: Judgment of the General Court of 10 November 2021 — Eternit v EUIPO — Eternit Österreich (Building panel) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered community design representing a building panel — Earlier design representing a panel for a noise-reduction wall — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — Sector concerned — Informed user — Degree of freedom of the designer — No different overall impression — Relevance of goods actually marketed — Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

27

2022/C 24/35

Case T-408/20: Judgment of the General Court of 17 November 2021 — KR v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Remuneration — Dependent child allowance — Article 2 of Annex VII of the Statute — Concept of dependent child — Refusal to grant dependent child status to a student receiving a grant — Actual maintenance of the child — Health insurance scheme)

28

2022/C 24/36

Case T-430/20: Judgment of the General Court of 17 November 2021 — KV v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Recruitment — Notice of open competition EPSO/AD/371/19 — Decision of the selection board to exclude the applicant from the next stage of the competition — Eligibility criterion related to professional experience — Compliance of the criterion used by the selection board with the competition notice)

29

2022/C 24/37

Case T-434/20: Judgment of the General Court of 24 November 2021 –Włodarczyk v EUIPO — Ave Investment (dziandruk) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark dziandruk — Absolute ground for invalidity — Absence of bad faith — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

29

2022/C 24/38

Case T-504/20: Judgment of the General Court of 17 November 2021 — Soapland v EUIPO — Norma (Manòu) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark Manòu — Earlier national and international word marks MANOU — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Proof of genuine use of the earlier marks)

30

2022/C 24/39

Case T-517/20: Judgment of the General Court of 10 November 2021 — VF International v EUIPO — National Geographic Society (NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC — Earlier non-registered mark geographic — Relative ground for refusal — Use in the course of trade of a sign of more than mere local significance — Article 8(4) and Article 53(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) and Article 60(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

30

2022/C 24/40

Case T-518/20: Judgment of the General Court of 10 November 2021 — VF International v EUIPO — National Geographic Society (NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC — Earlier non-registered mark GEOGRAPHIC — Relative ground for refusal — Use in the course of trade of a sign of more than mere local significance — Article 8(4) and Article 52(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(4) and Article 60(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

31

2022/C 24/41

Case T-538/20: Judgment of the General Court of 17 November 2021 — Guasch Pubill v EUIPO — Nap-Kings (Table linen) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing table linen — Disclosure of earlier design — Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002 — Inadmissibility of the application for a declaration of invalidity — Article 52(3) of Regulation No 6/2002)

32

2022/C 24/42

Case T-551/20: Judgment of the General Court of 24 November 2021 — Jeronimo Martins Polska v EUIPO — Rivella International (Riviva) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark Riviva — Earlier EU word mark RIVELLA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Partial rejection of the application for registration — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) of Regulation 2017/1001))

32

2022/C 24/43

Case T-616/20: Judgment of the General Court of 17 November 2021 — Société des produits Nestlé v EUIPO — Amigüitos pets & life (THE ONLY ONE by alphaspirit wild and perfect) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark THE ONLY ONE by alphaspirit wild and perfect — Earlier EU word mark ONE — Relative grounds for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Decision taken following the annulment of an earlier decision by the General Court — Article 72(6) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Res judicata)

33

2022/C 24/44

Case T-658/20: Judgment of the General Court of 17 November 2021 — Jakober v EUIPO (Shape of a cup) (EU trade mark — Application for a three-dimensional EU trade mark — Shape of a cup — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Lack of distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001))

34

2022/C 24/45

Case T-247/16 RENV: Order of the General Court of 17 November 2021 — Trasta Komercbanka v ECB (Action for annulment — Prudential supervision of credit institutions — Specific supervisory tasks assigned to the ECB — Decision to withdraw a credit institution’s authorisation — Action becoming devoid of purpose — Interest in bringing proceedings ceasing to exist — No need to adjudicate)

34

2022/C 24/46

Case T-271/19: Order of the General Court of 12 November 2021 — Proodeftiki v Commission (State aid — Applicant having ceased to reply to the Court’s requests — No need to adjudicate)

35

2022/C 24/47

Case T-689/19: Order of the General Court of 11 November 2021 — ZU v EEAS (Action for annulment and for damages — Civil service — Officials — Commission staff serving in the EEAS — Request for reimbursement of mission expenses — Request for assistance — Rejection — Competence of the author of the act — Delegation of powers — Pre-litigation procedure — Designation of the defendant — Partial inadmissibility — Principle of sound financial management — Misuse of powers — Action in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

36

2022/C 24/48

Case T-136/20: Order of the General Court of 11 November 2021 — Ardex v EUIPO — Chen (ArtiX PAINTS) (EU trade mark — Revocation of the contested decision — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)

36

2022/C 24/49

Case T-771/20: Order of the General Court of 10 November 2021 — KS and KD v Council and Others (Action for damages — Common foreign and security policy — Eulex Kosovo mission — Manifest lack of jurisdiction)

37

2022/C 24/50

Case T-5/21: Order of the General Court of 4 November 2021 — Stichting Comité N 65 Ondergronds Helvoirt v EEA (Action for annulment — Environment — Directive 2008/50/EC — Obligation of Member States to protect and improve ambient air quality — Refusal of the EEA to refer a question to the Court — Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 — Request for internal review — Inadmissibility)

38

2022/C 24/51

Case T-77/21: Order of the General Court of 11 November 2021 — QC v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Pension — Transfer of national pension rights — Decision establishing the number of pensionable years of service — Circumscribed powers — Action for annulment and for damages — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law — No action brought for failure to fulfil obligations — Inadmissibility — Request for directions to be issued — Clear lack of jurisdiction)

38

2022/C 24/52

Case T-96/21: Order of the General Court of 9 November 2021 — Amort and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — Medicinal products for human use — Conditional marketing authorisation for the medicinal product for human use Comirnaty — COVID-19 mRNA (nucleoside-modified) vaccine — No legal interest in bringing proceedings — No direct concern — No individual concern — Non-regulatory act — Inadmissibility)

39

2022/C 24/53

Case T-136/21: Order of the General Court of 9 November 2021 — Amort and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — Medicinal products for human use — Conditional marketing authorisation for the medicinal product for human use COVID-19 Vaccine Moderna — COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine (nucleoside-modified) — No legal interest in bringing proceedings — No direct concern — No individual concern — Non-regulatory act — Inadmissibility)

40

2022/C 24/54

Case T-165/21: Order of the General Court of 9 November 2021 — Amort and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — Medicinal products for human use — Conditional marketing authorisation for the medicinal product for human use COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca — COVID-19 Vaccine (ChAdOx1-S [recombinant]) — No legal interest in bringing proceedings — No direct concern — No individual concern — Non-regulatory act — Inadmissibility)

41

2022/C 24/55

Case T-267/21: Order of the General Court of 9 November 2021 — Amort and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — Medicinal products for human use — Conditional marketing authorisation for the medicinal product for human use COVID-19 Vaccine Janssen — COVID-19 vaccine (Ad26.COV2-S [recombinant]) — No interest in bringing proceedings — Lack of direct concern — Lack of individual concern — Non-regulatory act — Inadmissibility)

42

2022/C 24/56

Case T-653/21: Action brought on 6 October 2021 — Callaway v Commission

42

2022/C 24/57

Case T-661/21: Action brought on 7 October 2021 — ClientEarth v Commission

44

2022/C 24/58

Case T-663/21: Action brought on 8 October 2021 — Zegers v Commission

44

2022/C 24/59

Case T-702/21: Action brought on 30 October 2021 — Ekobulkos v Commission

45

2022/C 24/60

Case T-707/21: Action brought on 3 November 2021 — Hoteles Olivencia v EUIPO — Corporacion H10 Hotels (HOTELES HO)

46

2022/C 24/61

Case T-721/21: Action brought on 10 November 2021 — Sunrise Medical and Sunrise Medical Logistics v Commission

47

2022/C 24/62

Case T-730/21: Action brought on 12 November 2021 — Łosowski v EUIPO — Skawiński (KOMBI)

48

2022/C 24/63

Case T-740/21: Action brought on 19 November 2021 — Alcogroup and Alcodis v Commission

48

2022/C 24/64

Case T-491/19: Order of the General Court of 16 November 2021 — Vodafone Group and Others v Commission

49

---

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 17.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/1

---

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

(2022/C 24/01)

Last publication

OJ C 11, 10.1.2022

Past publications

OJ C 2, 3.1.2022

OJ C 513, 20.12.2021

OJ C 502, 13.12.2021

OJ C 490, 6.12.2021

OJ C 481, 29.11.2021

OJ C 471, 22.11.2021

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 17.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 November 2021 — Fulmen v Council of the European Union, European Commission

(Case C-680/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) - Restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran - Damage allegedly suffered by the appellant as a result of its name being included and maintained on the list of persons and entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Action for damages - Jurisdiction of the Court to rule on a claim seeking compensation for the damage allegedly caused by restrictive measures taken in decisions adopted pursuant to the CFSP - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals)

(2022/C 24/02)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Fulmen (represented by: A. Bahrami, avocat, and N. Korogiannakis, dikigoros)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: M.-C. Cadilhac and M. Bishop, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: A. Boquet and J. Roberti di Sarsina, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Fulmen to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Fulmen to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 372, 4.11.2019.

---

| 17.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 November 2021 — Fereydoun Mahmoudian v Council of the European Union, European Commission

(Case C-681/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) - Restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran - Damage allegedly suffered by the appellant as a result of his name being included and maintained on the list of persons and entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Action for damages - Jurisdiction of the Court to rule on a claim seeking compensation for the damage allegedly caused by restrictive measures taken in decisions adopted pursuant to the CFSP - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals)

(2022/C 24/03)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Fereydoun Mahmoudian (represented by: A. Bahrami, avocat, and N. Korogiannakis, dikigoros)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: M.-C. Cadilhac and M. Bishop, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet and J. Roberti di Sarsina, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Mr Fereydoun Mahmoudian to bear his owns costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Fereydoun Mahmoudian to bear his owns costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 372, 4.11.2019.

---

| 17.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 November 2021 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie — Poland) — Criminal proceedings against WB (C-748/19), XA and YZ (C-749/19), DT (C-750/19), ZY (C-751/19), AX (C-752/19), BV (C-753/19) and CU (C-754/19)

(Joined Cases C-748/19 to C-754/19) (1)

(References for a preliminary ruling - Rule of law - Independence of the judiciary - Second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU - National legislation providing the possibility for the Minister for Justice to second judges to higher courts and to terminate those secondments - Adjudicating panels in criminal cases including judges seconded by the Minister for Justice - Directive (EU) 2016/343 - Presumption of innocence)

(2022/C 24/04)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie

Criminal proceedings against

WB (C-748/19), XA and YZ (C-749/19), DT (C-750/19), ZY (C-751/19), AX (C-752/19), BV (C-753/19) and CU (C-754/19)

other parties: Prokuratura Krajowa, formerly Prokuratura Rejonowa w Mińsku Mazowieckim (C-748/19), Prokuratura Rejonowa Warszawa-Żoliborz w Warszawie (C-749/19), Prokuratura Rejonowa Warszawa-Wola w Warszawie (C-750/19, C-753/19 and C-754/19), Prokuratura Rejonowa w Pruszkowie (C-751/19) and Prokuratura Rejonowa Warszawa-Ursynów w Warszawie (C-752/19), as well as Pictura sp. z o.o. (C-754/19)

Operative part of the judgment

The second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, read in the light of Article 2 TEU, and Article 6(1) and (2) of Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings must be interpreted as precluding provisions of national legislation pursuant to which the Minister for Justice of a Member State may, on the basis of criteria which have not been made public, second a judge to a higher criminal court for a fixed or indefinite period and may, at any time, by way of a decision which does not contain a statement of reasons, terminate that secondment, irrespective of whether that secondment is for a fixed or indefinite period.

---

(1)  OJ C 54, 17.2.2020.

---

| 17.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 November 2021 — European Commission v Hungary

(Case C-821/19) (1)

(Actions for failure to fulfil obligations - Area of freedom, security and justice - Asylum policy - Directives 2013/32/EU and 2013/33/EU - Procedure for granting international protection - Grounds of inadmissibility - Concepts of ‘safe third country’ and ‘first country of asylum’ - Assistance given to asylum seekers - Criminalisation - Prohibition on entry to the border transit zone of the relevant Member State)

(2022/C 24/05)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented initially by J. Tomkin, A. Tokár and M. Condou-Durande, and subsequently by J. Tomkin and A. Tokár, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Hungary (represented by: K. Szíjjártó, M. Tátrai and M.Z. Fehér, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under:






  — | Article 33(2) of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection by allowing an application for international protection to be rejected as inadmissible on the ground that the applicant arrived on its territory via a State in which that person was not exposed to persecution or a risk of serious harm, or in which a sufficient degree of protection is guaranteed; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Declares that Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under:

—

Article 33(2) of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection by allowing an application for international protection to be rejected as inadmissible on the ground that the applicant arrived on its territory via a State in which that person was not exposed to persecution or a risk of serious harm, or in which a sufficient degree of protection is guaranteed;

| — | Article 8(2) and Article 22(1) of Directive 2013/32 and Article 10(4) of Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection by criminalising in its national law the actions of any person who, in connection with an organising activity, provides assistance in respect of the making or lodging of an application for asylum in its territory, where it can be proved beyond all reasonable doubt that that person was aware that that application could not be accepted under that law; |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 8(2) and Article 22(1) of Directive 2013/32 and Article 10(4) of Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection by criminalising in its national law the actions of any person who, in connection with an organising activity, provides assistance in respect of the making or lodging of an application for asylum in its territory, where it can be proved beyond all reasonable doubt that that person was aware that that application could not be accepted under that law;

| — | Article 8(2), Article 12(1)(c) and Article 22(1) of Directive 2013/32 and Article 10(4) of Directive 2013/33 by preventing any person who is suspected of having committed such an offence from the right to approach its external borders; |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 8(2), Article 12(1)(c) and Article 22(1) of Directive 2013/32 and Article 10(4) of Directive 2013/33 by preventing any person who is suspected of having committed such an offence from the right to approach its external borders;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders Hungary to bear its own costs and to pay four fifths of the costs of the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Hungary to bear its own costs and to pay four fifths of the costs of the European Commission;

| 4. | Orders the European Commission to bear one fifth of its costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the European Commission to bear one fifth of its costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 19, 20.1.2020.

---

| 17.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 18 November 2021 — Hellenic Republic v European Commission

(Case C-107/20 P) (1)

(Appeal - Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) - European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) - Expenditure excluded from EU financing - Expenditure incurred by the Hellenic Republic - Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 - Article 52(4)(c) - Flat-rate financial corrections - Period of 24 months - Expenditure covered by that period - Method of calculating the correction - Adjustment of the correction rate)

(2022/C 24/06)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: E. Tsaousi, A.-E. Vasilopolou and E.-E. Krompa, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: M. Konstantinidis and J. Aquilina, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

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

2.

Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 161, 11.5.2020

---

| 17.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 18 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Woli w Warszawie — Poland) — M.P., B.P. v ‘A.’ prowadzący działalność za pośrednictwem ‘A.’ S.A.

(Case C-212/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Mortgage loan agreement indexed to a foreign currency - Contractual term relating to the buying and selling rates of a foreign currency - Requirement of intelligibility and transparency - Powers of the national court)

(2022/C 24/07)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Woli w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: M.P., B.P.

Defendant:‘A.’ prowadzący działalność za pośrednictwem ‘A.’ S.A.

Intervener: Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 5 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that the content of a clause of a loan agreement concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer that sets the buying and selling prices of a foreign currency to which the loan is indexed must enable a consumer who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect to understand, on the basis of clear and intelligible criteria, the way in which the foreign currency exchange rate used to calculate the amount of the repayment instalments is set, in order that that consumer is able to determine himself or herself, at any time, the exchange rate applied by the seller or supplier. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 5 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that the content of a clause of a loan agreement concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer that sets the buying and selling prices of a foreign currency to which the loan is indexed must enable a consumer who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect to understand, on the basis of clear and intelligible criteria, the way in which the foreign currency exchange rate used to calculate the amount of the repayment instalments is set, in order that that consumer is able to determine himself or herself, at any time, the exchange rate applied by the seller or supplier.

| 2. | Articles 5 and 6 of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as precluding the national court, which has found that a term of a contract concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer is unfair, within the meaning of Article 3(1) of that directive, from interpreting that term in order to remedy its unfairness, even if that interpretation would correspond to the common intention of the parties to that contract. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Articles 5 and 6 of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as precluding the national court, which has found that a term of a contract concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer is unfair, within the meaning of Article 3(1) of that directive, from interpreting that term in order to remedy its unfairness, even if that interpretation would correspond to the common intention of the parties to that contract.

---

(1)  OJ C 304, 14.9.2020.

---

| 17.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 18 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā apgabaltiesa, Latvia) — ‘Visma Enterprise’ SIA v Konkurences padome

(Case C-306/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Article 101(1) and (3) TFEU - Vertical agreements - Restriction ‘by object’ or ‘by effect’ - Exemption - Registration by the distributor of the potential transaction with the end user - Clause conferring on the distributor ‘priority in progressing the sale process’ for 6 months from registration - Exception - Objection by the user - Jurisdiction of the Court - Purely internal situation - National legislation consistent with the solutions adopted by EU law)

(2022/C 24/08)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Administratīvā apgabaltiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘Visma Enterprise’ SIA

Defendant: Konkurences padome

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 101(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that an agreement between a supplier and a distributor under which the distributor who was first to register the potential transaction with the end user enjoys ‘priority in progressing the sale process’ for 6 months from the registration of that transaction, unless that user objects, cannot be classified as an agreement which has ‘as [its] object’ the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition, within the meaning of that provision, unless that agreement, in the light of its wording, its objectives and its context, can be regarded as posing a sufficient degree of harm to competition to be classified thus.
  If such an agreement does not constitute a restriction of competition ‘by object’ for the purposes of Article 101(1) TFEU, the national court must examine whether, in the light of all the relevant circumstances of the case in the main proceedings, namely, in particular, the economic and legal context in which the undertakings concerned operate, the nature of the goods or services affected, and the real conditions of the functioning and structure of the market in question, that agreement could be regarded as restricting competition in a sufficiently appreciable manner by reason of its actual or potential effects. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 101(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that an agreement between a supplier and a distributor under which the distributor who was first to register the potential transaction with the end user enjoys ‘priority in progressing the sale process’ for 6 months from the registration of that transaction, unless that user objects, cannot be classified as an agreement which has ‘as [its] object’ the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition, within the meaning of that provision, unless that agreement, in the light of its wording, its objectives and its context, can be regarded as posing a sufficient degree of harm to competition to be classified thus.

If such an agreement does not constitute a restriction of competition ‘by object’ for the purposes of Article 101(1) TFEU, the national court must examine whether, in the light of all the relevant circumstances of the case in the main proceedings, namely, in particular, the economic and legal context in which the undertakings concerned operate, the nature of the goods or services affected, and the real conditions of the functioning and structure of the market in question, that agreement could be regarded as restricting competition in a sufficiently appreciable manner by reason of its actual or potential effects.

| 2. | Article 101(3) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that an agreement between a supplier and a distributor under which the distributor who was first to register the potential transaction with the end user enjoys ‘priority in progressing the sale process’ for 6 months from the registration of that transaction, unless that user objects, if it constitutes an agreement which has as its ‘object’ or ‘effect’ the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the meaning of Article 101(1) TFEU, may be exempted under paragraph 3 of that article only if it satisfies the cumulative conditions in that provision. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 101(3) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that an agreement between a supplier and a distributor under which the distributor who was first to register the potential transaction with the end user enjoys ‘priority in progressing the sale process’ for 6 months from the registration of that transaction, unless that user objects, if it constitutes an agreement which has as its ‘object’ or ‘effect’ the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the meaning of Article 101(1) TFEU, may be exempted under paragraph 3 of that article only if it satisfies the cumulative conditions in that provision.

| 3. | Article 101(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that the existence of an agreement prohibited by that provision cannot be ruled out solely on the ground that the authority responsible for implementing that provision carried out a differentiated assessment concerning the attribution to the parties to that agreement of liability for the infringement. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 101(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that the existence of an agreement prohibited by that provision cannot be ruled out solely on the ground that the authority responsible for implementing that provision carried out a differentiated assessment concerning the attribution to the parties to that agreement of liability for the infringement.

---

(1)  OJ C 304, 14.9.2020.

---

| 17.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 18 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Oradea — Romania) — Promexor Trade SRL v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Cluj — Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Bihor

(Case C-358/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Harmonisation of fiscal legislation - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Right to deduct VAT - Revocation of the VAT identification of a taxable person - Refusal of the right of deduction - Formal requirements)

(2022/C 24/09)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Judecătoria Oradea

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Promexor Trade SRL

Defendant: Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Cluj — Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Bihor

Operative part of the judgment

Article 168, Article 213(1), Article 214(1) and Article 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2010/45/EU of 13 July 2010 and the principle of value added tax (VAT) neutrality, read in the light of the principles of legal certainty, the protection of legitimate expectations and proportionality, must be interpreted as not precluding, where the identification of a taxable person for VAT purposes has been revoked because no taxable transactions have been indicated in the VAT returns filed for six consecutive months but where that taxable person continues his or her activities notwithstanding that revocation, national legislation under which the competent tax authority may require that taxable person to pay the VAT due on his or her taxed transactions, provided that he or she can re-register for VAT purposes and deduct the input VAT paid. The fact that the director of the taxable person is a partner in another company which is the subject to insolvency proceedings cannot, in itself, be put forward to systematically refuse the re-registration of that taxable person for VAT purposes.

---

(1)  OJ C 378, 9.11.2020.

---

| 17.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 18 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles — Belgium) — État belge v LO and Others

(Case C-413/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Air transport - Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 - Technical requirements and administrative procedures related to civil aviation aircrew - Points 9 and 10 of Subpart A of Appendix 3 to Annex I - Training course for the issue of a commercial pilot licence - Flying training - Instrument ground time - Calculation - Simulator training - Skill test - Principle of legal certainty - Temporal limitation of the effects of a preliminary ruling)

(2022/C 24/10)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: État belge

Defendants: LO, OG, SH, MB, JD, OP, Bluetail Flight School SA (BFS)

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Point 9(e) of Subpart A of Appendix 3 to Annex I to Commission Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 of 3 November 2011 laying down technical requirements and administrative procedures related to civil aviation aircrew pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) 2018/1119 of 31 July 2018, must be interpreted as meaning that, in calculating the 115 hours of instrument time referred to in that provision, it is not possible to count more than 55 hours of instrument ground time; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Point 9(e) of Subpart A of Appendix 3 to Annex I to Commission Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 of 3 November 2011 laying down technical requirements and administrative procedures related to civil aviation aircrew pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) 2018/1119 of 31 July 2018, must be interpreted as meaning that, in calculating the 115 hours of instrument time referred to in that provision, it is not possible to count more than 55 hours of instrument ground time;

| 2. | Point 10 of Subpart A of Appendix 3 to Annex I to Regulation No 1178/2011, as amended by Regulation 2018/1119, must be interpreted as meaning that, where an applicant has sat the skill test before completing all of the required training hours, the CPL(A) licence may be granted to him or her only once he or she has completed the training and sat the related skill test again. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Point 10 of Subpart A of Appendix 3 to Annex I to Regulation No 1178/2011, as amended by Regulation 2018/1119, must be interpreted as meaning that, where an applicant has sat the skill test before completing all of the required training hours, the CPL(A) licence may be granted to him or her only once he or she has completed the training and sat the related skill test again.

---

(1)  OJ C 378, 9.11.2020.

---

| 17.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — European arrest warrants issued in respect of SN, SD

(Case C-479/21 PPU) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Article 50 TEU - Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community - Article 217 TFEU - Trade and Cooperation Agreement with the United Kingdom - Protocol (No 21) on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - European arrest warrant - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Continuation under the Withdrawal Agreement, on a transitional basis, of the European arrest warrant regime in respect of the United Kingdom - Application to a European arrest warrant of provisions relating to the surrender mechanism established by the Trade and Cooperation Agreement with the United Kingdom - Regimes binding on Ireland)

(2022/C 24/11)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: SN, SD

Intervening parties: Governor of Cloverhill Prison, Ireland, Attorney General, Governor of Mountjoy prison

Operative part of the judgment

Article 50 TEU, Article 217 TFEU and Protocol (No 21) on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, annexed to the TEU and the TFEU, must be interpreted as meaning that Article 62(1)(b) of the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, read in conjunction with the fourth paragraph of Article 185 thereof, and Article 632 of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, of the one part, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of the other part, are binding on Ireland.

---

(1)  OJ C 391, 27.9.2021.

---

| 17.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/9

---

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 11 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Proximité d’Aulnay-sous-Bois — France) — YE and Others v Vueling Airlines SA

(Case C-686/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights - Article 3(3) - Scope - Passengers travelling free of charge or at a reduced fare not available directly or indirectly to the public - Young child travelling free of charge - Article 2(f) - Definition of ‘ticket’)

(2022/C 24/12)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de Proximité d’Aulnay-sous-Bois

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: YE, LP, AN, legally represented by her parents YE and LP, OL, legally represented by her parents YE and LP, VX, legally represented by his parents YE and LP, CE, legally represented by her parents YE and LP

Defendant: Vueling Airlines SA

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The first sentence of Article 3(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, must be interpreted as meaning that the condition of direct or indirect availability to the public, contained in that provision, does not refer to passengers travelling free of charge. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The first sentence of Article 3(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, must be interpreted as meaning that the condition of direct or indirect availability to the public, contained in that provision, does not refer to passengers travelling free of charge.

| 2. | The second sentence of Article 3(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that a passenger who travels free of charge on account of his or her young age, but who does not have an allocated seat or a boarding pass and whose name does not appear on the reservations booked by his or her parents, is excluded from the scope of that regulation. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The second sentence of Article 3(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that a passenger who travels free of charge on account of his or her young age, but who does not have an allocated seat or a boarding pass and whose name does not appear on the reservations booked by his or her parents, is excluded from the scope of that regulation.

---

(1)  Date lodged: 18 December 2020

---

| 17.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/10

---

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 29 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Opatowie — Poland) — HG, TC v Ubezpieczeniowy Fundusz Gwarancyjny

(Case C-688/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles - Directive 2009/103/EC - Article 3, first paragraph - Obligation to take out a contract of insurance - Scope - Unroadworthy vehicle, not registered and officially withdrawn from use)

(2022/C 24/13)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy w Opatowie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: HG, TC

Defendant: Ubezpieczeniowy Fundusz Gwarancyjny

Operative part of the order

The first paragraph of Article 3 of Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability must be interpreted as meaning that the conclusion of a contract of insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of a motor vehicle is not compulsory during the period in which the vehicle concerned is not roadworthy on account of its technical condition, is not registered and has been temporarily withdrawn from use in accordance with the applicable national law.

---

(1)  Date lodged: 17/12/2020.

---

| 17.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/11

---

Appeal brought on 3 June 2021 by Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 24 March 2021 in Case T-282/19, Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v EUIPO

(Case C-345/21 P)

(2022/C 24/14)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi (represented by: S. Malynicz, BL, S. Baran, Barrister, V. Marsland, Solicitor)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 23 November 2021, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal was not allowed to proceed and that Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi should bear its own costs.

---

| 17.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/11

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 21 July 2021 — J.K., B.K. v Przedsiębiorstwo Państwowe X

(Case C-452/21)

(2022/C 24/15)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: J.K., B.K.

Respondent: Przedsiębiorstwo Państwowe X

Question referred

Must Article 191(1) and (2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Articles 7, 17 and 37 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, read in conjunction with Article 1(1) and Articles 2, 8 and 9 of Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise, (1) be interpreted as precluding an interpretation of a provision of national law, namely Article 129(4) of the Ustawa z dnia 27 kwietnia 2001 r. — Prawo ochrony środowiska (Environmental Protection Law of 27 April 2001), which provides for a time limit of three years for bringing a claim related to a restriction on the manner of use of property, and which prevents the owners of property within a restricted use area associated with the operation of an airport from obtaining compensation for a reduction in the value of their property and reimbursement for the costs of soundproofing, as in the present case?

---

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

---

| 17.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/12

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 29 July 2021 — Consejo General de Colegios Oficiales de Farmacéuticos de España v Administración General del Estado

(Case C-469/21)

(2022/C 24/16)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Consejo General de Colegios Oficiales de Farmacéuticos de España

Defendant: Administración General del Estado

Questions referred

| 1. | Is a national provision that creates a node (as a tool for use with the repository), which is owned and managed by the State Administration, compatible with Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/[1]61, (1) in particular Articles 25, 31, 32, 35, 36 and 44 thereof? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is a national provision that creates a node (as a tool for use with the repository), which is owned and managed by the State Administration, compatible with Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/[1]61, (1) in particular Articles 25, 31, 32, 35, 36 and 44 thereof?

| 2. | If the answer to the previous question is in the affirmative, is a national provision that requires pharmacies to use that node when they supply medicinal products financed by the National Health System compatible with Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/[1]61, in particular Articles 25, 31, 32, 35, 36 and 44 thereof? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the previous question is in the affirmative, is a national provision that requires pharmacies to use that node when they supply medicinal products financed by the National Health System compatible with Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/[1]61, in particular Articles 25, 31, 32, 35, 36 and 44 thereof?

| 3. | If the answer to the previous question is in the affirmative, is a national provision that provides that, where no agreement is reached between the State Administration and the entity managing the national repository in relation to integrating the node concerned into the repository, integration may be required, unilaterally and authoritatively, by ministerial order compatible with Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/[1]61, in particular Articles 25, 31, 32, 35, 36 and 44 thereof? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the answer to the previous question is in the affirmative, is a national provision that provides that, where no agreement is reached between the State Administration and the entity managing the national repository in relation to integrating the node concerned into the repository, integration may be required, unilaterally and authoritatively, by ministerial order compatible with Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/[1]61, in particular Articles 25, 31, 32, 35, 36 and 44 thereof?

---

(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 (OJ 2016 L 32, p. 1).

---

| 17.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/12

---

Appeal brought on 12 August 2021 by Birkenstock IP GmbH and Birkenstock Sales GmbH against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) made on 2 June 2021 in Case T-365/20, Birkenstock Sales GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office

(Case C-498/21 P)

(2022/C 24/17)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellants: Birkenstock IP GmbH, Birkenstock Sales GmbH (represented by: N. Weber and D. Leisner, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 22 November 2021, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) did not allow the appeal to proceed and ordered the appellants to bear their own costs.

---

| 17.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/13

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy Poznań-Stare Miasto w Poznaniu (Poland) lodged on 23 August 2021 — MJ v AA

(Case C-521/21)

(2022/C 24/18)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy Poznań-Stare Miasto w Poznaniu

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: MJ

Defendant: AA

Other party: Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Articles 2 and 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union (‘the TEU’) and Article 6(1) to (3) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (‘the Charter’), be interpreted as meaning that a court is not a tribunal established by law in the case where it includes in its composition a person appointed to a judicial post in that court as a result of a procedure in which:






  (a) | the person to be appointed to the post by the Prezydent Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej (President of the Republic of Poland) was selected by the current Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa (National Council of the Judiciary), which was elected contrary to Polish constitutional and statutory provisions, is not an independent body and no representatives of the judiciary were elected to it independently of the executive and the legislature and, therefore, no motion for appointment to a judicial post as provided for under national law was effectively lodged; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Must Articles 2 and 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union (‘the TEU’) and Article 6(1) to (3) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (‘the Charter’), be interpreted as meaning that a court is not a tribunal established by law in the case where it includes in its composition a person appointed to a judicial post in that court as a result of a procedure in which:

(a)

the person to be appointed to the post by the Prezydent Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej (President of the Republic of Poland) was selected by the current Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa (National Council of the Judiciary), which was elected contrary to Polish constitutional and statutory provisions, is not an independent body and no representatives of the judiciary were elected to it independently of the executive and the legislature and, therefore, no motion for appointment to a judicial post as provided for under national law was effectively lodged;

| (b) | the participants in the competition for appointment to the post had no right of appeal to a court within the meaning of Articles 2 and 19(1) TEU and Article 6(1) to (3) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the participants in the competition for appointment to the post had no right of appeal to a court within the meaning of Articles 2 and 19(1) TEU and Article 6(1) to (3) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter?

| 2. | Must Article 2 and Article 19(1) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter, be interpreted as meaning that, where a court includes in its composition a person appointed in the circumstances described in Question 1 above:






  (a) | those provisions preclude the application of provisions of national law which place the review of the lawfulness of the appointment of such a person to a judicial post within the exclusive jurisdiction of a chamber of the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court, Poland) composed exclusively of persons appointed to judicial posts in the circumstances described in Question 1 above and which provisions of national law also require that any objections concerning the appointment to a judicial post be disregarded, taking into account the institutional and systemic context; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Must Article 2 and Article 19(1) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter, be interpreted as meaning that, where a court includes in its composition a person appointed in the circumstances described in Question 1 above:

(a)

those provisions preclude the application of provisions of national law which place the review of the lawfulness of the appointment of such a person to a judicial post within the exclusive jurisdiction of a chamber of the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court, Poland) composed exclusively of persons appointed to judicial posts in the circumstances described in Question 1 above and which provisions of national law also require that any objections concerning the appointment to a judicial post be disregarded, taking into account the institutional and systemic context;

| (b) | those provisions require, in order to ensure the effectiveness of EU law, provisions of national law to be interpreted in a manner that allows a court to exclude, of its own motion, such a person from hearing the case on the basis of the rules, applicable by analogy, which govern the exclusion of a judge who is incapable of deciding cases (iudex inhabilis); |
| --- | --- |

(b)

those provisions require, in order to ensure the effectiveness of EU law, provisions of national law to be interpreted in a manner that allows a court to exclude, of its own motion, such a person from hearing the case on the basis of the rules, applicable by analogy, which govern the exclusion of a judge who is incapable of deciding cases (iudex inhabilis);

| (c) | those provisions require the national court, in order to apply EU law and achieve the effet utile, to disregard a judgment of the national constitutional court in so far as that judgment declares it incompatible with national law to hear a motion for the exclusion of a judge on the ground that the appointment of that judge was defective and did not comply with EU requirements of an independent and impartial tribunal previously established by law within the meaning of Article 19(1) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

those provisions require the national court, in order to apply EU law and achieve the effet utile, to disregard a judgment of the national constitutional court in so far as that judgment declares it incompatible with national law to hear a motion for the exclusion of a judge on the ground that the appointment of that judge was defective and did not comply with EU requirements of an independent and impartial tribunal previously established by law within the meaning of Article 19(1) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter;

| (d) | those provisions require the national court, in order to apply EU law and achieve the effet utile, to disregard a judgment of the national constitutional court if it prevents the implementation of an order of the Court of Justice of the European Union granting interim measures, which orders the suspension of the application of national legislation that prevents national courts from examining whether there is compliance with EU requirements concerning an independent and impartial tribunal previously established by law within the meaning of Article 19(1) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter? |
| --- | --- |

(d)

those provisions require the national court, in order to apply EU law and achieve the effet utile, to disregard a judgment of the national constitutional court if it prevents the implementation of an order of the Court of Justice of the European Union granting interim measures, which orders the suspension of the application of national legislation that prevents national courts from examining whether there is compliance with EU requirements concerning an independent and impartial tribunal previously established by law within the meaning of Article 19(1) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter?

---

| 17.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/14

---

Appeal brought on 30 August 2021 by Joëlle Mélin against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 30 June 2021 in Case T-51/20, Mélin v Parliament

(Case C-541/21 P)

(2022/C 24/19)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Joëlle Mélin (represented by: F. Wagner, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 30 June 2021 in Case T-51/20, Mélin v Parliament; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 30 June 2021 in Case T-51/20, Mélin v Parliament;

| — | declare the plea of illegality admissible and rule that Article 33(1) and (2) and Article 68(1) and (2) of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members (‘IMSM’) are unlawful; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the plea of illegality admissible and rule that Article 33(1) and (2) and Article 68(1) and (2) of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members (‘IMSM’) are unlawful;

| — | find that there is no legal basis for the Secretary-General’s decision of 17 December 2019 and annul that decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

find that there is no legal basis for the Secretary-General’s decision of 17 December 2019 and annul that decision;

in the main proceedings:

| — | find that Joëlle Mélin has adduced evidence of the work of her assistant in accordance with Article 33(1) and (2) of the IMSM and the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

—

find that Joëlle Mélin has adduced evidence of the work of her assistant in accordance with Article 33(1) and (2) of the IMSM and the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union;

consequently,

| — | annul the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 17 December 2019, notified by letter No D202484 dated 18 December 2019, taken pursuant to Article 68 of Decision 2009/C 159/01 of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 19 May and 9 July 2008‘concerning implementing measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament’ as amended, finding a debt on the part of the appellant amounting to EUR 130 339,35 in respect of amounts wrongly paid in connection with the parliamentary assistance allowance and giving reasons for its recovery; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 17 December 2019, notified by letter No D202484 dated 18 December 2019, taken pursuant to Article 68 of Decision 2009/C 159/01 of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 19 May and 9 July 2008‘concerning implementing measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament’ as amended, finding a debt on the part of the appellant amounting to EUR 130 339,35 in respect of amounts wrongly paid in connection with the parliamentary assistance allowance and giving reasons for its recovery;

| — | annul debit note No 2019-2081 informing the appellant that a debt on the part of the appellant had been found following the decision of Secretary-General of 17 December 2019, recovery of the sums wrongly paid as parliamentary assistance allowance, application of Article 68 of the IMS and Articles 98 to 101 of the Financial Regulation; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul debit note No 2019-2081 informing the appellant that a debt on the part of the appellant had been found following the decision of Secretary-General of 17 December 2019, recovery of the sums wrongly paid as parliamentary assistance allowance, application of Article 68 of the IMS and Articles 98 to 101 of the Financial Regulation;

| — | order the European Parliament to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant puts forward a plea in law entitled ‘INFRINGEMENT OF EU LAW BY THE GENERAL COURT — ERROR IN LAW AND ERROR IN THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE LEGAL NATURE OF THE FACTS — MANIFEST ERROR OF ASSESSMENT — DENATURATION OF A JUDGMENT’, which she sub-divides into two chapters, the first relating to the plea of illegality raised at first instance and the General Court’s analysis of the first plea, and the second relating to the merits and the General Court’s analysis of the third plea.

In the first chapter, the appellant raises a plea of illegality and claims that Article 33(1) and (2) and Article 68(1) and (2) of the IMSM do not respect the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations. The arguments put forward by the appellant in the second chapter concern the General Court’s assessment of the errors of fact alleged against the Secretary-General.

---

| 17.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/15

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Woli w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 13 September 2021 — I.S., K.S. v YYY. S.A.

(Case C-570/21)

(2022/C 24/20)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Woli w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: I.S., K.S.

Defendant: YYY. S.A.

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 2(b) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (1) and its recitals be interpreted as not precluding the inclusion in the definition of ‘consumer’ of a person engaged in business activity who entered into an agreement concerning a loan indexed to a foreign currency together with a joint-borrower who is not engaged in business activity, which loan is intended to be used partly for the business purposes of one of the borrowers and partly for purposes unconnected with his or her business activity, and not only where business use is so marginal as to be negligible in the overall context of the agreement in question, and where it is irrelevant that the non-business element is predominant?
  If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 2(b) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (1) and its recitals be interpreted as not precluding the inclusion in the definition of ‘consumer’ of a person engaged in business activity who entered into an agreement concerning a loan indexed to a foreign currency together with a joint-borrower who is not engaged in business activity, which loan is intended to be used partly for the business purposes of one of the borrowers and partly for purposes unconnected with his or her business activity, and not only where business use is so marginal as to be negligible in the overall context of the agreement in question, and where it is irrelevant that the non-business element is predominant?

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative,

| 2. | Must Article 2(b) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts and its recitals be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘consumer’ defined in that provision extends to a person who, at the time the agreement was signed, was engaged in business activity, whereas the other borrower was not engaged in any business activity, and subsequently those two persons entered into an agreement with a bank concerning a loan indexed to a foreign currency where the loan principal was used in part for the business purposes of one of the borrowers and in part for non-business purposes, where business use is not marginal and is not negligible in the overall context of the loan agreement, and where the non-business element is predominant, and given that if the loan principal had not been used for business purposes it would not have been possible to grant the loan for non-business purposes? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must Article 2(b) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts and its recitals be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘consumer’ defined in that provision extends to a person who, at the time the agreement was signed, was engaged in business activity, whereas the other borrower was not engaged in any business activity, and subsequently those two persons entered into an agreement with a bank concerning a loan indexed to a foreign currency where the loan principal was used in part for the business purposes of one of the borrowers and in part for non-business purposes, where business use is not marginal and is not negligible in the overall context of the loan agreement, and where the non-business element is predominant, and given that if the loan principal had not been used for business purposes it would not have been possible to grant the loan for non-business purposes?

---

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

---

| 17.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/16

---

Appeal brought on 17 September 2021 by Marie-Christine Arnautu against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 14 July 2021 in Case T-740/20, Arnautu v Parliament

(Case C-573/21 P)

(2022/C 24/21)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Marie-Christine Arnautu (represented by: F. Wagner, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 14 July 2021 in Case T-740/20, Arnautu v Parliament; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 14 July 2021 in Case T-740/20, Arnautu v Parliament;

| — | declare the plea of illegality admissible and rule that Article 33(1) and (2) of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members (‘IMSM’) are unlawful; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the plea of illegality admissible and rule that Article 33(1) and (2) of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members (‘IMSM’) are unlawful;

| — | find that there is no legal basis for the Secretary-General’s decision of 21 September 2020 and annul that decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

find that there is no legal basis for the Secretary-General’s decision of 21 September 2020 and annul that decision;

in the main proceedings:

| — | find that Marie-Christine Arnautu has adduced evidence of the work of her assistant in accordance with Article 33(1) and (2) of the IMSM and the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

—

find that Marie-Christine Arnautu has adduced evidence of the work of her assistant in accordance with Article 33(1) and (2) of the IMSM and the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union;

consequently,

| — | annul the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 21 September 2020, taken pursuant to Article 68 of Decision 2009/C 159/01 of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 19 May and 9 July 2008‘concerning implementing measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament’ as amended, finding a debt on the part of the appellant amounting to EUR 87 203,46 in respect of amounts wrongly paid in connection with the parliamentary assistance allowance and giving reasons for its recovery; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 21 September 2020, taken pursuant to Article 68 of Decision 2009/C 159/01 of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 19 May and 9 July 2008‘concerning implementing measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament’ as amended, finding a debt on the part of the appellant amounting to EUR 87 203,46 in respect of amounts wrongly paid in connection with the parliamentary assistance allowance and giving reasons for its recovery;

| — | annul debit note No 7000001577 informing the appellant that a debt on the part of the appellant had been found following the decision of Secretary-General of 21 September 2021, recovery of the sums wrongly paid as parliamentary assistance allowance, application of Article 68 of the IMS and Articles 98 to 101 of the Financial Regulation; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul debit note No 7000001577 informing the appellant that a debt on the part of the appellant had been found following the decision of Secretary-General of 21 September 2021, recovery of the sums wrongly paid as parliamentary assistance allowance, application of Article 68 of the IMS and Articles 98 to 101 of the Financial Regulation;

| — | order the European Parliament to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant puts forward a plea in law entitled ‘INFRINGEMENT OF EU LAW BY THE GENERAL COURT — ERROR IN LAW AND ERROR IN THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE LEGAL NATURE OF THE FACTS — MANIFEST ERROR OF ASSESSMENT’, which she sub-divides into two chapters, the first relating to the plea of illegality raised at first instance and the General Court’s analysis of the first plea, and the second relating to the merits and the General Court’s analysis of the third plea.

In the first chapter, the appellant raises a plea of illegality and claims that Article 33(1) and (2) and Article 68(1) and (2) of the IMSM do not respect the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations. The arguments put forward by the appellant in the second chapter concern the General Court’s assessment of the concept of ‘tasks necessary for, and directly related to, the exercise of the Members’ mandate.’

---

| 17.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/17

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 6 October 2021 — Momtrade Ruse OOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

(Case C-620/21)

(2022/C 24/22)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven administrativen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant in cassation and respondent in the cross-appeal: Momtrade Ruse OOD

Respondent in cassation and appellant in the cross-appeal: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

Questions referred

| 1. | Can Article 132(1)(g) of the VAT Directive (1) be interpreted as meaning that it allows a commercial company registered as a social service provider in one Member State (in this case, Bulgaria) to rely on that provision in order to obtain a tax exemption for the social services which it provides in the territory of other Member States to private individuals who are nationals of those States? Is the answer to that question affected by the fact that the recipients of the services were referred to the provider by commercial companies registered in the Member States in which the services are provided? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can Article 132(1)(g) of the VAT Directive (1) be interpreted as meaning that it allows a commercial company registered as a social service provider in one Member State (in this case, Bulgaria) to rely on that provision in order to obtain a tax exemption for the social services which it provides in the territory of other Member States to private individuals who are nationals of those States? Is the answer to that question affected by the fact that the recipients of the services were referred to the provider by commercial companies registered in the Member States in which the services are provided?

| 2. | If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, by what criteria and law (Bulgarian and/or Austrian and German law) is it necessary to assess, for the purposes of the interpretation and application of the aforesaid provision of EU law, whether the company audited is an organisation ‘recognised as being devoted to social wellbeing’ and whether it has been proven that the services are ‘closely linked to welfare and social security work’? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, by what criteria and law (Bulgarian and/or Austrian and German law) is it necessary to assess, for the purposes of the interpretation and application of the aforesaid provision of EU law, whether the company audited is an organisation ‘recognised as being devoted to social wellbeing’ and whether it has been proven that the services are ‘closely linked to welfare and social security work’?

| 3. | Based on that interpretation, does the fact that a commercial company is registered as a provider of social services, as defined by national law, suffice in order for that company to be classed as an organisation ‘recognised by the Member State concerned as being devoted to social wellbeing’? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Based on that interpretation, does the fact that a commercial company is registered as a provider of social services, as defined by national law, suffice in order for that company to be classed as an organisation ‘recognised by the Member State concerned as being devoted to social wellbeing’?

---

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

---

| 17.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/17

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria) lodged on 6 October 2021 — WS v Intervyuirasht organ na Darzhavna agentsia za bezhantsite pri Ministerskia savet

(Case C-621/21)

(2022/C 24/23)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Sofia-grad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: WS

Defendant: Intervyuirasht organ na Darzhavna agentsia za bezhantsite pri Ministerskia savet

Questions referred

| 1. | For the purpose of classifying gender-based violence against women as a ground for granting international protection under the 1951 Refugee Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and under Directive 2011/95/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted, do the definitions of terms and concepts in the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women of 18 December 1979 and the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence apply in accordance with recital 17 of Directive 2011/95/EU, or does gender-based violence against women, as a ground for granting international protection under Directive 2011/95, have an autonomous meaning which differs from that in the abovementioned instruments of international law? |
| --- | --- |

1.

For the purpose of classifying gender-based violence against women as a ground for granting international protection under the 1951 Refugee Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and under Directive 2011/95/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted, do the definitions of terms and concepts in the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women of 18 December 1979 and the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence apply in accordance with recital 17 of Directive 2011/95/EU, or does gender-based violence against women, as a ground for granting international protection under Directive 2011/95, have an autonomous meaning which differs from that in the abovementioned instruments of international law?

| 2. | In the case where gender-based violence against women is alleged, must membership of a particular social group as a reason for persecution pursuant to Article 10(1)(d) of Directive 2011/95 be established by taking account solely of the biologically defined sex or socially constructed gender of the victim of persecution (violence against a woman merely because she is a woman), can the specific forms/acts/actions of persecution referred to in the non-exhaustive list in recital 30 be a relevant factor in determining the ‘visibility of the group in society’ — that is to say, can they be its distinguishing feature — depending on the circumstances in the country of origin, or can those acts relate only to the acts of persecution under Article 9(2)(a) or (f) of Directive 2011/95? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the case where gender-based violence against women is alleged, must membership of a particular social group as a reason for persecution pursuant to Article 10(1)(d) of Directive 2011/95 be established by taking account solely of the biologically defined sex or socially constructed gender of the victim of persecution (violence against a woman merely because she is a woman), can the specific forms/acts/actions of persecution referred to in the non-exhaustive list in recital 30 be a relevant factor in determining the ‘visibility of the group in society’ — that is to say, can they be its distinguishing feature — depending on the circumstances in the country of origin, or can those acts relate only to the acts of persecution under Article 9(2)(a) or (f) of Directive 2011/95?

| 3. | In the case where the person applying for protection alleges gender-based violence in the form of domestic violence, does that person’s biologically defined sex or socially constructed gender constitute a sufficient ground for determining membership of a particular social group under Article 10(1)(d) of Directive 2011/95, or must an additional distinguishing characteristic be established, on a literal interpretation, to the letter, of Article 10(1)(d) of Directive 2011/95/EU, which provides for the conditions as cumulative in nature and the gender-related aspects as alternative in nature? |
| --- | --- |

3.

In the case where the person applying for protection alleges gender-based violence in the form of domestic violence, does that person’s biologically defined sex or socially constructed gender constitute a sufficient ground for determining membership of a particular social group under Article 10(1)(d) of Directive 2011/95, or must an additional distinguishing characteristic be established, on a literal interpretation, to the letter, of Article 10(1)(d) of Directive 2011/95/EU, which provides for the conditions as cumulative in nature and the gender-related aspects as alternative in nature?

| 4. | In the case where the applicant alleges gender-based violence in the form of domestic violence by a non-State actor of persecution within the meaning of Article 6(c) of Directive 2011/95, is Article 9(3) of Directive 2011/95 to be interpreted as meaning that it is sufficient for the purpose of establishing a causal link that there is a link between the reasons for persecution set out in Article 10 and the acts of persecution referred to in paragraph 1 of that article, or is it mandatory to establish absence of protection from the alleged persecution; does the link exist in cases where the non-State actors of persecution do not perceive the individual acts of persecution/violence as such as being gender-based? |
| --- | --- |

4.

In the case where the applicant alleges gender-based violence in the form of domestic violence by a non-State actor of persecution within the meaning of Article 6(c) of Directive 2011/95, is Article 9(3) of Directive 2011/95 to be interpreted as meaning that it is sufficient for the purpose of establishing a causal link that there is a link between the reasons for persecution set out in Article 10 and the acts of persecution referred to in paragraph 1 of that article, or is it mandatory to establish absence of protection from the alleged persecution; does the link exist in cases where the non-State actors of persecution do not perceive the individual acts of persecution/violence as such as being gender-based?

| 5. | Can the real threat of an honour killing in the event that the person concerned is returned to the country of origin justify — if the other conditions for this are met — the granting of subsidiary protection under Article 15(a) of Directive 2011/95, read in conjunction with Article 2 of the ECHR (no one is to be deprived of his or her life intentionally), or is that threat to be classified as harm under Article 15(b) of Directive 2011/95, read in conjunction with Article 3 of the ECHR, as interpreted in the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, in an overall assessment of the risk of further acts of gender-based violence; is it sufficient for the granting of such protection that the applicant has stated that he or she is subjectively unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of the country of origin? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Can the real threat of an honour killing in the event that the person concerned is returned to the country of origin justify — if the other conditions for this are met — the granting of subsidiary protection under Article 15(a) of Directive 2011/95, read in conjunction with Article 2 of the ECHR (no one is to be deprived of his or her life intentionally), or is that threat to be classified as harm under Article 15(b) of Directive 2011/95, read in conjunction with Article 3 of the ECHR, as interpreted in the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, in an overall assessment of the risk of further acts of gender-based violence; is it sufficient for the granting of such protection that the applicant has stated that he or she is subjectively unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of the country of origin?

---

(1)  OJ 2011 L 337, p. 9.

---

| 17.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/18

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof’s-Hertogenbosch (Netherlands) lodged on 14 October 2021 — Taxi Horn Tours BV v Gemeente Weert, Gemeente Nederweert, Touringcars VOF

(Case C-631/21)

(2022/C 24/24)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof’s-Hertogenbosch

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Taxi Horn Tours BV

Respondents: Gemeente Weert, Gemeente Nederweert, Touringcars VOF

Questions referred

| 1. | If collaborating persons (natural persons and/or legal persons) operate a joint undertaking (in this case in the form of a general partnership):






  — | must each of the collaborating persons then submit a separate European Single Procurement Document; or |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

If collaborating persons (natural persons and/or legal persons) operate a joint undertaking (in this case in the form of a general partnership):

—

must each of the collaborating persons then submit a separate European Single Procurement Document; or

| — | must each of the collaborating persons and their joint undertaking then submit a separate European Single Procurement Document; or |
| --- | --- |

—

must each of the collaborating persons and their joint undertaking then submit a separate European Single Procurement Document; or

| — | does only the joint undertaking need to submit one European Single Procurement Document? |
| --- | --- |

—

does only the joint undertaking need to submit one European Single Procurement Document?

| 2. | Does it make a difference in this regard:






  — | whether the joint undertaking is temporary or not temporary (enduring); |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Does it make a difference in this regard:

—

whether the joint undertaking is temporary or not temporary (enduring);

| — | that the collaborating persons are themselves economic operators; |
| --- | --- |

—

that the collaborating persons are themselves economic operators;

| — | that the collaborating persons operate their own undertakings which are similar to the joint undertaking, or at least are active in the same market; |
| --- | --- |

—

that the collaborating persons operate their own undertakings which are similar to the joint undertaking, or at least are active in the same market;

| — | that the joint undertaking is not a legal person; |
| --- | --- |

—

that the joint undertaking is not a legal person;

| — | that the joint undertaking may have (recoverable) assets that are separate (from the assets of the partners); |
| --- | --- |

—

that the joint undertaking may have (recoverable) assets that are separate (from the assets of the partners);

| — | whether the joint undertaking has the authority under national law to represent the collaborating persons in answering the questions of the European Single Procurement Document; |
| --- | --- |

—

whether the joint undertaking has the authority under national law to represent the collaborating persons in answering the questions of the European Single Procurement Document;

| — | that under national law, in the case of a general partnership, it is the partners who assume the obligations arising from the contract and are jointly and severally liable for fulfilling them (and not therefore the general partnership itself)? |
| --- | --- |

—

that under national law, in the case of a general partnership, it is the partners who assume the obligations arising from the contract and are jointly and severally liable for fulfilling them (and not therefore the general partnership itself)?

| 3. | If several of the factors mentioned under 2 are significant, how do they relate to each other? Are certain factors more significant than other factors or even of decisive significance? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If several of the factors mentioned under 2 are significant, how do they relate to each other? Are certain factors more significant than other factors or even of decisive significance?

| 4. | Is it correct that, in the case of a joint undertaking, a separate European Single Procurement Document is in any event required from a collaborating person if the execution of the contract will (also) involve the use of resources that belong to that person’s own undertaking (such as staff and business assets)? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is it correct that, in the case of a joint undertaking, a separate European Single Procurement Document is in any event required from a collaborating person if the execution of the contract will (also) involve the use of resources that belong to that person’s own undertaking (such as staff and business assets)?

| 5. | Does the joint undertaking have to meet certain requirements in order to be considered a single economic operator? If so, what are those requirements? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Does the joint undertaking have to meet certain requirements in order to be considered a single economic operator? If so, what are those requirements?

---

| 17.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/19

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 18 October 2021 — K.R.; Other party: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

(Case C-637/21)

(2022/C 24/25)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: K.R.

Other party to the proceedings: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 16(4) of Directive 2004/38/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC be interpreted as meaning that any presence in the host Member State, however brief, of an EU citizen with a right of permanent residence, is sufficient to interrupt a period of absence exceeding two consecutive years? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 16(4) of Directive 2004/38/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC be interpreted as meaning that any presence in the host Member State, however brief, of an EU citizen with a right of permanent residence, is sufficient to interrupt a period of absence exceeding two consecutive years?

| 2. | If the answer to the first question is in the negative, what factors should be taken into account in determining whether a presence in the host Member State by such an EU citizen interrupts a period of absence from the host Member State exceeding two consecutive years? In that regard, is it relevant whether the EU citizen concerned relocated the centre of her interests to another Member State? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the first question is in the negative, what factors should be taken into account in determining whether a presence in the host Member State by such an EU citizen interrupts a period of absence from the host Member State exceeding two consecutive years? In that regard, is it relevant whether the EU citizen concerned relocated the centre of her interests to another Member State?

---

(1)  OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77.

---

| 17.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/20

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats ’s-Hertogenbosch (Netherlands) lodged on 25 October 2021 — K, L v Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

(Case C-646/21)

(2022/C 24/26)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats ’s-Hertogenbosch

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: K, L

Respondent: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 10(1)(d) of the Qualification Directive (1) be interpreted as meaning that western norms, values and actual conduct which third-country nationals adopt while staying in the territory of the Member State and participating fully in society for a significant part of the phase of their lives in which they form their identity are to be regarded as a common background that cannot be changed or characteristics that are so fundamental to identity that a person should not be forced to renounce them? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 10(1)(d) of the Qualification Directive (1) be interpreted as meaning that western norms, values and actual conduct which third-country nationals adopt while staying in the territory of the Member State and participating fully in society for a significant part of the phase of their lives in which they form their identity are to be regarded as a common background that cannot be changed or characteristics that are so fundamental to identity that a person should not be forced to renounce them?

| 2. | If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, are third-country nationals who, irrespective of the reasons, have adopted comparable western norms and values through actual residence in the Member State during the phase of their lives in which they form their identity to be regarded as ‘members of a particular social group’ within the meaning of Article 10(1)(d) of the Qualification Directive? Is the question of whether there is a ‘particular social group that has a distinct identity in the relevant country’ to be assessed from the perspective of the Member State or must this, read in conjunction with Article 10(2) of the Qualification Directive, be interpreted as meaning that decisive weight is given to the ability of the foreign national to demonstrate that he or she is regarded in the country of origin as belonging to a particular social group or, at any rate, that this is attributed to him or her? Is the requirement that Westernisation can lead to refugee status only if it stems from religious or political motives compatible with Article 10 of the Qualification Directive, read in conjunction with the prohibition on refoulement and the right to asylum? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, are third-country nationals who, irrespective of the reasons, have adopted comparable western norms and values through actual residence in the Member State during the phase of their lives in which they form their identity to be regarded as ‘members of a particular social group’ within the meaning of Article 10(1)(d) of the Qualification Directive? Is the question of whether there is a ‘particular social group that has a distinct identity in the relevant country’ to be assessed from the perspective of the Member State or must this, read in conjunction with Article 10(2) of the Qualification Directive, be interpreted as meaning that decisive weight is given to the ability of the foreign national to demonstrate that he or she is regarded in the country of origin as belonging to a particular social group or, at any rate, that this is attributed to him or her? Is the requirement that Westernisation can lead to refugee status only if it stems from religious or political motives compatible with Article 10 of the Qualification Directive, read in conjunction with the prohibition on refoulement and the right to asylum?

| 3. | Is a national legal practice whereby a decision-maker, when assessing an application for international protection, weighs up the best interests of the child without first concretely determining (in each procedure) the best interests of the child compatible with EU law and, in particular, with Article 24(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), read in conjunction with Article 51(1) of the Charter? Is the answer to this question different if the Member State has to assess a request for the grant of residence on ordinary grounds and the best interests of the child must be taken into account in deciding on that request? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is a national legal practice whereby a decision-maker, when assessing an application for international protection, weighs up the best interests of the child without first concretely determining (in each procedure) the best interests of the child compatible with EU law and, in particular, with Article 24(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), read in conjunction with Article 51(1) of the Charter? Is the answer to this question different if the Member State has to assess a request for the grant of residence on ordinary grounds and the best interests of the child must be taken into account in deciding on that request?

| 4. | Having regard to Article 24(2) of the Charter, in which manner and at what stage of the assessment of an application for international protection must the best interests of the child, and, more specifically, the harm suffered by a minor as a result of his or her long residence in a Member State, be taken into account and weighed up? Is it relevant in that regard whether that actual residence was lawful? Is it relevant, when weighing up the best interests of the child in the above assessment, whether the Member State took a decision on the application for international protection within the time limits laid down in EU law, whether a previously imposed obligation to return was not complied with and whether the Member State did not effect removal after a return decision had been issued, as a result of which the minor’s actual residence in the Member State was able to continue? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Having regard to Article 24(2) of the Charter, in which manner and at what stage of the assessment of an application for international protection must the best interests of the child, and, more specifically, the harm suffered by a minor as a result of his or her long residence in a Member State, be taken into account and weighed up? Is it relevant in that regard whether that actual residence was lawful? Is it relevant, when weighing up the best interests of the child in the above assessment, whether the Member State took a decision on the application for international protection within the time limits laid down in EU law, whether a previously imposed obligation to return was not complied with and whether the Member State did not effect removal after a return decision had been issued, as a result of which the minor’s actual residence in the Member State was able to continue?

| 5. | Is a national legal practice whereby a distinction is made between initial and subsequent applications for international protection, in the sense that ordinary grounds are disregarded in the case of subsequent applications for international protection, compatible with EU law, having regard to Article 7 of the Charter, read in conjunction with Article 24(2) thereof? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Is a national legal practice whereby a distinction is made between initial and subsequent applications for international protection, in the sense that ordinary grounds are disregarded in the case of subsequent applications for international protection, compatible with EU law, having regard to Article 7 of the Charter, read in conjunction with Article 24(2) thereof?

---

(1)  Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted (recast) (OJ 2011 L 337, p. 9).

---

| 17.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/21

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal correctionnel de Villefranche-sur-Saône (France) lodged on 29 October 2021 — Procureur de la République v K.B., F.S.

(Case C-660/21)

(2022/C 24/27)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal correctionnel de Villefranche-sur-Saône

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Procureur de la République

Defendants: K.B., F.S.

Question referred

Must Articles 3 (Right to information about rights) and 4 (Letter of Rights on arrest) of the Directive of the European Parliament of 22 May 2012 (1) and Article 7 (Right to remain silent) of the Directive of the European Parliament of 9 March 2016 (2) in conjunction with Article 48 (Presumption of innocence and right of defence) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as precluding the prohibition on the national court raising of its own motion a violation of the rights of the defence as guaranteed by those directives, more specifically in so far as it is prohibited from raising of its own motion, with a view to the annulment of the procedure, a failure to give notification of the right to remain silent at the time of the arrest or a late notification of the right to remain silent?

---

(1)  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 2012 L 142, p. 1).

(2)  Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings (OJ 2016 L 65, p. 1).

---

| 17.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/22

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 4 November 2021 — Booky.fi Oy

(Case C-662/21)

(2022/C 24/28)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Booky.fi Oy

Other party: Kansallinen audiovisuaalinen instituutti (KAVI)

Questions referred

| 1. | In the light of Article 36 TFEU, does Article 34 TFEU preclude an interpretation of Paragraph 5(1) of the Law on audiovisual programmes which requires that audiovisual programme media be classified in accordance with the Law on audiovisual programmes, and age rating labels based on that classification be added to the product information, already at the time when the audiovisual programme media are made available for sale in an online store, even though the audiovisual programme media have been classified and labelled in another Member State but have not yet been delivered to Finland?
  Is it relevant to the assessment of the question that the Law on audiovisual programmes contains no provision on exceptions to classification and labelling on the ground that it has been ascertained that a purchaser of the audiovisual programme media is of full age and that, in the case of audiovisual programme media offered in an online store, the abovementioned requirement of reclassification and relabelling applies only where the programme is offered by entities or traders registered or established in Finland or by a person who is a Finnish national or is habitually resident in Finland, or if the decision to offer the programme was taken in Finland? |
| --- | --- |

1.

In the light of Article 36 TFEU, does Article 34 TFEU preclude an interpretation of Paragraph 5(1) of the Law on audiovisual programmes which requires that audiovisual programme media be classified in accordance with the Law on audiovisual programmes, and age rating labels based on that classification be added to the product information, already at the time when the audiovisual programme media are made available for sale in an online store, even though the audiovisual programme media have been classified and labelled in another Member State but have not yet been delivered to Finland?

Is it relevant to the assessment of the question that the Law on audiovisual programmes contains no provision on exceptions to classification and labelling on the ground that it has been ascertained that a purchaser of the audiovisual programme media is of full age and that, in the case of audiovisual programme media offered in an online store, the abovementioned requirement of reclassification and relabelling applies only where the programme is offered by entities or traders registered or established in Finland or by a person who is a Finnish national or is habitually resident in Finland, or if the decision to offer the programme was taken in Finland?

| 2. | If the proportionality of the above requirement of reclassification and relabelling requires that an exception may be made to that requirement on the ground that it has been ascertained that a purchaser of the audiovisual programme media is of full age, is it necessary to require, in the case of a sale to persons of full age, that there be absolute certainty as to the fact that the purchaser is of full age at the time when the audiovisual programme media is ordered and sold, or is it sufficient that the seller of the audiovisual programme media endeavours to ascertain that the purchaser is of full age? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the proportionality of the above requirement of reclassification and relabelling requires that an exception may be made to that requirement on the ground that it has been ascertained that a purchaser of the audiovisual programme media is of full age, is it necessary to require, in the case of a sale to persons of full age, that there be absolute certainty as to the fact that the purchaser is of full age at the time when the audiovisual programme media is ordered and sold, or is it sufficient that the seller of the audiovisual programme media endeavours to ascertain that the purchaser is of full age?

---

| 17.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/22

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hovrätten för Nedre Norrland (Sweden) lodged on 5 November 2021 — AI and Åklagarmyndigheten

(Case C-666/21)

(2022/C 24/29)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Hovrätten för Nedre Norrland

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants and respondents: AI and Åklagarmyndigheten

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the term ‘carriage by road of goods’ in Article 2(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 (1) be interpreted as including carriage by a vehicle with a total mass of greater than 3,5 tonnes the main use of which is to provide a temporary living area for private use? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must the term ‘carriage by road of goods’ in Article 2(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 (1) be interpreted as including carriage by a vehicle with a total mass of greater than 3,5 tonnes the main use of which is to provide a temporary living area for private use?

| 2. | In such circumstances, is the vehicle’s cargo capacity or how the vehicle is registered in the national road traffic register of relevance? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In such circumstances, is the vehicle’s cargo capacity or how the vehicle is registered in the national road traffic register of relevance?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 (OJ 2006 L 102, p. 1).

---

General Court

| 17.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 17 November 2021 — Anastassopoulos and Others v Council and Commission

(Case T-147/17) (1)

(Non-contractual liability - Economic and monetary policy - Restructuring of Greek public debt - Private sector involvement - Collective action clauses - Private creditors - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals - Equal treatment - Natural and legal persons - Limitation periods - Whether European Union answerable for the measures at issue - Admissibility - Strict liability - Unusual and special damage)

(2022/C 24/30)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Nikolaos Anastassopoulos (Nea Erythraia, Greece), Aristeidis Anastassopoulos (Nea Erythraia), Alexia Anastassopoulos (Nea Erythraia), Maria-Myrto Anastassopoulos (Nea Erythraia), Sophie Velliou (Kifisia, Greece) (represented by: K. Floros, M. Meng-Papantoni and H. Tagaras, lawyers)

Defendants: Council of the European Union (represented by: K. Michoel, E. Chatziioakeimidou and J. Bauerschmidt, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: J.-P. Keppenne, L. Flynn and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 268 TFEU seeking damages for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicants as a result of the implementation of a mandatory exchange of State bonds in the context of the restructuring of Greek public debt in 2012, on account of the participation of private investors involving the application of collective action clauses, based on conduct or acts of the Eurogroup, its President, the Heads of State or Government of the euro area and the Commission relating thereto.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr. Nikolaos Anastassopoulos, Mr. Aristeidis Anastassopoulos, Ms Alexia Anastassopoulos, Ms Maria-Myrto Anastassopoulos and Ms Sophie Velliou to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr. Nikolaos Anastassopoulos, Mr. Aristeidis Anastassopoulos, Ms Alexia Anastassopoulos, Ms Maria-Myrto Anastassopoulos and Ms Sophie Velliou to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 202, 26.6.2017.

---

| 17.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 November 2021 — Google and Alphabet v Commission (Google Shopping)

(Case T-612/17) (1)

(Competition - Abuse of dominant position - Online general search services and specialised product search services - Decision finding an infringement of Article 102 TFEU and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement - Leveraging abuse - Competition on the merits or anticompetitive practice - Conditions of access by competitors to a dominant undertaking’s service the use of which cannot be effectively replaced - Dominant undertaking favouring the display of results from its own specialised search service - Effects - Need to establish a counterfactual scenario - None - Objective justifications - None - Possibility of imposing a fine having regard to certain circumstances - Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Unlimited jurisdiction)

(2022/C 24/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Google LLC, formerly Google Inc. (Mountain View, California, United States), Alphabet, Inc. (Mountain View) (represented by: T. Graf, R. Snelders, C. Thomas, K. Fountoukakos-Kyriakakos, lawyers, R. O’Donoghue QC, M. Pickford QC, and D. Piccinin, Barrister)

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

Intervener in support of the applicants: Computer & Communications Industry Association (Washington, DC, United States) (represented by: J. Killick and A. Komninos, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: J. Möller, S. Heimerl and S. Costanzo, acting as Agents), EFTA Surveillance Authority (represented by: C. Zatschler and C. Simpson, acting as Agents), Bureau européen des unions de consommateurs (BEUC) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A. Fratini, lawyer), Infederation Ltd (Crowthorne, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Morfey, S. Gartagani, L. Hannah, A. D’heygere, K. Gwilliam, Solicitors, and T. Vinje, lawyer), Kelkoo (Paris, France) (represented by J. Koponen and B. Meyring, lawyers), Verband Deutscher Zeitschriftenverleger eV (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: T. Höppner, professor, P. Westerhoff and J. Weber, lawyers), Visual Meta GmbH (Berlin) (represented by: T. Höppner, professor, and P. Westerhoff, lawyer), BDZV — Bundesverband Digitalpublisher und Zeitungsverleger eV, formerly Bundesverband Deutscher Zeitungsverleger eV (Berlin) (represented by: T. Höppner, professor, and P. Westerhoff, lawyer), Twenga (Paris) (represented by: L. Godfroid, S. Hautbourg and S. Pelsy, lawyers)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU, principally, for annulment of Commission Decision C(2017) 4444 final of 27 June 2017 relating to proceedings under Article 102 TFEU and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39740 — Google Search (Shopping)), and, in the alternative, for annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Article 1 of Commission Decision C(2017) 4444 final of 27 June 2017 relating to proceedings under Article 102 TFEU and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39740 — Google Search (Shopping)) in so far only as the European Commission found an infringement of those provisions by Google LLC and Alphabet, Inc. in 13 national markets for general search services within the European Economic Area (EEA) on the basis of the existence of anticompetitive effects in those markets; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Article 1 of Commission Decision C(2017) 4444 final of 27 June 2017 relating to proceedings under Article 102 TFEU and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39740 — Google Search (Shopping)) in so far only as the European Commission found an infringement of those provisions by Google LLC and Alphabet, Inc. in 13 national markets for general search services within the European Economic Area (EEA) on the basis of the existence of anticompetitive effects in those markets;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders Google and Alphabet to bear their own costs and to pay the costs of the Commission, with the exception of those incurred by the Commission as a result of the intervention of Computer & Communications Industry Association; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Google and Alphabet to bear their own costs and to pay the costs of the Commission, with the exception of those incurred by the Commission as a result of the intervention of Computer & Communications Industry Association;

| 4. | Orders Computer & Communications Industry Association to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Commission as a result of the intervention of Computer & Communications Industry Association; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Computer & Communications Industry Association to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Commission as a result of the intervention of Computer & Communications Industry Association;

| 5. | Orders the Federal Republic of Germany, the EFTA Surveillance Authority, Bureau européen des unions de consommateurs (BEUC), Infederation Ltd, Kelkoo, Verband Deutscher Zeitschriftenverleger eV, Visual Meta GmbH, BDZV — Bundesverband Digitalpublisher und Zeitungsverleger eV and Twenga to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Orders the Federal Republic of Germany, the EFTA Surveillance Authority, Bureau européen des unions de consommateurs (BEUC), Infederation Ltd, Kelkoo, Verband Deutscher Zeitschriftenverleger eV, Visual Meta GmbH, BDZV — Bundesverband Digitalpublisher und Zeitungsverleger eV and Twenga to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 369, 30.10.2017.

---

| 17.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 November 2021 — LTTE v Council

(Case T-160/19) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken with a view to combating terrorism - Freezing of funds - List of the persons, groups and entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Maintaining the applicant’s name on the list - Factual basis of the decisions to freeze funds - Error of assessment - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection)

(2022/C 24/32)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Political Subdivision of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) (Herning, Denmark) (represented by: A. van Eik and T. Buruma, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and S. van Overmeire, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: F. Shibli and S. McCrory, acting as Agents, and by P. Nevill, Barrister)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of (i) Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/25 of 8 January 2019 amending and updating the list of persons, groups and entities subject to Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism, and repealing Decision (CFSP) 2018/1084 (OJ 2019 L 6, p. 6), (ii) Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/1341 of 8 August 2019 updating the list of persons, groups and entities subject to Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism, and repealing Decision 2019/25 (OJ 2019 L 209, p. 15), (iii) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/19 of 13 January 2020 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism, and repealing Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1337 (OJ 2020 L 8 I, p. 1), and (iv) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1128 of 30 July 2020 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism, and repealing Implementing Regulation 2020/19 (OJ 2020 L 247, p. 1), and Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/1132 of 30 July 2020 updating the list of persons, groups and entities subject to Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism, and repealing Decision (CFSP) 2020/20 (OJ 2020 L 247, p. 18)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the European Political Subdivision of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Political Subdivision of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

| 3. | Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 155, 6.5.2019.

---

| 17.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 17 November 2021 — Think Schuhwerk v EUIPO (Representation of red shoe lace aglets)

(Case T-298/19) (1)

(EU Trade Mark - Application for a figurative EU trade mark representing red shoe lace aglets - Rejection of application - Absolute grounds for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Essentially identical previous application - No res judicata - Obligation to state reasons - Right to be heard - Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Examination of the facts by EUIPO of its own motion - Article 95 of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2022/C 24/33)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Think Schuhwerk GmbH (Kopfing, Austria) (represented by: M. Gail, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Walicka, S. Hanne and M. Eberl, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 March 2019 (Case R 1170/2018-5), concerning an application for registration of a figurative sign representing red shoe lace aglets as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Think Schuhwerk GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Think Schuhwerk GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 220, 1.7.2019.

---

| 17.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 November 2021 — Eternit v EUIPO — Eternit Österreich (Building panel)

(Case T-193/20) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered community design representing a building panel - Earlier design representing a panel for a noise-reduction wall - Ground for invalidity - No individual character - Sector concerned - Informed user - Degree of freedom of the designer - No different overall impression - Relevance of goods actually marketed - Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

(2022/C 24/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Eternit (Kapelle-op-den-Bos, Belgium) (represented by: J. Muyldermans and P. Maeyaert, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Eternit Österreich GmbH (Vöcklabruck, Austria) (represented by: M. Prohaska-Marchried, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 February 2020 (Case R 1661/2018-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Eternit Österreich and Eternit.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Eternit to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Eternit Österreich GmbH. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Eternit to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Eternit Österreich GmbH.

---

(1)  OJ C 201, 15.6.2020.

---

| 17.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 17 November 2021 — KR v Commission

(Case T-408/20) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Remuneration - Dependent child allowance - Article 2 of Annex VII of the Statute - Concept of ‘dependent child’ - Refusal to grant dependent child status to a student receiving a grant - Actual maintenance of the child - Health insurance scheme)

(2022/C 24/35)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

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

Re:

Action under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of the decision of the Commission’s Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (PMO) of 25 October 2019 to no longer consider the applicant’s child as a dependent child, within the meaning of Article 2 of Annex VII of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, from 1 September 2019.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

Orders KR to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2020.

---

| 17.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 17 November 2021 — KV v Commission

(Case T-430/20) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Recruitment - Notice of open competition EPSO/AD/371/19 - Decision of the selection board to exclude the applicant from the next stage of the competition - Eligibility criterion related to professional experience - Compliance of the criterion used by the selection board with the competition notice)

(2022/C 24/36)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: KV (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara, T. Lilamand and I. Melo Sampaio, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment first, of the decision of the selection board of 19 September 2019 refusing the applicant’s request for reconsideration of the decision not to admit him to the next stage of open competition EPSO/AD/371/19 and, second, of the decision of the appointing authority of 31 March 2020 rejecting the applicant’s complaint against that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The General Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the selection board of 19 September 2019 rejecting the request for review of KV’s exclusion from Competition EPSO/AD/371/19; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the selection board of 19 September 2019 rejecting the request for review of KV’s exclusion from Competition EPSO/AD/371/19;

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

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2020.

---

| 17.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 November 2021 –Włodarczyk v EUIPO — Ave Investment (dziandruk)

(Case T-434/20) (1)

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

(2022/C 24/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Piotr Włodarczyk (Pabianice, Poland) (represented by: M. Bohaczewski and A. Zalewska, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Ave Investment sp. z o.o. (Pabianice) (represented by: K. Błach Morysińska, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 May 2020 (Case R 2192/2019-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Mr Włodarczyk and Ave Investment.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Piotr Włodarczyk to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Piotr Włodarczyk to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 287, 31.8.2020.

---

| 17.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 17 November 2021 — Soapland v EUIPO — Norma (Manòu)

(Case T-504/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark Manòu - Earlier national and international word marks MANOU - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Proof of genuine use of the earlier marks)

(2022/C 24/38)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Soapland GmbH & Co. OHG (Andernach, Germany) (represented by: M. Gail, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Fischer and A. Graul, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb Stiftung & Co. KG (Nuremberg, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 June 2020 (Case R 1504/2019-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb Stiftung & Co. and Soapland GmbH & Co.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Soapland GmbH & Co. OHG.to pay the costs |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Soapland GmbH & Co. OHG.to pay the costs

---

(1)  OJ C 320, 28.9.2020.

---

| 17.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 November 2021 — VF International v EUIPO — National Geographic Society (NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC)

(Case T-517/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC - Earlier non-registered mark geographic - Relative ground for refusal - Use in the course of trade of a sign of more than mere local significance - Article 8(4) and Article 53(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) and Article 60(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2022/C 24/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: VF International Sagl (Stabio, Switzerland) (represented by: T. van Innis and A. Van der Planken, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: National Geographic Society (Washington, District of Columbia, United States) (represented by: S. Malynicz QC and C. de Haas, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 May 2020 (Case R 1665/2019-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between VF International and National Geographic Society.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders VF International Sagl to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders VF International Sagl to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 339, 12.10.2020.

---

| 17.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 November 2021 — VF International v EUIPO — National Geographic Society (NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC)

(Case T-518/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC - Earlier non-registered mark GEOGRAPHIC - Relative ground for refusal - Use in the course of trade of a sign of more than mere local significance - Article 8(4) and Article 52(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(4) and Article 60(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2022/C 24/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: VF International Sagl (Stabio, Switzerland) (represented by: T. van Innis and A. Van der Planken, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: National Geographic Society (Washington, District of Columbia, United States) (represented by: S. Malynicz QC, and C. de Haas, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 May 2020 (Case R 1664/2019-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between VF International and National Geographic Society.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders VF International Sagl to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders VF International Sagl to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 339, 12.10.2020.

---

| 17.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 17 November 2021 — Guasch Pubill v EUIPO — Nap-Kings (Table linen)

(Case T-538/20) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing table linen - Disclosure of earlier design - Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Ground for invalidity - No individual character - Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002 - Inadmissibility of the application for a declaration of invalidity - Article 52(3) of Regulation No 6/2002)

(2022/C 24/41)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Marcos Guasch Pubill (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: R. Guerras Mazón and M. Centell Ribas, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Nap-Kings, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. Otero Iglesias, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 June 2020 (Case R 1051/2019-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Nap-Kings and Mr Guasch Pubill.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Marcos Guasch Pubill to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Marcos Guasch Pubill to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 359, 26.10.2020.

---

| 17.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 November 2021 — Jeronimo Martins Polska v EUIPO — Rivella International (Riviva)

(Case T-551/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark Riviva - Earlier EU word mark RIVELLA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Partial rejection of the application for registration - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) of Regulation 2017/1001))

(2022/C 24/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Jeronimo Martins Polska S.A. (Kostrzyn, Poland) (represented by: R. Skubisz, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Rivella International AG (Rothrist, Switzerland) (represented by: S. Pietzcker and C. Spintig, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 July 2020 (Case R 2420/2019-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Rivella International and Jeronimo Martins Polska.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Jeronimo Martins Polska S.A. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Jeronimo Martins Polska S.A. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 359, 26.10.2020.

---

| 17.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 17 November 2021 — Société des produits Nestlé v EUIPO — Amigüitos pets & life (THE ONLY ONE by alphaspirit wild and perfect)

(Case T-616/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark THE ONLY ONE by alphaspirit wild and perfect - Earlier EU word mark ONE - Relative grounds for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Decision taken following the annulment of an earlier decision by the General Court - Article 72(6) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Res judicata)

(2022/C 24/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Société des produits Nestlé SA (Vevey, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Jaeger-Lenz and C. Elkemann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: G. Sakalaitė-Orlovskienė and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Amigüitos pets & life, SA (Lorca, Spain) (represented by: N. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 July 2020 (Case R 424/2020-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Société des produits Nestlé and Amigüitos pets & life.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 29 July 2020 (Case R 424/2020-5); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 29 July 2020 (Case R 424/2020-5);

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Société des produits Nestlé SA for the purposes of the proceedings before the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Société des produits Nestlé SA for the purposes of the proceedings before the General Court;

| 3. | Orders Amigüitos pets & life, SA to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Amigüitos pets & life, SA to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 399, 23.11.2020.

---

| 17.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 17 November 2021 — Jakober v EUIPO (Shape of a cup)

(Case T-658/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for a three-dimensional EU trade mark - Shape of a cup - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Lack of distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001))

(2022/C 24/44)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Philip Jakober (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: J. Klink, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Fischer, D. Hanf and M. Eberl, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 August 2020 (Case R 554/2020-5), concerning an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign comprising the shape of a cup as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Philip Jakober to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Philip Jakober to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 433, 14.12.2020.

---

| 17.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/34

---

Order of the General Court of 17 November 2021 — Trasta Komercbanka v ECB

(Case T-247/16 RENV) (1)

(Action for annulment - Prudential supervision of credit institutions - Specific supervisory tasks assigned to the ECB - Decision to withdraw a credit institution’s authorisation - Action becoming devoid of purpose - Interest in bringing proceedings ceasing to exist - No need to adjudicate)

(2022/C 24/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Trasta Komercbanka AS (Riga, Latvia) (represented by: O. Behrends, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: E. Koupepidou and C. Hernández Saseta, acting as Agents, and by B. Schneider and M. Petite, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Republic of Latvia (represented by: K. Pommere, acting as Agent), European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci and A. Steiblytė, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of decision ECB/SSM/2016 — 529900WIP0INFDAWTJ81/1 WOANCA-2016-0005 of the ECB of 3 March 2016, adopted pursuant to Article 4(1)(a) and Article 14(5) of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 63).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

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

| 2. | Trasta Komercbanka AS and the European Central Bank (ECB) shall bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Trasta Komercbanka AS and the European Central Bank (ECB) shall bear their own costs.

| 3. | The Republic of Latvia and the European Commission shall each bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Republic of Latvia and the European Commission shall each bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 270, 25.7.2016.

---

| 17.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/35

---

Order of the General Court of 12 November 2021 — Proodeftiki v Commission

(Case T-271/19) (1)

(State aid - Applicant having ceased to reply to the Court’s requests - No need to adjudicate)

(2022/C 24/46)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Proodeftiki ATE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: M. Panagopoulou, lawyer)

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

Interveners in support of the defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: K. Boskovits), Aftokinitodromos Kentrikis Elladas AE Parachorisis (Odos Kentrikis Elladas AE) (Lamia, Greece) (represented by: E. Bourtzalas and A. Kedikoglou, lawyers)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2018) 6717 final of 19 October 2018 on State Aid SA.50233 (2018/N) — Greece, declaring the State aid granted by the Hellenic Republic to Aftokinitodromos Kentrikis Elladas AE Parachorisis (Odos Kentrikis Elladas AE) for the construction of the Lamia-Xiniada section of the E65 motorway compatible with the internal market.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

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

| 2. | Proodeftiki ATE is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission and by Aftokinitodromos Kentrikis Elladas AE Parachorisis (Odos Kentrikis Elladas AE). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Proodeftiki ATE is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission and by Aftokinitodromos Kentrikis Elladas AE Parachorisis (Odos Kentrikis Elladas AE).

| 3. | The Hellenic Republic is ordered to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Hellenic Republic is ordered to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 220, 1.7.2019.

---

| 17.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/36

---

Order of the General Court of 11 November 2021 — ZU v EEAS

(Case T-689/19) (1)

(Action for annulment and for damages - Civil service - Officials - Commission staff serving in the EEAS - Request for reimbursement of mission expenses - Request for assistance - Rejection - Competence of the author of the act - Delegation of powers - Pre-litigation procedure - Designation of the defendant - Partial inadmissibility - Principle of sound financial management - Misuse of powers - Action in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

(2022/C 24/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: European External Action Service (EEAS) (represented by: S. Marquardt and R. Spáč, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of the EEAS of 30 November 2018 rejecting the applicant’s requests for the reimbursement of mission costs and for the assistance provided for in Article 24 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and, in so far as necessary, annulment of the decision of the European Commission of 28 June 2019 rejecting the applicant’s complaint directed against the decision of the EEAS referred to above and, second, compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by him.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

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

2.

ZU shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 423, 16.12.2019.

---

| 17.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/36

---

Order of the General Court of 11 November 2021 — Ardex v EUIPO — Chen (ArtiX PAINTS)

(Case T-136/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation of the contested decision - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)

(2022/C 24/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ardex GmbH (Witten, Germany) (represented by: C. Becker, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Lian Chen (Seseña Nuevo, Spain) (represented by: A. González López-Menchero and V. Valero Piña, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 November 2019 (Case R 2503/2018-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Ardex and Mr Chen.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

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

| 2. | The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Ardex GmbH and Mr Lian Chen. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Ardex GmbH and Mr Lian Chen.

---

(1)  OJ C 161, 11.5.2020.

---

| 17.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/37

---

Order of the General Court of 10 November 2021 — KS and KD v Council and Others

(Case T-771/20) (1)

(Action for damages - Common foreign and security policy - Eulex Kosovo mission - Manifest lack of jurisdiction)

(2022/C 24/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendants: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Vitro, P. Mahnič and K. Kouri, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: Y. Marinova and J. Roberti di Sarsina, acting as Agents), European External Action Service (EEAS) (represented by: S. Marquardt, S. Rodríguez Sánchez-Tabernero and E. Orgován, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicants as a result of various acts and omissions by the Council, the Commission and the EEAS in the implementation of Council Joint Action 2008/124/CFSP of 4 February 2008 on the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo, EULEX KOSOVO (OJ 2008 L 42, p. 92), and, in particular, during the investigations that were carried out, during that mission, into the disappearance and killing of the applicants’ family members in 1999 in Pristina (Kosovo).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed since the Court manifestly lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine it. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed since the Court manifestly lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine it.

| 2. | KS and KD shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union and the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

KS and KD shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union and the European Commission.

| 3. | The European External Action Service (EEAS) shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The European External Action Service (EEAS) shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 62, 22.2.2021.

---

| 17.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/38

---

Order of the General Court of 4 November 2021 — Stichting Comité N 65 Ondergronds Helvoirt v EEA

(Case T-5/21) (1)

(Action for annulment - Environment - Directive 2008/50/EC - Obligation of Member States to protect and improve ambient air quality - Refusal of the EEA to refer a question to the Court - Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 - Request for internal review - Inadmissibility)

(2022/C 24/50)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Stichting Comité N 65 Ondergronds Helvoirt (Helvoirt, Netherlands) (represented by: J. Gebruers, lawyer)

Defendant: European Environment Agency (represented by: O. Cornu, acting as Agent, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the decision that was allegedly adopted by the EEA in an email of 9 November 2020 and by which it refused to refer questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union on the interpretation of a provision of Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe (OJ 2008 L 152, p. 1).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Stichting Comité N 65 Ondergronds Helvoirt shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Environment Agency (EEA). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Stichting Comité N 65 Ondergronds Helvoirt shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Environment Agency (EEA).

---

(1)  OJ C 88, 15.3.2021.

---

| 17.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/38

---

Order of the General Court of 11 November 2021 — QC v Commission

(Case T-77/21) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Pension - Transfer of national pension rights - Decision establishing the number of pensionable years of service - Circumscribed powers - Action for annulment and for damages - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law - No action brought for failure to fulfil obligations - Inadmissibility - Request for directions to be issued - Clear lack of jurisdiction)

(2022/C 24/51)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Martin, B. Mongin and M. Brauhoff, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the notice of 6 April 2020 establishing the pension rights and, second, compensation for the material and non-material damage which the applicant claims to have suffered.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed, in part as manifestly lacking any foundation in law, in part as being inadmissible and, in part, on account of the fact that the Court clearly does not have jurisdiction to hear and rule on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed, in part as manifestly lacking any foundation in law, in part as being inadmissible and, in part, on account of the fact that the Court clearly does not have jurisdiction to hear and rule on the action.

| 2. | QC is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

QC is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 138, 19.4.2021.

---

| 17.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/39

---

Order of the General Court of 9 November 2021 — Amort and Others v Commission

(Case T-96/21) (1)

(Action for annulment - Medicinal products for human use - Conditional marketing authorisation for the medicinal product for human use ‘Comirnaty — COVID-19 mRNA (nucleoside-modified) vaccine’ - No legal interest in bringing proceedings - No direct concern - No individual concern - Non-regulatory act - Inadmissibility)

(2022/C 24/52)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Heidi Amort (Jenesien, Italy) and the 35 other applicants whose names are set out in the annex to the order (represented by: R. Holzeisen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B.-R. Killman and A. Sipos, as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of European Commission Implementing Decision C(2020) 9598 (final) of 21 December 2020, granting a conditional marketing authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council for ‘Comirnaty — COVID-19 mRNA (nucleoside-modified) vaccine’, a medicinal product for human use, as amended and supplemented.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | There is no longer a need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene submitted by Roberta Riccio and Alessandra Rizzotto, by Gheorghe Piperea, by TN, by TF, TG, TH and TI, by Jean Gouezo and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II, by VV, by Stefano Del Gaudio and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II, by TO, TP and TQ, by TR and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II, by VH and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II, by Dieter Achtschin and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II, by VW, and by BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH and Pfizer Inc. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no longer a need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene submitted by Roberta Riccio and Alessandra Rizzotto, by Gheorghe Piperea, by TN, by TF, TG, TH and TI, by Jean Gouezo and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II, by VV, by Stefano Del Gaudio and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II, by TO, TP and TQ, by TR and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II, by VH and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II, by Dieter Achtschin and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II, by VW, and by BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH and Pfizer Inc.

| 3. | Ms Heidi Amort and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex I are ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Ms Heidi Amort and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex I are ordered to pay the costs.

| 4. | Roberta Riccio and Alessandra Rizzotto, Gheorghe Piperea, TN, TF, TG, TH and TI, Jean Gouezo and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II, VV, Stefano Del Gaudio and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II, TO, TP and TQ, TR and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II, VH and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II, Dieter Achtschin and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II, VW and BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH and Pfizer Inc. shall each bear their own costs relating to the applications to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Roberta Riccio and Alessandra Rizzotto, Gheorghe Piperea, TN, TF, TG, TH and TI, Jean Gouezo and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II, VV, Stefano Del Gaudio and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II, TO, TP and TQ, TR and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II, VH and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II, Dieter Achtschin and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II, VW and BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH and Pfizer Inc. shall each bear their own costs relating to the applications to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 148, 26.4.21.

---

| 17.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/40

---

Order of the General Court of 9 November 2021 — Amort and Others v Commission

(Case T-136/21) (1)

(Action for annulment - Medicinal products for human use - Conditional marketing authorisation for the medicinal product for human use ‘COVID-19 Vaccine Moderna — COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine (nucleoside-modified)’ - No legal interest in bringing proceedings - No direct concern - No individual concern - Non-regulatory act - Inadmissibility)

(2022/C 24/53)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Heidi Amort (Jenesien, Italy) and 37 other applicants whose names are set out in Annex I to the order (represented by: R. Holzeisen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B.-R. Killmann and A. Sipos, as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Implementing Decision C(2021) 94 (final) of 6 January 2021, granting a conditional marketing authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council for ‘COVID-19 Vaccine Moderna — COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine (nucleoside-modified)’, a medicinal product for human use.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | There is no longer a need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene submitted by TN, by TF, TG, TH and TI, by Jean Gouezo and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II, by Stefano Del Gaudio and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II, by TR and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II, by VH and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II, by Dieter Achtschin and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II, and by Moderna Biotech Spain SL. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no longer a need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene submitted by TN, by TF, TG, TH and TI, by Jean Gouezo and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II, by Stefano Del Gaudio and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II, by TR and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II, by VH and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II, by Dieter Achtschin and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II, and by Moderna Biotech Spain SL.

| 3. | Ms Heidi Amort and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex I are ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Ms Heidi Amort and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex I are ordered to pay the costs.

| 4. | TN, TF, TG, TH and TI, Jean Gouezo and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II, Stefano Del Gaudio and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II, TR and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II, VH and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II, Dieter Achtschin and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II, and Moderna Biotech Spain shall each bear their own costs relating to the applications to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

4.

TN, TF, TG, TH and TI, Jean Gouezo and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II, Stefano Del Gaudio and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II, TR and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II, VH and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II, Dieter Achtschin and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II, and Moderna Biotech Spain shall each bear their own costs relating to the applications to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 148, 26.4.2021.

---

| 17.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/41

---

Order of the General Court of 9 November 2021 — Amort and Others v Commission

(Case T-165/21) (1)

(Action for annulment - Medicinal products for human use - Conditional marketing authorisation for the medicinal product for human use ‘COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca — COVID-19 Vaccine (ChAdOx1-S [recombinant])’ - No legal interest in bringing proceedings - No direct concern - No individual concern - Non-regulatory act - Inadmissibility)

(2022/C 24/54)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Heidi Amort (Jenesien, Italy) and the 31 other applicants whose names are set out in the annex to the order (represented by: R. Holzeisen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B.-R. Killmann and A. Sipos, as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Implementing Decision C(2021) 698 (final) of 29 January 2021, granting a conditional marketing authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council for ‘COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca — COVID-19 Vaccine (ChAdOx1-S [recombinant])’, a medicinal product for human use.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | There is no longer a need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene submitted by TN, by TR and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II, by VH and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II, by Stefano Del Gaudio and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II, and by Dieter Achtschin and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no longer a need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene submitted by TN, by TR and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II, by VH and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II, by Stefano Del Gaudio and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II, and by Dieter Achtschin and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II.

| 3. | Ms Heidi Amort and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex I are ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Ms Heidi Amort and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex I are ordered to pay the costs.

| 4. | TN, TR and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II, VH and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II, Stefano Del Gaudio and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II, and Dieter Achtschin and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II shall each bear their own costs relating to the applications to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

4.

TN, TR and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II, VH and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II, Stefano Del Gaudio and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II, and Dieter Achtschin and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II shall each bear their own costs relating to the applications to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 189, 17.5.2021.

---

| 17.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/42

---

Order of the General Court of 9 November 2021 — Amort and Others v Commission

(Case T-267/21) (1)

(Action for annulment - Medicinal products for human use - Conditional marketing authorisation for the medicinal product for human use ‘COVID-19 Vaccine Janssen — COVID-19 vaccine (Ad26.COV2-S [recombinant])’ - No interest in bringing proceedings - Lack of direct concern - Lack of individual concern - Non-regulatory act - Inadmissibility)

(2022/C 24/55)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Heidi Amort (Jenesien, Italy) and the 22 other applicants whose names are set out in the annex to the order (represented by: R. Holzeisen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B.-R. Killmann and A. Sipos, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision C(2021) 1763 (final) of 11 March 2021 granting a conditional marketing authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council for ‘COVID-19 Vaccine Janssen — COVID-19 vaccine (Ad26.COV2-S [recombinant])’, a medicinal product for human use, as amended and supplemented.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene submitted by TF, TG, TH and TI, by TR and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II and by VH and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene submitted by TF, TG, TH and TI, by TR and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II and by VH and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II.

| 3. | Ms Heidi Amort and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex I shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Ms Heidi Amort and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex I shall pay the costs.

| 4. | TF, TG, TH and TI, TR and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II and VH and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II shall each bear their own costs relating to the applications for leave to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

4.

TF, TG, TH and TI, TR and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II and VH and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II shall each bear their own costs relating to the applications for leave to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 263, 5.7.2021.

---

| 17.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/42

---

Action brought on 6 October 2021 — Callaway v Commission

(Case T-653/21)

(2022/C 24/56)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: James C. Callaway (Kuopio, Finland) (represented by: P. Hoffman, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/1214 of 22 July 2021 authorising Poland to prohibit the marketing on its territory of the hemp variety Finola pursuant to Council Directive 2002/53/EC; (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/1214 of 22 July 2021 authorising Poland to prohibit the marketing on its territory of the hemp variety Finola pursuant to Council Directive 2002/53/EC; (1)

| — | order the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, concerning Poland’s application for the authorisation granted by the contested decision, and the illegality of Article 9(5) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014. (2)







  — | The contested decision has been adopted on the basis of a notification by Poland which did not constitute an application, as required by Article 18 of Council Directive 2002/53/EC, (3) and in any case such notification was made only in order to satisfy a legal obligation following from Article 9(5) of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014; the latter provision is, however, vitiated by illegality, which the applicant invokes pursuant to Article 277 TFEU. Moreover, the notification was finalised after the deadline set in Article 9(5) of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, concerning Poland’s application for the authorisation granted by the contested decision, and the illegality of Article 9(5) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014. (2)

—

The contested decision has been adopted on the basis of a notification by Poland which did not constitute an application, as required by Article 18 of Council Directive 2002/53/EC, (3) and in any case such notification was made only in order to satisfy a legal obligation following from Article 9(5) of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014; the latter provision is, however, vitiated by illegality, which the applicant invokes pursuant to Article 277 TFEU. Moreover, the notification was finalised after the deadline set in Article 9(5) of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 18 of Directive 2002/53, and the illegality of Article 9(5) of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014.






  — | The contested decision was adopted even though no risk for human health, as required by Article 18 of Directive 2002/53, objectively exists and even though no such risk has been claimed by Poland, and without any explanation as to the reasoning that allowed the Commission to adopt the decision without having firmly established such a risk, insofar infringing Article 296 TFEU. Out of an abundance of caution, in case the Commission claims that, under Article 9(5) of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014, no such risk had to be established or that it could have presumed the existence of such a risk, the applicant invokes, pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, the illegality of this provision. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 18 of Directive 2002/53, and the illegality of Article 9(5) of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014.

—

The contested decision was adopted even though no risk for human health, as required by Article 18 of Directive 2002/53, objectively exists and even though no such risk has been claimed by Poland, and without any explanation as to the reasoning that allowed the Commission to adopt the decision without having firmly established such a risk, insofar infringing Article 296 TFEU. Out of an abundance of caution, in case the Commission claims that, under Article 9(5) of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014, no such risk had to be established or that it could have presumed the existence of such a risk, the applicant invokes, pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, the illegality of this provision.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 32(6) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013, (4) and the illegality of that provision.






  — | The calculation of the average tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) content of the Finola hemp variety by the Polish authorities, which forms the factual basis of the contested decision, infringes Article 32(6) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013, insofar as the result has not been rounded off to one decimal place. Moreover, and in any case, the latter provision, setting a THC content threshold at only 0,2 %, is vitiated by illegality, which the applicant invokes under Article 277 TFEU. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 32(6) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013, (4) and the illegality of that provision.

—

The calculation of the average tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) content of the Finola hemp variety by the Polish authorities, which forms the factual basis of the contested decision, infringes Article 32(6) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013, insofar as the result has not been rounded off to one decimal place. Moreover, and in any case, the latter provision, setting a THC content threshold at only 0,2 %, is vitiated by illegality, which the applicant invokes under Article 277 TFEU.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 9(2-5) of, and Annex III to, Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014, and the applicant’s fundamental rights.






  — | The Polish authorities employ a definition of ‘end of flowering’ of hemp which is inconsistent with Annex III to Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014 and scientifically incorrect, and, as a result, the samples used to establish Finola’s THC content have been collected too late, in breach of Annex III. Moreover, the Polish authorities have not collected data concerning the sampling which would allow its accuracy to be verified, contrary to the requirements of Article 9(3) of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014. Finally, the applicant’s right to be heard and right to effective judicial protection have been infringed insofar as the Commission failed to hear him and failed to establish or verify the necessary facts itself, denying the applicant any real possibility of effective judicial protection, given that Poland claims that its notification made under Article 9(5) of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014 is not susceptible to review in the Polish courts. |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 9(2-5) of, and Annex III to, Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014, and the applicant’s fundamental rights.

—

The Polish authorities employ a definition of ‘end of flowering’ of hemp which is inconsistent with Annex III to Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014 and scientifically incorrect, and, as a result, the samples used to establish Finola’s THC content have been collected too late, in breach of Annex III. Moreover, the Polish authorities have not collected data concerning the sampling which would allow its accuracy to be verified, contrary to the requirements of Article 9(3) of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014. Finally, the applicant’s right to be heard and right to effective judicial protection have been infringed insofar as the Commission failed to hear him and failed to establish or verify the necessary facts itself, denying the applicant any real possibility of effective judicial protection, given that Poland claims that its notification made under Article 9(5) of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014 is not susceptible to review in the Polish courts.

---

(1)  OJ 2021 L 265, p. 1.

(2)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014 of 11 March 2014 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy and amending Annex X to that Regulation (OJ 2014 L 181, p. 1).

(3)  Council Directive 2002/53/EC of 13 June 2002 on the common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species (OJ 2002 L 93, p. 1).

(4)  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).

---

| 17.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/44

---

Action brought on 7 October 2021 — ClientEarth v Commission

(Case T-661/21)

(2022/C 24/57)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ClientEarth AISBL (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: O. Brouwer, B. Verheijen and T. van Helfteren, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the implied decision of the defendant to refuse access to certain documents related to deforestation and forest degradation, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (1) and to Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 on the application of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community Institutions and Bodies; (2) |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the implied decision of the defendant to refuse access to certain documents related to deforestation and forest degradation, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (1) and to Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 on the application of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community Institutions and Bodies; (2)

| — | order the European Commission to pay the applicant's costs for conducting this proceeding including the costs of any intervening parties. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay the applicant's costs for conducting this proceeding including the costs of any intervening parties.

Plea in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, according to which, as a result of the failure to address the applicant with an express decision regarding its request for access within the time-limits for processing of confirmatory applications contained in Articles 8(1) and 8(2) of Regulation 1049/2001, the defendant impliedly refused access within the meaning of Article 8(3) thereof.

---

(1)  OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43.

(2)  OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13.

---

| 17.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/44

---

Action brought on 8 October 2021 — Zegers v Commission

(Case T-663/21)

(2022/C 24/58)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Tanja Zegers (Hoeilaart, Belgium) (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the defendant’s decision of 3 December 2020, rejecting the applicant’s application for transfer of pension rights and, so far as necessary, the decision rejecting the complaint; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the defendant’s decision of 3 December 2020, rejecting the applicant’s application for transfer of pension rights and, so far as necessary, the decision rejecting the complaint;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging error of assessment, breach of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, and infringement of the principle nemo auditur propriam turpitudinem allegans, insofar as:

| — | by claiming that the pension rights the transfer of which she has applied for would have been acquired after her entry into the service of the Union, because her participation with the Algemeen Burgerlijk Pensioen-Fonds (ABP) ended on 31 January 2015, without making any distinction between the periods from 1 July 1992 to 31 December 2010 and from 1 January 2011 to 31 January 2015, the Commission ignored a period of eighteen years and six months of transferable pension rights, therefore erring in the assessment of the facts and breaching Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

by claiming that the pension rights the transfer of which she has applied for would have been acquired after her entry into the service of the Union, because her participation with the Algemeen Burgerlijk Pensioen-Fonds (ABP) ended on 31 January 2015, without making any distinction between the periods from 1 July 1992 to 31 December 2010 and from 1 January 2011 to 31 January 2015, the Commission ignored a period of eighteen years and six months of transferable pension rights, therefore erring in the assessment of the facts and breaching Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations;

| — | by failing to ensure that the ABP, or its supervisory body within the Dutch state, provides the required calculation, the Commission cannot rightfully reject the applicant’s application for transfer of pension rights, as it amounts to taking advantage of its own failure, in breach of the principle nemo auditur propriam turpitudinem allegans. |
| --- | --- |

—

by failing to ensure that the ABP, or its supervisory body within the Dutch state, provides the required calculation, the Commission cannot rightfully reject the applicant’s application for transfer of pension rights, as it amounts to taking advantage of its own failure, in breach of the principle nemo auditur propriam turpitudinem allegans.

---

| 17.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/45

---

Action brought on 30 October 2021 — Ekobulkos v Commission

(Case T-702/21)

(2022/C 24/59)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Applicant:‘Ekobulkos’ EOOD (Todorichene, Bulgaria) (represented by: M. Dimitrov, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that the European Commission unlawfully failed to take action with regard to ‘Ekobulkos’ EOOD’s complaint SA.56620 (2020/FC); |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the European Commission unlawfully failed to take action with regard to ‘Ekobulkos’ EOOD’s complaint SA.56620 (2020/FC);

| — | order the Commission to pay the legal costs of ‘Ekobulkos’ EOOD; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the legal costs of ‘Ekobulkos’ EOOD;

| — | in the alternative, if the Commission takes a decision on the complaint after the present action has been brought, order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, if the Commission takes a decision on the complaint after the present action has been brought, order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | The Commission has failed to fulfil its obligations to monitor aid granted by the Member States, pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Commission has failed to fulfil its obligations to monitor aid granted by the Member States, pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 TFEU.

| 2. | The Commission failed to examine without undue delay the company’s complaint SA.56620 (2020/FC) of 21 February 2020 concerning possible unlawful aid in accordance with Article 12(1), second subparagraph, of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589. (1) |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Commission failed to examine without undue delay the company’s complaint SA.56620 (2020/FC) of 21 February 2020 concerning possible unlawful aid in accordance with Article 12(1), second subparagraph, of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589. (1)

| 3. | The Commission failed to take the necessary decision in accordance with Article 15(1) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589, by which it should have:






  — | declared that the notified measure does not constitute aid, or |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

The Commission failed to take the necessary decision in accordance with Article 15(1) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589, by which it should have:

—

declared that the notified measure does not constitute aid, or

| — | declared that the measure is compatible with the internal market, or |
| --- | --- |

—

declared that the measure is compatible with the internal market, or

| — | initiated proceedings pursuant to Article 108(2) TFEU (‘decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure’). |
| --- | --- |

—

initiated proceedings pursuant to Article 108(2) TFEU (‘decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure’).

| 4. | The Commission failed to send a copy of the decision to the complainant pursuant to Article [24](2), third subparagraph, of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Commission failed to send a copy of the decision to the complainant pursuant to Article [24](2), third subparagraph, of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589.

| 5. | The Commission failed to take the necessary measures also after being called upon to do so on 22 June 2021, in accordance with Article 265 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The Commission failed to take the necessary measures also after being called upon to do so on 22 June 2021, in accordance with Article 265 TFEU.

---

(1)  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).

---

| 17.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/46

---

Action brought on 3 November 2021 — Hoteles Olivencia v EUIPO — Corporacion H10 Hotels (HOTELES HO)

(Case T-707/21)

(2022/C 24/60)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Hoteles Olivencia, SL (Almería, Spain) (represented by: S. Mohamed Acosta, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Corporacion H10 Hotels, SL (Barcelona, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for the European Union figurative mark HOTELES HO — Application for registration No 18 202 245

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 August 2021 in Case R 782/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the contested decision recognising the registration of the trade mark at issue and ordering the opponent of the original trade mark application to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the contested decision recognising the registration of the trade mark at issue and ordering the opponent of the original trade mark application to pay the costs;

| — | In the alternative, if the appeal is dismissed, each party should bear its own costs, given the subject matter at issue and its apparent complexity, and given the various changes of approach in the decisions of each instance, circumstances which should be taken into account in relation to the provisions of Article 109(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

In the alternative, if the appeal is dismissed, each party should bear its own costs, given the subject matter at issue and its apparent complexity, and given the various changes of approach in the decisions of each instance, circumstances which should be taken into account in relation to the provisions of Article 109(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

Pleas in law

| — | At issue is the application or non-application of Article 8(1)(b) and the effective (or defective) non-application of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

At issue is the application or non-application of Article 8(1)(b) and the effective (or defective) non-application of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Error due to the failure to apply Article 109(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Error due to the failure to apply Article 109(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 17.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/47

---

Action brought on 10 November 2021 — Sunrise Medical and Sunrise Medical Logistics v Commission

(Case T-721/21)

(2022/C 24/61)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Sunrise Medical BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands), Sunrise Medical Logistics BV (Amsterdam) (represented by: L. Ruessmann and J. Beck, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1367 of 6 August 2021 in its entirety from the date it came into force; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1367 of 6 August 2021 in its entirety from the date it came into force;

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

—

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action for annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1367 of 6 August 2021 (1), the applicants rely on three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging the infringement of the Treaties or of any rule of law relating to their application. Firstly, the applicants claim that the Commission misapplied the law by not taking into account the United Nations Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights and Dignity of Persons with Disabilities. Secondly, the Commission failed to pay any or sufficient regard to the Convention’s implementation in European Union law in this context, namely, as applied in Case C-198/15 Invamed Group and Others (2), applying instead, the wrong concept of disability. Instead, the contested regulation pays regard to irrelevant criteria derived from instruments made before the Council Decision of 26 November 2009 (3) and the United Nations Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights and Dignity of Persons with Disabilities. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging the infringement of the Treaties or of any rule of law relating to their application. Firstly, the applicants claim that the Commission misapplied the law by not taking into account the United Nations Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights and Dignity of Persons with Disabilities. Secondly, the Commission failed to pay any or sufficient regard to the Convention’s implementation in European Union law in this context, namely, as applied in Case C-198/15 Invamed Group and Others (2), applying instead, the wrong concept of disability. Instead, the contested regulation pays regard to irrelevant criteria derived from instruments made before the Council Decision of 26 November 2009 (3) and the United Nations Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights and Dignity of Persons with Disabilities.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging manifest error within the meaning of Case C-463/98 Cabletron (4). The applicants submit that irrelevant considerations were taken into account, and relied on, in determining that the product identified in the contested regulation (in column (3) of the Annex to the contested regulation) must be classified under CN Heading 8703 rather than CN Heading 8713. In addition, and in the alternative, the Commission misclassified the product, which, applying the guidance of the Court in Case C-198/15 Invamed, ought to be classified under CN Heading 8713. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging manifest error within the meaning of Case C-463/98 Cabletron (4). The applicants submit that irrelevant considerations were taken into account, and relied on, in determining that the product identified in the contested regulation (in column (3) of the Annex to the contested regulation) must be classified under CN Heading 8703 rather than CN Heading 8713. In addition, and in the alternative, the Commission misclassified the product, which, applying the guidance of the Court in Case C-198/15 Invamed, ought to be classified under CN Heading 8713.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements, in particular, a procedural rule intended to ensure that that measures are formulated with due care, compliance with which may influence the content of the measure. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements, in particular, a procedural rule intended to ensure that that measures are formulated with due care, compliance with which may influence the content of the measure.

---

(1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1367 of 6 August 2021 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (OJ 2021 L 294, p. 1).

(2)  Judgment of 26 May 2016, Invamed Group Ltd and Others v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs, C-198/15, EU:C:2016:362.

(3)  Council Decision of 26 November 2009 concerning the conclusion, by the European Community, of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2010/48/EC) (OJ 2010 L 23, p. 35).

(4)  Judgment of 10 May 2001, Cabletron Systems Ltd v The Revenue Commissioners, C-463/98, EU:C:2001:256.

---

| 17.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/48

---

Action brought on 12 November 2021 — Łosowski v EUIPO — Skawiński (KOMBI)

(Case T-730/21)

(2022/C 24/62)

Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Sławomir Łosowski (Gdańsk, Poland) (represented by: K. Czub, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Grzegorz Skawiński (Sopot, Poland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘KOMBI’ — EU trade mark No 12 534 491

Procedure before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 September 2021 in Case R 381/2017-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and Grzegorz Skawiński to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and Grzegorz Skawiński 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.

---

| 17.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/48

---

Action brought on 19 November 2021 — Alcogroup and Alcodis v Commission

(Case T-740/21)

(2022/C 24/63)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Alcogroup (Brussels, Belgium) and Alcodis (Brussels) (represented by: P. de Bandt, C. Binet and M. Nuytten, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | order the Commission to produce the contested decisions, by way of measures of organisation of procedure; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to produce the contested decisions, by way of measures of organisation of procedure;

| — | annul the contested decisions; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decisions;

| — | order the Commission to pay all the costs of the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay all the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action against, first, the decision of the Commission requesting Abengoa SA and Abengoa Bioenergia SA to restart, under certain conditions, the settlement procedure in case AT.40054 — Ethanol Benchmarks and, second, the decision to reopen that procedure, the applicants rely on a single plea alleging infringement of the rules applicable to settlements.

The applicants submit that in adopting the contested decisions, the Commission infringes the rules applicable to settlements. The applicable rules do not provide for the Commission reopening a settlement procedure at that stage of the proceedings, let alone by precluding any discussion concerning the case overview disclosed in an initial settlement procedure in 2016 and 2017. Furthermore, the applicants submit that the contested decisions lead to a clear infringement of their rights of defence.

---

| 17.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/49

---

Order of the General Court of 16 November 2021 — Vodafone Group and Others v Commission

(Case T-491/19) (1)

(2022/C 24/64)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 312, 16.9.2019.

---