# Official Journal C 349/30 A

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 349 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6430 August 2021 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 349

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6430 August 2021

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2021/C 349/01 | Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union | 1 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

2021/C 349/01

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

Official Journal of the European Union

1

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2021/C 349/02 | Joined Cases C-804/18 and C-341/19: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Hamburg — Germany) — IX v WABE eV (C-804/18) and MH Müller Handels GmbH v MJ (C-341/19) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2000/78/EC — Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief — Internal rule of a private undertaking prohibiting the wearing of any visible political, philosophical or religious sign or the wearing of conspicuous, large-sized political, philosophical or religious signs in the workplace — Direct or indirect discrimination — Proportionality — Balancing the freedom of religion and other fundamental rights — Legitimacy of the policy of neutrality adopted by the employer — Need to establish economic loss suffered by the employer) | 2 |
| 2021/C 349/03 | Case C-453/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 July 2021 — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v European Commission, Land Rheinland-Pfalz, Ryanair DAC (Appeal — State aid — Aid for airports and airlines — Decision classifying the measures in favour of Frankfurt Hahn airport as State aid compatible with the internal market and finding no State aid in favour of airlines using that airport — Inadmissibility of an action for annulment — Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU — Natural or legal person not directly and individually concerned by the decision at issue — Effective judicial protection) | 3 |
| 2021/C 349/04 | Case C-535/19: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) — Latvia) — A (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of movement for persons — Citizenship of the Union — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Article 3(1)(a) — Sickness benefits — Concept — Article 4 and Article 11(3)(e) — Directive 2004/38/EC — Article 7(1)(b) — Right of residence for more than three months — Condition of having comprehensive sickness insurance cover — Article 24 — Equal treatment — Economically inactive national of a Member State residing legally in the territory of another Member State — Refusal by the host Member State to affiliate that person to its public sickness insurance system) | 4 |
| 2021/C 349/05 | Case C-742/19: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije — Slovenia) — B.K. v Republika Slovenija (Ministrstvo za obrambo) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protection of the safety and health of workers — Organisation of working time — Members of the armed forces — Applicability of EU law — Article 4(2) TEU — Directive 2003/88/EC — Scope — Article 1(3) — Directive 89/391/EEC — Article 2(2) — Military activities — Concept of working time — Stand-by period — Dispute concerning the remuneration of a worker) | 5 |
| 2021/C 349/06 | Case C-758/19: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Polymeles Protodikeio Athinon — Greece) — OH v ID (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 268, 270, 340 and 343 TFEU — Protocol (No 7) on the privileges and immunities of the European Union — Articles 11, 17 and 19 — Former member of the European Commission — Immunity from jurisdiction — Claim for non-contractual liability — Waiver of immunity — Jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union) | 6 |
| 2021/C 349/07 | Case C-795/19: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus — Estonia) — XX v Tartu Vangla (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Directive 2000/78/EC — Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of disability — Article 2(2)(a) — Article 4(1) — Article 5 — National legislation laying down requirements in respect of the auditory acuity of prison officers — Failure to meet the standards of sound perception required — Absolute bar to remaining in employment) | 6 |
| 2021/C 349/08 | Case C-848/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 July 2021 — Federal Republic of Germany v Republic of Poland, European Commission, Republic of Latvia, Republic of Lithuania (Appeal — Article 194(1) TFEU — Principle of energy solidarity — Directive 2009/73/EC — Internal market in natural gas — Article 36(1) — Decision of the European Commission on review of the exemption of the OPAL pipeline from the requirements on third-party access and tariff regulation following a request by the German regulatory authority — Action for annulment) | 7 |
| 2021/C 349/09 | Case C-851/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 July 2021 — DK v European External Action Service (Appeal — Civil service — Disciplinary proceedings — Disciplinary penalty — Determination of that penalty — Withholding of an amount from the pension — Criminal conviction and civil sanction before national courts — Compensation, in whole or in part, for non-material damage caused to the European Union — Lack of relevance of that compensation — Article 10 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of proportionality) | 8 |
| 2021/C 349/10 | Case C-30/20: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil no 2 de Madrid — Spain) — RH v AB Volvo, Volvo Group Trucks Central Europe GmbH, Volvo Lastvagnar AB, Volvo Group España SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Article 7(2) — Jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict — Place where the damage occurred — Cartel declared contrary to Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area — Determination of international and territorial jurisdiction — Centralisation of jurisdiction in favour of a specialised court) | 8 |
| 2021/C 349/11 | Case C-60/20: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā apgabaltiesa — Latvia) — Latvijas Dzelzceļš VAS v Valsts dzelzceļa administrācija (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rail transport — Directive 2012/34/EU — Single European railway area — Article 13(2) and (6) — Access to service facilities and to rail-related services — Regulation (EU) 2017/2177 — Reconversion of facilities — Powers of the regulatory body) | 9 |
| 2021/C 349/12 | Case C-190/20: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — DocMorris NV v Apothekerkammer Nordrhein (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Medicinal products for human use subject to a medical prescription — Directive 2001/83/EC — Scope — Advertising by a mail-order pharmacy intended to influence not the customer’s choice of a particular medicinal product, but the choice of pharmacy — Prize competition — Free movement of goods — National legislation — Prohibition on offering, advertising or granting advantages and other promotional gifts in the field of therapeutic products — Selling arrangements falling outside the scope of Article 34 TFEU) | 10 |
| 2021/C 349/13 | Case C-241/20: Judgment of the Court of 15 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance du Luxembourg — Belgium) — BJ v Belgian State (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of movement for workers — Free movement of capital — Income tax — Legislation for the avoidance of double taxation — Income received in a Member State other than that of residence — Method of calculating the exemption in the Member State of residence — Loss of part of the benefit of certain tax advantages) | 10 |
| 2021/C 349/14 | Case C-325/20: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — BEMH, Conseil national des centres commerciaux v Premier ministre, Ministère de l’Économie, des Finances et de la Relance, Ministre de la cohésion des territoires et des relations avec les collectivités territoriales (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2006/123/EC — Article 14(6) — Freedom of establishment — Commercial operating permit issued by a collegiate body — Body made up of, inter alia, recognised experts representative of the economic fabric — Persons potentially constituting or representing competing operators of the applicant for authorisation — Prohibition) | 11 |
| 2021/C 349/15 | Case C-362/20: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 15 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Openbaar Ministerie, Federale Overheidsdienst Financiën v Profit Europe NV, Gosselin Forwarding Services NV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Commercial policy — Regulation (EU) No 1071/2012 — Implementing Regulation (EU) No 430/2013 — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Subheadings 7307 11 10, 7307 19 10 and 7307 19 90 — Scope — Tariff classification resulting from a Court judgment — Definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of malleable cast iron — Whether definitive anti-dumping duties are applicable on imports of threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of spheroidal graphite cast iron) | 12 |
| 2021/C 349/16 | Joined Cases C-584/20 P and C-621/20 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 July 2021 — European Commission v Landesbank Baden-Württemberg (C-584/20 P), Single Resolution Board v Landesbank Baden-Württemberg (C-621/20 P) (Appeal — Banking union — Single Resolution Mechanism (SRM) — Single Resolution Fund (SRF) — Calculation of the 2017 ex ante contributions — Authentication of a decision of the Single Resolution Board (SRB) — Obligation to state reasons — Confidential data — Legality of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63) | 13 |
| 2021/C 349/17 | Case C-709/20: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Appeal Tribunal (Northern Ireland) — United Kingdom) — CG v The Department for Communities in Northern Ireland (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Citizenship of the Union — National of a Member State without an activity residing in the territory of another Member State on the basis of national law — The first paragraph of Article 18 TFEU — Non-discrimination based on nationality — Directive 2004/38/EC — Article 7 — Conditions for obtaining a right of residence for more than three months — Article 24 — Social assistance — Concept — Equal treatment — Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland — Transition period — National provision excluding Union citizens with a right of residence for a fixed period under national law from social assistance — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Articles 1, 7 and 24) | 14 |
| 2021/C 349/18 | Case C-244/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Giurgiu (Romania) lodged on 16 April 2021 — C.I. I. v Ministerul Public — Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Giurgiu | 15 |
| 2021/C 349/19 | Case C-267/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (Romania) lodged on 23 April 2021 — Uniqa Asigurări SA v Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală de Soluționare a Contestațiilor and Direcția Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili | 15 |
| 2021/C 349/20 | Case C-320/21 P: Appeal brought on 21 May 2021 by Ryanair DAC against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 14 April 2021 in Case T-379/20, Ryanair v Commission (SAS, Sweden; Covid-19) | 16 |
| 2021/C 349/21 | Case C-321/21 P: Appeal brought on 21 May 2021 by Ryanair DAC against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 14 April 2021 in Case T-378/20, Ryanair v Commission (SAS, Denmark; Covid-19) | 17 |
| 2021/C 349/22 | Case C-336/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg (Austria) lodged on 27 May 2021 — L GmbH v F GmbH, BW, SW | 18 |
| 2021/C 349/23 | Case C-353/21 P: Appeal brought on 4 June 2021 by Ryanair DAC against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 14 April 2021 in Case T-388/20, Ryanair v Commission (Finnair I; Covid-19) | 18 |
| 2021/C 349/24 | Case C-354/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 4 June 2021 — R.J. R. v Valstybės įmonė Registrų centras | 19 |
| 2021/C 349/25 | Case C-363/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte dei conti (Italy) lodged on 9 June 2021 — Ferrovienord SpA v Istituto Nazionale di Statistica — ISTAT | 20 |
| 2021/C 349/26 | Case C-364/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte dei Conti (Italy) lodged on 10 June 2021 — Federazione Italiana Triathlon v Istituto Nazionale di Statistica — ISTAT, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze | 21 |
| 2021/C 349/27 | Case C-370/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München (Germany) lodged on 15 June 2021 — DOMUS-SOFTWARE-AG v Marc Braschoß Immobilien GmbH | 22 |
| 2021/C 349/28 | Case C-378/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzgericht (Austria) lodged on 21 June 2021 — P GmbH | 22 |
| 2021/C 349/29 | Case C-380/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 18 January 2021 — Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS) v Ryanair DAC | 23 |
| 2021/C 349/30 | Case C-405/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Višje sodišče v Mariboru (Slovenia) lodged on 30 June 2021 — FV v NOVA KREDITNA BANKA MARIBOR d.d. | 23 |
| | General Court |
| 2021/C 349/31 | Case T-245/18: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Benavides Torres v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Venezuela — Freezing of funds — Lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Inclusion of the applicant’s name on the lists — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Principle of sound administration — Right to effective judicial protection — Error of assessment) | 24 |
| 2021/C 349/32 | Case T-246/18: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Moreno Pérez v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken with regard to the situation in Venezuela — Freezing of funds — Lists of persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources — Inclusion of the applicant’s name on the lists — Retention of the applicant’s name on the lists — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Principle of sound administration — Right to effective judicial protection — Error of assessment) | 24 |
| 2021/C 349/33 | Case T-247/18: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Lucena Ramírez v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken with regard to the situation in Venezuela — Freezing of funds — Lists of persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources — Inclusion of the applicant’s name on the lists — Retention of the applicant’s name on the lists — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Principle of sound administration — Right to effective judicial protection — Error of assessment) | 25 |
| 2021/C 349/34 | Case T-248/18: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Cabello Rondón v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken with regard to the situation in Venezuela — Freezing of funds — Lists of persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources — Inclusion of the applicant’s name on the lists — Retention of the applicant’s name on the lists — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Principle of sound administration — Right to effective judicial protection — Error of assessment — Freedom of expression) | 26 |
| 2021/C 349/35 | Case T-249/18: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Saab Halabi v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Venezuela — Freezing of funds — Lists of persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources — Inclusion of the applicant’s name on the lists — Retention of the applicant’s name on the lists — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Principle of sound administration — Right to effective judicial protection — Error of assessment) | 27 |
| 2021/C 349/36 | Case T-550/18: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Harrington Padrón v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Venezuela — Freezing of funds — Lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Inclusion of the applicant’s name on the lists — Error of assessment — Right to property) | 27 |
| 2021/C 349/37 | Case T-551/18: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Oblitas Ruzza v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Venezuela — Freezing of funds — Lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Inclusion of the applicant’s name on the lists — Retention of the applicant’s name on the lists — Error of assessment — Right to property) | 28 |
| 2021/C 349/38 | Case T-552/18: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Moreno Reyes v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Venezuela — Freezing of funds — Lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Inclusion of the applicant’s name on the lists — Retention of the applicant’s name on the lists — Error of assessment) | 29 |
| 2021/C 349/39 | Case T-553/18: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Rodríguez Gómez v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Venezuela — Freezing of funds — Lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Inclusion of the applicant’s name on the lists — Retention of the applicant’s name on the lists — Error of assessment — Right to property) | 29 |
| 2021/C 349/40 | Case T-554/18: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Hernández Hernández v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Venezuela — Freezing of funds — Lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Inclusion of the applicant’s name on the lists — Retention of the applicant’s name on the lists — Error of assessment — Right to property) | 30 |
| 2021/C 349/41 | Case T-32/19: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Harrington Padrón v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Venezuela — Freezing of funds — Lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Retention of the applicant’s name on the lists — Error of assessment) | 31 |
| 2021/C 349/42 | Case T-35/19: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Benavides Torres v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Venezuela — Freezing of funds — Lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Retention of the applicant’s name on the lists — Error of assessment) | 31 |
| 2021/C 349/43 | Case T-632/19: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — DD v FRA (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Claims for damages — Non-material damage — Implementation of the judgments of the Civil Service Tribunal and of the General Court) | 32 |
| 2021/C 349/44 | Case T-75/20: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Abitron Germany v EUIPO — Hetronic International (NOVA) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark NOVA — Non-registered earlier national trade mark NOVA — Relative ground for refusal — 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, respectively) — Reference to the national law governing the earlier mark — Absolute ground for refusal — No bad faith — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001)) | 32 |
| 2021/C 349/45 | Case T-181/20: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Griba v CPVO (Stark Gugger) (Plant varieties — Application for a Community plant variety right for the Stark Gugger apple variety — Technical examination — Testing location — Equal treatment — Rights of the defence — Obligation to state reasons) | 33 |
| 2021/C 349/46 | Case T-182/20: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Griba v CPVO (Gala Perathoner) (Plant varieties — Application for a Community plant variety right for the Gala Perathoner apple variety — Technical examination — Testing location — Equal treatment — Rights of the defence — Obligation to state reasons) | 34 |
| 2021/C 349/47 | Case T-297/20: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Fashioneast and AM.VI. v EUIPO — Moschillo (RICH JOHN RICHMOND) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU figurative mark RICH JOHN RICHMOND — Absence of genuine use of a trade mark — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Use in a form differing in elements which alter the distinctive character of the mark — Point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 15(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 18(1) of Regulation 2017/1001) | 34 |
| 2021/C 349/48 | Case T-389/20: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — KO v Commission (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Remuneration — Expatriation allowance — Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Refusal to grant the expatriation allowance — Habitual residence — Period of training) | 35 |
| 2021/C 349/49 | Case T-399/20: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Cole Haan v EUIPO — Samsøe & Samsøe Holding (Ø) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark Ø — Earlier international figurative mark φ — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 35 |
| 2021/C 349/50 | Case T-488/20: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Guerlain v EUIPO (Shape of an oblong, tapered and cylindrical lipstick) (EU trade mark — Application for registration of a three-dimensional EU trade mark — Shape of an oblong, tapered and cylindrical lipstick — Absolute ground for refusal — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 36 |
| 2021/C 349/51 | Case T-527/20: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Aldi v EUIPO (CUCINA) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU figurative mark CUCINA — Absolute grounds for refusal — No distinctive character — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 37 |
| 2021/C 349/52 | Case T-622/20: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Aldi v EUIPO (Cachet) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark Cachet — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 37 |
| 2021/C 349/53 | Case T-740/20: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Arnautu v Parliament (Law governing the institutions — Rules on expenses and allowances for Members of Parliament — Parliamentary assistance allowance — Recovery of sums unduly paid — Plea of illegality — Rights of the defence — Error of assessment) | 38 |
| 2021/C 349/54 | Case T-749/20: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Veronese v EUIPO — Veronese Design Company (VERONESE) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark VERONESE — Earlier EU word mark VERONESE — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation 207/2009 (now Article (8)(1)(b) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Decision adopted following the annulment by the General Court of an earlier decision — Article 72(6) of Regulation 2017/1001 — res judicata) | 38 |
| 2021/C 349/55 | Case T-389/21: Action brought on 5 July 2021 — Landesbank Baden-Württemberg v SRB | 39 |
| 2021/C 349/56 | Case T-390/21: Action brought on 5 July 2021 — DZ Bank v SRB | 41 |
| 2021/C 349/57 | Case T-391/21: Action brought on 5 July 2021 — Deutsche Kreditbank v SRB | 41 |
| 2021/C 349/58 | Case T-392/21: Action brought on 5 July 2021 — Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen Girozentrale v SRB | 43 |
| 2021/C 349/59 | Case T-393/21: Action brought on 5 July 2021 — Max Heinr. Sutor v SRB | 43 |
| 2021/C 349/60 | Case T-394/21: Action brought on 6 July 2021 — Bayerische Landesbank v SRB | 45 |
| 2021/C 349/61 | Case T-395/21: Action brought on 6 July 2021 — DZ Hyp v SRB | 46 |
| 2021/C 349/62 | Case T-396/21: Action brought on 7 July 2021 — Deutsche Bank v SRB | 46 |
| 2021/C 349/63 | Case T-404/21: Action brought on 8 July 2021 — DVB Bank v SRB | 48 |
| 2021/C 349/64 | Case T-434/21: Action brought on 17 July 2021 — TO v EEA | 48 |
| 2021/C 349/65 | Case T-435/21: Action brought on 16 July 2021 — TK v Commission | 49 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2021/C 349/02

Joined Cases C-804/18 and C-341/19: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Hamburg — Germany) — IX v WABE eV (C-804/18) and MH Müller Handels GmbH v MJ (C-341/19) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2000/78/EC — Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief — Internal rule of a private undertaking prohibiting the wearing of any visible political, philosophical or religious sign or the wearing of conspicuous, large-sized political, philosophical or religious signs in the workplace — Direct or indirect discrimination — Proportionality — Balancing the freedom of religion and other fundamental rights — Legitimacy of the policy of neutrality adopted by the employer — Need to establish economic loss suffered by the employer)

2

2021/C 349/03

Case C-453/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 July 2021 — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v European Commission, Land Rheinland-Pfalz, Ryanair DAC (Appeal — State aid — Aid for airports and airlines — Decision classifying the measures in favour of Frankfurt Hahn airport as State aid compatible with the internal market and finding no State aid in favour of airlines using that airport — Inadmissibility of an action for annulment — Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU — Natural or legal person not directly and individually concerned by the decision at issue — Effective judicial protection)

3

2021/C 349/04

Case C-535/19: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) — Latvia) — A (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of movement for persons — Citizenship of the Union — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Article 3(1)(a) — Sickness benefits — Concept — Article 4 and Article 11(3)(e) — Directive 2004/38/EC — Article 7(1)(b) — Right of residence for more than three months — Condition of having comprehensive sickness insurance cover — Article 24 — Equal treatment — Economically inactive national of a Member State residing legally in the territory of another Member State — Refusal by the host Member State to affiliate that person to its public sickness insurance system)

4

2021/C 349/05

Case C-742/19: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije — Slovenia) — B.K. v Republika Slovenija (Ministrstvo za obrambo) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protection of the safety and health of workers — Organisation of working time — Members of the armed forces — Applicability of EU law — Article 4(2) TEU — Directive 2003/88/EC — Scope — Article 1(3) — Directive 89/391/EEC — Article 2(2) — Military activities — Concept of working time — Stand-by period — Dispute concerning the remuneration of a worker)

5

2021/C 349/06

Case C-758/19: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Polymeles Protodikeio Athinon — Greece) — OH v ID (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 268, 270, 340 and 343 TFEU — Protocol (No 7) on the privileges and immunities of the European Union — Articles 11, 17 and 19 — Former member of the European Commission — Immunity from jurisdiction — Claim for non-contractual liability — Waiver of immunity — Jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union)

6

2021/C 349/07

Case C-795/19: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus — Estonia) — XX v Tartu Vangla (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Directive 2000/78/EC — Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of disability — Article 2(2)(a) — Article 4(1) — Article 5 — National legislation laying down requirements in respect of the auditory acuity of prison officers — Failure to meet the standards of sound perception required — Absolute bar to remaining in employment)

6

2021/C 349/08

Case C-848/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 July 2021 — Federal Republic of Germany v Republic of Poland, European Commission, Republic of Latvia, Republic of Lithuania (Appeal — Article 194(1) TFEU — Principle of energy solidarity — Directive 2009/73/EC — Internal market in natural gas — Article 36(1) — Decision of the European Commission on review of the exemption of the OPAL pipeline from the requirements on third-party access and tariff regulation following a request by the German regulatory authority — Action for annulment)

7

2021/C 349/09

Case C-851/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 July 2021 — DK v European External Action Service (Appeal — Civil service — Disciplinary proceedings — Disciplinary penalty — Determination of that penalty — Withholding of an amount from the pension — Criminal conviction and civil sanction before national courts — Compensation, in whole or in part, for non-material damage caused to the European Union — Lack of relevance of that compensation — Article 10 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of proportionality)

8

2021/C 349/10

Case C-30/20: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil no 2 de Madrid — Spain) — RH v AB Volvo, Volvo Group Trucks Central Europe GmbH, Volvo Lastvagnar AB, Volvo Group España SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Article 7(2) — Jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict — Place where the damage occurred — Cartel declared contrary to Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area — Determination of international and territorial jurisdiction — Centralisation of jurisdiction in favour of a specialised court)

o

8

2021/C 349/11

Case C-60/20: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā apgabaltiesa — Latvia) — Latvijas Dzelzceļš VAS v Valsts dzelzceļa administrācija (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rail transport — Directive 2012/34/EU — Single European railway area — Article 13(2) and (6) — Access to service facilities and to rail-related services — Regulation (EU) 2017/2177 — Reconversion of facilities — Powers of the regulatory body)

9

2021/C 349/12

Case C-190/20: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — DocMorris NV v Apothekerkammer Nordrhein (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Medicinal products for human use subject to a medical prescription — Directive 2001/83/EC — Scope — Advertising by a mail-order pharmacy intended to influence not the customer’s choice of a particular medicinal product, but the choice of pharmacy — Prize competition — Free movement of goods — National legislation — Prohibition on offering, advertising or granting advantages and other promotional gifts in the field of therapeutic products — Selling arrangements falling outside the scope of Article 34 TFEU)

10

2021/C 349/13

Case C-241/20: Judgment of the Court of 15 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance du Luxembourg — Belgium) — BJ v Belgian State (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of movement for workers — Free movement of capital — Income tax — Legislation for the avoidance of double taxation — Income received in a Member State other than that of residence — Method of calculating the exemption in the Member State of residence — Loss of part of the benefit of certain tax advantages)

10

2021/C 349/14

Case C-325/20: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — BEMH, Conseil national des centres commerciaux v Premier ministre, Ministère de l’Économie, des Finances et de la Relance, Ministre de la cohésion des territoires et des relations avec les collectivités territoriales (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2006/123/EC — Article 14(6) — Freedom of establishment — Commercial operating permit issued by a collegiate body — Body made up of, inter alia, recognised experts representative of the economic fabric — Persons potentially constituting or representing competing operators of the applicant for authorisation — Prohibition)

11

2021/C 349/15

Case C-362/20: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 15 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Openbaar Ministerie, Federale Overheidsdienst Financiën v Profit Europe NV, Gosselin Forwarding Services NV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Commercial policy — Regulation (EU) No 1071/2012 — Implementing Regulation (EU) No 430/2013 — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Subheadings 7307 11 10, 7307 19 10 and 7307 19 90 — Scope — Tariff classification resulting from a Court judgment — Definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of malleable cast iron — Whether definitive anti-dumping duties are applicable on imports of threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of spheroidal graphite cast iron)

12

2021/C 349/16

Joined Cases C-584/20 P and C-621/20 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 July 2021 — European Commission v Landesbank Baden-Württemberg (C-584/20 P), Single Resolution Board v Landesbank Baden-Württemberg (C-621/20 P) (Appeal — Banking union — Single Resolution Mechanism (SRM) — Single Resolution Fund (SRF) — Calculation of the 2017 ex ante contributions — Authentication of a decision of the Single Resolution Board (SRB) — Obligation to state reasons — Confidential data — Legality of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63)

13

2021/C 349/17

Case C-709/20: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Appeal Tribunal (Northern Ireland) — United Kingdom) — CG v The Department for Communities in Northern Ireland (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Citizenship of the Union — National of a Member State without an activity residing in the territory of another Member State on the basis of national law — The first paragraph of Article 18 TFEU — Non-discrimination based on nationality — Directive 2004/38/EC — Article 7 — Conditions for obtaining a right of residence for more than three months — Article 24 — Social assistance — Concept — Equal treatment — Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland — Transition period — National provision excluding Union citizens with a right of residence for a fixed period under national law from social assistance — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Articles 1, 7 and 24)

14

2021/C 349/18

Case C-244/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Giurgiu (Romania) lodged on 16 April 2021 — C.I. I. v Ministerul Public — Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Giurgiu

15

2021/C 349/19

Case C-267/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (Romania) lodged on 23 April 2021 — Uniqa Asigurări SA v Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală de Soluționare a Contestațiilor and Direcția Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili

15

2021/C 349/20

Case C-320/21 P: Appeal brought on 21 May 2021 by Ryanair DAC against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 14 April 2021 in Case T-379/20, Ryanair v Commission (SAS, Sweden; Covid-19)

16

2021/C 349/21

Case C-321/21 P: Appeal brought on 21 May 2021 by Ryanair DAC against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 14 April 2021 in Case T-378/20, Ryanair v Commission (SAS, Denmark; Covid-19)

17

2021/C 349/22

Case C-336/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg (Austria) lodged on 27 May 2021 — L GmbH v F GmbH, BW, SW

18

2021/C 349/23

Case C-353/21 P: Appeal brought on 4 June 2021 by Ryanair DAC against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 14 April 2021 in Case T-388/20, Ryanair v Commission (Finnair I; Covid-19)

18

2021/C 349/24

Case C-354/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 4 June 2021 — R.J. R. v Valstybės įmonė Registrų centras

R.J. R.

Valstybės įmonė Registrų centras

19

2021/C 349/25

Case C-363/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte dei conti (Italy) lodged on 9 June 2021 — Ferrovienord SpA v Istituto Nazionale di Statistica — ISTAT

20

2021/C 349/26

Case C-364/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte dei Conti (Italy) lodged on 10 June 2021 — Federazione Italiana Triathlon v Istituto Nazionale di Statistica — ISTAT, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze

21

2021/C 349/27

Case C-370/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München (Germany) lodged on 15 June 2021 — DOMUS-SOFTWARE-AG v Marc Braschoß Immobilien GmbH

22

2021/C 349/28

Case C-378/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzgericht (Austria) lodged on 21 June 2021 — P GmbH

22

2021/C 349/29

Case C-380/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 18 January 2021 — Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS) v Ryanair DAC

23

2021/C 349/30

Case C-405/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Višje sodišče v Mariboru (Slovenia) lodged on 30 June 2021 — FV v NOVA KREDITNA BANKA MARIBOR d.d.

23

General Court

2021/C 349/31

Case T-245/18: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Benavides Torres v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Venezuela — Freezing of funds — Lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Inclusion of the applicant’s name on the lists — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Principle of sound administration — Right to effective judicial protection — Error of assessment)

24

2021/C 349/32

Case T-246/18: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Moreno Pérez v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken with regard to the situation in Venezuela — Freezing of funds — Lists of persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources — Inclusion of the applicant’s name on the lists — Retention of the applicant’s name on the lists — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Principle of sound administration — Right to effective judicial protection — Error of assessment)

24

2021/C 349/33

Case T-247/18: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Lucena Ramírez v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken with regard to the situation in Venezuela — Freezing of funds — Lists of persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources — Inclusion of the applicant’s name on the lists — Retention of the applicant’s name on the lists — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Principle of sound administration — Right to effective judicial protection — Error of assessment)

25

2021/C 349/34

Case T-248/18: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Cabello Rondón v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken with regard to the situation in Venezuela — Freezing of funds — Lists of persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources — Inclusion of the applicant’s name on the lists — Retention of the applicant’s name on the lists — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Principle of sound administration — Right to effective judicial protection — Error of assessment — Freedom of expression)

26

2021/C 349/35

Case T-249/18: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Saab Halabi v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Venezuela — Freezing of funds — Lists of persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources — Inclusion of the applicant’s name on the lists — Retention of the applicant’s name on the lists — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Principle of sound administration — Right to effective judicial protection — Error of assessment)

27

2021/C 349/36

Case T-550/18: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Harrington Padrón v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Venezuela — Freezing of funds — Lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Inclusion of the applicant’s name on the lists — Error of assessment — Right to property)

27

2021/C 349/37

Case T-551/18: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Oblitas Ruzza v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Venezuela — Freezing of funds — Lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Inclusion of the applicant’s name on the lists — Retention of the applicant’s name on the lists — Error of assessment — Right to property)

28

2021/C 349/38

Case T-552/18: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Moreno Reyes v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Venezuela — Freezing of funds — Lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Inclusion of the applicant’s name on the lists — Retention of the applicant’s name on the lists — Error of assessment)

29

2021/C 349/39

Case T-553/18: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Rodríguez Gómez v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Venezuela — Freezing of funds — Lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Inclusion of the applicant’s name on the lists — Retention of the applicant’s name on the lists — Error of assessment — Right to property)

29

2021/C 349/40

Case T-554/18: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Hernández Hernández v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Venezuela — Freezing of funds — Lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Inclusion of the applicant’s name on the lists — Retention of the applicant’s name on the lists — Error of assessment — Right to property)

30

2021/C 349/41

Case T-32/19: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Harrington Padrón v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Venezuela — Freezing of funds — Lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Retention of the applicant’s name on the lists — Error of assessment)

31

2021/C 349/42

Case T-35/19: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Benavides Torres v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Venezuela — Freezing of funds — Lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Retention of the applicant’s name on the lists — Error of assessment)

31

2021/C 349/43

Case T-632/19: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — DD v FRA (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Claims for damages — Non-material damage — Implementation of the judgments of the Civil Service Tribunal and of the General Court)

32

2021/C 349/44

Case T-75/20: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Abitron Germany v EUIPO — Hetronic International (NOVA) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark NOVA — Non-registered earlier national trade mark NOVA — Relative ground for refusal — 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, respectively) — Reference to the national law governing the earlier mark — Absolute ground for refusal — No bad faith — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001))

32

2021/C 349/45

Case T-181/20: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Griba v CPVO (Stark Gugger) (Plant varieties — Application for a Community plant variety right for the Stark Gugger apple variety — Technical examination — Testing location — Equal treatment — Rights of the defence — Obligation to state reasons)

33

2021/C 349/46

Case T-182/20: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Griba v CPVO (Gala Perathoner) (Plant varieties — Application for a Community plant variety right for the Gala Perathoner apple variety — Technical examination — Testing location — Equal treatment — Rights of the defence — Obligation to state reasons)

34

2021/C 349/47

Case T-297/20: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Fashioneast and AM.VI. v EUIPO — Moschillo (RICH JOHN RICHMOND) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU figurative mark RICH JOHN RICHMOND — Absence of genuine use of a trade mark — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Use in a form differing in elements which alter the distinctive character of the mark — Point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 15(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 18(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)

34

2021/C 349/48

Case T-389/20: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — KO v Commission (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Remuneration — Expatriation allowance — Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Refusal to grant the expatriation allowance — Habitual residence — Period of training)

35

2021/C 349/49

Case T-399/20: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Cole Haan v EUIPO — Samsøe & Samsøe Holding (Ø) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark Ø — Earlier international figurative mark φ — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

35

2021/C 349/50

Case T-488/20: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Guerlain v EUIPO (Shape of an oblong, tapered and cylindrical lipstick) (EU trade mark — Application for registration of a three-dimensional EU trade mark — Shape of an oblong, tapered and cylindrical lipstick — Absolute ground for refusal — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

36

2021/C 349/51

Case T-527/20: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Aldi v EUIPO (CUCINA) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU figurative mark CUCINA — Absolute grounds for refusal — No distinctive character — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

37

2021/C 349/52

Case T-622/20: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Aldi v EUIPO (Cachet) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark Cachet — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

37

2021/C 349/53

Case T-740/20: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Arnautu v Parliament (Law governing the institutions — Rules on expenses and allowances for Members of Parliament — Parliamentary assistance allowance — Recovery of sums unduly paid — Plea of illegality — Rights of the defence — Error of assessment)

38

2021/C 349/54

Case T-749/20: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Veronese v EUIPO — Veronese Design Company (VERONESE) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark VERONESE — Earlier EU word mark VERONESE — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation 207/2009 (now Article (8)(1)(b) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Decision adopted following the annulment by the General Court of an earlier decision — Article 72(6) of Regulation 2017/1001 — res judicata)

38

2021/C 349/55

Case T-389/21: Action brought on 5 July 2021 — Landesbank Baden-Württemberg v SRB

39

2021/C 349/56

Case T-390/21: Action brought on 5 July 2021 — DZ Bank v SRB

41

2021/C 349/57

Case T-391/21: Action brought on 5 July 2021 — Deutsche Kreditbank v SRB

41

2021/C 349/58

Case T-392/21: Action brought on 5 July 2021 — Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen Girozentrale v SRB

43

2021/C 349/59

Case T-393/21: Action brought on 5 July 2021 — Max Heinr. Sutor v SRB

43

2021/C 349/60

Case T-394/21: Action brought on 6 July 2021 — Bayerische Landesbank v SRB

45

2021/C 349/61

Case T-395/21: Action brought on 6 July 2021 — DZ Hyp v SRB

46

2021/C 349/62

Case T-396/21: Action brought on 7 July 2021 — Deutsche Bank v SRB

46

2021/C 349/63

Case T-404/21: Action brought on 8 July 2021 — DVB Bank v SRB

48

2021/C 349/64

Case T-434/21: Action brought on 17 July 2021 — TO v EEA

48

2021/C 349/65

Case T-435/21: Action brought on 16 July 2021 — TK v Commission

49

---

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 30.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 349/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/1

---

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

(2021/C 349/01)

Last publication

OJ C 338, 23.8.2021

Past publications

OJ C 329, 16.8.2021

OJ C 320, 9.8.2021

OJ C 310, 2.8.2021

OJ C 297, 26.7.2021

OJ C 289, 19.7.2021

OJ C 278, 12.7.2021

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 30.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 349/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Hamburg — Germany) — IX v WABE eV (C-804/18) and MH Müller Handels GmbH v MJ (C-341/19)

(Joined Cases C-804/18 and C-341/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2000/78/EC - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief - Internal rule of a private undertaking prohibiting the wearing of any visible political, philosophical or religious sign or the wearing of conspicuous, large-sized political, philosophical or religious signs in the workplace - Direct or indirect discrimination - Proportionality - Balancing the freedom of religion and other fundamental rights - Legitimacy of the policy of neutrality adopted by the employer - Need to establish economic loss suffered by the employer)

(2021/C 349/02)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Arbeitsgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: IX (C-804/18), MH Müller Handels GmbH (C-341/19)

Defendants: WABE eV (C-804/18), MJ (C-341/19)

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 1 and Article 2(2)(a) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as meaning that an internal rule of an undertaking, prohibiting workers from wearing any visible sign of political, philosophical or religious beliefs in the workplace, does not constitute, with regard to workers who observe certain clothing rules based on religious precepts, direct discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief, for the purpose of that directive, provided that that rule is applied in a general and undifferentiated way; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 1 and Article 2(2)(a) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as meaning that an internal rule of an undertaking, prohibiting workers from wearing any visible sign of political, philosophical or religious beliefs in the workplace, does not constitute, with regard to workers who observe certain clothing rules based on religious precepts, direct discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief, for the purpose of that directive, provided that that rule is applied in a general and undifferentiated way;

| 2. | Article 2(2)(b) of Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as meaning that a difference of treatment indirectly based on religion or belief, arising from an internal rule of an undertaking prohibiting workers from wearing any visible sign of political, philosophical or religious beliefs in the workplace, may be justified by the employer’s desire to pursue a policy of political, philosophical and religious neutrality with regard to its customers or users, provided, first, that that policy meets a genuine need on the part of that employer, which it is for that employer to demonstrate, taking into consideration, inter alia, the legitimate wishes of those customers or users and the adverse consequences that that employer would suffer in the absence of that policy, given the nature of its activities and the context in which they are carried out; secondly, that that difference of treatment is appropriate for the purpose of ensuring that the employer’s policy of neutrality is properly applied, which entails that that policy is pursued in a consistent and systematic manner; and, thirdly, that the prohibition in question is limited to what is strictly necessary having regard to the actual scale and severity of the adverse consequences that the employer is seeking to avoid by adopting that prohibition; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 2(2)(b) of Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as meaning that a difference of treatment indirectly based on religion or belief, arising from an internal rule of an undertaking prohibiting workers from wearing any visible sign of political, philosophical or religious beliefs in the workplace, may be justified by the employer’s desire to pursue a policy of political, philosophical and religious neutrality with regard to its customers or users, provided, first, that that policy meets a genuine need on the part of that employer, which it is for that employer to demonstrate, taking into consideration, inter alia, the legitimate wishes of those customers or users and the adverse consequences that that employer would suffer in the absence of that policy, given the nature of its activities and the context in which they are carried out; secondly, that that difference of treatment is appropriate for the purpose of ensuring that the employer’s policy of neutrality is properly applied, which entails that that policy is pursued in a consistent and systematic manner; and, thirdly, that the prohibition in question is limited to what is strictly necessary having regard to the actual scale and severity of the adverse consequences that the employer is seeking to avoid by adopting that prohibition;

| 3. | Article 2(2)(b)(i) of Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as meaning that indirect discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief resulting from an internal rule of an undertaking prohibiting, at the workplace, the wearing of visible signs of political, philosophical or religious beliefs with the aim of ensuring a policy of neutrality within that undertaking can be justified only if that prohibition covers all visible forms of expression of political, philosophical or religious beliefs. A prohibition which is limited to the wearing of conspicuous, large-sized signs of political, philosophical or religious beliefs is liable to constitute direct discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief, which cannot in any event be justified on the basis of that provision; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 2(2)(b)(i) of Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as meaning that indirect discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief resulting from an internal rule of an undertaking prohibiting, at the workplace, the wearing of visible signs of political, philosophical or religious beliefs with the aim of ensuring a policy of neutrality within that undertaking can be justified only if that prohibition covers all visible forms of expression of political, philosophical or religious beliefs. A prohibition which is limited to the wearing of conspicuous, large-sized signs of political, philosophical or religious beliefs is liable to constitute direct discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief, which cannot in any event be justified on the basis of that provision;

| 4. | Article 2(2)(b) of Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as meaning that national provisions protecting the freedom of religion may be taken into account as more favourable provisions, within the meaning of Article 8(1) of that directive, in examining the appropriateness of a difference of treatment indirectly based on religion or belief. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Article 2(2)(b) of Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as meaning that national provisions protecting the freedom of religion may be taken into account as more favourable provisions, within the meaning of Article 8(1) of that directive, in examining the appropriateness of a difference of treatment indirectly based on religion or belief.

---

(1)  OJ C 182, 27.5.2019.

OJ C 255, 29.7.2019.

---

| 30.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 349/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 July 2021 — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v European Commission, Land Rheinland-Pfalz, Ryanair DAC

(Case C-453/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Aid for airports and airlines - Decision classifying the measures in favour of Frankfurt Hahn airport as State aid compatible with the internal market and finding no State aid in favour of airlines using that airport - Inadmissibility of an action for annulment - Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU - Natural or legal person not directly and individually concerned by the decision at issue - Effective judicial protection)

(2021/C 349/03)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG (represented by: A. Martin-Ehlers, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and S. Noë, acting as Agents), Land Rheinland-Pfalz (represented by: Professor C. Koenig), Ryanair DAC (represented by: G. Berrisch, Rechtsanwalt, D. Vasbeck, avocat, and B. Byrne, Solicitor)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Deutsche Lufthansa AG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, Land Rheinland-Pfalz and Ryanair DAC. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Deutsche Lufthansa AG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, Land Rheinland-Pfalz and Ryanair DAC.

---

(1)  OJ C 263, 5.8.2019.

---

| 30.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 349/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) — Latvia) — A

(Case C-535/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of movement for persons - Citizenship of the Union - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Article 3(1)(a) - Sickness benefits - Concept - Article 4 and Article 11(3)(e) - Directive 2004/38/EC - Article 7(1)(b) - Right of residence for more than three months - Condition of having comprehensive sickness insurance cover - Article 24 - Equal treatment - Economically inactive national of a Member State residing legally in the territory of another Member State - Refusal by the host Member State to affiliate that person to its public sickness insurance system)

(2021/C 349/04)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa (Senāts)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: A

Intervening party: Latvijas Republikas Veselības ministrija

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 988/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that medical care, financed by the State, which is granted, without any individual and discretionary assessment of personal needs, to persons falling within the categories of recipients defined by national legislation, constitutes ‘sickness benefits’ within the meaning of that provision, thus falling within the scope of Regulation No 883/2004, as amended by Regulation No 988/2009; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 988/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that medical care, financed by the State, which is granted, without any individual and discretionary assessment of personal needs, to persons falling within the categories of recipients defined by national legislation, constitutes ‘sickness benefits’ within the meaning of that provision, thus falling within the scope of Regulation No 883/2004, as amended by Regulation No 988/2009;

| 2. | Article 11(3)(e) of Regulation No 883/2004, as amended by Regulation No 988/2009, read in the light of Article 7(1)(b) of Directive 2004/38/EC 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, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which excludes from the right to be affiliated to the public sickness insurance scheme of the host Member State, in order to receive medical care financed by that State, economically inactive Union citizens, who are nationals of another Member State and who fall, by virtue of Article 11(3)(e) of Regulation No 883/2004, as amended by Regulation No 988/2009, within the scope of the legislation of the host Member State and who are exercising their right of residence in the territory of that State under Article 7(1)(b) of that directive;
  Article 4 and Article 11(3)(e) of Regulation No 883/2004, as amended by Regulation No 988/2009, and Article 7(1)(b) and Article 24 of Directive 2004/38 must be interpreted, by contrast, as not precluding the affiliation of such Union citizens to that system from not being free of charge, in order to prevent those citizens from becoming an unreasonable burden on the public finances of the host Member State. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 11(3)(e) of Regulation No 883/2004, as amended by Regulation No 988/2009, read in the light of Article 7(1)(b) of Directive 2004/38/EC 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, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which excludes from the right to be affiliated to the public sickness insurance scheme of the host Member State, in order to receive medical care financed by that State, economically inactive Union citizens, who are nationals of another Member State and who fall, by virtue of Article 11(3)(e) of Regulation No 883/2004, as amended by Regulation No 988/2009, within the scope of the legislation of the host Member State and who are exercising their right of residence in the territory of that State under Article 7(1)(b) of that directive;

Article 4 and Article 11(3)(e) of Regulation No 883/2004, as amended by Regulation No 988/2009, and Article 7(1)(b) and Article 24 of Directive 2004/38 must be interpreted, by contrast, as not precluding the affiliation of such Union citizens to that system from not being free of charge, in order to prevent those citizens from becoming an unreasonable burden on the public finances of the host Member State.

---

(1)  OJ C 328, 30.9.2019.

---

| 30.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 349/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije — Slovenia) — B.K. v Republika Slovenija (Ministrstvo za obrambo)

(Case C-742/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of the safety and health of workers - Organisation of working time - Members of the armed forces - Applicability of EU law - Article 4(2) TEU - Directive 2003/88/EC - Scope - Article 1(3) - Directive 89/391/EEC - Article 2(2) - Military activities - Concept of ‘working time’ - Stand-by period - Dispute concerning the remuneration of a worker)

(2021/C 349/05)

Language of the case: Slovenian

Referring court

Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: B.K.

Defendant: Republika Slovenija (Ministrstvo za obrambo)

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 1(3) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, read in the light of Article 4(2) TEU, must be interpreted as meaning that a security activity performed by a member of military personnel is excluded from the scope of that directive:






  — | where that activity takes place in the course of initial or operational training or an actual military operation; or |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Article 1(3) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, read in the light of Article 4(2) TEU, must be interpreted as meaning that a security activity performed by a member of military personnel is excluded from the scope of that directive:

—

where that activity takes place in the course of initial or operational training or an actual military operation; or

| — | where it is an activity which is so particular that it is not suitable for a staff rotation system which would ensure compliance with the requirements of that directive; or |
| --- | --- |

—

where it is an activity which is so particular that it is not suitable for a staff rotation system which would ensure compliance with the requirements of that directive; or

| — | where it appears, in the light of all the relevant circumstances, that that activity is carried out in the context of exceptional events, the gravity and scale of which require the adoption of measures indispensable for the protection of the life, health and safety of the community at large, measures whose proper implementation would be jeopardised if all the rules laid down in that directive had to be observed; or |
| --- | --- |

—

where it appears, in the light of all the relevant circumstances, that that activity is carried out in the context of exceptional events, the gravity and scale of which require the adoption of measures indispensable for the protection of the life, health and safety of the community at large, measures whose proper implementation would be jeopardised if all the rules laid down in that directive had to be observed; or

| — | where the application of that directive to such an activity, by requiring the authorities concerned to set up a rotation system or a system for planning working time, would inevitably be detrimental to the proper performance of actual military operations. |
| --- | --- |

—

where the application of that directive to such an activity, by requiring the authorities concerned to set up a rotation system or a system for planning working time, would inevitably be detrimental to the proper performance of actual military operations.

| 2. | Article 2 of Directive 2003/88 must be interpreted as not precluding a stand-by period during which a member of military personnel is required to remain at the barracks to which he or she is posted, but does not perform actual work there, from being remunerated differently than a stand-by period during which he or she performs actual work. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 2 of Directive 2003/88 must be interpreted as not precluding a stand-by period during which a member of military personnel is required to remain at the barracks to which he or she is posted, but does not perform actual work there, from being remunerated differently than a stand-by period during which he or she performs actual work.

---

(1)  OJ C 19, 20.1.2020.

---

| 30.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 349/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/6

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Polymeles Protodikeio Athinon — Greece) — OH v ID

(Case C-758/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 268, 270, 340 and 343 TFEU - Protocol (No 7) on the privileges and immunities of the European Union - Articles 11, 17 and 19 - Former member of the European Commission - Immunity from jurisdiction - Claim for non-contractual liability - Waiver of immunity - Jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union)

(2021/C 349/06)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Polymeles Protodikeio Athinon

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: OH

Defendant: ID

Operative part of the judgment

The Court of Justice of the European Union has exclusive jurisdiction, to the exclusion of national courts, to hear and determine an action for non-contractual liability brought by a former member of the temporary staff of the European Commission on account of wrongful conduct which he attributes to the member of that institution, for whom he was an employee and which, it is claimed, led the institution to terminate the employment relationship with that member of staff. Such an action must be directed not against the member of the Commission concerned, but against the European Union, represented by the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 19, 20.1.2020.

---

| 30.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 349/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus — Estonia) — XX v Tartu Vangla

(Case C-795/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Directive 2000/78/EC - Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of disability - Article 2(2)(a) - Article 4(1) - Article 5 - National legislation laying down requirements in respect of the auditory acuity of prison officers - Failure to meet the standards of sound perception required - Absolute bar to remaining in employment)

(2021/C 349/07)

Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Riigikohus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: XX

Defendant: Tartu Vangla

Interveners: Justiitsminister, Tervise- ja tööminister, Õiguskantsler

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(2)(a), Article 4(1) and Article 5 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000, establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, are to be interpreted as precluding national legislation which imposes an absolute bar to a prison officer remaining in employment when his or her auditory acuity does not meet the minimum standards of sound perception prescribed by that legislation, without allowing it to be ascertained whether that officer is capable of fulfilling those duties, where appropriate after the adoption of reasonable accommodation measures within the meaning of Article 5 of that directive.

---

(1)  OJ C 19, 20.01.2020.

---

| 30.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 349/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 July 2021 — Federal Republic of Germany v Republic of Poland, European Commission, Republic of Latvia, Republic of Lithuania

(Case C-848/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Article 194(1) TFEU - Principle of energy solidarity - Directive 2009/73/EC - Internal market in natural gas - Article 36(1) - Decision of the European Commission on review of the exemption of the OPAL pipeline from the requirements on third-party access and tariff regulation following a request by the German regulatory authority - Action for annulment)

(2021/C 349/08)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Appellant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: J. Möller and D. Klebs, acting as Agents, and by H. Haller, T. Heitling, L. Reiser and V. Vacha, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, M. Kawnik and M. Nowacki, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: O. Beynet and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents), Republic of Latvia (represented: initially by K. Pommere, V. Soņeca and E. Bārdiņš, and subsequently by K. Pommere, V. Kalniņa and E. Bārdiņš, acting as Agents), Republic of Lithuania (represented by: R. Dzikovič and K. Dieninis, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Republic of Poland; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Republic of Poland;

| 3. | Orders the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania and the European Commission to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 27, 27.1.2020.

---

| 30.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 349/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 July 2021 — DK v European External Action Service

(Case C-851/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Disciplinary proceedings - Disciplinary penalty - Determination of that penalty - Withholding of an amount from the pension - Criminal conviction and civil sanction before national courts - Compensation, in whole or in part, for non-material damage caused to the European Union - Lack of relevance of that compensation - Article 10 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union - Principle of equal treatment - Principle of proportionality)

(2021/C 349/09)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: DK (represented: initially by S. Orlandi and T. Martin, and subsequently by S. Orlandi, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European External Action Service (represented by: S. Marquardt and R. Spáč, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

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

2.

Orders DK to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 68, 2.3.2020.

---

| 30.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 349/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/8

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil no 2 de Madrid — Spain) — RH v AB Volvo, Volvo Group Trucks Central Europe GmbH, Volvo Lastvagnar AB, Volvo Group España SA

(Case C-30/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Article 7(2) - Jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict - Place where the damage occurred - Cartel declared contrary to Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area - Determination of international and territorial jurisdiction - Centralisation of jurisdiction in favour of a specialised court)

(2021/C 349/10)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Mercantil no 2 de Madrid

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: RH

Defendants: AB Volvo, Volvo Group Trucks Central Europe GmbH, Volvo Lastvagnar AB, Volvo Group España SA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that, within the market affected by collusive arrangements on the fixing and increase in the prices of goods, either the court within whose jurisdiction the undertaking claiming to be harmed purchased the goods affected by those arrangements or, in the case of purchases made by that undertaking in several places, the court within whose jurisdiction that undertaking’s registered office is situated, has international and territorial jurisdiction, in terms of the place where the damage occurred, over an action for compensation for the damage caused by those arrangements contrary to Article 101 TFEU.

---

(1)  OJ C 161, 11.5.2020.

---

| 30.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 349/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā apgabaltiesa — Latvia) — ‘Latvijas Dzelzceļš’ VAS v Valsts dzelzceļa administrācija

(Case C-60/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Rail transport - Directive 2012/34/EU - Single European railway area - Article 13(2) and (6) - Access to service facilities and to rail-related services - Regulation (EU) 2017/2177 - Reconversion of facilities - Powers of the regulatory body)

(2021/C 349/11)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Administratīvā apgabaltiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘Latvijas Dzelzceļš’ VAS

Defendant: Valsts dzelzceļa administrācija

intervener:‘Baltijas Ekspresis’ AS

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 13(2) and (6) of Directive 2012/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 establishing a single European railway area must be interpreted as meaning that the obligation to supply all railway undertakings with non-discriminatory access to service facilities, within the meaning of Article 3(11) of that directive, referred to in point 2 of Annex II thereto, cannot be imposed on the owners of such facilities who are not operators of those facilities; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 13(2) and (6) of Directive 2012/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 establishing a single European railway area must be interpreted as meaning that the obligation to supply all railway undertakings with non-discriminatory access to service facilities, within the meaning of Article 3(11) of that directive, referred to in point 2 of Annex II thereto, cannot be imposed on the owners of such facilities who are not operators of those facilities;

| 2. | Article 13(6) of Directive 2012/34 must be interpreted as not applying to a situation in which the owner of a building housing a service facility, within the meaning of Article 3(11) of that directive, which is in use, intends to terminate a lease agreement relating to that building in order to reallocate the latter to its own use. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 13(6) of Directive 2012/34 must be interpreted as not applying to a situation in which the owner of a building housing a service facility, within the meaning of Article 3(11) of that directive, which is in use, intends to terminate a lease agreement relating to that building in order to reallocate the latter to its own use.

---

(1)  OJ C 161, 11.5.2020.

---

| 30.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 349/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — DocMorris NV v Apothekerkammer Nordrhein

(Case C-190/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Medicinal products for human use subject to a medical prescription - Directive 2001/83/EC - Scope - Advertising by a mail-order pharmacy intended to influence not the customer’s choice of a particular medicinal product, but the choice of pharmacy - Prize competition - Free movement of goods - National legislation - Prohibition on offering, advertising or granting advantages and other promotional gifts in the field of therapeutic products - Selling arrangements falling outside the scope of Article 34 TFEU)

(2021/C 349/12)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: DocMorris NV

Defendant: Apothekerkammer Nordrhein

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as amended by Directive 2012/26/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012, must be interpreted as not applying to national legislation which prohibits a pharmacy which sells medicinal products by mail order from organising an advertising campaign in the form of a prize competition allowing participants to win everyday items other than medicinal products, participation in that competition being subject to the submission of an order for a medicinal product for human use subject to a medical prescription, together with that prescription; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as amended by Directive 2012/26/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012, must be interpreted as not applying to national legislation which prohibits a pharmacy which sells medicinal products by mail order from organising an advertising campaign in the form of a prize competition allowing participants to win everyday items other than medicinal products, participation in that competition being subject to the submission of an order for a medicinal product for human use subject to a medical prescription, together with that prescription;

| 2. | Article 34 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding such national legislation. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 34 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding such national legislation.

---

(1)  OJ C 279, 24.08.2020.

---

| 30.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 349/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/10

---

Judgment of the Court of 15 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance du Luxembourg — Belgium) — BJ v Belgian State

(Case C-241/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of movement for workers - Free movement of capital - Income tax - Legislation for the avoidance of double taxation - Income received in a Member State other than that of residence - Method of calculating the exemption in the Member State of residence - Loss of part of the benefit of certain tax advantages)

(2021/C 349/13)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance du Luxembourg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: BJ

Defendant: Belgian State

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 45 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding the application of tax legislation of a Member State that has the consequence that a taxpayer resident in that Member State forfeits, in connection with the calculation of the income tax payable by him or her in that Member State, a part of the benefit of the tax advantages granted by it, because that taxpayer receives income in respect of employment in another Member State, taxable in the latter and exempt from taxation in the first Member State pursuant to a bilateral convention for the avoidance of double taxation; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 45 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding the application of tax legislation of a Member State that has the consequence that a taxpayer resident in that Member State forfeits, in connection with the calculation of the income tax payable by him or her in that Member State, a part of the benefit of the tax advantages granted by it, because that taxpayer receives income in respect of employment in another Member State, taxable in the latter and exempt from taxation in the first Member State pursuant to a bilateral convention for the avoidance of double taxation;

| 2. | The fact that the taxpayer concerned does not receive significant income in the Member State of residence is of no relevance to the answer to the first question referred since that Member State is in a position to grant him or her those tax advantages in question; |
| --- | --- |

2.

The fact that the taxpayer concerned does not receive significant income in the Member State of residence is of no relevance to the answer to the first question referred since that Member State is in a position to grant him or her those tax advantages in question;

| 3. | The fact that, pursuant to a convention for the avoidance of double taxation between the Member State of residence and the Member State of employment, the taxpayer concerned has, in connection with the taxing of income that he or she received in the second Member State, enjoyed tax advantages under the tax legislation of it, is of no relevance to the answer to the first question referred, since neither that convention nor the tax legislation of the Member State of residence provide for those advantages to be taken into account and since the latter do not include some of the advantages to which the taxpayer is in principle entitled in the Member State of residence. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The fact that, pursuant to a convention for the avoidance of double taxation between the Member State of residence and the Member State of employment, the taxpayer concerned has, in connection with the taxing of income that he or she received in the second Member State, enjoyed tax advantages under the tax legislation of it, is of no relevance to the answer to the first question referred, since neither that convention nor the tax legislation of the Member State of residence provide for those advantages to be taken into account and since the latter do not include some of the advantages to which the taxpayer is in principle entitled in the Member State of residence.

| 4. | The fact that, in the Member State of employment, the taxpayer concerned obtained a tax reduction in an amount at least equivalent to that of the tax advantages which he or she has lost in his Member State of residence is of no relevance to the answer to the first question referred. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The fact that, in the Member State of employment, the taxpayer concerned obtained a tax reduction in an amount at least equivalent to that of the tax advantages which he or she has lost in his Member State of residence is of no relevance to the answer to the first question referred.

| 5. | Article 63(1) and Article 65(1)(a) TFEU must be interpreted as precluding the application of tax legislation of a Member State that has the consequence that a taxpayer resident in that Member State forfeits a part of the benefit of the tax advantages granted by it, because that taxpayer receives income deriving from an apartment of which he or she is the owner in another Member State, taxable in the latter and exempt from taxation in the first Member State pursuant to a bilateral convention for the avoidance of double taxation. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Article 63(1) and Article 65(1)(a) TFEU must be interpreted as precluding the application of tax legislation of a Member State that has the consequence that a taxpayer resident in that Member State forfeits a part of the benefit of the tax advantages granted by it, because that taxpayer receives income deriving from an apartment of which he or she is the owner in another Member State, taxable in the latter and exempt from taxation in the first Member State pursuant to a bilateral convention for the avoidance of double taxation.

---

(1)  OJ C 297, 07.09.2020.

---

| 30.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 349/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — BEMH, Conseil national des centres commerciaux v Premier ministre, Ministère de l’Économie, des Finances et de la Relance, Ministre de la cohésion des territoires et des relations avec les collectivités territoriales

(Case C-325/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2006/123/EC - Article 14(6) - Freedom of establishment - Commercial operating permit issued by a collegiate body - Body made up of, inter alia, recognised experts representative of the economic fabric - Persons potentially constituting or representing competing operators of the applicant for authorisation - Prohibition)

(2021/C 349/14)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: BEMH, Conseil national des centres commerciaux

Defendants: Premier ministre, Ministère de l’Économie, des Finances et de la Relance, Ministre de la cohésion des territoires et des relations avec les collectivités territoriales

Operative part of the judgment

Article 14(6) of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market must be interpreted as precluding national legislation that permits the presence, within a collegiate body responsible for issuing opinions on the granting of commercial operating permits, of recognised experts representative of the local economic fabric in the relevant catchment area, even if those experts do not take part in the vote on the application for authorisation and merely present the situation of that economic fabric and the impact of the project on that economic fabric, in so far as the actual or potential competitors of the applicant participate in the appointment of those persons.

---

(1)  OJ C 339, 12.10.2020.

---

| 30.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 349/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 15 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Openbaar Ministerie, Federale Overheidsdienst Financiën v Profit Europe NV, Gosselin Forwarding Services NV

(Case C-362/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Commercial policy - Regulation (EU) No 1071/2012 - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 430/2013 - Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Subheadings 7307 11 10, 7307 19 10 and 7307 19 90 - Scope - Tariff classification resulting from a Court judgment - Definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of malleable cast iron - Whether definitive anti-dumping duties are applicable on imports of threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of spheroidal graphite cast iron)

(2021/C 349/15)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Openbaar Ministerie, Federale Overheidsdienst Financiën

Defendants: Profit Europe NV, Gosselin Forwarding Services NV

Operative part of the judgment

Commission Regulation (EU) No 1071/2012 of 14 November 2012 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of malleable cast iron, originating in the People’s Republic of China and Thailand and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 430/2013 of 13 May 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of malleable cast iron, originating in the People’s Republic of China and Thailand and terminating the proceeding with regard to Indonesia, in the version prior to the amendments made to the latter by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/262, of 14 February 2019, must be interpreted as meaning that the provisional and definitive anti-dumping duties imposed by those regulations apply to threaded tube or pipe cast fittings of spheroidal graphite cast iron, originating in China.

---

(1)  OJ C 399, 23.11.2020.

---

| 30.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 349/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 July 2021 — European Commission v Landesbank Baden-Württemberg (C-584/20 P), Single Resolution Board v Landesbank Baden-Württemberg (C-621/20 P)

(Joined Cases C-584/20 P and C-621/20 P) (1)

(Appeal - Banking union - Single Resolution Mechanism (SRM) - Single Resolution Fund (SRF) - Calculation of the 2017 ex ante contributions - Authentication of a decision of the Single Resolution Board (SRB) - Obligation to state reasons - Confidential data - Legality of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63)

(2021/C 349/16)

Language of the case: German

Parties

(Case C-584/20 P)

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou, A. Nijenhuis, V. Di Bucci and A. Steiblytė, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Landesbank Baden-Württemberg (represented by: H. Berger and M. Weber, Rechtsanwälte), Single Resolution Board (SRB), (represented by: K. P. Wojcik, P.A. Messina, J. Kerlin and H. Ehlers, acting as Agents, and H. G. Kamann and P. Gey, Rechtsanwälte, and F. Louis, avocat)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: J. Rodríguez de la Rúa Puig, acting as Agent)

Interveners in support of the Landesbank Baden-Württemberg: Fédération bancaire française (represented by: A. Gosset-Grainville, M. Trabucchi and M. Dalon, avocats)

(Case C-621/20 P)

Appellant: Single Resolution Board (SRB) (represented by: K. P. Wojcik, P.A. Messina, J. Kerlin and H. Ehlers, acting as Agents, and H. G. Kamann and P. Gey, Rechtsanwälte, and F. Louis, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: Landesbank Baden-Württemberg (represented by: H. Berger and M. Weber, Rechtsanwälte), European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou, A. Nijenhuis, V. Di Bucci and A. Steiblytė, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: J. Rodríguez de la Rúa Puig, acting as Agent)

Interveners in support of the Landesbank Baden-Württemberg: Fédération bancaire française (represented by: A. Gosset Grainville, M. Trabucchi and M. Dalon, avocats)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 23 September 2020, Landesbank Baden-Württemberg v SRB (T-411/17, EU:T:2020:435); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 23 September 2020, Landesbank Baden-Württemberg v SRB (T-411/17, EU:T:2020:435);

| 2. | Annuls the decision of the Executive Session of the Single Resolution Board of 11 April 2017 on the calculation of the 2017 ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2017/05), in so far as it concerns Landesbank Baden-Württemberg; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Annuls the decision of the Executive Session of the Single Resolution Board of 11 April 2017 on the calculation of the 2017 ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2017/05), in so far as it concerns Landesbank Baden-Württemberg;

| 3. | Maintains the effects of the decision of the Executive Session of the Single Resolution Board of 11 April 2017 on the calculation of the 2017 ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2017/05), in so far as it concerns Landesbank Baden-Württemberg, until the entry into force, within a reasonable period which cannot exceed six months from the date of delivery of this judgment, of a new decision of the Single Resolution Board fixing the 2017 ex ante contribution to the Single Resolution Fund of that institution; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Maintains the effects of the decision of the Executive Session of the Single Resolution Board of 11 April 2017 on the calculation of the 2017 ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2017/05), in so far as it concerns Landesbank Baden-Württemberg, until the entry into force, within a reasonable period which cannot exceed six months from the date of delivery of this judgment, of a new decision of the Single Resolution Board fixing the 2017 ex ante contribution to the Single Resolution Fund of that institution;

| 4. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs, both at first instance and on appeal; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs, both at first instance and on appeal;

| 5. | Orders the Single Resolution Board to bear its own costs, both at first instance and on appeal, and to pay the costs incurred by Landesbank Baden-Württemberg at first instance; |
| --- | --- |

5.

Orders the Single Resolution Board to bear its own costs, both at first instance and on appeal, and to pay the costs incurred by Landesbank Baden-Württemberg at first instance;

| 6. | Orders Landesbank Baden-Württemberg, Fédération bancaire française and the Kingdom of Spain each to bear their own costs relating to the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Orders Landesbank Baden-Württemberg, Fédération bancaire française and the Kingdom of Spain each to bear their own costs relating to the appeal proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 423, 7.12.2020.

OJ C 443, 21.12.2020.

---

| 30.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 349/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Appeal Tribunal (Northern Ireland) — United Kingdom) — CG v The Department for Communities in Northern Ireland

(Case C-709/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Citizenship of the Union - National of a Member State without an activity residing in the territory of another Member State on the basis of national law - The first paragraph of Article 18 TFEU - Non-discrimination based on nationality - Directive 2004/38/EC - Article 7 - Conditions for obtaining a right of residence for more than three months - Article 24 - Social assistance - Concept - Equal treatment - Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - Transition period - National provision excluding Union citizens with a right of residence for a fixed period under national law from social assistance - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Articles 1, 7 and 24)

(2021/C 349/17)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Appeal Tribunal (Northern Ireland)

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: CG

Respondent: The Department for Communities in Northern Ireland

Operative part of the judgment

Article 24 of Directive 2004/38/EC 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 must be interpreted as not precluding the legislation of a host Member State which excludes from social assistance economically inactive Union citizens who do not have sufficient resources and to whom that State has granted a temporary right of residence, where those benefits are guaranteed to nationals of the Member State concerned who are in the same situation.

However, provided that a Union citizen resides legally, on the basis of national law, in the territory of a Member State other than that of which he or she is a national, the national authorities empowered to grant social assistance are required to check that a refusal to grant such benefits based on that legislation does not expose that citizen, and the children for which he or she is responsible, to an actual and current risk of violation of their fundamental rights, as enshrined in Articles 1, 7 and 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Where that citizen does not have any resources to provide for his or her own needs and those of his or her children and is isolated, those authorities must ensure that, in the event of a refusal to grant social assistance, that citizen may nevertheless live with his or her children in dignified conditions. In the context of that examination, those authorities may take into account all means of assistance provided for by national law, from which the citizen concerned and her children are actually entitled to benefit.

---

(1)  OJ C 110, 29.3.2021.

---

| 30.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 349/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/15

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Giurgiu (Romania) lodged on 16 April 2021 — C.I. I. v Ministerul Public — Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Giurgiu

(Case C-244/21)

(2021/C 349/18)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Giurgiu

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: C.I.I.

Defendant: Ministerul Public — Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Giurgiu

By order of 1 July 2021, the Court (Tenth Chamber) declared that it manifestly lacks jurisdiction to answer the question referred by the Tribunalul Giurgiu (Romania) by decision of 9 April 2021.

---

| 30.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 349/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/15

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (Romania) lodged on 23 April 2021 — Uniqa Asigurări SA v Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală de Soluționare a Contestațiilor and Direcția Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili

(Case C-267/21)

(2021/C 349/19)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Uniqa Asigurări SA

Respondents: Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală de Soluționare a Contestațiilor and Direcția Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili

Question referred

In interpreting Article 59 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, (1) can claims settlement services supplied by correspondent companies for an insurance company, in the name and on behalf of the latter, be classified in the category of services supplied by consultants, engineers, consultancy firms, lawyers, accountants and other similar services, as well as data processing and the provision of information?

---

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

---

| 30.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 349/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/16

---

Appeal brought on 21 May 2021 by Ryanair DAC against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 14 April 2021 in Case T-379/20, Ryanair v Commission (SAS, Sweden; Covid-19)

(Case C-320/21 P)

(2021/C 349/20)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Ryanair DAC (represented by: E. Vahida and F.-C. Laprévote, avocats, S. Rating, abogado, I.-G. Metaxas-Maranghidis, dikigoros, and V. Blanc, avocate)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, French Republic, Kingdom of Sweden, SAS AB

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

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

—

set aside the judgment under appeal;

| — | declare in accordance with Articles 263 and 264 TFEU that Commission Decision C(2020) 2784 final of 24 April 2020 on State Aid SA.57061 (2020/N) — Sweden — Compensation for the damage caused by the COVID-19 outbreak to Scandinavian Airlines is void; and |
| --- | --- |

—

declare in accordance with Articles 263 and 264 TFEU that Commission Decision C(2020) 2784 final of 24 April 2020 on State Aid SA.57061 (2020/N) — Sweden — Compensation for the damage caused by the COVID-19 outbreak to Scandinavian Airlines is void; and

| — | order the Commission to bear its own costs and pay those incurrent by Ryanair, and order the interveners at first instance and in this appeal (if any) to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to bear its own costs and pay those incurrent by Ryanair, and order the interveners at first instance and in this appeal (if any) to bear their own costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law: the General Court erred in law in rejecting the appellant’s claim that the Commission breached the requirement that aid granted under Article 107(2)(b) TFEU is not to make good the damage suffered by a single victim.

Second plea in law: the General Court erred in law and committed a manifest distortion of the facts in the application of Article 107(2)(b) TFEU and the proportionality principle in relation to damage caused to SAS AB by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Third plea in law: the General Court erred in law in rejecting the appellant’s claim that the non-discrimination principle has been unjustifiably violated.

Fourth plea in law: the General Court erred in law and committed a manifest distortion of the facts in rejecting the appellant’s claim on the infringement of the freedom of establishment and the free provision of services.

Fifth plea in law: the General Court erred in law and committed a manifest distortion of the facts regarding the failure to open a formal investigation procedure.

Sixth plea in law: the General Court erred in law and committed a manifest distortion of the facts regarding the failure to state reasons.

---

| 30.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 349/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/17

---

Appeal brought on 21 May 2021 by Ryanair DAC against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 14 April 2021 in Case T-378/20, Ryanair v Commission (SAS, Denmark; Covid-19)

(Case C-321/21 P)

(2021/C 349/21)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Ryanair DAC (represented by: E. Vahida and F.-C. Laprévote, avocats, S. Rating, abogado, I.-G. Metaxas-Maranghidis, dikigoros, and V. Blanc, avocate)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Kingdom of Denmark, French Republic, SAS AB

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

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

—

set aside the judgment under appeal;

| — | declare in accordance with Articles 263 and 264 TFEU that Commission Decision C(2020) 2416 final of 15 April 2020 on State Aid SA.56795 (2020/N) — Denmark — Compensation for the damage caused by the COVID-19 outbreak to Scandinavian Airlines is void; and |
| --- | --- |

—

declare in accordance with Articles 263 and 264 TFEU that Commission Decision C(2020) 2416 final of 15 April 2020 on State Aid SA.56795 (2020/N) — Denmark — Compensation for the damage caused by the COVID-19 outbreak to Scandinavian Airlines is void; and

| — | order the Commission to bear its own costs and pay those incurrent by Ryanair, and order the interveners at first instance and in this appeal (if any) to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to bear its own costs and pay those incurrent by Ryanair, and order the interveners at first instance and in this appeal (if any) to bear their own costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law: the General Court erred in law in rejecting the appellant’s claim that the Commission breached the requirement that aid granted under Article 107(2)(b) TFEU is not to make good the damage suffered by a single victim.

Second plea in law: the General Court erred in law and committed a manifest distortion of the facts in the application of Article 107(2)(b) TFEU and the proportionality principle in relation to damage caused to SAS by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Third plea in law: the General Court erred in law in rejecting the appellant’s claim that the non-discrimination principle has been unjustifiably violated.

Fourth plea in law: the General Court erred in law and committed a manifest distortion of the facts in rejecting the appellant’s claim on the infringement of the freedom of establishment and the free provision of services.

Fifth plea in law: the General Court erred in law and committed a manifest distortion of the facts regarding the failure to open a formal investigation procedure.

Sixth plea in law: the General Court erred in law and committed a manifest distortion of the facts regarding the failure to state reasons.

---

| 30.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 349/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/18

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg (Austria) lodged on 27 May 2021 — L GmbH v F GmbH, BW, SW

(Case C-336/21)

(2021/C 349/22)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht Korneuburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: L GmbH

Respondents: F GmbH, BW, SW

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that an air carrier is not obliged to pay compensation in accordance with Article 7 of the regulation, if it arrives at the passenger’s final destination with a delay of 7 hours and 41 minutes, because the aircraft was damaged by a lightning strike during the first of two preceding flights; the technician from the air carrier’s contracted maintenance company who was called in after landing found only minor damage that did not affect the airworthiness of the aircraft (‘some minor findings’); the second preceding flight went ahead; however, during the course of a pre-flight check before the preceding flight, it emerged that the aircraft was not fit for further use for the time being; and the air carrier therefore used a replacement aircraft in place of the originally intended, damaged aircraft, which completed the flight with a departure delay of 7 hours and 40 minutes? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that an air carrier is not obliged to pay compensation in accordance with Article 7 of the regulation, if it arrives at the passenger’s final destination with a delay of 7 hours and 41 minutes, because the aircraft was damaged by a lightning strike during the first of two preceding flights; the technician from the air carrier’s contracted maintenance company who was called in after landing found only minor damage that did not affect the airworthiness of the aircraft (‘some minor findings’); the second preceding flight went ahead; however, during the course of a pre-flight check before the preceding flight, it emerged that the aircraft was not fit for further use for the time being; and the air carrier therefore used a replacement aircraft in place of the originally intended, damaged aircraft, which completed the flight with a departure delay of 7 hours and 40 minutes?

| 2. | Is Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 to be interpreted as meaning that the reasonable measures to be taken by the air carrier include offering to rebook the passengers on a different flight, which would have enabled them to reach their final destination with less of a delay, even though the air carrier operated the flight with a replacement aircraft in place of the now unfit aircraft, with which the passengers reached their final destination with a longer delay? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 to be interpreted as meaning that the reasonable measures to be taken by the air carrier include offering to rebook the passengers on a different flight, which would have enabled them to reach their final destination with less of a delay, even though the air carrier operated the flight with a replacement aircraft in place of the now unfit aircraft, with which the passengers reached their final destination with a longer delay?

---

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

---

| 30.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 349/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/18

---

Appeal brought on 4 June 2021 by Ryanair DAC against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 14 April 2021 in Case T-388/20, Ryanair v Commission (Finnair I; Covid-19)

(Case C-353/21 P)

(2021/C 349/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Ryanair DAC (represented by: E. Vahida and F.-C. Laprévote, avocats, S. Rating, abogado, I.-G. Metaxas-Maranghidis, dikigoros, and V. Blanc, avocate)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Kingdom of Spain, French Republic, Republic of Finland

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

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

—

set aside the judgment under appeal;

| — | declare in accordance with Articles 263 and 264 TFEU that Commission Decision C(2020) 3387 final of 18 May 2020 on State Aid SA.56809 (2020/N) — Finland — COVID-19: State loan guarantee for Finnair is void; and |
| --- | --- |

—

declare in accordance with Articles 263 and 264 TFEU that Commission Decision C(2020) 3387 final of 18 May 2020 on State Aid SA.56809 (2020/N) — Finland — COVID-19: State loan guarantee for Finnair is void; and

| — | order the Commission to bear its own costs and pay those incurrent by Ryanair, and order the interveners at first instance and in this appeal (if any) to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to bear its own costs and pay those incurrent by Ryanair, and order the interveners at first instance and in this appeal (if any) to bear their own costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law: the General Court erred in law and manifestly distorted the facts in rejecting the Appellant’s plea concerning the infringement of Article 107(3)(b) TFEU.

Second plea in law: the General Court infringed EU law in rejecting the Appellant’s claim that the non-discrimination principle has been unjustifiably violated.

Third plea in law: the General Court erred in law and manifestly distorted the facts regarding the Appellant’s claim on the infringement of the freedom of establishment and the free provision of services.

Fourth plea in law: the General Court erred in law and manifestly distorted the facts regarding the failure to open a formal investigation procedure.

Fifth plea in law: the General Court erred in law and manifestly distorted the facts regarding the failure to state reasons.

---

| 30.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 349/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/19

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 4 June 2021 — R.J. R. v Valstybės įmonė Registrų centras

(Case C-354/21)

(2021/C 349/24)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: R.J. R.

Respondent: Valstybės įmonė Registrų centras

Question referred

Must point (l) of Article 1(2) and Article 69(5) of Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession and on the creation of a European Certificate of Succession be interpreted as not precluding legal rules of the Member State in which the immovable property is situated under which the rights of ownership can be recorded in the Real Property Register on the basis of a European Certificate of Succession only in the case where all of the details necessary for registration are set out in that European Certificate of Succession?

---

(1)  OJ 2012 L 201, p. 107.

---

| 30.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 349/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/20

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte dei conti (Italy) lodged on 9 June 2021 — Ferrovienord SpA v Istituto Nazionale di Statistica — ISTAT

(Case C-363/21)

(2021/C 349/25)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte dei conti

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ferrovienord SpA

Defendant: Istituto Nazionale di Statistica — ISTAT

Other parties: Procura generale della Corte dei conti, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the rule of direct applicability of the [European System of Accounts (ESA)] 2010 (1) and the principle of the effectiveness of [Regulation (EU) No 549/2013] and of Directive [2011/85/EU] (2) preclude national legislation which limits the jurisdiction of the competent national court in respect of the correct application of the ESA 2010 solely for the purposes of national legislation on controlling public expenditure, undermining the effectiveness of the rules [of EU law], particularly with regard to the verification of transparency and reliability of budgetary balances as a means of assessing Italy’s convergence towards the [medium-term budgetary objective (MTO)]? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the rule of direct applicability of the [European System of Accounts (ESA)] 2010 (1) and the principle of the effectiveness of [Regulation (EU) No 549/2013] and of Directive [2011/85/EU] (2) preclude national legislation which limits the jurisdiction of the competent national court in respect of the correct application of the ESA 2010 solely for the purposes of national legislation on controlling public expenditure, undermining the effectiveness of the rules [of EU law], particularly with regard to the verification of transparency and reliability of budgetary balances as a means of assessing Italy’s convergence towards the [medium-term budgetary objective (MTO)]?

| 2. | Does the rule of the direct applicability of the ESA 2010 and the principle of the effectiveness of [Regulation (EU) No 549/2013] and of Directive [2011/85/EU], on the point of organisational separation between budgetary authorities and audit bodies, preclude national legislation which limits the effects of the ruling of the competent national court in respect of the correct application of the [European System of Accounts] 2010 solely for the purposes of national legislation on controlling public expenditure, by preventing any independent audit of the subjective scope of the accounts of the Italian Government (as defined for the purposes [of EU law]) as a means of verifying Italy’s convergence towards the MTO? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the rule of the direct applicability of the ESA 2010 and the principle of the effectiveness of [Regulation (EU) No 549/2013] and of Directive [2011/85/EU], on the point of organisational separation between budgetary authorities and audit bodies, preclude national legislation which limits the effects of the ruling of the competent national court in respect of the correct application of the [European System of Accounts] 2010 solely for the purposes of national legislation on controlling public expenditure, by preventing any independent audit of the subjective scope of the accounts of the Italian Government (as defined for the purposes [of EU law]) as a means of verifying Italy’s convergence towards the MTO?

| 3. | Does the principle of the rule of law, in the form of effective judicial protection and the equivalence of remedies, preclude national legislation which:






  (a) | prevents any judicial review of the correct application of the ESA 2010 by the [Istituto Nazionale di Statistica (National Institute of Statistics (ISTAT), Italy] for the purpose of defining the scope of sector S.13 and thus the accuracy, transparency and reliability of budgetary balances, as a means of verifying Italy’s convergence towards the MTO (infringement of the principle of effective protection)? |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Does the principle of the rule of law, in the form of effective judicial protection and the equivalence of remedies, preclude national legislation which:

(a)

prevents any judicial review of the correct application of the ESA 2010 by the [Istituto Nazionale di Statistica (National Institute of Statistics (ISTAT), Italy] for the purpose of defining the scope of sector S.13 and thus the accuracy, transparency and reliability of budgetary balances, as a means of verifying Italy’s convergence towards the MTO (infringement of the principle of effective protection)?

| (b) | exposes the applicant — should the defendant’s interpretation of the rule be deemed correct, whether by a law governing its authentic interpretation or otherwise — to the burden of two separate legal challenges and the consequent risks of conflicting rulings as to the existence of a legal status under [EU] law, making impossible the effective protection of its right within the time allowed for fulfilment of the ensuing obligations (in other words, the financial year) and undermining the legal certainty as to the existence of general government status? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

exposes the applicant — should the defendant’s interpretation of the rule be deemed correct, whether by a law governing its authentic interpretation or otherwise — to the burden of two separate legal challenges and the consequent risks of conflicting rulings as to the existence of a legal status under [EU] law, making impossible the effective protection of its right within the time allowed for fulfilment of the ensuing obligations (in other words, the financial year) and undermining the legal certainty as to the existence of general government status?

| (c) | provides that — should the defendant authority’s interpretation of the rule be deemed correct, whether by a law governing its authentic interpretation or otherwise — the correct definition of the budgetary scope should be determined by a different court to that which has jurisdiction in matters of budgetary law under the Italian Constitution? |
| --- | --- |

(c)

provides that — should the defendant authority’s interpretation of the rule be deemed correct, whether by a law governing its authentic interpretation or otherwise — the correct definition of the budgetary scope should be determined by a different court to that which has jurisdiction in matters of budgetary law under the Italian Constitution?

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 549/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on the European system of national and regional accounts in the European Union (OJ 2013 L 174, p. 1).

(2)  Council Directive 2011/85/EU of 8 November 2011 on requirements for budgetary frameworks of the Member States (OJ 2011 L 306, p. 41).

---

| 30.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 349/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/21

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte dei Conti (Italy) lodged on 10 June 2021 — Federazione Italiana Triathlon v Istituto Nazionale di Statistica — ISTAT, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze

(Case C-364/21)

(2021/C 349/26)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte dei Conti

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Federazione Italiana Triathlon

Defendants: Istituto Nazionale di Statistica — ISTAT, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze

Other party: Procura generale della Corte dei Conti

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the rule of direct applicability of the [European System of Accounts (ESA)] 2010 (1) and the principle of the effectiveness of [Regulation (EU) No 549/2013] and of Directive [2011/85/EU (2)] preclude national legislation which limits the jurisdiction of the competent national court in respect of the correct application of the ESA 2010 solely for the purposes of national legislation on controlling public expenditure, undermining the effectiveness of the rules [of EU law], particularly with regard to the verification of transparency and reliability of budgetary balances as a means of assessing Italy’s convergence towards the [medium-term budgetary objective (MTO)]? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the rule of direct applicability of the [European System of Accounts (ESA)] 2010 (1) and the principle of the effectiveness of [Regulation (EU) No 549/2013] and of Directive [2011/85/EU (2)] preclude national legislation which limits the jurisdiction of the competent national court in respect of the correct application of the ESA 2010 solely for the purposes of national legislation on controlling public expenditure, undermining the effectiveness of the rules [of EU law], particularly with regard to the verification of transparency and reliability of budgetary balances as a means of assessing Italy’s convergence towards the [medium-term budgetary objective (MTO)]?

| 2. | Does the rule of the direct applicability of the ESA 2010 and the principle of the effectiveness of [Regulation (EU) No 549/2013] and of Directive [2011/85/EU], on the point of organisational separation between budgetary authorities and audit bodies, preclude national legislation which limits the effects of the ruling of the competent national court in respect of the correct application of the ESA 2010 solely for the purposes of national legislation on controlling public expenditure, by preventing any independent audit of the subjective scope of the accounts of the Italian Government (as defined for the purposes [of EU law]) as a means of verifying Italy’s convergence towards the MTO? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the rule of the direct applicability of the ESA 2010 and the principle of the effectiveness of [Regulation (EU) No 549/2013] and of Directive [2011/85/EU], on the point of organisational separation between budgetary authorities and audit bodies, preclude national legislation which limits the effects of the ruling of the competent national court in respect of the correct application of the ESA 2010 solely for the purposes of national legislation on controlling public expenditure, by preventing any independent audit of the subjective scope of the accounts of the Italian Government (as defined for the purposes [of EU law]) as a means of verifying Italy’s convergence towards the MTO?

| 3. | Does the principle of the rule of law, in the form of effective judicial protection and the equivalence of remedies, preclude national legislation which:






  (a) | prevents any judicial review of the correct application of the ESA 2010 by ISTAT for the purpose of defining the scope of sector S.13 and thus the accuracy, transparency and reliability of budgetary balances, as a means of verifying Italy’s convergence towards the MTO (infringement of the principle of effective protection)? |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Does the principle of the rule of law, in the form of effective judicial protection and the equivalence of remedies, preclude national legislation which:

(a)

prevents any judicial review of the correct application of the ESA 2010 by ISTAT for the purpose of defining the scope of sector S.13 and thus the accuracy, transparency and reliability of budgetary balances, as a means of verifying Italy’s convergence towards the MTO (infringement of the principle of effective protection)?

| (b) | exposes the applicant — should the defendant’s interpretation of the rule be deemed correct, whether by a law governing its authentic interpretation or otherwise — to the burden of two separate legal challenges and the consequent risks of conflicting rulings as to the existence of a legal status under [EU] law, making impossible the effective protection of its right within the time allowed for fulfilment of the ensuing obligations (in other words, the financial year) and undermining the legal certainty as to the existence of general government status? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

exposes the applicant — should the defendant’s interpretation of the rule be deemed correct, whether by a law governing its authentic interpretation or otherwise — to the burden of two separate legal challenges and the consequent risks of conflicting rulings as to the existence of a legal status under [EU] law, making impossible the effective protection of its right within the time allowed for fulfilment of the ensuing obligations (in other words, the financial year) and undermining the legal certainty as to the existence of general government status?

| (c) | provides that — should the defendant authority’s interpretation of the rule be deemed correct, whether by a law governing its authentic interpretation or otherwise — the correct definition of the budgetary scope should be determined by a different court to that which has jurisdiction in matters of budgetary law under the Italian Constitution? |
| --- | --- |

(c)

provides that — should the defendant authority’s interpretation of the rule be deemed correct, whether by a law governing its authentic interpretation or otherwise — the correct definition of the budgetary scope should be determined by a different court to that which has jurisdiction in matters of budgetary law under the Italian Constitution?

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 549/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on the European system of national and regional accounts in the European Union (OJ 2013 L 174, p. 1).

(2)  Council Directive 2011/85/EU of 8 November 2011 on requirements for budgetary frameworks of the Member States (OJ 2011 L 306, p. 41).

---

| 30.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 349/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/22

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München (Germany) lodged on 15 June 2021 — DOMUS-SOFTWARE-AG v Marc Braschoß Immobilien GmbH

(Case C-370/21)

(2021/C 349/27)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: DOMUS-SOFTWARE-AG

Respondent: Marc Braschoß Immobilien GmbH

Question referred

Is Article 6(1) and (2) of Directive 2011/7/EU, (1) read in conjunction with Article 3 of Directive 2011/7/EU, to be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of periodic claims for payment arising from a single contractual relationship, there is an entitlement to payment of a fixed sum of at least EUR 40 for each individual claim for payment?

---

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

---

| 30.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 349/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/22

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzgericht (Austria) lodged on 21 June 2021 — P GmbH

(Case C-378/21)

(2021/C 349/28)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: P GmbH

Defendant: Finanzamt Austria

Questions referred

| 1. | Is VAT payable by the issuer of the invoice under Article 203 of the VAT Directive (1) if, as in the present case, there may be no risk of loss of tax revenue, because the recipients of the services are final consumers who are not entitled to the right of deduction? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is VAT payable by the issuer of the invoice under Article 203 of the VAT Directive (1) if, as in the present case, there may be no risk of loss of tax revenue, because the recipients of the services are final consumers who are not entitled to the right of deduction?

| 2. | If the first question is answered in the affirmative and VAT is payable by the issuer of an invoice under Article 203 of the VAT Directive:






  a. | Can the correction of invoices in respect of the recipients of services be precluded if, on the one hand, a risk of loss of tax revenue is excluded and, on the other, the correction of invoices is effectively impossible? |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

If the first question is answered in the affirmative and VAT is payable by the issuer of an invoice under Article 203 of the VAT Directive:

a.

Can the correction of invoices in respect of the recipients of services be precluded if, on the one hand, a risk of loss of tax revenue is excluded and, on the other, the correction of invoices is effectively impossible?

| b. | Does the fact that final consumers have borne the tax as part of the consideration, thereby enriching the taxable person by correcting the VAT, preclude the correction of the VAT? |
| --- | --- |

b.

Does the fact that final consumers have borne the tax as part of the consideration, thereby enriching the taxable person by correcting the VAT, preclude the correction of the VAT?

---

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

---

| 30.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 349/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/23

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 18 January 2021 — Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS) v Ryanair DAC

(Case C-380/21)

(2021/C 349/29)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte Suprema di Cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS)

Respondent: Ryanair DAC

Question referred

Can the concept of a person ‘employed principally in the territory of the Member State in which he resides’ contained in Article 14(2)(a)(ii) [of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, (1) as amended] be interpreted in the same way as that which (concerning judicial cooperation in civil matters, jurisdiction and individual contracts of employment (Regulation (EC) No 44/2001) (2)) Article 19(2)(a) [of the latter Regulation] defines as the ‘place where the employee habitually carries out his work’, including in the aviation and airline crew sector (Council Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91), (3) as expressed in the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union referred to in the grounds?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (OJ 1971 L 149, p. 2).

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1).

(3)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 of 16 December 1991 on the harmonization of technical requirements and administrative procedures in the field of civil aviation (OJ 1991 L 373, p. 4).

---

| 30.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 349/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/23

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Višje sodišče v Mariboru (Slovenia) lodged on 30 June 2021 — FV v NOVA KREDITNA BANKA MARIBOR d.d.

(Case C-405/21)

(2021/C 349/30)

Language of the case: Slovene

Referring court

Višje sodišče v Mariboru

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: FV

Respondent: NOVA KREDITNA BANKA MARIBOR d.d.

Question referred

Is Article 3(1), read in conjunction with Articles 8 and 8a, of Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) to be interpreted as not precluding national provisions which characterise the two conditions of ‘good faith’ and ‘a significant imbalance’ as alternatives (as separate, autonomous and independent conditions), such that, for the purposes of deciding whether a contractual term is unfair, it is sufficient if facts exist which establish that just one of those two conditions is fulfilled?

---

(1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).

---

General Court

| 30.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 349/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Benavides Torres v Council

(Case T-245/18) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Venezuela - Freezing of funds - Lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Inclusion of the applicant’s name on the lists - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Principle of sound administration - Right to effective judicial protection - Error of assessment)

(2021/C 349/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Antonio José Benavides Torres (Caracas, Venezuela) (represented by: L. Giuliano and F. Di Gianni, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Kyriakopoulou, V. Piessevaux, P. Mahnič and A. Antoniadis, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment, first, of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/90 of 22 January 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2018 L 16 I, p. 14) and, second, of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/88 of 22 January 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2018 L 16 I, p. 6), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Antonio José Benavides Torres to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Antonio José Benavides Torres to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 200, 11.6.2018.

---

| 30.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 349/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Moreno Pérez v Council

(Case T-246/18) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken with regard to the situation in Venezuela - Freezing of funds - Lists of persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources - Inclusion of the applicant’s name on the lists - Retention of the applicant’s name on the lists - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Principle of sound administration - Right to effective judicial protection - Error of assessment)

(2021/C 349/32)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Maikel José Moreno Pérez (Caracas, Venezuela) (represented by: L. Giuliano and F. Di Gianni, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Kyriakopoulou, P. Mahnič and A. Antoniadis, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment, first, of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/90 of 22 January 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2018 L 16 I, p. 14) and of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1656 of 6 November 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2018 L 276, p. 10) and, second, of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/88 of 22 January 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2018 L 16 I, p. 6), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1653 of 6 November 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2018 L 276, p. 1), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Maikel José Moreno Pérez to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Maikel José Moreno Pérez to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 200, 11.6.2018.

---

| 30.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 349/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Lucena Ramírez v Council

(Case T-247/18) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken with regard to the situation in Venezuela - Freezing of funds - Lists of persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources - Inclusion of the applicant’s name on the lists - Retention of the applicant’s name on the lists - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Principle of sound administration - Right to effective judicial protection - Error of assessment)

(2021/C 349/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Tibisay Lucena Ramírez (Caracas, Venezuela) (represented by: L. Giuliano and F. Di Gianni, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Kyriakopoulou, P. Mahnič and A. Antoniadis, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment, first, of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/90 of 22 January 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2018 L 16 I, p. 14) and of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1656 of 6 November 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2018 L 276, p. 10) and, second, of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/88 of 22 January 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2018 L 16 I, p. 6 ), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1653 of 6 November 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2018 L 276, p. 1), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Ms Tibisay Lucena Ramírez to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ms Tibisay Lucena Ramírez to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 200, 11.6.2018.

---

| 30.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 349/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Cabello Rondón v Council

(Case T-248/18) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken with regard to the situation in Venezuela - Freezing of funds - Lists of persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources - Inclusion of the applicant’s name on the lists - Retention of the applicant’s name on the lists - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Principle of sound administration - Right to effective judicial protection - Error of assessment - Freedom of expression)

(2021/C 349/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Diosdado Cabello Rondón (Caracas, Venezuela) (represented by: L. Giuliano and F. Di Gianni, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Kyriakopoulou, P. Mahnič, V. Piessevaux and A. Antoniadis, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment, first, of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/90 of 22 January 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2018 L 16 I, p. 14) and of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1656 of 6 November 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2018 L 276, p. 10) and, second, of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/88 of 22 January 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2018 L 16 I, p. 6), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1653 of 6 November 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2018 L 276, p. 1), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Diosdado Cabello Rondón to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Diosdado Cabello Rondón to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 200, 11.6.2018.

---

| 30.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 349/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Saab Halabi v Council

(Case T-249/18) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Venezuela - Freezing of funds - Lists of persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources - Inclusion of the applicant’s name on the lists - Retention of the applicant’s name on the lists - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Principle of sound administration - Right to effective judicial protection - Error of assessment)

(2021/C 349/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Tarek William Saab Halabi (Caracas, Venezuela) (represented by: L. Giuliano and F. Di Gianni, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Kyriakopoulou, V. Piessevaux, P. Mahnič and A. Antoniadis, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment, first, of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/90 of 22 January 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2018 L 16 I, p. 14) and of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1656 of 6 November 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2018 L 276, p. 10) and, second, of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/88 of 22 January 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2018 L 16 I, p. 6), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1653 of 6 November 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2018 L 276, p. 1), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Tarek William Saab Halabi to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Tarek William Saab Halabi to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 200, 11.6.2018.

---

| 30.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 349/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Harrington Padrón v Council

(Case T-550/18) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Venezuela - Freezing of funds - Lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Inclusion of the applicant’s name on the lists - Error of assessment - Right to property)

(2021/C 349/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Katherine Nayarith Harrington Padrón (Caracas, Venezuela) (represented by: F. Di Gianni and L. Giuliano, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Antoniadis, S. Kyriakopoulou and P. Mahnič, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking the annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/901 of 25 June 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2018 L 160 I, p. 12) and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/899 of 25 June 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2018 L 160 I, p. 5), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Ms Katherine Nayarith Harrington Padrón to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ms Katherine Nayarith Harrington Padrón to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.

---

| 30.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 349/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Oblitas Ruzza v Council

(Case T-551/18) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Venezuela - Freezing of funds - Lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Inclusion of the applicant’s name on the lists - Retention of the applicant’s name on the lists - Error of assessment - Right to property)

(2021/C 349/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sandra Oblitas Ruzza (Caracas, Venezuela) (represented by: F. Di Gianni and L. Giuliano, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Antoniadis, S. Kyriakopoulou and P. Mahnič, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment, first, of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/901 of 25 June 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2018 L 160 I, p. 12) and of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1656 of 6 November 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2018 L 276, p. 10) and, second, of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/899 of 25 June 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2018 L 160 I, p. 5), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1653 of 6 November 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2018 L 276, p. 1), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Ms Sandra Oblitas Ruzza to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ms Sandra Oblitas Ruzza to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.

---

| 30.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 349/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Moreno Reyes v Council

(Case T-552/18) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Venezuela - Freezing of funds - Lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Inclusion of the applicant’s name on the lists - Retention of the applicant’s name on the lists - Error of assessment)

(2021/C 349/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Xavier Antonio Moreno Reyes (Caracas, Venezuela) (represented by: F. Di Gianni and L. Giuliano, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Antoniadis, S. Kyriakopoulou and P. Mahnič, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment, first, of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/901 of 25 June 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2018 L 160 I, p. 12) and of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1656 of 6 November 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2018 L 276, p. 10) and, second, of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/899 of 25 June 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2018 L 160 I, p. 5), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1653 of 6 November 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2018 L 276, p. 1), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/901 of 25 June 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela, Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1656 of 6 November 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/899 of 25 June 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1653 of 6 November 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela, in so far as those acts concern Mr Xavier Antonio Moreno Reyes; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/901 of 25 June 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela, Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1656 of 6 November 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/899 of 25 June 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1653 of 6 November 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela, in so far as those acts concern Mr Xavier Antonio Moreno Reyes;

| 2. | Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

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

---

(1)  OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.

---

| 30.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 349/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Rodríguez Gómez v Council

(Case T-553/18) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Venezuela - Freezing of funds - Lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Inclusion of the applicant’s name on the lists - Retention of the applicant’s name on the lists - Error of assessment - Right to property)

(2021/C 349/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Delcy Eloina Rodríguez Gómez (Caracas, Venezuela) (represented by: F. Di Gianni and L. Giuliano, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Antoniadis, S. Kyriakopoulou and P. Mahnič, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment, first, of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/901 of 25 June 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2018 L 160 I, p. 12) and of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1656 of 6 November 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2018 L 276, p. 10) and, second, of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/899 of 25 June 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2018 L 160 I, p. 5), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1653 of 6 November 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2018 L 276, p. 1), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Ms Delcy Eloina Rodríguez Gómez to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ms Delcy Eloina Rodríguez Gómez to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.

---

| 30.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 349/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Hernández Hernández v Council

(Case T-554/18) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Venezuela - Freezing of funds - Lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Inclusion of the applicant’s name on the lists - Retention of the applicant’s name on the lists - Error of assessment - Right to property)

(2021/C 349/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Socorro Elizabeth Hernández Hernández (Caracas, Venezuela) (represented by: F. Di Gianni and L. Giuliano, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Antoniadis, S. Kyriakopoulou and P. Mahnič, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment, first, of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/901 of 25 June 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2018 L 160 I, p. 12) and of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1656 of 6 November 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2018 L 276, p. 10) and, second, of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/899 of 25 June 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2018 L 160 I, p. 5), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1653 of 6 November 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2018 L 276, p. 1), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Ms Socorro Elizabeth Hernández Hernández to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ms Socorro Elizabeth Hernández Hernández to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.

---

| 30.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 349/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Harrington Padrón v Council

(Case T-32/19) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Venezuela - Freezing of funds - Lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Retention of the applicant’s name on the lists - Error of assessment)

(2021/C 349/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Katherine Nayarith Harrington Padrón (Caracas, Venezuela) (represented by: L. Giuliano and F. Di Gianni, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Antoniadis, S. Kyriakopoulou and P. Mahnič, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking the annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1656 of 6 November 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2018 L 276, p. 10), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1653 of 6 November 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2018 L 276, p. 1), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Ms Katherine Nayarith Harrington Padrón to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ms Katherine Nayarith Harrington Padrón to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 103, 18.3.2019.

---

| 30.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 349/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Benavides Torres v Council

(Case T-35/19) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Venezuela - Freezing of funds - Lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Retention of the applicant’s name on the lists - Error of assessment)

(2021/C 349/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Antonio José Benavides Torres (Caracas, Venezuela) (represented by: L. Giuliano and F. Di Gianni, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Kyriakopoulou, V. Piessevaux, P. Mahnič and A. Antoniadis, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1656 of 6 November 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2018 L 276, p. 10), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1653 of 6 November 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2018 L 276, p. 1), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Antonio José Benavides Torres to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Antonio José Benavides Torres to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 93, 11.3.2019.

---

| 30.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 349/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — DD v FRA

(Case T-632/19) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Claims for damages - Non-material damage - Implementation of the judgments of the Civil Service Tribunal and of the General Court)

(2021/C 349/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: DD (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (represented by: M. O’Flaherty, acting as Agent, and B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Action under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, compensation for the non-material harm allegedly suffered by the applicant, secondly, annulment of the decision of the Director of the FRA dated 19 November 2018 rejecting his request for compensation and, thirdly, if need be, annulment of the decision of 12 June 2019 rejecting the complaint against the abovementioned decision of 19 November 2018.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders DD to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders DD to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA).

---

(1)  OJ C 406, 2.12.2019.

---

| 30.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 349/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Abitron Germany v EUIPO — Hetronic International (NOVA)

(Case T-75/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark NOVA - Non-registered earlier national trade mark NOVA - Relative ground for refusal - 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, respectively) - Reference to the national law governing the earlier mark - Absolute ground for refusal - No bad faith - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001))

(2021/C 349/44)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Abitron Germany GmbH (Langquaid, Germany) (represented by: T. Dolde and K. Lüder, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Hetronic International, Inc (Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, United States) (represented by: A. Wehlau, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 December 2019 (Case R 521/2019-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Abitron Germany and Hetronic International.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Abitron Germany GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Abitron Germany GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 103, 30.3.2020.

---

| 30.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 349/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Griba v CPVO (Stark Gugger)

(Case T-181/20) (1)

(Plant varieties - Application for a Community plant variety right for the Stark Gugger apple variety - Technical examination - Testing location - Equal treatment - Rights of the defence - Obligation to state reasons)

(2021/C 349/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Griba Baumschulgenossenschaft landwirtschaftliche Gesellschaft (Terlano, Italy) (represented by: G. Würtenberger, lawyer)

Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (represented by: M. Ekvad, O. Lamberti and F. Mattina, acting as Agents, and by A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Board of Appeal of the CPVO of 24 January 2020 (Case A 008/2018) concerning an application for a Community plant variety right for the Stark Gugger apple variety.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Griba Baumschulgenossenschaft landwirtschaftliche Gesellschaft to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Griba Baumschulgenossenschaft landwirtschaftliche Gesellschaft to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 191, 8.6.2020.

---

| 30.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 349/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Griba v CPVO (Gala Perathoner)

(Case T-182/20) (1)

(Plant varieties - Application for a Community plant variety right for the Gala Perathoner apple variety - Technical examination - Testing location - Equal treatment - Rights of the defence - Obligation to state reasons)

(2021/C 349/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Griba Baumschulgenossenschaft landwirtschaftliche Gesellschaft (Terlano, Italy) (represented by: G. Würtenberger, lawyer)

Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (represented by: M. Ekvad, O. Lamberti and F. Mattina, acting as Agents, and by A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Board of Appeal of the CPVO of 17 January 2020 (Case A 004/2016) concerning an application for a Community plant variety right for the Gala Perathoner apple variety.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Griba Baumschulgenossenschaft landwirtschaftliche Gesellschaft to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Griba Baumschulgenossenschaft landwirtschaftliche Gesellschaft to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 191, 8.6.2020.

---

| 30.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 349/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Fashioneast and AM.VI. v EUIPO — Moschillo (RICH JOHN RICHMOND)

(Case T-297/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU figurative mark RICH JOHN RICHMOND - Absence of genuine use of a trade mark - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Use in a form differing in elements which alter the distinctive character of the mark - Point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 15(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 18(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2021/C 349/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

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

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 March 2020 (Case R 1381/2019-2) relating to revocation proceedings between Moschillo, on the one hand, and Fashioneast and AM.VI., on the other.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Fashioneast Sàrl and AM.VI. Srl to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Fashioneast Sàrl and AM.VI. Srl to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 255, 3.8.2020.

---

| 30.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 349/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/35

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — KO v Commission

(Case T-389/20) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Remuneration - Expatriation allowance - Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Refusal to grant the expatriation allowance - Habitual residence - Period of training)

(2021/C 349/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Bohr and A.-C. Simon, 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 18 October 2019 refusing to grant the applicant the expatriation allowance.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

Orders KO to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2020.

---

| 30.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 349/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/35

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Cole Haan v EUIPO — Samsøe & Samsøe Holding (Ø)

(Case T-399/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark Ø - Earlier international figurative mark φ - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2021/C 349/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Cole Haan LLC (Greenland, New Hampshire, United States) (represented by: G. Vos, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Samsøe & Samsøe Holding A/S (Copenhagen, Denmark) (represented by: C. Jardorf, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 April 2020 (Case R 1375/2019-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Samsøe & Samsøe Holding and Cole Haan.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Cole Haan LLC to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO); |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Cole Haan LLC to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO);

| 3. | Orders Samsøe & Samsøe Holding A/S to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Samsøe & Samsøe Holding A/S to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 271, 17.8.2020.

---

| 30.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 349/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/36

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Guerlain v EUIPO (Shape of an oblong, tapered and cylindrical lipstick)

(Case T-488/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for registration of a three-dimensional EU trade mark - Shape of an oblong, tapered and cylindrical lipstick - Absolute ground for refusal - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2021/C 349/50)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Guerlain (Paris, France) (represented by: T. de Haan, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 June 2020 (Case R 2292/2019-1), relating to an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign consisting in the shape of an oblong, tapered and cylindrical lipstick as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 2 June 2020 (Case R 2292/2019-1); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 2 June 2020 (Case R 2292/2019-1);

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to pay the costs, including the costs necessarily incurred by Guerlain for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to pay the costs, including the costs necessarily incurred by Guerlain for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

---

(1)  OJ C 320, 28.9.2020.

---

| 30.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 349/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/37

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Aldi v EUIPO (CUCINA)

(Case T-527/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for the EU figurative mark CUCINA - Absolute grounds for refusal - No distinctive character - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2021/C 349/51)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Aldi GmbH & Co. KG (Mülheim an der Ruhr, Germany) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, C. Fürsen and M. Minkner, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 June 2020 (Case R 463/2020-2), concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign CUCINA as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Aldi GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Aldi GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 329, 5.10.2020.

---

| 30.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 349/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/37

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Aldi v EUIPO (Cachet)

(Case T-622/20) (1)

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

(2021/C 349/52)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Aldi GmbH & Co. KG (Mülheim an der Ruhr, Germany) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, C. Fürsen and M. Minkner, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 August 2020 (Case R 452/2020-4), concerning an application for registration of the word sign Cachet as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 11 August 2020 (Case R 452/2020-4) in so far as it concerns the ‘sanitary preparations for medical purposes’ referred to in the trade mark application; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 11 August 2020 (Case R 452/2020-4) in so far as it concerns the ‘sanitary preparations for medical purposes’ referred to in the trade mark application;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders Aldi GmbH & Co. KG and EUIPO to bear their own respective costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Aldi GmbH & Co. KG and EUIPO to bear their own respective costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 399, 23.11.2020.

---

| 30.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 349/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/38

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Arnautu v Parliament

(Case T-740/20) (1)

(Law governing the institutions - Rules on expenses and allowances for Members of Parliament - Parliamentary assistance allowance - Recovery of sums unduly paid - Plea of illegality - Rights of the defence - Error of assessment)

(2021/C 349/53)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Marie Christine Arnautu (Paris, France) (represented by: F. Wagner, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Görlitz, T. Lazian and M. Ecker, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment, first, of the decision of the Secretary General of the Parliament of 21 September 2020 on the recovery from the applicant of a sum of EUR 87 203,46 unduly paid by way of parliamentary assistance and, second, of the corresponding debit note of 22 October 2020.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mrs Marie-Christine Arnautu to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mrs Marie-Christine Arnautu to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament.

---

(1)  OJ C 44, 8.2.2021.

---

| 30.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 349/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/38

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Veronese v EUIPO — Veronese Design Company (VERONESE)

(Case T-749/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark VERONESE - Earlier EU word mark VERONESE - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation 207/2009 (now Article (8)(1)(b) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Decision adopted following the annulment by the General Court of an earlier decision - Article 72(6) of Regulation 2017/1001 - res judicata)

(2021/C 349/54)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Veronese (Paris, France) (represented by: S. Herrburger, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Veronese Design Company Ltd (Kowloon, Hong Kong) (represented by: B. Lafont, lawyer)

Re:

Appeal brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 October 2020 (Case R-1951/2020-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Veronese and Veronese Design Company.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

Orders Veronese to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 44, 8.2.2021.

---

| 30.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 349/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/39

---

Action brought on 5 July 2021 — Landesbank Baden-Württemberg v SRB

(Case T-389/21)

(2021/C 349/55)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Landesbank Baden-Württemberg (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: H. Berger and M. Weber, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 14 April 2021 on the calculation of the 2021 ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2021/22), including the annexes thereto, in so far as the contested decision, including Annex I, Annex II and Annex III thereto, concerns the applicant’s contribution; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 14 April 2021 on the calculation of the 2021 ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2021/22), including the annexes thereto, in so far as the contested decision, including Annex I, Annex II and Annex III thereto, concerns the applicant’s contribution;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

In the alternative, in the event that the Court takes the view that the contested decision is legally non-existent as a result of the use of the incorrect official language by the defendant and the action for annulment would therefore be inadmissible on the ground that it would be devoid of purpose, the applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that the contested decision is legally non-existent in so far as it concerns the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the contested decision is legally non-existent in so far as it concerns the applicant;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on 10 pleas in law:

| 1. | First plea in law: The decision infringes Article 81(1) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014, (1) in conjunction with Article 3 of Council Regulation No 1 of 15 April 1958, (2) because it is not worded in the official language of German, which is to be used with the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law: The decision infringes Article 81(1) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014, (1) in conjunction with Article 3 of Council Regulation No 1 of 15 April 1958, (2) because it is not worded in the official language of German, which is to be used with the applicant.

| 2. | Second plea in law: The decision infringes the obligation to state reasons laid down in the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41(1) and (2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) because it contains numerous instances of failure to state reasons, in particular with regard to the use by the defendant of numerous discretionary powers conferred by law, and does not disclose the data of other institutions. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law: The decision infringes the obligation to state reasons laid down in the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41(1) and (2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) because it contains numerous instances of failure to state reasons, in particular with regard to the use by the defendant of numerous discretionary powers conferred by law, and does not disclose the data of other institutions.

| 3. | Third plea in law: The decision infringes the requirement of effective legal protection under the first paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter because judicial review of the decision is practically impossible, thus impairing the applicant’s effective legal protection. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law: The decision infringes the requirement of effective legal protection under the first paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter because judicial review of the decision is practically impossible, thus impairing the applicant’s effective legal protection.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law: Articles 4 to 9 of and Annex I to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 (3) (‘the delegated regulation’), as amended by Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/1434, (4) infringe higher-ranking law because they make judicial review of the decision practically impossible, thus impairing the applicant’s effective legal protection. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law: Articles 4 to 9 of and Annex I to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 (3) (‘the delegated regulation’), as amended by Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/1434, (4) infringe higher-ranking law because they make judicial review of the decision practically impossible, thus impairing the applicant’s effective legal protection.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law: The second sentence of Article 7(4) of the delegated regulation infringes higher-ranking law because it allows for an objectively inappropriate and disproportionate differentiation to be made between the members of an Institutional Protection Scheme (‘IPS’) and for the IPS indicator to be relativised. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law: The second sentence of Article 7(4) of the delegated regulation infringes higher-ranking law because it allows for an objectively inappropriate and disproportionate differentiation to be made between the members of an Institutional Protection Scheme (‘IPS’) and for the IPS indicator to be relativised.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law: The decision infringes, inter alia, Article 113(7) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (5) and the requirement of risk-appropriate assessment of contributions because it uses a multiplier of 5/9 for the IPS indicator in the case of the applicant. A differentiation between institutions at the level of the IPS indicator is, on account of the extensive protective effect of an IPS, incompatible with the scheme and arbitrary. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law: The decision infringes, inter alia, Article 113(7) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (5) and the requirement of risk-appropriate assessment of contributions because it uses a multiplier of 5/9 for the IPS indicator in the case of the applicant. A differentiation between institutions at the level of the IPS indicator is, on account of the extensive protective effect of an IPS, incompatible with the scheme and arbitrary.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law: Articles 6, 7 and 9 of and Annex I to the delegated regulation infringe higher-ranking law, inter alia because they infringe the requirement of risk-appropriate assessment of contributions, the principle of proportionality and the requirement to take full account of the facts. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law: Articles 6, 7 and 9 of and Annex I to the delegated regulation infringe higher-ranking law, inter alia because they infringe the requirement of risk-appropriate assessment of contributions, the principle of proportionality and the requirement to take full account of the facts.

| 8. | Eighth plea in law: The decision infringes the applicant’s freedom to conduct a business under Article 16 of the Charter and the principle of proportionality because the underlying risk-adjustment multipliers are not commensurate with the applicant’s risk profile, which is better than average. |
| --- | --- |

8.

Eighth plea in law: The decision infringes the applicant’s freedom to conduct a business under Article 16 of the Charter and the principle of proportionality because the underlying risk-adjustment multipliers are not commensurate with the applicant’s risk profile, which is better than average.

| 9. | Ninth plea in law: The decision infringes Articles 16 and 20 of the Charter as well as the principle of proportionality and the right to good administration on account of obvious errors in the exercise by the defendant of numerous discretionary powers. |
| --- | --- |

9.

Ninth plea in law: The decision infringes Articles 16 and 20 of the Charter as well as the principle of proportionality and the right to good administration on account of obvious errors in the exercise by the defendant of numerous discretionary powers.

| 10. | Tenth plea in law: The first and second sentences of Article 20(1) of the delegated regulation infringe Article 103(7) of Directive 2014/59/EU (6) and the requirement of risk-appropriate assessment of contributions. |
| --- | --- |

10.

Tenth plea in law: The first and second sentences of Article 20(1) of the delegated regulation infringe Article 103(7) of Directive 2014/59/EU (6) and the requirement of risk-appropriate assessment of contributions.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ 2014 L 225, p. 1).

(2)  Regulation No 1 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community (OJ 1958 17, p. 385).

(3)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 of 21 October 2014 supplementing Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ex ante contributions to resolution financing arrangements (OJ 2015 L 11, p. 44).

(4)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/1434 of 14 December 2015 correcting Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 supplementing Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ex ante contributions to resolution financing arrangements (OJ 2016 L 233, p. 1).

(5)  Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (OJ 2013 L 176, p. 1).

(6)  Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 establishing a framework for the recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms and amending Council Directive 82/891/EEC, and Directives 2001/24/EC, 2002/47/EC, 2004/25/EC, 2005/56/EC, 2007/36/EC, 2011/35/EU, 2012/30/EU and 2013/36/EU, and Regulations (EU) No 1093/2010 and (EU) No 648/2012, of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2014 L 173, p. 190).

---

| 30.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 349/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/41

---

Action brought on 5 July 2021 — DZ Bank v SRB

(Case T-390/21)

(2021/C 349/56)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: DZ Bank AG Deutsche Zentral-Genossenschaftsbank, Frankfurt am Main (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: H. Berger and M. Weber, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 14 April 2021 on the calculation of the 2021 ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2021/22), including the annexes thereto, in so far as the contested decision, including Annex I, Annex II and Annex III thereto, concerns the applicant’s contribution; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 14 April 2021 on the calculation of the 2021 ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2021/22), including the annexes thereto, in so far as the contested decision, including Annex I, Annex II and Annex III thereto, concerns the applicant’s contribution;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

In the alternative, in the event that the Court takes the view that the contested decision is legally non-existent as a result of the use of the incorrect official language by the defendant and the action for annulment would therefore be inadmissible on the ground that it would be devoid of purpose, the applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that the contested decision is legally non-existent in so far as it concerns the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the contested decision is legally non-existent in so far as it concerns the applicant;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on 10 pleas in law, which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-389/21, Landesbank Baden-Württemberg v SRB.

---

| 30.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 349/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/41

---

Action brought on 5 July 2021 — Deutsche Kreditbank v SRB

(Case T-391/21)

(2021/C 349/57)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Deutsche Kreditbank AG (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: H. Berger and M. Weber, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 14 April 2021 on the calculation of the 2021 ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2021/22), including the annexes thereto, in so far as the contested decision, including Annex I, Annex II and Annex III thereto, concerns the applicant’s contribution; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 14 April 2021 on the calculation of the 2021 ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2021/22), including the annexes thereto, in so far as the contested decision, including Annex I, Annex II and Annex III thereto, concerns the applicant’s contribution;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

In the alternative, in the event that the Court takes the view that the contested decision is legally non-existent as a result of the use of the incorrect official language by the defendant and the action for annulment would therefore be inadmissible on the ground that it would be devoid of purpose, the applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that the contested decision is legally non-existent in so far as it concerns the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the contested decision is legally non-existent in so far as it concerns the applicant;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on eight pleas in law:

| 1. | First plea in law: The decision infringes Article 81(1) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014, (1) in conjunction with Article 3 of Council Regulation No 1 of 15 April 1958, (2) because it is not worded in the official language of German, which is to be used with the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law: The decision infringes Article 81(1) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014, (1) in conjunction with Article 3 of Council Regulation No 1 of 15 April 1958, (2) because it is not worded in the official language of German, which is to be used with the applicant.

| 2. | Second plea in law: The decision infringes the obligation to state reasons laid down in the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41(1) and (2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) because it contains numerous instances of failure to state reasons, in particular with regard to the use by the defendant of numerous discretionary powers conferred by law, and does not disclose the data of other institutions. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law: The decision infringes the obligation to state reasons laid down in the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41(1) and (2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) because it contains numerous instances of failure to state reasons, in particular with regard to the use by the defendant of numerous discretionary powers conferred by law, and does not disclose the data of other institutions.

| 3. | Third plea in law: The decision infringes the requirement of effective legal protection under the first paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter because judicial review of the decision is practically impossible, thus impairing the applicant’s effective legal protection. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law: The decision infringes the requirement of effective legal protection under the first paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter because judicial review of the decision is practically impossible, thus impairing the applicant’s effective legal protection.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law: Articles 4 to 9 of and Annex I to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 (3) (‘the delegated regulation’), as amended by Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/1434, (4) infringe higher-ranking law because they make judicial review of the decision practically impossible, thus impairing the applicant’s effective legal protection. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law: Articles 4 to 9 of and Annex I to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 (3) (‘the delegated regulation’), as amended by Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/1434, (4) infringe higher-ranking law because they make judicial review of the decision practically impossible, thus impairing the applicant’s effective legal protection.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law: Articles 6, 7 and 9 of and Annex I to the delegated regulation infringe higher-ranking law, inter alia because they infringe the requirement of risk-appropriate assessment of contributions, the principle of proportionality and the requirement to take full account of the facts. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law: Articles 6, 7 and 9 of and Annex I to the delegated regulation infringe higher-ranking law, inter alia because they infringe the requirement of risk-appropriate assessment of contributions, the principle of proportionality and the requirement to take full account of the facts.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law: The decision infringes the applicant’s freedom to conduct a business under Article 16 of the Charter and the principle of proportionality because the underlying risk-adjustment multipliers are not commensurate with the applicant’s risk profile, which is better than average. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law: The decision infringes the applicant’s freedom to conduct a business under Article 16 of the Charter and the principle of proportionality because the underlying risk-adjustment multipliers are not commensurate with the applicant’s risk profile, which is better than average.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law: The decision infringes Articles 16 and 20 of the Charter as well as the principle of proportionality and the right to good administration on account of obvious errors in the exercise by the defendant of numerous discretionary powers. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law: The decision infringes Articles 16 and 20 of the Charter as well as the principle of proportionality and the right to good administration on account of obvious errors in the exercise by the defendant of numerous discretionary powers.

| 8. | Eighth plea in law: The first and second sentences of Article 20(1) of the delegated regulation infringe Article 103(7) of Directive 2014/59/EU (5) and the requirement of risk-appropriate assessment of contributions. |
| --- | --- |

8.

Eighth plea in law: The first and second sentences of Article 20(1) of the delegated regulation infringe Article 103(7) of Directive 2014/59/EU (5) and the requirement of risk-appropriate assessment of contributions.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ 2014 L 225, p. 1).

(2)  Regulation No 1 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community (OJ 1958 17, p. 385).

(3)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 of 21 October 2014 supplementing Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ex ante contributions to resolution financing arrangements (OJ 2015 L 11, p. 44).

(4)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/1434 of 14 December 2015 correcting Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 supplementing Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ex ante contributions to resolution financing arrangements (OJ 2016 L 233, p. 1).

(5)  Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 establishing a framework for the recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms and amending Council Directive 82/891/EEC, and Directives 2001/24/EC, 2002/47/EC, 2004/25/EC, 2005/56/EC, 2007/36/EC, 2011/35/EU, 2012/30/EU and 2013/36/EU, and Regulations (EU) No 1093/2010 and (EU) No 648/2012, of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2014 L 173, p. 190).

---

| 30.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 349/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/43

---

Action brought on 5 July 2021 — Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen Girozentrale v SRB

(Case T-392/21)

(2021/C 349/58)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen Girozentrale (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: H. Berger and M. Weber, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 14 April 2021 on the calculation of the 2021 ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2021/22), including the annexes thereto, in so far as the contested decision, including Annex I, Annex II and Annex III thereto, concerns the applicant’s contribution; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 14 April 2021 on the calculation of the 2021 ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2021/22), including the annexes thereto, in so far as the contested decision, including Annex I, Annex II and Annex III thereto, concerns the applicant’s contribution;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

In the alternative, in the event that the Court takes the view that the contested decision is legally non-existent as a result of the use of the incorrect official language by the defendant and the action for annulment would therefore be inadmissible on the ground that it would be devoid of purpose, the applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that the contested decision is legally non-existent in so far as it concerns the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the contested decision is legally non-existent in so far as it concerns the applicant;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on 10 pleas in law, which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-389/21, Landesbank Baden-Württemberg v SRB.

---

| 30.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 349/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/43

---

Action brought on 5 July 2021 — Max Heinr. Sutor v SRB

(Case T-393/21)

(2021/C 349/59)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Max Heinr. Sutor OHG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: A. Glos, M. Rätz and T. Kreft, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 14 April 2021 on the 2021 ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2021/22) in so far as it concerns the applicant, including the communication of the defendant of 14 April 2021 explaining the decision and concerning the applicant regarding the data used for the calculation of the 2021 ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2021/24); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 14 April 2021 on the 2021 ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2021/22) in so far as it concerns the applicant, including the communication of the defendant of 14 April 2021 explaining the decision and concerning the applicant regarding the data used for the calculation of the 2021 ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2021/24);

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following pleas in law:

| 1. | First plea in law: Infringement of Article 5(1)(e) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 (1) because the defendant did not exclude the client money held in trust by the applicant from the calculation of the 2021 bank levy. Article 5(1)(e) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 is applicable to such bankruptcy-remote client money at least by analogy. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law: Infringement of Article 5(1)(e) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 (1) because the defendant did not exclude the client money held in trust by the applicant from the calculation of the 2021 bank levy. Article 5(1)(e) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 is applicable to such bankruptcy-remote client money at least by analogy.

| 2. | Second plea in law: Infringement of the principle of proportionality under the second subparagraph of Article 70(2) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014, (2) in conjunction with Article 103(7) of Directive 2014/59/EU, (3) in so far as the decision imposes a 100-fold higher bank levy solely on the basis of the risk-free fiduciary liabilities recognised by the applicant in the balance sheet. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law: Infringement of the principle of proportionality under the second subparagraph of Article 70(2) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014, (2) in conjunction with Article 103(7) of Directive 2014/59/EU, (3) in so far as the decision imposes a 100-fold higher bank levy solely on the basis of the risk-free fiduciary liabilities recognised by the applicant in the balance sheet.

| 3. | Third plea in law: Infringement of the principle of equal treatment because the decision treats the applicant differently from credit institutions whose national accounting standards do not require fiduciary liabilities to be recognised or which apply IFRS, and from investment firms that handle client money, without that being objectively justified. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law: Infringement of the principle of equal treatment because the decision treats the applicant differently from credit institutions whose national accounting standards do not require fiduciary liabilities to be recognised or which apply IFRS, and from investment firms that handle client money, without that being objectively justified.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law: Infringement of Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) because the inclusion of the risk-free fiduciary liabilities in the assessment basis leads to an increase in the bank levy for the applicant for 2021 by a factor of 100, without that interference being justified. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law: Infringement of Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) because the inclusion of the risk-free fiduciary liabilities in the assessment basis leads to an increase in the bank levy for the applicant for 2021 by a factor of 100, without that interference being justified.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law: Infringement of Article 49 in conjunction with Article 54 TFEU because the decision restricts the applicant’s right to pursue activities in the Member State of its principal place of business, and that to a disproportionate extent, and discriminates against the applicant in comparison with credit institutions in other Member States. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law: Infringement of Article 49 in conjunction with Article 54 TFEU because the decision restricts the applicant’s right to pursue activities in the Member State of its principal place of business, and that to a disproportionate extent, and discriminates against the applicant in comparison with credit institutions in other Member States.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law: Infringement of Article 17(3) and (4) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 because the defendant did not take into account the reporting data for the contribution years 2018 to 2020, as subsequently revised by the applicant, when determining the annual contribution to be paid for the 2021 contribution period and did not reduce the applicant’s 2021 bank levy accordingly. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law: Infringement of Article 17(3) and (4) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 because the defendant did not take into account the reporting data for the contribution years 2018 to 2020, as subsequently revised by the applicant, when determining the annual contribution to be paid for the 2021 contribution period and did not reduce the applicant’s 2021 bank levy accordingly.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law: Infringement of the right to be heard under Article 41(1) and (2)(a) of the Charter because the applicant was only granted an actual period of three days in order, in the context of the consultation, to examine the draft of an individual notification for the collection of the 2021 bank levy and to send comments to the defendant. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law: Infringement of the right to be heard under Article 41(1) and (2)(a) of the Charter because the applicant was only granted an actual period of three days in order, in the context of the consultation, to examine the draft of an individual notification for the collection of the 2021 bank levy and to send comments to the defendant.

| 8. | Eighth plea in law: Infringement of Article 41(1) and (2)(a) of the Charter and the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU because the statement of reasons for the contested decision does not enable the applicant to verify the amount of its contribution. |
| --- | --- |

8.

Eighth plea in law: Infringement of Article 41(1) and (2)(a) of the Charter and the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU because the statement of reasons for the contested decision does not enable the applicant to verify the amount of its contribution.

| 9. | Ninth plea in law: Infringement of the principle of effective legal protection under the first paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter, as the statement of reasons does not enable the applicant to assess whether it is appropriate to apply to the court having jurisdiction. |
| --- | --- |

9.

Ninth plea in law: Infringement of the principle of effective legal protection under the first paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter, as the statement of reasons does not enable the applicant to assess whether it is appropriate to apply to the court having jurisdiction.

| 10. | Tenth plea in law (in the alternative): Articles 4 to 7 and 9 of and Annex I to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 are invalid because, on account of the interdependence of the contributions and the reliance on confidential third-party data, they require the defendant to issue a decision which infringes the obligation to state reasons. |
| --- | --- |

10.

Tenth plea in law (in the alternative): Articles 4 to 7 and 9 of and Annex I to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 are invalid because, on account of the interdependence of the contributions and the reliance on confidential third-party data, they require the defendant to issue a decision which infringes the obligation to state reasons.

| 11. | Eleventh plea in law (in the alternative): Articles 4 to 7 and 9 of and Annex I to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 are invalid because they infringe the requirement of effective legal protection under the first paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter. |
| --- | --- |

11.

Eleventh plea in law (in the alternative): Articles 4 to 7 and 9 of and Annex I to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 are invalid because they infringe the requirement of effective legal protection under the first paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter.

| 12. | Twelfth plea in law (in the alternative): The assessment basis under Article 14(2), in conjunction with Article 3(11), of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 is invalid because it infringes Article 103(7) of Directive 2014/59/EU and the principle of equal treatment. |
| --- | --- |

12.

Twelfth plea in law (in the alternative): The assessment basis under Article 14(2), in conjunction with Article 3(11), of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 is invalid because it infringes Article 103(7) of Directive 2014/59/EU and the principle of equal treatment.

| 13. | Thirteenth plea in law (in the alternative): The assessment basis under Article 14(2), in conjunction with Article 3(11), of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 is invalid because it infringes Article 16 of the Charter. |
| --- | --- |

13.

Thirteenth plea in law (in the alternative): The assessment basis under Article 14(2), in conjunction with Article 3(11), of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 is invalid because it infringes Article 16 of the Charter.

| 14. | Fourteenth plea in law (in the alternative): The assessment basis under Article 14(2), in conjunction with Article 3(11), of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 is invalid because it infringes Article 49 in conjunction with Article 54 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

14.

Fourteenth plea in law (in the alternative): The assessment basis under Article 14(2), in conjunction with Article 3(11), of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 is invalid because it infringes Article 49 in conjunction with Article 54 TFEU.

---

(1)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 of 21 October 2014 supplementing Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ex ante contributions to resolution financing arrangements (OJ 2015 L 11, p. 44).

(2)  Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ 2014 L 225, p. 1).

(3)  Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 establishing a framework for the recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms and amending Council Directive 82/891/EEC, and Directives 2001/24/EC, 2002/47/EC, 2004/25/EC, 2005/56/EC, 2007/36/EC, 2011/35/EU, 2012/30/EU and 2013/36/EU, and Regulations (EU) No 1093/2010 and (EU) No 648/2012, of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2014 L 173, p. 190).

---

| 30.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 349/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/45

---

Action brought on 6 July 2021 — Bayerische Landesbank v SRB

(Case T-394/21)

(2021/C 349/60)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Bayerische Landesbank (Munich, Germany) (represented by: H. Berger and M. Weber, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 14 April 2021 on the calculation of the 2021 ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2021/22), including the annexes thereto, in so far as the contested decision, including Annex I, Annex II and Annex III thereto, concerns the applicant’s contribution; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 14 April 2021 on the calculation of the 2021 ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2021/22), including the annexes thereto, in so far as the contested decision, including Annex I, Annex II and Annex III thereto, concerns the applicant’s contribution;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

In the alternative, in the event that the Court takes the view that the contested decision is legally non-existent as a result of the use of the incorrect official language by the defendant and the action for annulment would therefore be inadmissible on the ground that it would be devoid of purpose, the applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that the contested decision is legally non-existent in so far as it concerns the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the contested decision is legally non-existent in so far as it concerns the applicant;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on 10 pleas in law, which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-389/21, Landesbank Baden-Württemberg v SRB.

---

| 30.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 349/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/46

---

Action brought on 6 July 2021 — DZ Hyp v SRB

(Case T-395/21)

(2021/C 349/61)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: DZ Hyp AG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: H. Berger and M. Weber, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 14 April 2021 on the calculation of the 2021 ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2021/22), including the annexes thereto, in so far as the contested decision, including Annex I, Annex II and Annex III thereto, concerns the applicant’s contribution; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 14 April 2021 on the calculation of the 2021 ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2021/22), including the annexes thereto, in so far as the contested decision, including Annex I, Annex II and Annex III thereto, concerns the applicant’s contribution;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

In the alternative, in the event that the Court takes the view that the contested decision is legally non-existent as a result of the use of the incorrect official language by the defendant and the action for annulment would therefore be inadmissible on the ground that it would be devoid of purpose, the applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that the contested decision is legally non-existent in so far as it concerns the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the contested decision is legally non-existent in so far as it concerns the applicant;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on 10 pleas in law, which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-389/21, Landesbank Baden-Württemberg v SRB.

---

| 30.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 349/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/46

---

Action brought on 7 July 2021 — Deutsche Bank v SRB

(Case T-396/21)

(2021/C 349/62)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Deutsche Bank AG (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: H. Berger and M. Weber, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 14 April 2021 on the calculation of the 2021 ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2021/22), including the annexes thereto, in so far as the contested decision, including Annex I, Annex II and Annex III thereto, concerns the applicant’s contribution; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 14 April 2021 on the calculation of the 2021 ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2021/22), including the annexes thereto, in so far as the contested decision, including Annex I, Annex II and Annex III thereto, concerns the applicant’s contribution;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on eight pleas in law:

| 1. | First plea in law: The decision infringes the obligation to state reasons laid down in the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41(1) and (2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) because it contains numerous instances of failure to state reasons, in particular with regard to the use by the defendant of numerous discretionary powers conferred by law, and does not disclose the data of other institutions. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law: The decision infringes the obligation to state reasons laid down in the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41(1) and (2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) because it contains numerous instances of failure to state reasons, in particular with regard to the use by the defendant of numerous discretionary powers conferred by law, and does not disclose the data of other institutions.

| 2. | Second plea in law: The decision infringes the requirement of effective legal protection under the first paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter because judicial review of the decision is practically impossible, thus impairing the applicant’s effective legal protection. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law: The decision infringes the requirement of effective legal protection under the first paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter because judicial review of the decision is practically impossible, thus impairing the applicant’s effective legal protection.

| 3. | Third plea in law: Articles 4 to 9 of and Annex I to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 (1) (‘the delegated regulation’), as amended by Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/1434, (2) infringe higher-ranking law because they make judicial review of the decision practically impossible, thus impairing the applicant’s effective legal protection. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law: Articles 4 to 9 of and Annex I to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 (1) (‘the delegated regulation’), as amended by Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/1434, (2) infringe higher-ranking law because they make judicial review of the decision practically impossible, thus impairing the applicant’s effective legal protection.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law: The decision infringes Article 4 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/81, (3) in conjunction with Article 69(1) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 (4) (‘the SRM Regulation’), because the annual target level was not calculated based on the amount of the covered deposits at the start of the accumulation phase; in the alternative, Article 69(1) of the SRM Regulation infringes higher-ranking law. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law: The decision infringes Article 4 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/81, (3) in conjunction with Article 69(1) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 (4) (‘the SRM Regulation’), because the annual target level was not calculated based on the amount of the covered deposits at the start of the accumulation phase; in the alternative, Article 69(1) of the SRM Regulation infringes higher-ranking law.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law: Articles 6, 7 and 9 of and Annex I to the delegated regulation infringe higher-ranking law, inter alia because they infringe the requirement of risk-appropriate assessment of contributions, the principle of proportionality and the requirement to take full account of the facts. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law: Articles 6, 7 and 9 of and Annex I to the delegated regulation infringe higher-ranking law, inter alia because they infringe the requirement of risk-appropriate assessment of contributions, the principle of proportionality and the requirement to take full account of the facts.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law: The decision infringes the applicant’s freedom to conduct a business under Article 16 of the Charter and the principle of proportionality because the underlying risk-adjustment multipliers are not commensurate with the applicant’s very high loss-absorption capacity and the related substantially lower risk of use of the Single Resolution Fund in the event of resolution of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law: The decision infringes the applicant’s freedom to conduct a business under Article 16 of the Charter and the principle of proportionality because the underlying risk-adjustment multipliers are not commensurate with the applicant’s very high loss-absorption capacity and the related substantially lower risk of use of the Single Resolution Fund in the event of resolution of the applicant.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law: The decision infringes Articles 16 and 20 of the Charter as well as the principle of proportionality and the right to good administration on account of obvious errors in the exercise by the defendant of numerous discretionary powers. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law: The decision infringes Articles 16 and 20 of the Charter as well as the principle of proportionality and the right to good administration on account of obvious errors in the exercise by the defendant of numerous discretionary powers.

| 8. | Eighth plea in law: The first and second sentences of Article 20(1) of the delegated regulation infringe Article 103(7) of Directive 2014/59/EU (5) and the requirement of risk-appropriate assessment of contributions. |
| --- | --- |

8.

Eighth plea in law: The first and second sentences of Article 20(1) of the delegated regulation infringe Article 103(7) of Directive 2014/59/EU (5) and the requirement of risk-appropriate assessment of contributions.

---

(1)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 of 21 October 2014 supplementing Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ex ante contributions to resolution financing arrangements (OJ 2015 L 11, p. 44).

(2)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/1434 of 14 December 2015 correcting Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 supplementing Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ex ante contributions to resolution financing arrangements (OJ 2016 L 233, p. 1).

(3)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/81 of 19 December 2014 specifying uniform conditions of application of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (OJ 2015 L 15, p. 1).

(4)  Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ 2014 L 225, p. 1).

(5)  Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 establishing a framework for the recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms and amending Council Directive 82/891/EEC, and Directives 2001/24/EC, 2002/47/EC, 2004/25/EC, 2005/56/EC, 2007/36/EC, 2011/35/EU, 2012/30/EU and 2013/36/EU, and Regulations (EU) No 1093/2010 and (EU) No 648/2012, of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2014 L 173, p. 190).

---

| 30.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 349/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/48

---

Action brought on 8 July 2021 — DVB Bank v SRB

(Case T-404/21)

(2021/C 349/63)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: DVB Bank SE (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: H. Berger and M. Weber, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 14 April 2021 on the calculation of the 2021 ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2021/22), including the annexes thereto, in so far as the contested decision, including Annex I, Annex II and Annex III thereto, concerns the applicant’s contribution; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 14 April 2021 on the calculation of the 2021 ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2021/22), including the annexes thereto, in so far as the contested decision, including Annex I, Annex II and Annex III thereto, concerns the applicant’s contribution;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

In the alternative, in the event that the Court takes the view that the contested decision is legally non-existent as a result of the use of the incorrect official language by the defendant and the action for annulment would therefore be inadmissible on the ground that it would be devoid of purpose, the applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that the contested decision is legally non-existent in so far as it concerns the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the contested decision is legally non-existent in so far as it concerns the applicant;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on 10 pleas in law, which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-389/21, Landesbank Baden-Württemberg v SRB.

---

| 30.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 349/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/48

---

Action brought on 17 July 2021 — TO v EEA

(Case T-434/21)

(2021/C 349/64)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: TO (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

Defendant: European Environment Agency (EEA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the EEA of 21 September 2020, in so far as that decision, after having decided to grant the request for repayment of the installation allowance which had been erroneously deducted by the EEA from the payment of sums due on the basis of the judgment of the General Court of 11 June 2019 in Case T-462/17, nevertheless decides — and it is to that extent that the decision is challenged — to refuse to grant the other requests which the applicant made, in particular in her e-mail of 16 September 2020, to which the contested decision expressly refers, and which consisted in obtaining, in addition to the repayment of the installation allowance unduly deducted,






  — | the substantial balance — although not quantified on the basis of the absence of a detailed breakdown — still owed, plus interest on the dismissal allowance from 22 September 2016, and from the day of the delivery of the judgment, on the amount of the orders made, until the day of actual payment, |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the EEA of 21 September 2020, in so far as that decision, after having decided to grant the request for repayment of the installation allowance which had been erroneously deducted by the EEA from the payment of sums due on the basis of the judgment of the General Court of 11 June 2019 in Case T-462/17, nevertheless decides — and it is to that extent that the decision is challenged — to refuse to grant the other requests which the applicant made, in particular in her e-mail of 16 September 2020, to which the contested decision expressly refers, and which consisted in obtaining, in addition to the repayment of the installation allowance unduly deducted,

—

the substantial balance — although not quantified on the basis of the absence of a detailed breakdown — still owed, plus interest on the dismissal allowance from 22 September 2016, and from the day of the delivery of the judgment, on the amount of the orders made, until the day of actual payment,

| — | a detailed breakdown of the sums due in respect of the principal sum, interest and incidental items and of the sums already paid to the applicant, which must be collected in priority from the interest and incidental items and, thereafter, from the capital, and |
| --- | --- |

—

a detailed breakdown of the sums due in respect of the principal sum, interest and incidental items and of the sums already paid to the applicant, which must be collected in priority from the interest and incidental items and, thereafter, from the capital, and

| — | damages and interest on the basis of the misconduct of service committed which consisted, first, in infringing the confidentiality granted by the Court to the applicant, by informing her new employer of the dispute with the EEA, via the salary slip of August 2019 stating the amounts paid in credit and debit, and, second, by refusing to communicate to her the exchange of correspondence which had taken place with her counsel at the time, both before and after the delivery of the judgment referred to above; |
| --- | --- |

—

damages and interest on the basis of the misconduct of service committed which consisted, first, in infringing the confidentiality granted by the Court to the applicant, by informing her new employer of the dispute with the EEA, via the salary slip of August 2019 stating the amounts paid in credit and debit, and, second, by refusing to communicate to her the exchange of correspondence which had taken place with her counsel at the time, both before and after the delivery of the judgment referred to above;

| — | annul the decision taken by the EEA, in adopting the contested decision, thus refusing to comply with the judgment of the Court of 11 June 2019 in Case T-462/17 in so far as the above contested measure is concerned, in respect of the principal sum, interest and incidental items; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision taken by the EEA, in adopting the contested decision, thus refusing to comply with the judgment of the Court of 11 June 2019 in Case T-462/17 in so far as the above contested measure is concerned, in respect of the principal sum, interest and incidental items;

| — | order full compliance with the judgment of the Court of 11 June 2019 in Case T-462/17 in respect of the principal sum, interest and incidental items, as well as compensation for all the damage suffered and to be suffered by her, as a result of the adoption and implementation of the contested decision, in so far as the EEA pays her:






  — | the sum corresponding to the indemnity in lieu of notice which it was ordered to pay, as well as the installation indemnity deducted in the amount of EUR 2 950 if it was not, in any event, already repaid, the whole amount plus interest from 22 September 2016; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

order full compliance with the judgment of the Court of 11 June 2019 in Case T-462/17 in respect of the principal sum, interest and incidental items, as well as compensation for all the damage suffered and to be suffered by her, as a result of the adoption and implementation of the contested decision, in so far as the EEA pays her:

—

the sum corresponding to the indemnity in lieu of notice which it was ordered to pay, as well as the installation indemnity deducted in the amount of EUR 2 950 if it was not, in any event, already repaid, the whole amount plus interest from 22 September 2016;

| — | the sum of EUR 20 000 by way of lump-sum compensation for the damage suffered as a result of the disclosure of her personal data to third parties and for breaching the rules of confidentiality, in particular in respect of the applicant’s current employer; |
| --- | --- |

—

the sum of EUR 20 000 by way of lump-sum compensation for the damage suffered as a result of the disclosure of her personal data to third parties and for breaching the rules of confidentiality, in particular in respect of the applicant’s current employer;

| — | the sum of EUR 20 000 by way of lump-sum compensation for the damage suffered as a result of the refusal to communicate to her the exchange of correspondence with her counsel both before and after the judgment was delivered; |
| --- | --- |

—

the sum of EUR 20 000 by way of lump-sum compensation for the damage suffered as a result of the refusal to communicate to her the exchange of correspondence with her counsel both before and after the judgment was delivered;

| — | order the defendant to pay all the costs, in accordance with Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay all the costs, in accordance with Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court of the European Union.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 266 TFEU and of the principles of good faith and sound administration, on the ground that the EEA failed to take the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the General Court in favour of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 266 TFEU and of the principles of good faith and sound administration, on the ground that the EEA failed to take the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the General Court in favour of the applicant.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), infringement of the duty to state reasons and infringement of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), infringement of the duty to state reasons and infringement of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging further infringement of the applicant’s personal data, which constitutes an aggravating circumstance in relation to the first judgment, in breach of Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter and Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1). |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging further infringement of the applicant’s personal data, which constitutes an aggravating circumstance in relation to the first judgment, in breach of Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter and Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).

---

| 30.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 349/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/49

---

Action brought on 16 July 2021 — TK v Commission

(Case T-435/21)

(2021/C 349/65)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision not to promote the applicant to grade AD 15 in the 2020 promotion exercise; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision not to promote the applicant to grade AD 15 in the 2020 promotion exercise;

| — | annul the decisions to promote to grade AD 15 the officials included on the list of officials promoted in the 2020 promotion exercise; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decisions to promote to grade AD 15 the officials included on the list of officials promoted in the 2020 promotion exercise;

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

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons, of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and of the principle of equal treatment. The applicant also raises a plea of illegality of Commission Decision SEC(2007) 605 of 10 May 2007 on the principles and procedures applicable to the promotion of senior management staff, on the ground, inter alia, that it does not provide for appeals to be dealt with by a body other than the Advisory Committee for the Promotion of Senior Management Staff. Furthermore, the applicant submits that that committee should have the possibility of upholding an appeal without being limited by the promotion quotas which are exhausted when the list of promoted officials is drawn up. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons, of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and of the principle of equal treatment. The applicant also raises a plea of illegality of Commission Decision SEC(2007) 605 of 10 May 2007 on the principles and procedures applicable to the promotion of senior management staff, on the ground, inter alia, that it does not provide for appeals to be dealt with by a body other than the Advisory Committee for the Promotion of Senior Management Staff. Furthermore, the applicant submits that that committee should have the possibility of upholding an appeal without being limited by the promotion quotas which are exhausted when the list of promoted officials is drawn up.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment. The applicant puts forward in that regard a body of objective evidence relating in particular to seniority and merit points and considers that that body of evidence proves that the contested decision is unfounded. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment. The applicant puts forward in that regard a body of objective evidence relating in particular to seniority and merit points and considers that that body of evidence proves that the contested decision is unfounded.

---