# Official Journal C 262/10 A

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 262 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6310 August 2020 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 262

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6310 August 2020

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2020/C 262/01 | Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union | 1 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

2020/C 262/01

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

Official Journal of the European Union

1

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2020/C 262/02 | Case C-301/18: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 4 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Bonn — Germany) — Thomas Leonhard v DSL-Bank — a branch of DB Privat- und Firmenkundenbank AG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 2002/65/EC — Distance loan agreement — Right of withdrawal — Consequences — Article 7(4) — Return of the services received — Payment of compensation for benefit of use — Supplier’s obligation — Precluded) | 2 |
| 2020/C 262/03 | Case C-456/18 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 June 2020 — Hungary v European Commission (Appeal — State aid — Alleged aid — Decision to initiate the procedure provided for in Article 108(2) TFEU — Suspension injunction in respect of the measures at issue — Conditions governing the legality of the injunction) | 3 |
| 2020/C 262/04 | Case C-588/18: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Nacional — Spain) — Federación de Trabajadores Independientes de Comercio (Fetico), Federación Estatal de Servicios, Movilidad y Consumo de la Unión General de Trabajadores (FESMC-UGT), Federación de Servicios de Comisiones Obreras (CCOO) v Grupo de Empresas DIA SA, Twins Alimentación SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Protection of the safety and health of workers — Organisation of working time — Directive 2003/88/EC — Articles 5 and 7 — Weekly rest — Annual leave — Paid special leave permitting time off from work to meet specific needs and obligations) | 3 |
| 2020/C 262/05 | Case C-812/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 4 June 2020 — Terna SpA v European Commission (Appeal — Energy — Projects of common interest to the EU — EU financial assistance granted to two projects in the field of trans-European energy networks — Directive 2004/17/EC — Article 37 — Subcontracting — Article 40(3)(c) — Direct award — Technical specificity — Framework agreement — Reduction of the assistance originally granted following a financial audit — Reimbursement of amounts originally paid) | 4 |
| 2020/C 262/06 | Case C-828/18: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 4 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de commerce de Paris — France) — Trendsetteuse SARL v DCA SARL (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Self-employed commercial agents — Directive 86/653/EEC — Concept of commercial agent — Negotiation of the sale or purchase of goods on behalf of the principal — Intermediary lacking the power to change the conditions of sale and the prices of the goods that intermediary sells) | 5 |
| 2020/C 262/07 | Case C-3/19: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Asmel societá consortile a r.l. v A.N.A.C. — Autorità Nazionale Anticorruzione (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Directive 2004/18/EC — Central purchasing bodies — Small municipalities — Restriction to only two organisational models for the central purchasing bodies — Prohibition of use of a central purchasing body under private law and with the participation of private entities — Territorial restriction of the activity of central purchasing bodies) | 5 |
| 2020/C 262/08 | Case C-41/19: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 4 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Köln — Germany) — FX v GZ, represented for legal purposes by her mother (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters relating to maintenance obligations — Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 — Article 41(1) — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Article 24(5) — Maintenance order declared enforceable — Application opposing enforcement — Jurisdiction of the court of the Member State of enforcement) | 6 |
| 2020/C 262/09 | Case C-187/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 June 2020 — European External Action Service v Stéphane De Loecker (Appeal — Civil Service — European External Action Service (EEAS) — Member of the temporary staff — Psychological harassment — Request for assistance — Rejection of the request — Action for annulment and damages — Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Right to be heard — Article 266 TFEU — Compliance with the annulling judgment) | 7 |
| 2020/C 262/10 | Case C-310/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 4 June 2020 — Boudewijn Schokker v European Union Aviation Safety Agency (Appeal — Civil service — Contract staff — Recruitment procedure — Classification in grade — Conditions of Employment of Other Servants — Article 86 — European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) — General implementing provisions — Challenge of the proposed classification — Withdrawal of the offer of employment — Action for compensation — Principle of sound administration — Duty to have regard for the welfare of staff — Breach of administrative duty — Non-contractual liability of the European Union — Non-material damage — Compensation) | 7 |
| 2020/C 262/11 | Case C-429/19: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 4 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Koblenz — Germany) — Remondis GmbH v Abfallzweckverband Rhein-Mosel-Eifel (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Directive 2014/24/EU — Article 12(4) — Scope — Public contracts between entities within the public sector — Definition of cooperation — None) | 8 |
| 2020/C 262/12 | Case C-430/19: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 4 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Cluj — Romania) — SC C.F. SRL v A.J.F.P.M. and D.G.R.F.P.C (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Principles of EU law — Observance of the rights of the defence — Tax procedure — Exercise of the right to deduct with regard to value added tax (VAT) — Refusal of the right to deduct on account of the allegedly improper conduct of the taxable person’s suppliers — Administrative act issued by the national tax authorities without giving the taxpayer access to the information and the documents on which the act was based — Suspicion of tax evasion — National practice pursuant to which exercise of the right to deduct is subject to the possession of supporting documents other than the tax invoice — Whether permissible) | 8 |
| 2020/C 262/13 | Case C-495/19: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 4 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Poznaniu — Poland) — Kancelaria Medius SA z siedzibą w Krakowie v RN (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Article 7(1) — Consumer credit — Review of whether the contractual terms are unfair — Failure of the consumer to appear at the hearing — Scope of the court’s powers and obligations) | 9 |
| 2020/C 262/14 | Case C-138/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Stuttgart (Germany) lodged on 13 March 2020 — O. v P. AG | 10 |
| 2020/C 262/15 | Case C-168/20: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice Business and Property Courts of England and Wales (United Kingdom) made on 22 April 2020 — Joint Trustee (1) in Bankruptcy of Mr M. and Joint Trustee (2) in Bankruptcy of Mr M. v Mrs M, MH, ILA and Mr M | 12 |
| 2020/C 262/16 | Case C-185/20 P: Appeal brought on 28 April 2020 by Hungary against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 12 February 2020 in Case T-505/18, Hungary v European Commission | 13 |
| 2020/C 262/17 | Case C-194/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 8 May 2020 — BY, CX, FU, DW, EV v Stadt Duisburg | 14 |
| 2020/C 262/18 | Case C-206/20: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom) made on 15 May 2020 — VA v Prosecutor of the regional prosecutor’s office in Ruse, Bulgaria | 14 |
| 2020/C 262/19 | Case C-209/20: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 22 May 2020 — Renesola UK Ltd v The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs | 15 |
| 2020/C 262/20 | Case C-211/20 P: Appeal brought on 22 May 2020 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 12 March 2020 in Case T-732/16, Valencia Club de Fútbol v European Commission | 16 |
| 2020/C 262/21 | Case C-214/20: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Labour Court, Ireland, made on 20 May 2020 — MG v Dublin City Council | 16 |
| 2020/C 262/22 | Case C-221/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 28 May 2020 — A Oy | 17 |
| 2020/C 262/23 | Case C-223/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 28 May 2020 — B Oy | 18 |
| 2020/C 262/24 | Case C-234/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) (Latvia) lodged on 4 June 2020 — SIA Sātiņi-S v Lauku atbalsta dienests | 18 |
| 2020/C 262/25 | Case C-238/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) (Latvia) lodged on 5 June 2020 — SIA Sātiņi-S v Dabas aizsardzības pārvalde | 19 |
| 2020/C 262/26 | Case C-242/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Visoki trgovački sud Republike Hrvatske (Croatia) lodged on 8 June 2020 — HRVATSKE Šume d.o.o., Zagreb, as the legal successor to HRVATSKE ŠUME javno poduzeće za gospodarenje šumama i šumskim zemljištima u Republici Hrvatskoj, p.o. Zagreb v BP EUROPA SE, as the legal successor to DEUTSCHE BP AG, as the legal successor to THE BURMAH OIL (Deutschland), GmbH | 20 |
| | General Court |
| 2020/C 262/27 | Case T-506/18: Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2020 –Poland v Commission (EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Specific support for the tobacco sector — Expenditure incurred by Poland — Key controls — Flat-rate corrections — Obligation to state reasons) | 21 |
| 2020/C 262/28 | Case T-104/19: Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2020 — Dermavita v EUIPO — Allergan Holdings France (JUVÉDERM) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark JUVÉDERM — Genuine use of the mark — Use in connection with the goods in respect of which the mark was registered — Use in the form in which the mark was registered — Use with the proprietor’s consent — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 21 |
| 2020/C 262/29 | Case T-379/19: Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2020 — Serviceplan Gruppe für innovative Kommunikation v EUIPO (Serviceplan) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark Serviceplan — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Obligation to state reasons — First sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001) | 22 |
| 2020/C 262/30 | Case T-380/19: Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2020 — Serviceplan Gruppe für innovative Kommunikation v EUIPO (Serviceplan Solutions) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark Serviceplan Solutions — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Obligation to state reasons — First sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001) | 23 |
| 2020/C 262/31 | Case T-552/19: Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2020 — Malacalza Investimenti v ECB (Access to documents — Decision of the ECB to place Banca Carige SpA under temporary administration — Refusal to grant access — Default procedure) | 23 |
| 2020/C 262/32 | Case T-294/19: Order of the General Court of 11 June 2020 — Vanhoudt and Others v EIB (Action for annulment and for damages — Civil service — EIB staff — Reform of the EIB remuneration and salary progression system — Remuneration simulation tool — Act not open to challenge — Purely confirmatory act — No new and substantial facts — Non-material harm — No causal link — Action in part inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law) | 24 |
| 2020/C 262/33 | Case T-516/19: Order of the General Court of 11 June 2020 — VDV eTicket Service v Commission and INEA (Arbitration clause — Horizon 2020 — the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020) — Project European Travellers Club: Account-Based Travelling across the European Union — ETC — Grant agreement — Decision of INEA declaring ineligible certain costs incurred in the context of subcontracts — Misidentification of the defendant — Measure which is part of a purely contractual context from which it is inseparable — Legitimate expectations — Action in part inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law) | 25 |
| 2020/C 262/34 | Case T-563/19: Order of the General Court of 11 June 2020 — Perfect Bar v EUIPO (PERFECT Bar) (Action for annulment — EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark PERFECT Bar — Absolute grounds for refusal — No distinctive character — Descriptive character– Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Decision taken following the annulment by the General Court of an earlier decision — Article 72(6) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law) | 25 |
| 2020/C 262/35 | Case T-803/19: Order of the General Court of 16 June 2020 — etc-gaming and Casino-Equipment v Commission (Action for damages — Failure by the European Union to introduce an effective remedy offering suitable redress for a failure on the part of the national courts to submit a request for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law) | 26 |
| 2020/C 262/36 | Case T-91/20: Action brought on 15 May 2020 — WT v Commission | 26 |
| 2020/C 262/37 | Case T-188/20: Action brought on 26 March 2020 — Close and Cegelec v Parliament | 27 |
| 2020/C 262/38 | Case T-250/20: Action brought on 29 April 2020 — Moviescreens Rental v EUIPO — the airscreen company (AIRSCREEN) | 28 |
| 2020/C 262/39 | Case T-298/20: Action brought on 22 May 2020 — KD v EUIPO | 29 |
| 2020/C 262/40 | Case T-299/20: Action brought on 20 May 2020 — KF v EIB | 29 |
| 2020/C 262/41 | Case T-308/20: Action brought on 18 May 2020 — PL v Commission | 30 |
| 2020/C 262/42 | Case T-342/20: Action brought on 2 June 2020 — Indo European Foods v EUIPO — Chakari (Abresham Super Basmati Selaa Grade One World's Best Rice) | 31 |
| 2020/C 262/43 | Case T-353/20: Action brought on 3 June 2020 — AC Milan v EUIPO — InterES (ACM 1899 AC MILAN) | 32 |
| 2020/C 262/44 | Case T-354/20: Action brought on 4 June 2020 — Kfz-Gewerbe v EUIPO — The Blink Fish (Representation of a fish) | 33 |
| 2020/C 262/45 | Case T-372/20: Action brought on 15 June 2020 — Dermavita Company v EUIPO — Allergan Holdings France (JUVEDERM) | 33 |
| 2020/C 262/46 | Case T-376/20: Action brought on 15 June 2020 — Poupart v Commission | 34 |
| 2020/C 262/47 | Case T-383/20: Action brought on 16 June 2020 — Moloko Beverage v EUIPO — Nexus Liquids (moloko) | 35 |
| 2020/C 262/48 | Case T-387/20: Action brought on 23 June 2020 — DK Company v EUIPO — Hunter Boot (DENIM HUNTER) | 35 |
| 2020/C 262/49 | Case T-388/20: Action brought on 26 June 2020 — Ryanair v Commission | 36 |
| 2020/C 262/50 | Case T-400/20: Action brought on 29 June 2020 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Rudolf Böckenholt (LLOYD’S) | 37 |
| 2020/C 262/51 | Case T-23/19: Order of the General Court of 8 June 2020 — Limango v EUIPO — Consolidated Artists (limango) | 38 |
| 2020/C 262/52 | Case T-534/19: Order of the General Court of 8 June 2020 — TestBioTech v Commission | 38 |
| 2020/C 262/53 | Case T-612/19: Order of the General Court of 4 June 2020 — UPL Europe and Aceto Agricultural Chemicals v Commission | 38 |
| 2020/C 262/54 | Case T-708/19: Order of the General Court of 10 June 2020 — Bujar v Commission | 38 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2020/C 262/02

Case C-301/18: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 4 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Bonn — Germany) — Thomas Leonhard v DSL-Bank — a branch of DB Privat- und Firmenkundenbank AG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 2002/65/EC — Distance loan agreement — Right of withdrawal — Consequences — Article 7(4) — Return of the services received — Payment of compensation for benefit of use — Supplier’s obligation — Precluded)

2

2020/C 262/03

Case C-456/18 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 June 2020 — Hungary v European Commission (Appeal — State aid — Alleged aid — Decision to initiate the procedure provided for in Article 108(2) TFEU — Suspension injunction in respect of the measures at issue — Conditions governing the legality of the injunction)

3

2020/C 262/04

Case C-588/18: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Nacional — Spain) — Federación de Trabajadores Independientes de Comercio (Fetico), Federación Estatal de Servicios, Movilidad y Consumo de la Unión General de Trabajadores (FESMC-UGT), Federación de Servicios de Comisiones Obreras (CCOO) v Grupo de Empresas DIA SA, Twins Alimentación SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Protection of the safety and health of workers — Organisation of working time — Directive 2003/88/EC — Articles 5 and 7 — Weekly rest — Annual leave — Paid special leave permitting time off from work to meet specific needs and obligations)

3

2020/C 262/05

Case C-812/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 4 June 2020 — Terna SpA v European Commission (Appeal — Energy — Projects of common interest to the EU — EU financial assistance granted to two projects in the field of trans-European energy networks — Directive 2004/17/EC — Article 37 — Subcontracting — Article 40(3)(c) — Direct award — Technical specificity — Framework agreement — Reduction of the assistance originally granted following a financial audit — Reimbursement of amounts originally paid)

4

2020/C 262/06

Case C-828/18: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 4 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de commerce de Paris — France) — Trendsetteuse SARL v DCA SARL (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Self-employed commercial agents — Directive 86/653/EEC — Concept of commercial agent — Negotiation of the sale or purchase of goods on behalf of the principal — Intermediary lacking the power to change the conditions of sale and the prices of the goods that intermediary sells)

5

2020/C 262/07

Case C-3/19: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Asmel societá consortile a r.l. v A.N.A.C. — Autorità Nazionale Anticorruzione (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Directive 2004/18/EC — Central purchasing bodies — Small municipalities — Restriction to only two organisational models for the central purchasing bodies — Prohibition of use of a central purchasing body under private law and with the participation of private entities — Territorial restriction of the activity of central purchasing bodies)

5

2020/C 262/08

Case C-41/19: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 4 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Köln — Germany) — FX v GZ, represented for legal purposes by her mother (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters relating to maintenance obligations — Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 — Article 41(1) — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Article 24(5) — Maintenance order declared enforceable — Application opposing enforcement — Jurisdiction of the court of the Member State of enforcement)

6

2020/C 262/09

Case C-187/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 June 2020 — European External Action Service v Stéphane De Loecker (Appeal — Civil Service — European External Action Service (EEAS) — Member of the temporary staff — Psychological harassment — Request for assistance — Rejection of the request — Action for annulment and damages — Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Right to be heard — Article 266 TFEU — Compliance with the annulling judgment)

7

2020/C 262/10

Case C-310/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 4 June 2020 — Boudewijn Schokker v European Union Aviation Safety Agency (Appeal — Civil service — Contract staff — Recruitment procedure — Classification in grade — Conditions of Employment of Other Servants — Article 86 — European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) — General implementing provisions — Challenge of the proposed classification — Withdrawal of the offer of employment — Action for compensation — Principle of sound administration — Duty to have regard for the welfare of staff — Breach of administrative duty — Non-contractual liability of the European Union — Non-material damage — Compensation)

7

2020/C 262/11

Case C-429/19: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 4 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Koblenz — Germany) — Remondis GmbH v Abfallzweckverband Rhein-Mosel-Eifel (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Directive 2014/24/EU — Article 12(4) — Scope — Public contracts between entities within the public sector — Definition of cooperation — None)

8

2020/C 262/12

Case C-430/19: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 4 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Cluj — Romania) — SC C.F. SRL v A.J.F.P.M. and D.G.R.F.P.C (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Principles of EU law — Observance of the rights of the defence — Tax procedure — Exercise of the right to deduct with regard to value added tax (VAT) — Refusal of the right to deduct on account of the allegedly improper conduct of the taxable person’s suppliers — Administrative act issued by the national tax authorities without giving the taxpayer access to the information and the documents on which the act was based — Suspicion of tax evasion — National practice pursuant to which exercise of the right to deduct is subject to the possession of supporting documents other than the tax invoice — Whether permissible)

8

2020/C 262/13

Case C-495/19: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 4 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Poznaniu — Poland) — Kancelaria Medius SA z siedzibą w Krakowie v RN (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Article 7(1) — Consumer credit — Review of whether the contractual terms are unfair — Failure of the consumer to appear at the hearing — Scope of the court’s powers and obligations)

9

2020/C 262/14

Case C-138/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Stuttgart (Germany) lodged on 13 March 2020 — O. v P. AG

10

2020/C 262/15

Case C-168/20: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice Business and Property Courts of England and Wales (United Kingdom) made on 22 April 2020 — Joint Trustee (1) in Bankruptcy of Mr M. and Joint Trustee (2) in Bankruptcy of Mr M. v Mrs M, MH, ILA and Mr M

12

2020/C 262/16

Case C-185/20 P: Appeal brought on 28 April 2020 by Hungary against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 12 February 2020 in Case T-505/18, Hungary v European Commission

13

2020/C 262/17

Case C-194/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 8 May 2020 — BY, CX, FU, DW, EV v Stadt Duisburg

14

2020/C 262/18

Case C-206/20: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom) made on 15 May 2020 — VA v Prosecutor of the regional prosecutor’s office in Ruse, Bulgaria

14

2020/C 262/19

Case C-209/20: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 22 May 2020 — Renesola UK Ltd v The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

15

2020/C 262/20

Case C-211/20 P: Appeal brought on 22 May 2020 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 12 March 2020 in Case T-732/16, Valencia Club de Fútbol v European Commission

16

2020/C 262/21

Case C-214/20: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Labour Court, Ireland, made on 20 May 2020 — MG v Dublin City Council

16

2020/C 262/22

Case C-221/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 28 May 2020 — A Oy

17

2020/C 262/23

Case C-223/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 28 May 2020 — B Oy

18

2020/C 262/24

Case C-234/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) (Latvia) lodged on 4 June 2020 — SIA Sātiņi-S v Lauku atbalsta dienests

18

2020/C 262/25

Case C-238/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) (Latvia) lodged on 5 June 2020 — SIA Sātiņi-S v Dabas aizsardzības pārvalde

19

2020/C 262/26

Case C-242/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Visoki trgovački sud Republike Hrvatske (Croatia) lodged on 8 June 2020 — HRVATSKE Šume d.o.o., Zagreb, as the legal successor to HRVATSKE ŠUME javno poduzeće za gospodarenje šumama i šumskim zemljištima u Republici Hrvatskoj, p.o. Zagreb v BP EUROPA SE, as the legal successor to DEUTSCHE BP AG, as the legal successor to THE BURMAH OIL (Deutschland), GmbH

20

General Court

2020/C 262/27

Case T-506/18: Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2020 –Poland v Commission (EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Specific support for the tobacco sector — Expenditure incurred by Poland — Key controls — Flat-rate corrections — Obligation to state reasons)

21

2020/C 262/28

Case T-104/19: Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2020 — Dermavita v EUIPO — Allergan Holdings France (JUVÉDERM) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark JUVÉDERM — Genuine use of the mark — Use in connection with the goods in respect of which the mark was registered — Use in the form in which the mark was registered — Use with the proprietor’s consent — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

21

2020/C 262/29

Case T-379/19: Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2020 — Serviceplan Gruppe für innovative Kommunikation v EUIPO (Serviceplan) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark Serviceplan — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Obligation to state reasons — First sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)

22

2020/C 262/30

Case T-380/19: Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2020 — Serviceplan Gruppe für innovative Kommunikation v EUIPO (Serviceplan Solutions) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark Serviceplan Solutions — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Obligation to state reasons — First sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)

23

2020/C 262/31

Case T-552/19: Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2020 — Malacalza Investimenti v ECB (Access to documents — Decision of the ECB to place Banca Carige SpA under temporary administration — Refusal to grant access — Default procedure)

23

2020/C 262/32

Case T-294/19: Order of the General Court of 11 June 2020 — Vanhoudt and Others v EIB (Action for annulment and for damages — Civil service — EIB staff — Reform of the EIB remuneration and salary progression system — Remuneration simulation tool — Act not open to challenge — Purely confirmatory act — No new and substantial facts — Non-material harm — No causal link — Action in part inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

24

2020/C 262/33

Case T-516/19: Order of the General Court of 11 June 2020 — VDV eTicket Service v Commission and INEA (Arbitration clause — Horizon 2020 — the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020) — Project European Travellers Club: Account-Based Travelling across the European Union — ETC — Grant agreement — Decision of INEA declaring ineligible certain costs incurred in the context of subcontracts — Misidentification of the defendant — Measure which is part of a purely contractual context from which it is inseparable — Legitimate expectations — Action in part inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

25

2020/C 262/34

Case T-563/19: Order of the General Court of 11 June 2020 — Perfect Bar v EUIPO (PERFECT Bar) (Action for annulment — EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark PERFECT Bar — Absolute grounds for refusal — No distinctive character — Descriptive character– Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Decision taken following the annulment by the General Court of an earlier decision — Article 72(6) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

25

2020/C 262/35

Case T-803/19: Order of the General Court of 16 June 2020 — etc-gaming and Casino-Equipment v Commission (Action for damages — Failure by the European Union to introduce an effective remedy offering suitable redress for a failure on the part of the national courts to submit a request for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

26

2020/C 262/36

Case T-91/20: Action brought on 15 May 2020 — WT v Commission

26

2020/C 262/37

Case T-188/20: Action brought on 26 March 2020 — Close and Cegelec v Parliament

27

2020/C 262/38

Case T-250/20: Action brought on 29 April 2020 — Moviescreens Rental v EUIPO — the airscreen company (AIRSCREEN)

28

2020/C 262/39

Case T-298/20: Action brought on 22 May 2020 — KD v EUIPO

29

2020/C 262/40

Case T-299/20: Action brought on 20 May 2020 — KF v EIB

29

2020/C 262/41

Case T-308/20: Action brought on 18 May 2020 — PL v Commission

30

2020/C 262/42

Case T-342/20: Action brought on 2 June 2020 — Indo European Foods v EUIPO — Chakari (Abresham Super Basmati Selaa Grade One World's Best Rice)

31

2020/C 262/43

Case T-353/20: Action brought on 3 June 2020 — AC Milan v EUIPO — InterES (ACM 1899 AC MILAN)

32

2020/C 262/44

Case T-354/20: Action brought on 4 June 2020 — Kfz-Gewerbe v EUIPO — The Blink Fish (Representation of a fish)

33

2020/C 262/45

Case T-372/20: Action brought on 15 June 2020 — Dermavita Company v EUIPO — Allergan Holdings France (JUVEDERM)

33

2020/C 262/46

Case T-376/20: Action brought on 15 June 2020 — Poupart v Commission

34

2020/C 262/47

Case T-383/20: Action brought on 16 June 2020 — Moloko Beverage v EUIPO — Nexus Liquids (moloko)

35

2020/C 262/48

Case T-387/20: Action brought on 23 June 2020 — DK Company v EUIPO — Hunter Boot (DENIM HUNTER)

35

2020/C 262/49

Case T-388/20: Action brought on 26 June 2020 — Ryanair v Commission

36

2020/C 262/50

Case T-400/20: Action brought on 29 June 2020 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Rudolf Böckenholt (LLOYD’S)

37

2020/C 262/51

Case T-23/19: Order of the General Court of 8 June 2020 — Limango v EUIPO — Consolidated Artists (limango)

38

2020/C 262/52

Case T-534/19: Order of the General Court of 8 June 2020 — TestBioTech v Commission

38

2020/C 262/53

Case T-612/19: Order of the General Court of 4 June 2020 — UPL Europe and Aceto Agricultural Chemicals v Commission

38

2020/C 262/54

Case T-708/19: Order of the General Court of 10 June 2020 — Bujar v Commission

38

---

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 10.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/1

---

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

(2020/C 262/01)

Last publication

OJ C 255, 3.8.2020

Past publications

OJ C 247, 27.7.2020

OJ C 240, 20.7.2020

OJ C 230, 13.7.2020

OJ C 222, 6.7.2020

OJ C 215, 29.6.2020

OJ C 209, 22.6.2020

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 10.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 4 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Bonn — Germany) — Thomas Leonhard v DSL-Bank — a branch of DB Privat- und Firmenkundenbank AG

(Case C-301/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 2002/65/EC - Distance loan agreement - Right of withdrawal - Consequences - Article 7(4) - Return of the services received - Payment of compensation for benefit of use - Supplier’s obligation - Precluded)

(2020/C 262/02)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Bonn

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Thomas Leonhard

Defendant: DSL-Bank — a branch of DB Privat- und Firmenkundenbank AG

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(4) of Directive 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 concerning the distance marketing of consumer financial services and amending Council Directive 90/619/EEC and Directives 97/7/EC and 98/27/EC must be interpreted as meaning that, where a consumer exercises his or her right to withdraw from a distance loan agreement concluded with a supplier, that consumer has the right to receive from that supplier, subject to certain sums which the consumer himself or herself is required to pay to the supplier under the conditions laid down in Article 7(1) and (3) of that directive, the principal repaid and the interest paid under that agreement, but does not have the right to receive compensation for the benefit of use of that principal and that interest.

---

(1)  OJ C 285, 13.8.2018.

---

| 10.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/3

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 June 2020 — Hungary v European Commission

(Case C-456/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Alleged aid - Decision to initiate the procedure provided for in Article 108(2) TFEU - Suspension injunction in respect of the measures at issue - Conditions governing the legality of the injunction)

(2020/C 262/03)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

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

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, P.-J. Loewenthal, V. Bottka and K. Talabér-Ritz, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the appellant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, M. Rzotkiewicz and A. Kramarczyk, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 25 April 2018, Hungary v Commission (T-554/15 and T-555/15, EU:T:2018:220); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 25 April 2018, Hungary v Commission (T-554/15 and T-555/15, EU:T:2018:220);

| 2. | Annuls Commission Decision C(2015) 4805 final of 15 July 2015 on State aid SA. 41187 (2015/NN) — Hungary — Health contribution of tobacco industry businesses and Commission Decision C(2015) 4808 final of 15 July 2015 on State aid SA. 40018 (2015/C) (ex 2014/NN) — 2014 Amendment of the Hungarian food chain inspection fee in so far as they order suspension of the application of the progressive tax rate of, respectively, the health contribution and the food chain inspection fee, in their form resulting from Law No XCIV of 2014 on the health contribution of tobacco industry businesses and from the amendment in 2014 of Law No XLVI of 2008 on the food chain and the official supervision thereof; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Annuls Commission Decision C(2015) 4805 final of 15 July 2015 on State aid SA. 41187 (2015/NN) — Hungary — Health contribution of tobacco industry businesses and Commission Decision C(2015) 4808 final of 15 July 2015 on State aid SA. 40018 (2015/C) (ex 2014/NN) — 2014 Amendment of the Hungarian food chain inspection fee in so far as they order suspension of the application of the progressive tax rate of, respectively, the health contribution and the food chain inspection fee, in their form resulting from Law No XCIV of 2014 on the health contribution of tobacco industry businesses and from the amendment in 2014 of Law No XLVI of 2008 on the food chain and the official supervision thereof;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Hungary, both at first instance and on appeal; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Hungary, both at first instance and on appeal;

| 4. | Orders the Republic of Poland to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Republic of Poland to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 301, 27.8.2018.

---

| 10.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Nacional — Spain) — Federación de Trabajadores Independientes de Comercio (Fetico), Federación Estatal de Servicios, Movilidad y Consumo de la Unión General de Trabajadores (FESMC-UGT), Federación de Servicios de Comisiones Obreras (CCOO) v Grupo de Empresas DIA SA, Twins Alimentación SA

(Case C-588/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Protection of the safety and health of workers - Organisation of working time - Directive 2003/88/EC - Articles 5 and 7 - Weekly rest - Annual leave - Paid special leave permitting time off from work to meet specific needs and obligations)

(2020/C 262/04)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Nacional

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Federación de Trabajadores Independientes de Comercio (Fetico), Federación Estatal de Servicios, Movilidad y Consumo de la Unión General de Trabajadores (FESMC-UGT), Federación de Servicios de Comisiones Obreras (CCOO)

Defendants: Grupo de Empresas DIA SA, Twins Alimentación SA

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 5 and 7 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 must be interpreted as not being applicable to national rules providing for special leave on days when workers are required to work which do not allow those workers to claim that leave in so far as the needs and obligations met by that special leave arise during weekly rest periods or periods of paid annual leave that are the subject of those articles.

---

(1)  OJ C 436, 3.12.2018.

---

| 10.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 4 June 2020 — Terna SpA v European Commission

(Case C-812/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Energy - Projects of common interest to the EU - EU financial assistance granted to two projects in the field of trans-European energy networks - Directive 2004/17/EC - Article 37 - Subcontracting - Article 40(3)(c) - Direct award - Technical specificity - Framework agreement - Reduction of the assistance originally granted following a financial audit - Reimbursement of amounts originally paid)

(2020/C 262/05)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Terna SpA (represented by: F. Covone, A. Police, L. Di Via, D. Carria and F. Degni, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: O. Beynet, M. Ilkova, G. Gattinara and P. Ondrůšek, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Terna SpA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Terna SpA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 72, 25.2.2019.

---

| 10.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 4 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de commerce de Paris — France) — Trendsetteuse SARL v DCA SARL

(Case C-828/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Self-employed commercial agents - Directive 86/653/EEC - Concept of ‘commercial agent’ - Negotiation of the sale or purchase of goods on behalf of the principal - Intermediary lacking the power to change the conditions of sale and the prices of the goods that intermediary sells)

(2020/C 262/06)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de commerce de Paris

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Trendsetteuse SARL

Defendant: DCA SARL

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(2) of Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents must be interpreted as meaning that a person does not need to have the power to change the prices of the goods which he or she sells on behalf of the principal in order to be classified as a commercial agent within the meaning of that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 82, 4.3.2019.

---

| 10.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Asmel societá consortile a r.l. v A.N.A.C. — Autorità Nazionale Anticorruzione

(Case C-3/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Directive 2004/18/EC - Central purchasing bodies - Small municipalities - Restriction to only two organisational models for the central purchasing bodies - Prohibition of use of a central purchasing body under private law and with the participation of private entities - Territorial restriction of the activity of central purchasing bodies)

(2020/C 262/07)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Asmel societá consortile a r.l.

Defendant: A.N.A.C. — Autorità Nazionale Anticorruzione

Intervener: Associazione Nazionale Aziende Concessionarie Servizi entrate (Anacap)

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Articles 1(10) and 11 of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1336/2013 of 13 December 2013, must be interpreted as not precluding a provision of national law which restricts the organisational autonomy of small local authorities to use a central purchasing body to only two exclusively public organisational models, without the participation of private persons or undertakings. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Articles 1(10) and 11 of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1336/2013 of 13 December 2013, must be interpreted as not precluding a provision of national law which restricts the organisational autonomy of small local authorities to use a central purchasing body to only two exclusively public organisational models, without the participation of private persons or undertakings.

| 2. | Articles 1(10) and 11 of Directive 2004/18, as amended by Regulation No 1336/2013, must be interpreted as not precluding a provision of national law which limits the scope of action of central purchasing bodies set up by local authorities to the territory of those authorities. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Articles 1(10) and 11 of Directive 2004/18, as amended by Regulation No 1336/2013, must be interpreted as not precluding a provision of national law which limits the scope of action of central purchasing bodies set up by local authorities to the territory of those authorities.

---

(1)  OJ C 164, 13.5.2019.

---

| 10.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 4 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Köln — Germany) — FX v GZ, represented for legal purposes by her mother

(Case C-41/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters relating to maintenance obligations - Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 - Article 41(1) - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Article 24(5) - Maintenance order declared enforceable - Application opposing enforcement - Jurisdiction of the court of the Member State of enforcement)

(2020/C 262/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: FX

Defendant: GZ, represented for legal purposes by her mother

Operative part of the judgment

Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations is to be interpreted as meaning that an application opposing enforcement brought by the maintenance debtor against enforcement of a decision given by a court of the Member State of origin and which established that debt, which has a close link with the procedure for enforcement, falls within its scope and is within the international jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State of enforcement.

Pursuant to Article 41(1) of Regulation No 4/2009 and to the relevant provisions of national law, it is for the referring court, being a court of the Member State of enforcement, to adjudicate on the admissibility and the validity of the evidence adduced by the maintenance debtor, seeking to support the submission that he has predominantly discharged his debt.

---

(1)  OJ C 155, 6.5.2019.

---

| 10.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 June 2020 — European External Action Service v Stéphane De Loecker

(Case C-187/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil Service - European External Action Service (EEAS) - Member of the temporary staff - Psychological harassment - Request for assistance - Rejection of the request - Action for annulment and damages - Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Right to be heard - Article 266 TFEU - Compliance with the annulling judgment)

(2020/C 262/09)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: European External Action Service (represented by: S. Marquardt and R. Spac, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Stéphane De Loecker (represented by: J.-N. Louis, avocat)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders the European External Action Service (EEAS) to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European External Action Service (EEAS) to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 187, 3.6.2019.

---

| 10.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 4 June 2020 — Boudewijn Schokker v European Union Aviation Safety Agency

(Case C-310/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Contract staff - Recruitment procedure - Classification in grade - Conditions of Employment of Other Servants - Article 86 - European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) - General implementing provisions - Challenge of the proposed classification - Withdrawal of the offer of employment - Action for compensation - Principle of sound administration - Duty to have regard for the welfare of staff - Breach of administrative duty - Non-contractual liability of the European Union - Non-material damage - Compensation)

(2020/C 262/10)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Boudewijn Schokker (represented by: T. Martin and S. Orlandi, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Aviation Safety Agency (represented by: S. Rostren, acting as Agent, and D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, avocats)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the order of the General Court of the European Union of 8 February 2019, Schokker v EASA (T-817/17, not published, EU:T:2019:74); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the order of the General Court of the European Union of 8 February 2019, Schokker v EASA (T-817/17, not published, EU:T:2019:74);

| 2. | Orders the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) to pay compensation in the sum of EUR 7 500 to Mr Boudewijn Schokker; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) to pay compensation in the sum of EUR 7 500 to Mr Boudewijn Schokker;

| 3. | Orders the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) to pay its own costs relating to the proceedings at first instance in Case T-817/17 and the appeal proceedings as well as those incurred by Mr Boudewijn Schokker relating to both those proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) to pay its own costs relating to the proceedings at first instance in Case T-817/17 and the appeal proceedings as well as those incurred by Mr Boudewijn Schokker relating to both those proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 255, 29.7.2019.

---

| 10.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 4 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Koblenz — Germany) — Remondis GmbH v Abfallzweckverband Rhein-Mosel-Eifel

(Case C-429/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Directive 2014/24/EU - Article 12(4) - Scope - Public contracts between entities within the public sector - Definition of ‘cooperation’ - None)

(2020/C 262/11)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Koblenz

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Remondis GmbH

Defendant: Abfallzweckverband Rhein-Mosel-Eifel

Operative part of the judgment

Article 12(4)(a) of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC must be interpreted as meaning that cooperation between contracting authorities cannot be said to exist where a contracting authority which is responsible for a task in the public interest within its territory does not itself perform the entirety of that task — which is incumbent on it alone under national law and for the performance of which a number of operations are required — but rather commissions another contracting authority that is independent of it and is likewise responsible for that public interest task within its own territory to carry out one of the operations required in return for consideration.

---

(1)  OJ C 288, 26.8.2019.

---

| 10.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 4 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Cluj — Romania) — SC C.F. SRL v A.J.F.P.M. and D.G.R.F.P.C

(Case C-430/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Principles of EU law - Observance of the rights of the defence - Tax procedure - Exercise of the right to deduct with regard to value added tax (VAT) - Refusal of the right to deduct on account of the allegedly improper conduct of the taxable person’s suppliers - Administrative act issued by the national tax authorities without giving the taxpayer access to the information and the documents on which the act was based - Suspicion of tax evasion - National practice pursuant to which exercise of the right to deduct is subject to the possession of supporting documents other than the tax invoice - Whether permissible)

(2020/C 262/12)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SC C.F. SRL

Defendants: A.J.F.P.M. and D.G.R.F.P.C

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The general EU law principle of observance of the rights of the defence must be interpreted as meaning that where, in the context of national administrative procedures for inspection and for determining the taxable amount for value added tax purposes, a taxable person has not been allowed access to the information in the administrative file that was taken into consideration when an administrative decision imposing additional tax liabilities on that taxable person was adopted, and where the court hearing the case finds that, in the absence of that irregularity, the outcome of the procedure might have been different, that principle requires that that decision be annulled. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The general EU law principle of observance of the rights of the defence must be interpreted as meaning that where, in the context of national administrative procedures for inspection and for determining the taxable amount for value added tax purposes, a taxable person has not been allowed access to the information in the administrative file that was taken into consideration when an administrative decision imposing additional tax liabilities on that taxable person was adopted, and where the court hearing the case finds that, in the absence of that irregularity, the outcome of the procedure might have been different, that principle requires that that decision be annulled.

| 2. | The principles governing the application by the Member States of the common system of value added tax (VAT), in particular the principles of fiscal neutrality and legal certainty, must be interpreted as precluding, in the event that a national tax authority merely has uncorroborated doubts about whether the economic operations giving rise to the issue of a tax invoice were actually carried out, the taxable person to which that invoice is addressed from being refused the right to deduct VAT where he is unable to produce, in addition to the invoice, other evidence that the economic operations were actually carried out. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The principles governing the application by the Member States of the common system of value added tax (VAT), in particular the principles of fiscal neutrality and legal certainty, must be interpreted as precluding, in the event that a national tax authority merely has uncorroborated doubts about whether the economic operations giving rise to the issue of a tax invoice were actually carried out, the taxable person to which that invoice is addressed from being refused the right to deduct VAT where he is unable to produce, in addition to the invoice, other evidence that the economic operations were actually carried out.

---

(1)  OJ C 288, 26.8.2019.

---

| 10.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 4 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Poznaniu — Poland) — Kancelaria Medius SA z siedzibą w Krakowie v RN

(Case C-495/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Article 7(1) - Consumer credit - Review of whether the contractual terms are unfair - Failure of the consumer to appear at the hearing - Scope of the court’s powers and obligations)

(2020/C 262/13)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Poznaniu (Regional Court, Poznań, Poland)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Kancelaria Medius SA z siedzibą w Krakowie

Defendant: RN

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as precluding the interpretation of a national provision whereby a court hearing an action brought against a consumer by a seller or supplier, which falls within the scope of Directive 93/13, and giving judgment in default, where that consumer has failed to appear at the hearing to which he was invited, is prevented from adopting the measures of inquiry needed in order to examine of its own motion whether the contractual terms on which the seller or supplier based its action are unfair, when that court has doubts as to whether those terms are unfair, within the meaning of that directive.

---

(1)  OJ C 337, 7.10.2019.

---

| 10.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Stuttgart (Germany) lodged on 13 March 2020 — O. v P. AG

(Case C-138/20)

(2020/C 262/14)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Stuttgart

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: O.

Defendant: P.AG

Questions referred

1.   Interpretation of the term ‘defeat device’

| 1-1: | Is point 10 of Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 (1) to be interpreted and applied as meaning that the term ‘element of design’ only covers exclusively mechanical elements of a physical structure?
  If Question 1-1 is answered in the negative: |
| --- | --- |

1-1:

Is point 10 of Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 (1) to be interpreted and applied as meaning that the term ‘element of design’ only covers exclusively mechanical elements of a physical structure?

If Question 1-1 is answered in the negative:

| 1-2: | Is point 10 of Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 to be interpreted and applied as meaning that the emission control system only covers the exhaust gas purification installation downstream in the engine system (for example, in the form of diesel oxidation catalysts, diesel particulate filters, NOx reduction catalysts)? |
| --- | --- |

1-2:

Is point 10 of Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 to be interpreted and applied as meaning that the emission control system only covers the exhaust gas purification installation downstream in the engine system (for example, in the form of diesel oxidation catalysts, diesel particulate filters, NOx reduction catalysts)?

| 1-3: | Is point 10 of Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 to be interpreted and applied as meaning that the emission control system covers both engine-internal and engine-external emission reduction measures? |
| --- | --- |

1-3:

Is point 10 of Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 to be interpreted and applied as meaning that the emission control system covers both engine-internal and engine-external emission reduction measures?

2.   Interpretation of the term ‘normal use’

| 2-1: | Is Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 to be interpreted and applied as meaning that the term ‘normal use’ only refers to the driving conditions in the NEDC cycle?
  If Question 2-1 is answered in the negative: |
| --- | --- |

2-1:

Is Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 to be interpreted and applied as meaning that the term ‘normal use’ only refers to the driving conditions in the NEDC cycle?

If Question 2-1 is answered in the negative:

| 2-2: | Is the second subparagraph of Article 4(1) in conjunction with Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 to be interpreted and applied as meaning that manufacturers must ensure that the limits laid down in Annex I to the Regulation are also complied with in everyday use?
  If Question 2-2 is answered in the affirmative: |
| --- | --- |

2-2:

Is the second subparagraph of Article 4(1) in conjunction with Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 to be interpreted and applied as meaning that manufacturers must ensure that the limits laid down in Annex I to the Regulation are also complied with in everyday use?

If Question 2-2 is answered in the affirmative:

| 2-3: | Is Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 to be interpreted and applied as meaning that the term ‘normal use’ refers to the actual driving conditions in everyday use?
  If Question 2-3 is answered in the negative: |
| --- | --- |

2-3:

Is Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 to be interpreted and applied as meaning that the term ‘normal use’ refers to the actual driving conditions in everyday use?

If Question 2-3 is answered in the negative:

| 2-4: | Is Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 to be interpreted and applied as meaning that the term ‘normal use’ refers to the actual driving conditions in everyday use on the basis of an average speed of 33.6 km/h and a maximum speed of 120 km/h? |
| --- | --- |

2-4:

Is Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 to be interpreted and applied as meaning that the term ‘normal use’ refers to the actual driving conditions in everyday use on the basis of an average speed of 33.6 km/h and a maximum speed of 120 km/h?

3.   Permissibility of temperature-dependent emission reduction strategies

| 3-1: | Is Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 to be interpreted and applied as meaning that it is not permissible to equip a vehicle so that a component likely to affect emissions is designed so as to regulate the exhaust gas recirculation rate in such a way that it only ensures a low-emission mode between 20o and 30 oC and is gradually reduced outside of that temperature window?
  If Question 3-1 is answered in the negative: |
| --- | --- |

3-1:

Is Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 to be interpreted and applied as meaning that it is not permissible to equip a vehicle so that a component likely to affect emissions is designed so as to regulate the exhaust gas recirculation rate in such a way that it only ensures a low-emission mode between 20o and 30 oC and is gradually reduced outside of that temperature window?

If Question 3-1 is answered in the negative:

| 3-2: | Is Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 to be interpreted and applied as meaning that a defeat device is nevertheless prohibited if it continually operates outside of the temperature window between 20o and 30 oC to protect the engine and the exhaust gas recirculation is thereby significantly reduced? |
| --- | --- |

3-2:

Is Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 to be interpreted and applied as meaning that a defeat device is nevertheless prohibited if it continually operates outside of the temperature window between 20o and 30 oC to protect the engine and the exhaust gas recirculation is thereby significantly reduced?

4.   Interpretation of the term ‘need’ within the meaning of the exception

| 4-1: | Is Article 5(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 to be interpreted and applied as meaning that a need for the use of defeat devices within the meaning of that provision is only to be found if, even using the state-of-the-art technology available when type approval was obtained for the vehicle model in question, the protection of the engine against damage or accident and the safe operation of the vehicle could not be guaranteed?
  If Question 4-1 is answered in the negative: |
| --- | --- |

4-1:

Is Article 5(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 to be interpreted and applied as meaning that a need for the use of defeat devices within the meaning of that provision is only to be found if, even using the state-of-the-art technology available when type approval was obtained for the vehicle model in question, the protection of the engine against damage or accident and the safe operation of the vehicle could not be guaranteed?

If Question 4-1 is answered in the negative:

| 4-2: | Is Article 5(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 to be interpreted and applied as meaning that a need for the use of defeat devices within the meaning of that provision is to be excluded if the parameters set in the engine control unit are selected such that, on account of its predetermined temperature dependency, the exhaust gas purification is not activated or only activated to a limited extent for most of the year due to the temperatures which are usually to be expected? |
| --- | --- |

4-2:

Is Article 5(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 to be interpreted and applied as meaning that a need for the use of defeat devices within the meaning of that provision is to be excluded if the parameters set in the engine control unit are selected such that, on account of its predetermined temperature dependency, the exhaust gas purification is not activated or only activated to a limited extent for most of the year due to the temperatures which are usually to be expected?

5.   Interpretation of the term ‘damage’ within the meaning of the exception

| 5-1: | Is Article 5(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 to be interpreted and applied as meaning that only the engine is to be protected against damage? |
| --- | --- |

5-1:

Is Article 5(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 to be interpreted and applied as meaning that only the engine is to be protected against damage?

| 5-2: | Is Article 5(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 to be interpreted and applied as meaning that the concept of damage is to be excluded if what are known as wear parts (for example, the EGR valve) are affected? |
| --- | --- |

5-2:

Is Article 5(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 to be interpreted and applied as meaning that the concept of damage is to be excluded if what are known as wear parts (for example, the EGR valve) are affected?

| 5-3: | Is Article 5(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 to be interpreted and applied as meaning that other components of the vehicle, in particular the components downstream in the exhaust gas system, are also to be protected against damage or accident? |
| --- | --- |

5-3:

Is Article 5(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 to be interpreted and applied as meaning that other components of the vehicle, in particular the components downstream in the exhaust gas system, are also to be protected against damage or accident?

6.   Legal and penal consequences of breaches of EU law

| 6-1: | Are the second subparagraph of Article 4(1), the second subparagraph of Article 4(2), Article 5(1) and (2) and Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 to be interpreted and applied as at least also protecting the assets of the purchaser of a vehicle which does not meet the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007?
  If Question 6-1 is answered in the negative: |
| --- | --- |

6-1:

Are the second subparagraph of Article 4(1), the second subparagraph of Article 4(2), Article 5(1) and (2) and Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 to be interpreted and applied as at least also protecting the assets of the purchaser of a vehicle which does not meet the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007?

If Question 6-1 is answered in the negative:

| 6-2: | Are the second subparagraph of Article 4(1), the second subparagraph of Article 4(2), Article 5(1) and (2) and Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 to be interpreted and applied as meaning that the Member States must provide a penalty mechanism granting purchasers of vehicles, for reasons of effet utile, a right of action for the enforcement of market-regulating EU law? |
| --- | --- |

6-2:

Are the second subparagraph of Article 4(1), the second subparagraph of Article 4(2), Article 5(1) and (2) and Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 to be interpreted and applied as meaning that the Member States must provide a penalty mechanism granting purchasers of vehicles, for reasons of effet utile, a right of action for the enforcement of market-regulating EU law?

| 6-3: | Are Article 18(1) and Article 26(1) of Directive 2007/46/EC (2) to be interpreted and applied as meaning that the manufacturer is in breach of his obligation to issue a valid certificate of conformity under Article 18(1) of Directive 2007/46/EC if he has installed in the vehicle a prohibited defeat device within the meaning of Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007, and that placing such a vehicle on the market is in breach of the prohibition of sale without a valid certificate of conformity under Article 26(1) of Directive 2007/46/EC? |
| --- | --- |

6-3:

Are Article 18(1) and Article 26(1) of Directive 2007/46/EC (2) to be interpreted and applied as meaning that the manufacturer is in breach of his obligation to issue a valid certificate of conformity under Article 18(1) of Directive 2007/46/EC if he has installed in the vehicle a prohibited defeat device within the meaning of Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007, and that placing such a vehicle on the market is in breach of the prohibition of sale without a valid certificate of conformity under Article 26(1) of Directive 2007/46/EC?

| 6-4: | Is it the purpose and intention of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 and of Directive 2007/46/EC that the limits laid down in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 and the certificate of conformity within the meaning of Article 18(1) of Directive 2007/46/EC in conjunction with Regulation (EC) No 385/2009 (3) establish customer-protection rights in such a way that breach of the quality-establishing limits of the Regulation or of approval law prohibits, under EU law, offsetting of benefits of use if the vehicle is returned to the manufacturer? |
| --- | --- |

6-4:

Is it the purpose and intention of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 and of Directive 2007/46/EC that the limits laid down in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 and the certificate of conformity within the meaning of Article 18(1) of Directive 2007/46/EC in conjunction with Regulation (EC) No 385/2009 (3) establish customer-protection rights in such a way that breach of the quality-establishing limits of the Regulation or of approval law prohibits, under EU law, offsetting of benefits of use if the vehicle is returned to the manufacturer?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2007 on type approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information (OJ 2007 L 171, p. 1).

(2)  Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles (Framework Directive) (OJ 2007 L 263, p. 1).

(3)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 385/2009 of 7 May 2009 replacing Annex IX to Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles (Framework Directive) (OJ 2009 L 118, p. 13).

---

| 10.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/12

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice Business and Property Courts of England and Wales (United Kingdom) made on 22 April 2020 — Joint Trustee (1) in Bankruptcy of Mr M. and Joint Trustee (2) in Bankruptcy of Mr M. v Mrs M, MH, ILA and Mr M

(Case C-168/20)

(2020/C 262/15)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice Business and Property Courts of England and Wales

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Joint Trustee (1) in Bankruptcy of Mr M. and Joint Trustee (2) in Bankruptcy of Mr M.

Respondents: Mrs M, MH, ILA and Mr M

Questions referred

| 1) | Where a national of a Member State has exercised his rights under Articles 21, 49 TFEU and the Citizens’ Rights Directive (Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38/EC) (1) by moving to or establishing himself in the United Kingdom, is it compatible with those provisions for section 11 WRPA 1999 to make exclusion from bankruptcy of pension rights in a pension scheme, including those established and tax approved in another Member State, dependent on the pension scheme being, at the time of the bankruptcy, registered under s 153 FA 2004 or prescribed by regulation 2 of the 2002 Regulations and thus tax approved in the United Kingdom? |
| --- | --- |

1)

Where a national of a Member State has exercised his rights under Articles 21, 49 TFEU and the Citizens’ Rights Directive (Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38/EC) (1) by moving to or establishing himself in the United Kingdom, is it compatible with those provisions for section 11 WRPA 1999 to make exclusion from bankruptcy of pension rights in a pension scheme, including those established and tax approved in another Member State, dependent on the pension scheme being, at the time of the bankruptcy, registered under s 153 FA 2004 or prescribed by regulation 2 of the 2002 Regulations and thus tax approved in the United Kingdom?

| 2) | In answering Question 1), is it relevant or necessary:






  a) | to determine whether the individual moved to the United Kingdom in order, primarily, to declare his bankruptcy in the United Kingdom? |
| --- | --- | --- |

2)

In answering Question 1), is it relevant or necessary:

a)

to determine whether the individual moved to the United Kingdom in order, primarily, to declare his bankruptcy in the United Kingdom?

| b) | to take into account (i) the protections which may be available to the bankrupt in respect of unapproved pension schemes under s 12 WRPA 1999 and (ii) the possibility for the trustees in bankruptcy to recover sums in respect of approved pension arrangements? |
| --- | --- |

b)

to take into account (i) the protections which may be available to the bankrupt in respect of unapproved pension schemes under s 12 WRPA 1999 and (ii) the possibility for the trustees in bankruptcy to recover sums in respect of approved pension arrangements?

| c) | to take into account the requirements to which pension schemes registered and tax approved in the United Kingdom are subject? |
| --- | --- |

c)

to take into account the requirements to which pension schemes registered and tax approved in the United Kingdom are subject?

---

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

---

| 10.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/13

---

Appeal brought on 28 April 2020 by Hungary against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 12 February 2020 in Case T-505/18, Hungary v European Commission

(Case C-185/20 P)

(2020/C 262/16)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Appellant: Hungary (represented by: M.Z. Fehér and G. Koós, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment delivered by the General Court in Case T-505/18 of 12 February 2020; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment delivered by the General Court in Case T-505/18 of 12 February 2020;

| — | annul in part Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/873 of 13 June 2018 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in the part concerning Hungary, which excludes from EU financing the aid granted to producer groups which have qualified recognition; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul in part Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/873 of 13 June 2018 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in the part concerning Hungary, which excludes from EU financing the aid granted to producer groups which have qualified recognition;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The Hungarian Government bases its appeal, in essence, on two arguments according to the criteria established in the case-law of the Court of Justice.

In the first place, as regards the first ground of its appeal, the Hungarian Government submits that the General Court failed to take proper account of the arguments put forward by Hungary and misinterpreted the arguments made in the application and presented at the hearing. The General Court somewhat simplified and failed to respond to Hungary’s argument that conversion into a qualified producer group presupposes a profound transformation of the producer group and, where necessary, changes to the group’s composition. Where aid is granted to a group that has taken the form of a qualified producer group, it is not granted to the original group, but to a new entity that also meets the objectives laid down in the regulation (to facilitate the setting up and administrative operation of producer groups). The General Court did not respond to that argument on the substance and failed to examine the relationship between qualified producer groups and producer groups.

In the second place, as regards the second ground of its appeal, the Hungarian Government submits that the General Court also erred in law in a way that resulted in a significant infringement of its procedural rights. The statement of reasons for the judgment under appeal is manifestly inadequate in respect of legal certainty, which formed part of the second plea in law, and in respect of the argument put forward, according to the General Court, only a posteriori at the hearing and, in essence, the General Court confined itself to stating its position purely declaratively, without any kind of reasoning.

The General Court ought to have examined the period covered by the exclusion and interpreted to that effect Article 52(4)(c) and/or (b) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013, (1) even if it considered that the Hungarian Government had not duly substantiated the link between that issue and the second plea in law, including the link to the principle of legal certainty. However, on that point, the General Court misinterpreted EU law, specifically Article 52(4) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013, by failing to regard that provision as an issue to be examined of its own motion.

Lastly, the Hungarian Government concludes its line of argument relating to the second ground of appeal with certain additional observations regarding infringement of the principle of proportionality.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 549).

---

| 10.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 8 May 2020 — BY, CX, FU, DW, EV v Stadt Duisburg

(Case C-194/20)

(2020/C 262/17)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: BY, CX, FU, DW, EV

Defendant: Stadt Duisburg

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the entitlement of Turkish children under the first sentence of Article 9 of Decision No 1/80 (1) also include a right of residence in the host Member State without the need to fulfil further conditions? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the entitlement of Turkish children under the first sentence of Article 9 of Decision No 1/80 (1) also include a right of residence in the host Member State without the need to fulfil further conditions?

| 2. | If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:






  (a) | Does an entitlement to residence under the first sentence of Article 9 of Decision No 1/80 require that the parents of the Turkish children benefiting from that provision have already acquired rights under Article 6(1) or Article 7 of Decision No 1/80? |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:

(a)

Does an entitlement to residence under the first sentence of Article 9 of Decision No 1/80 require that the parents of the Turkish children benefiting from that provision have already acquired rights under Article 6(1) or Article 7 of Decision No 1/80?

| (b) | If Question 2(a) is answered in the negative: Is legal employment within the meaning of the first sentence of Article 9 of Decision No 1/80 to be interpreted in the same way as in Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

If Question 2(a) is answered in the negative: Is legal employment within the meaning of the first sentence of Article 9 of Decision No 1/80 to be interpreted in the same way as in Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80?

| (c) | If Question 2(a) is answered in the negative: Can an entitlement to residence in respect of Turkish children under the first sentence of Article 9 of Decision No 1/80 already arise after one of the parents has been in legal employment in the host Member State for a period of (only) three months? |
| --- | --- |

(c)

If Question 2(a) is answered in the negative: Can an entitlement to residence in respect of Turkish children under the first sentence of Article 9 of Decision No 1/80 already arise after one of the parents has been in legal employment in the host Member State for a period of (only) three months?

| (d) | If Question 2(a) is answered in the negative: Does the right of residence of Turkish children also entail, without the need to fulfil further conditions, a right of residence for one or both parents with custody? |
| --- | --- |

(d)

If Question 2(a) is answered in the negative: Does the right of residence of Turkish children also entail, without the need to fulfil further conditions, a right of residence for one or both parents with custody?

---

(1)  Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association.

---

| 10.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/14

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom) made on 15 May 2020 — VA v Prosecutor of the regional prosecutor’s office in Ruse, Bulgaria

(Case C-206/20)

(2020/C 262/18)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: VA

Respondent: Prosecutor of the regional prosecutor’s office in Ruse, Bulgaria

Question referred

Where surrender is sought in order to prosecute a requested person, and where the decision to issue an underlying national arrest warrant (‘NAW’) and the decision to issue a European arrest warrant (‘EAW’) are both taken by a public prosecutor, without any involvement of a Court prior to surrender, does a requested person receive the dual level of protection envisaged by the Court in Bob-Dogi C-241/15, (ECLI:EU:C:2016:385) if:

| a) | the effect of the NAW is limited to detaining the individual for a maximum of 72 hours for the purpose of bringing him before a Court; and |
| --- | --- |

a)

the effect of the NAW is limited to detaining the individual for a maximum of 72 hours for the purpose of bringing him before a Court; and

| b) | on surrender, it is solely a matter for the Court whether to order release, or to continue detention, in light of all the circumstances of the case? |
| --- | --- |

b)

on surrender, it is solely a matter for the Court whether to order release, or to continue detention, in light of all the circumstances of the case?

---

| 10.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/15

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 22 May 2020 — Renesola UK Ltd v The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

(Case C-209/20)

(2020/C 262/19)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Renesola UK Ltd

Respondent: The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Commission Implementing Regulation 1357/2013/EU (1), to the extent that it purports to determine the country of origin of solar modules manufactured from materials coming from several jurisdictions by ascribing origin to the country where the solar cells were manufactured, contrary to the requirement in Article 24 of Council Regulation 2913/92/EEC (2) (the Community Customs Code), namely that goods whose production involves more than one country shall be deemed to originate in the country where they underwent their last substantial economically justified processing or working in an undertaking equipped for that purpose and resulting in the manufacture of a new product or representing an important stage of manufacture, and hence invalid? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Commission Implementing Regulation 1357/2013/EU (1), to the extent that it purports to determine the country of origin of solar modules manufactured from materials coming from several jurisdictions by ascribing origin to the country where the solar cells were manufactured, contrary to the requirement in Article 24 of Council Regulation 2913/92/EEC (2) (the Community Customs Code), namely that goods whose production involves more than one country shall be deemed to originate in the country where they underwent their last substantial economically justified processing or working in an undertaking equipped for that purpose and resulting in the manufacture of a new product or representing an important stage of manufacture, and hence invalid?

| 2. | If Regulation 1357/2013 is invalid, is Article 24 of the Community Customs Code to be interpreted as meaning that the assembly of solar modules from solar cells and other parts constitutes a substantial processing or working? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If Regulation 1357/2013 is invalid, is Article 24 of the Community Customs Code to be interpreted as meaning that the assembly of solar modules from solar cells and other parts constitutes a substantial processing or working?

---

(1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1357/2013 of 17 December 2013 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 2013, L 341, p. 47).

(2)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code

(OJ 1992, L 302, p. 1).

---

| 10.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/16

---

Appeal brought on 22 May 2020 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 12 March 2020 in Case T-732/16, Valencia Club de Fútbol v European Commission

(Case C-211/20 P)

(2020/C 262/20)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: European Commission

Other parties to the proceedings: Valencia Club de Fútbol, S.A.D. and Kingdom of Spain

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as, in that judgment, the General Court annuls Commission Decision (EU) 2017/365 of 4 July 2016 on the State aid SA.36387 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) (ex 2013/CP) implemented by Spain for Valencia Club de Fútbol Sociedad Anónima Deportiva, Hércules Club de Fútbol Sociedad Anónima Deportiva and Elche Club de Fútbol Sociedad Anónima Deportiva (OJ 2017 L 55, p. 12) in respect of Measure 1, consisting in the State guarantee provided by the IVF on 5 November 2009 to cover the bank loan to Fundación Valencia for the subscription of shares in Valencia CF, in the context of the operation to increase the capital of Valencia CF; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as, in that judgment, the General Court annuls Commission Decision (EU) 2017/365 of 4 July 2016 on the State aid SA.36387 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) (ex 2013/CP) implemented by Spain for Valencia Club de Fútbol Sociedad Anónima Deportiva, Hércules Club de Fútbol Sociedad Anónima Deportiva and Elche Club de Fútbol Sociedad Anónima Deportiva (OJ 2017 L 55, p. 12) in respect of Measure 1, consisting in the State guarantee provided by the IVF on 5 November 2009 to cover the bank loan to Fundación Valencia for the subscription of shares in Valencia CF, in the context of the operation to increase the capital of Valencia CF;

| — | refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union; and |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union; and

| — | reserve the decision on costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

reserve the decision on costs.

Sole ground of appeal:

The Commission bases its appeal on a single ground of appeal, alleging that the General Court erred in law by incorrectly interpreting Article 107(1) of the Treaty, in particular with regard to demonstrating the existence of an advantage. More specifically, in paragraphs 124 to 138 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court (i) misinterpreted the Commission Notice on the application of Articles [107 TFEU] and [108 TFEU] to State aid in the form of guarantees (OJ 2008 C 155, p. 10) in connection with the Communication from the Commission on the revision of the method for setting the reference and discount rates (OJ 2008 C 14, p. 6) and misinterpreted the decision at issue; (ii) erred in law as regards the standard of the burden of proof concerning the existence of an advantage arising from an individual guarantee and as regards the Commission’s obligation of due diligence in a formal investigation procedure; and (iii) distorted the facts.

---

| 10.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/16

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Labour Court, Ireland, made on 20 May 2020 — MG v Dublin City Council

(Case C-214/20)

(2020/C 262/21)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

The Labour Court, Ireland

Parties to the main proceedings

Complainant: MG

Respondent: Dublin City Council

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 2 of the Directive (1) be interpreted to mean that a worker, when ‘on call’ at a location or locations of his choosing without requirement at any time while on- call to notify the employer of his or her location, but subject only to the requirement that the worker be able to respond to a ‘call in’ within a desirable turn-out period of 5 minutes and a maximum turn-out period of 10 minutes, is engaged in working time while on-call? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 2 of the Directive (1) be interpreted to mean that a worker, when ‘on call’ at a location or locations of his choosing without requirement at any time while on- call to notify the employer of his or her location, but subject only to the requirement that the worker be able to respond to a ‘call in’ within a desirable turn-out period of 5 minutes and a maximum turn-out period of 10 minutes, is engaged in working time while on-call?

| 2. | If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative, can a worker who is not restricted other than by a requirement to respond to a call- in within a desirable turn-out period of 5 minutes and a maximum turn-out period of 10 minutes, and who is able, without restriction, to be employed contemporaneously by another employer or to engage in business on his own account while ‘on-call’, be regarded as engaged in ‘working time’ on behalf of the employer in respect of which employment he or she is ‘on call’? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative, can a worker who is not restricted other than by a requirement to respond to a call- in within a desirable turn-out period of 5 minutes and a maximum turn-out period of 10 minutes, and who is able, without restriction, to be employed contemporaneously by another employer or to engage in business on his own account while ‘on-call’, be regarded as engaged in ‘working time’ on behalf of the employer in respect of which employment he or she is ‘on call’?

| 3. | If the answer to the second question is in the affirmative, if the worker actually is employed by a second employer while ‘on call’, subject only to a requirement that the second employer must release the worker when called in by the first employer, mean that the time spent by the worker ‘on call’ and working for the second employer be regarded as working time in terms of his relationship with the first employer? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the answer to the second question is in the affirmative, if the worker actually is employed by a second employer while ‘on call’, subject only to a requirement that the second employer must release the worker when called in by the first employer, mean that the time spent by the worker ‘on call’ and working for the second employer be regarded as working time in terms of his relationship with the first employer?

| 4. | If the answer to the third question is in the affirmative, does a worker who works for a second employer while on call to his first employer accrue working time in relation to the first and second employer contemporaneously? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If the answer to the third question is in the affirmative, does a worker who works for a second employer while on call to his first employer accrue working time in relation to the first and second employer contemporaneously?

---

(1)  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 (OJ 2003, L 299, p. 9).

---

| 10.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/17

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 28 May 2020 — A Oy

(Case C-221/20)

(2020/C 262/22)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: A Oy

Other party: Veronsaajien oikeudenvalvontayksikkö

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 4 of Directive 92/83/EEC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a Member State which applies reduced rates of excise duty to beer brewed by independent small breweries pursuant to that provision must also apply the provision on the joint taxation of small breweries contained in the second sentence of Article 4(2) of that directive, or is the application of the latter provision left to the discretion of the Member State concerned? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 4 of Directive 92/83/EEC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a Member State which applies reduced rates of excise duty to beer brewed by independent small breweries pursuant to that provision must also apply the provision on the joint taxation of small breweries contained in the second sentence of Article 4(2) of that directive, or is the application of the latter provision left to the discretion of the Member State concerned?

| 2. | Does the second sentence of Article 4(2) of Directive 92/83/EEC have direct effect? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the second sentence of Article 4(2) of Directive 92/83/EEC have direct effect?

---

(1)  Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages (OJ 1992 L 316, p. 21).

---

| 10.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/18

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 28 May 2020 — B Oy

(Case C-223/20)

(2020/C 262/23)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: B Oy

Other party: Veronsaajien oikeudenvalvontayksikkö

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 4 of Directive 92/83/EEC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a Member State which applies reduced rates of excise duty to beer produced by independent small breweries pursuant to that provision must also apply the provision on the joint taxation of small breweries contained in the second sentence of Article 4(2) of that directive, or is the application of the latter provision left to the discretion of the Member State concerned? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 4 of Directive 92/83/EEC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a Member State which applies reduced rates of excise duty to beer produced by independent small breweries pursuant to that provision must also apply the provision on the joint taxation of small breweries contained in the second sentence of Article 4(2) of that directive, or is the application of the latter provision left to the discretion of the Member State concerned?

| 2. | Does the second sentence of Article 4(2) of Directive 92/83/EEC have direct effect? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the second sentence of Article 4(2) of Directive 92/83/EEC have direct effect?

---

(1)  Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages (OJ 1992 L 316, p. 21).

---

| 10.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/18

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) (Latvia) lodged on 4 June 2020 — SIA ‘Sātiņi-S’ v Lauku atbalsta dienests

(Case C-234/20)

(2020/C 262/24)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa (Senāts)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SIA ‘Sātiņi-S’

Defendant: Lauku atbalsta dienests

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 30(6)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 (1) be interpreted as meaning that peat bogs are completely excluded from Natura 2000 payments? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 30(6)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 (1) be interpreted as meaning that peat bogs are completely excluded from Natura 2000 payments?

| 2. | If the reply to the first question is in the negative, are peat bogs included in agricultural or forest areas? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the reply to the first question is in the negative, are peat bogs included in agricultural or forest areas?

| 3. | If the reply to the first question is in the negative, must Article 30 of Regulation No 1305/2013 be interpreted as meaning that a Member State may completely exclude peat bogs from Natura 2000 payments and that such national provisions are compatible with the compensatory aim of those payments established in Regulation No 1305/2013? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the reply to the first question is in the negative, must Article 30 of Regulation No 1305/2013 be interpreted as meaning that a Member State may completely exclude peat bogs from Natura 2000 payments and that such national provisions are compatible with the compensatory aim of those payments established in Regulation No 1305/2013?

| 4. | Must Article 30 of Regulation No 1305/2013 be interpreted as meaning that a Member State may restrict support payments for Natura 2000 areas by making support available only in connection with restrictions on a particular type of economic activity, for example, by limiting support in forest areas to forestry activities? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Must Article 30 of Regulation No 1305/2013 be interpreted as meaning that a Member State may restrict support payments for Natura 2000 areas by making support available only in connection with restrictions on a particular type of economic activity, for example, by limiting support in forest areas to forestry activities?

| 5. | Must Article 30(1) of Regulation No 1305/2013, read together with Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as meaning that someone is entitled to a Natura 2000 payment by virtue of his plans for a new economic activity if, when he acquired the property, he was already aware of the restrictions that applied to it? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Must Article 30(1) of Regulation No 1305/2013, read together with Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as meaning that someone is entitled to a Natura 2000 payment by virtue of his plans for a new economic activity if, when he acquired the property, he was already aware of the restrictions that applied to it?

---

(1)  OJ 2013 L 347, p. 487.

---

| 10.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/19

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) (Latvia) lodged on 5 June 2020 — SIA ‘Sātiņi-S’ v Dabas aizsardzības pārvalde

(Case C-238/20)

(2020/C 262/25)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa (Senāts)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SIA ‘Sātiņi-S’

Defendant: Dabas aizsardzības pārvalde

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the right to fair compensation for limits on the right to property that is guaranteed by Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union allow the compensation awarded by a State for the losses caused to aquaculture in a Natura 2000 network area by protected birds, in accordance with Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds, to be significantly less than the losses actually suffered? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the right to fair compensation for limits on the right to property that is guaranteed by Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union allow the compensation awarded by a State for the losses caused to aquaculture in a Natura 2000 network area by protected birds, in accordance with Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds, to be significantly less than the losses actually suffered?

| 2. | Does the compensation awarded by a State for the losses caused to aquaculture in a Natura 2000 network area by protected birds, in accordance with Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds, constitute State aid within the meaning of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the compensation awarded by a State for the losses caused to aquaculture in a Natura 2000 network area by protected birds, in accordance with Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds, constitute State aid within the meaning of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union?

| 3. | If the answer to the second question is in the affirmative, is the de minimis aid limit of EUR 30 000 laid down in Article 3(2) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 717/2014 of 27 June 2014 on the application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to de minimis aid in the fishery and aquaculture sector (2) applicable to compensation such as that at issue in the dispute in the main proceedings? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the answer to the second question is in the affirmative, is the de minimis aid limit of EUR 30 000 laid down in Article 3(2) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 717/2014 of 27 June 2014 on the application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to de minimis aid in the fishery and aquaculture sector (2) applicable to compensation such as that at issue in the dispute in the main proceedings?

---

(1)  OJ 2010 L 20, p. 7.

(2)  OJ 2014 L 190, p. 45.

---

| 10.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/20

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Visoki trgovački sud Republike Hrvatske (Croatia) lodged on 8 June 2020 — HRVATSKE Šume d.o.o., Zagreb, as the legal successor to HRVATSKE ŠUME javno poduzeće za gospodarenje šumama i šumskim zemljištima u Republici Hrvatskoj, p.o. Zagreb v BP EUROPA SE, as the legal successor to DEUTSCHE BP AG, as the legal successor to THE BURMAH OIL (Deutschland), GmbH

(Case C-242/20)

(2020/C 262/26)

Language of the case: Croatian

Referring court

Visoki trgovački sud Republike Hrvatske

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: HRVATSKE Šume d.o.o., Zagreb, as the legal successor to HRVATSKE ŠUME javno poduzeće za gospodarenje šumama i šumskim zemljištima u Republici Hrvatskoj, p.o. Zagreb

Defendant: BP EUROPA SE, as the legal successor to DEUTSCHE BP AG, as the legal successor to THE BURMAH OIL (Deutschland), GmbH

Questions referred

| 1. | Do actions for recovery of sums unduly paid by way of unjust enrichment fall within the basic jurisdiction established in Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (1)... in respect of ‘quasi-delicts’ since Article 5(3) thereof provides inter alia:: ‘A person domiciled in a Member State may, in another Member State, be sued ... in matters relating to ... quasi-delict, in the courts for the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur’? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do actions for recovery of sums unduly paid by way of unjust enrichment fall within the basic jurisdiction established in Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (1)... in respect of ‘quasi-delicts’ since Article 5(3) thereof provides inter alia:: ‘A person domiciled in a Member State may, in another Member State, be sued ... in matters relating to ... quasi-delict, in the courts for the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur’?

| 2. | Since there is a time limit on seeking recovery of sums unduly paid in the same judicial enforcement proceedings, do civil proceedings which have been initiated fall within exclusive jurisdiction under Article 22(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 ... which provides that in proceedings concerned with the enforcement of judgments, the courts of the Member State in which the judgment has been or is to be enforced is to have exclusive jurisdiction, regardless of domicile? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Since there is a time limit on seeking recovery of sums unduly paid in the same judicial enforcement proceedings, do civil proceedings which have been initiated fall within exclusive jurisdiction under Article 22(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 ... which provides that in proceedings concerned with the enforcement of judgments, the courts of the Member State in which the judgment has been or is to be enforced is to have exclusive jurisdiction, regardless of domicile?

---

(1)  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).

---

General Court

| 10.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/21

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2020 –Poland v Commission

(Case T-506/18) (1)

(EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Specific support for the tobacco sector - Expenditure incurred by Poland - Key controls - Flat-rate corrections - Obligation to state reasons)

(2020/C 262/27)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, B. Włodarczyk, B. Straś and M. Wiące, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Aquilina, B. Hofstötter, M. Kaduczak and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU for the partial annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/873 of 13 June 2018 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2018 L 152, p. 29).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.

---

| 10.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/21

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2020 — Dermavita v EUIPO — Allergan Holdings France (JUVÉDERM)

(Case T-104/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark JUVÉDERM - Genuine use of the mark - Use in connection with the goods in respect of which the mark was registered - Use in the form in which the mark was registered - Use with the proprietor’s consent - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2020/C 262/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Dermavita Co. Ltd (Beirut, Lebanon) (represented by: G. Paricheva, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Allergan Holdings France (Courbevoie, France) (represented by: J. Day, Solicitor, and T. de Haan, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 December 2018 (Case R 2630/2017-4), relating to revocation proceedings between Dermavita and Allergan Holdings France.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

Orders Dermavita Co. Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO);

| 3. | Orders Allergan Holdings France to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Allergan Holdings France to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 139, 15.4.2019.

---

| 10.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/22

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2020 — Serviceplan Gruppe für innovative Kommunikation v EUIPO (Serviceplan)

(Case T-379/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark Serviceplan - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Obligation to state reasons - First sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2020/C 262/29)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Serviceplan Gruppe für innovative Kommunikation GmbH & Co. KG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: B. Koch and P. Schmitz, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 March 2019 (Case R 1424/2018-5) concerning an application for registration of the word sign Serviceplan as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Serviceplan Gruppe für innovative Kommunikation GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Serviceplan Gruppe für innovative Kommunikation GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 270, 12.8.2019.

---

| 10.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2020 — Serviceplan Gruppe für innovative Kommunikation v EUIPO (Serviceplan Solutions)

(Case T-380/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark Serviceplan Solutions - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Obligation to state reasons - First sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2020/C 262/30)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Serviceplan Gruppe für innovative Kommunikation GmbH & Co. KG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: B. Koch and P. Schmitz, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 March 2019 (Case R 1427/2018-5) concerning an application for registration of the word sign Serviceplan Solutions as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Serviceplan Gruppe für innovative Kommunikation GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Serviceplan Gruppe für innovative Kommunikation GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 270, 12.8.2019.

---

| 10.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2020 — Malacalza Investimenti v ECB

(Case T-552/19) (1)

(Access to documents - Decision of the ECB to place Banca Carige SpA under temporary administration - Refusal to grant access - Default procedure)

(2020/C 262/31)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Malacalza Investimenti Srl (Genoa, Italy) (represented by P. Ghiglione, E. De Giorgi and L. Amicarelli, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by F. von Lindeiner and M. Van Hoecke, acting as Agents, and by D. Sarmiento Ramírez-Escudero, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of ECB Decision LS/LdG/19/185 of 12 June 2019 refusing access to several documents relating to Decision ECB-SSM-2019-ITCAR-11 of the Governing Council of the ECB of 1 January 2019 placing Banca Carige SpA under temporary administration.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls European Central Bank (ECB) Decision LS/LdG/19/185 of 12 June 2019 refusing access to several documents relating to Decision ECB-SSM-2019-ITCAR-11 of the Governing Council of the ECB of 1 January 2019 placing Banca Carige SpA under temporary administration; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls European Central Bank (ECB) Decision LS/LdG/19/185 of 12 June 2019 refusing access to several documents relating to Decision ECB-SSM-2019-ITCAR-11 of the Governing Council of the ECB of 1 January 2019 placing Banca Carige SpA under temporary administration;

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

2.

Orders the ECB to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 328, 30.9.2019.

---

| 10.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/24

---

Order of the General Court of 11 June 2020 — Vanhoudt and Others v EIB

(Case T-294/19) (1)

(Action for annulment and for damages - Civil service - EIB staff - Reform of the EIB remuneration and salary progression system - Remuneration simulation tool - Act not open to challenge - Purely confirmatory act - No new and substantial facts - Non-material harm - No causal link - Action in part inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

(2020/C 262/32)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Patrick Vanhoudt (Gonderange, Luxembourg) and the other appellants whose names are listed in the annex (represented by: A. Haines, Barrister)

Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented by: T. Gilliams, J. Klein and J. Krueck, acting as Agents, and P.E. Partsch and T. Evans, lawyers)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU and Article 50a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union seeking, first, annulment of the decision of the EIB of 31 January 2019 by which the EIB confirmed the decision of the Conciliation Board, which found that the conciliation procedure relating to the applicants’ requests to make available an official printout of the results of the remuneration simulation tool used to calculate the impact of the reforms and of the amicable settlement to compensate for the losses allegedly suffered as a result of the reforms had failed, and, second, compensation for the non-material damage allegedly suffered by the applicants as a result of that decision of 31 January 2019.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as in part inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as in part inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law.

| 2. | Mr Patrick Vanhoudt and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Patrick Vanhoudt and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 230, 8.7.2019.

---

| 10.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/25

---

Order of the General Court of 11 June 2020 — VDV eTicket Service v Commission and INEA

(Case T-516/19) (1)

(Arbitration clause - ‘Horizon 2020 — the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation’ (2014-2020) - Project ‘European Travellers Club: Account-Based Travelling across the European Union — ETC’ - Grant agreement - Decision of INEA declaring ineligible certain costs incurred in the context of subcontracts - Misidentification of the defendant - Measure which is part of a purely contractual context from which it is inseparable - Legitimate expectations - Action in part inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

(2020/C 262/33)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: VDV eTicket Service GmbH & Co. KG (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: A. Bartosch, lawyer)

Defendants: European Commission (represented by: R. Pethke and M. Siekierzyńska, acting as Agents), Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (represented by: I. Ramallo and P. Rosa Plaza, acting as Agents, and R. van der Hout and C. Wagner, lawyers)

Re:

First, application under Article 272 TFEU seeking a declaration that INEA’s failure to acknowledge, in its letter Ares(2019)3151305 of 13 May 2019, costs in the amount of EUR 407 443,04 in the context of the Horizon 2020 programme, is unlawful, and second and in the alternative, application under Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of that letter in so far as it declared ineligible the costs in that amount.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed in part as inadmissible and in part as manifestly lacking any foundation in law. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed in part as inadmissible and in part as manifestly lacking any foundation in law.

| 2. | VDV eTicket Service GmbH & Co. KG shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

VDV eTicket Service GmbH & Co. KG shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 319, 23.9.2019.

---

| 10.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/25

---

Order of the General Court of 11 June 2020 — Perfect Bar v EUIPO (PERFECT Bar)

(Case T-563/19) (1)

(Action for annulment - EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark PERFECT Bar - Absolute grounds for refusal - No distinctive character - Descriptive character– Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Decision taken following the annulment by the General Court of an earlier decision - Article 72(6) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

(2020/C 262/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Perfect Bar LLC (San Diego, California, United States) (represented by: F. Miazzetto, J.L. Gracia Albero, R. Seoane Lacayo and E. Cebollero González, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 June 2019 (Case R 372/2019-5), relating to the application for registration of the figurative sign PERFECT Bar as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the order

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action as manifestly lacking any foundation in law. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action as manifestly lacking any foundation in law.

| 2. | Orders Perfect Bar LLC to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Perfect Bar LLC to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 337, 7.10.2019.

---

| 10.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/26

---

Order of the General Court of 16 June 2020 — etc-gaming and Casino-Equipment v Commission

(Case T-803/19) (1)

(Action for damages - Failure by the European Union to introduce an effective remedy offering suitable redress for a failure on the part of the national courts to submit a request for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

(2020/C 262/35)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: etc-gaming GmbH (Vienna, Austria) and Casino-Equipment Vermietungs GmbH (Vienna) (represented by A. Schuster, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by L. Armati, G. Braun and L. Malferrari, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the damage which the applicants claim to have suffered as a result of the failure by the European Union to introduce an effective remedy offering suitable redress for a failure on the part of the national courts to submit a request for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice.

Operative part

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | etc-gaming GmbH and Casino-Equipment Vermietungs GmbH are ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

etc-gaming GmbH and Casino-Equipment Vermietungs GmbH are ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 45, 10.2.2020.

---

| 10.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/26

---

Action brought on 15 May 2020 — WT v Commission

(Case T-91/20)

(2020/C 262/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: WT (represented by: G. Pandey and V. Villante, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of 7 November 2019 of the appointing authority (AIPN), notified to the applicant through ARES system on that date, which rejected the applicant’s complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, lodged on 17 July 2019, including the rejection of her request for a EUR 30 000 compensation; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 7 November 2019 of the appointing authority (AIPN), notified to the applicant through ARES system on that date, which rejected the applicant’s complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, lodged on 17 July 2019, including the rejection of her request for a EUR 30 000 compensation;

| — | annul the decision of the AIPN of 17 April 2019, imposing the reprimand, under Article 9(1)(b) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the AIPN of 17 April 2019, imposing the reprimand, under Article 9(1)(b) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations;

| — | order the defendant to pay the applicant EUR 30 000 compensation for the damaged incurred because of the abovementioned unlawful contested decisions; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the applicant EUR 30 000 compensation for the damaged incurred because of the abovementioned unlawful contested decisions;

| — | order the requested measures of inquiry, as raised in the present application; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the requested measures of inquiry, as raised in the present application;

| — | order the European Commission to bear its own and the applicant’s legal costs of the present judicial proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to bear its own and the applicant’s legal costs of the present judicial proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging breach of the duty of care and of the principle of good administration recognised in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging breach of the duty of care and of the principle of good administration recognised in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging violation of the reasonable period of time recognised in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the principle of legal certainty and a violation of Article 12a of the Staff Regulations (prohibition of harassment) and manifest error of appreciation. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging violation of the reasonable period of time recognised in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the principle of legal certainty and a violation of Article 12a of the Staff Regulations (prohibition of harassment) and manifest error of appreciation.

---

| 10.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/27

---

Action brought on 26 March 2020 — Close and Cegelec v Parliament

(Case T-188/20)

(2020/C 262/37)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: SA Close (Harzé-Aywaille, Belgium) and Cegelec (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J. Rikkers and J. Teheux, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | provisionally order the European Union, represented by the European Parliament, to pay compensation estimated at EUR 3 906 043 plus interest at the statutory rate from the date on which the damage arose, namely 27 March 2015; |
| --- | --- |

—

provisionally order the European Union, represented by the European Parliament, to pay compensation estimated at EUR 3 906 043 plus interest at the statutory rate from the date on which the damage arose, namely 27 March 2015;

| — | before ruling on the action, the applicants seek a stay of proceedings pending the judgment of the Court of Justice in the proceedings currently pending in Case C-447/19 and, if appropriate, of the General Court in the event of a referral; |
| --- | --- |

—

before ruling on the action, the applicants seek a stay of proceedings pending the judgment of the Court of Justice in the proceedings currently pending in Case C-447/19 and, if appropriate, of the General Court in the event of a referral;

| — | reserve ruling on the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

reserve ruling on the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants claim that, if the appeal seeking to have set aside the judgment of 9 April 2019 (Case C-447/19, Close and Cegelec v Parliament) were upheld, it would have to entail the annulment of the decision taken on 19 March 2015 by the Parliament to award the public works contract concerning the ‘Project for the extension and refurbishment of the Konrad Adenauer Building in Luxembourg’, lot 73 (power station), reference INLO-D-UPIL-T-14-AO4, to the Association Momentanée ENERGIE-KAD (composed of the companies MERSCH and SCHMITZ PRODUCTION SARL and ENERGOLUX S. A) and, correlatively, not to have chosen the applicants’ tender, it follows that, firstly, the Association Momentanée ENERGIE-KAD could not be selected and that, secondly, the applicants, having submitted the lowest tender, should have been awarded the contract, the award of the contract being based solely on the criterion of price. The damage suffered is provisionally assessed at 10 % of the amount of their tender.

---

| 10.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/28

---

Action brought on 29 April 2020 — Moviescreens Rental v EUIPO — the airscreen company (AIRSCREEN)

(Case T-250/20)

(2020/C 262/38)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Moviescreens Rental GmbH (Damme, Germany) (represented by: D. Schulz and P. Stelzig, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: the airscreen company GmbH & Co. KG (Münster, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark AIRSCREEN — EU trade mark No 3 244 662

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 February 2020 in Case R 2527/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | amend the contested decision, in so far as in it, the Board of Appeal upheld the decision of the Cancellation Division, which had rejected the application for invalidity of the contested trade mark in relation to the goods at issue in the present case in
  Class 9 Inflatable motion picture screens; giant screens; silver screens
  Class 17 Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) frames fillable with air; flexible PVC surfaces
  Class 19 Transportable structures, not of metal; giant screen frames, not of metal; |
| --- | --- |

—

amend the contested decision, in so far as in it, the Board of Appeal upheld the decision of the Cancellation Division, which had rejected the application for invalidity of the contested trade mark in relation to the goods at issue in the present case in

Class 9 Inflatable motion picture screens; giant screens; silver screens

Class 17 Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) frames fillable with air; flexible PVC surfaces

Class 19 Transportable structures, not of metal; giant screen frames, not of metal;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 59(1)(a) and Article 59(3), in conjunction with Article 7(1)(c), of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 59(1)(a) and Article 59(3), in conjunction with Article 7(1)(c), of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 59(1)(a) and Article 59(3), in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b), of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 59(1)(a) and Article 59(3), in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b), of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 10.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/29

---

Action brought on 22 May 2020 — KD v EUIPO

(Case T-298/20)

(2020/C 262/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: KD (represented by: S. Pappas, and N. Kyriazopoulou, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the appraisal report regarding the period from 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2019, adopted by the European Union Intellectual Property Office and notified to the applicant on 11 March 2020; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the appraisal report regarding the period from 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2019, adopted by the European Union Intellectual Property Office and notified to the applicant on 11 March 2020;

| — | order the defendant to pay compensation to the applicant in the amount of EUR 3 000 for the non-material harm suffered by the applicant, as a result of the appraisal report; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay compensation to the applicant in the amount of EUR 3 000 for the non-material harm suffered by the applicant, as a result of the appraisal report;

| — | order the defendant to bear its costs as well as the applicant’s costs for the current proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to bear its costs as well as the applicant’s costs for the current proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging breach of the duty to state reasons, because the appraisal report contains comments less favourable than those of the previous reports, without any justification, constituting thus a manifest error of fact, with the further consequence for the applicant of being deprived of the exercise of her rights of defence. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging breach of the duty to state reasons, because the appraisal report contains comments less favourable than those of the previous reports, without any justification, constituting thus a manifest error of fact, with the further consequence for the applicant of being deprived of the exercise of her rights of defence.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging breach of the duty of care, by failing to consider the successful implementation of the various projects by the applicant, as well as her motivation and willingness to work, despite her family and health problems. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging breach of the duty of care, by failing to consider the successful implementation of the various projects by the applicant, as well as her motivation and willingness to work, despite her family and health problems.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment, regarding the inconsistency between the comments and the rating and the failure to take into account all the applicable criteria.
  With regard to the claim for non-material damage, the applicant justifies this on the grounds of the creation of feelings of distress, anxiety and injustice as a result of the unlawfulness of the contested report. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment, regarding the inconsistency between the comments and the rating and the failure to take into account all the applicable criteria.

With regard to the claim for non-material damage, the applicant justifies this on the grounds of the creation of feelings of distress, anxiety and injustice as a result of the unlawfulness of the contested report.

---

| 10.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/29

---

Action brought on 20 May 2020 — KF v EIB

(Case T-299/20)

(2020/C 262/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: KF (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Investment Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the President of the EIB dated 27 January 2020 and communicated to the applicant by email on 18 February 2020, by which the applicant was informed that her complaint following the Dignity at Work Procedure, was rejected; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the President of the EIB dated 27 January 2020 and communicated to the applicant by email on 18 February 2020, by which the applicant was informed that her complaint following the Dignity at Work Procedure, was rejected;

| — | grant compensation for the material prejudice suffered; |
| --- | --- |

—

grant compensation for the material prejudice suffered;

| — | grant compensation for the moral prejudice suffered; and |
| --- | --- |

—

grant compensation for the moral prejudice suffered; and

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

—

order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging violation of the duty to state reasons. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging violation of the duty to state reasons.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is manifestly illegal insofar as it endorses the conclusions of the Panel which substituted its own assessment to that of the Appointing authority. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is manifestly illegal insofar as it endorses the conclusions of the Panel which substituted its own assessment to that of the Appointing authority.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging manifest error of appreciation, wrong interpretation by the Panel of the legal concept of harassment and violation of the principle of good administration and of the duty of care. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging manifest error of appreciation, wrong interpretation by the Panel of the legal concept of harassment and violation of the principle of good administration and of the duty of care.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging violation of the principle of good administration and duty of care. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging violation of the principle of good administration and duty of care.

| 5. | The applicant also considers that the illegalities set out in the appeal amount to faults committed by the defendant. The applicant therefore seeks compensation for the material and moral damage arising from the contested decisions. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The applicant also considers that the illegalities set out in the appeal amount to faults committed by the defendant. The applicant therefore seeks compensation for the material and moral damage arising from the contested decisions.

---

| 10.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/30

---

Action brought on 18 May 2020 — PL v Commission

(Case T-308/20)

(2020/C 262/41)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: PL (represented by: J. Van Rossum and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Commission’s decision of 25 June 2019 to reassign ‘in the interests of the service’ the applicant from the Directorate-General for Development and Cooperation — EuropeAid, Neighbourhood Directorate, Finance, Contracts, Audit Unit (DEVCO.F5.DEL.West Bank and Gaza Strip.006) in East Jerusalem to the Directorate General for Mobility and Transport, Directorate of Shared Resources MOVE.ENER (MOVE.SRD) in Brussels, with retroactive effect from 1 January 2013; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission’s decision of 25 June 2019 to reassign ‘in the interests of the service’ the applicant from the Directorate-General for Development and Cooperation — EuropeAid, Neighbourhood Directorate, Finance, Contracts, Audit Unit (DEVCO.F5.DEL.West Bank and Gaza Strip.006) in East Jerusalem to the Directorate General for Mobility and Transport, Directorate of Shared Resources MOVE.ENER (MOVE.SRD) in Brussels, with retroactive effect from 1 January 2013;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 266 TFEU in that the contested decision does not comply with the operative part of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 15 April 2015 (F-96/13, EU:F:2015:29) and of the judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 (T-689/16, not published, EU:T:2018:925) in the light of the grounds constituting their essential bases, in so far as they are necessary for the purpose of determining the exact meaning of what is stated in the operative part. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 266 TFEU in that the contested decision does not comply with the operative part of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 15 April 2015 (F-96/13, EU:F:2015:29) and of the judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 (T-689/16, not published, EU:T:2018:925) in the light of the grounds constituting their essential bases, in so far as they are necessary for the purpose of determining the exact meaning of what is stated in the operative part.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 2 and 22a of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union in that the contested decision was taken by an authority not competent to do so and infringement of the obligation to state reasons and of the duty of sincere cooperation. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 2 and 22a of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union in that the contested decision was taken by an authority not competent to do so and infringement of the obligation to state reasons and of the duty of sincere cooperation.

---

| 10.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/31

---

Action brought on 2 June 2020 — Indo European Foods v EUIPO — Chakari (Abresham Super Basmati Selaa Grade One World's Best Rice)

(Case T-342/20)

(2020/C 262/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Indo European Foods Ltd (Harrow, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Norris, Barrister and N. Welch, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hamid Ahmad Chakari (Vienna, Austria)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark, in colour, Abresham Super Basmati Selaa Grade One World's Best Rice– Application for registration No 16 860 868

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 April 2020 in Case R 1079/2019–4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | uphold the opposition in respect of all of the goods; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the opposition in respect of all of the goods;

| — | alternatively, remit the matter to the EUIPO for re-consideration; |
| --- | --- |

—

alternatively, remit the matter to the EUIPO for re-consideration;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in connection with this appeal, the appeal before the Board and the Opposition Division. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in connection with this appeal, the appeal before the Board and the Opposition Division.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 10.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/32

---

Action brought on 3 June 2020 — AC Milan v EUIPO — InterES (ACM 1899 AC MILAN)

(Case T-353/20)

(2020/C 262/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Associazione Calcio Milan SpA (AC Milan) (Milan, Italy) (represented by: A. Perani and G. Ghisletti, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: InterES Handels- und Dienstleistungs Gesellschaft mbH & Co. KG (Nuremberg, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark ACM 1899 AC MILAN in red, black and white — International registration designating the European Union No 1 329 545

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 February 2020 in Case R 161/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to bear the fees and costs incurred by the applicant in the present proceeding. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to bear the fees and costs incurred by the applicant in the present proceeding.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 10(3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 10(3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;

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

—

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

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

—

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

---

| 10.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/33

---

Action brought on 4 June 2020 — Kfz-Gewerbe v EUIPO — The Blink Fish (Representation of a fish)

(Case T-354/20)

(2020/C 262/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Wirtschaftsgesellschaft des Kfz-Gewerbes mbH (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: N. Hebeis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: The Blink Fish Srl (Milan, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark (Representation of a fish) — European Union trade mark No 17 301 359

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 April 2020 in Case R 2333/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | partially annul the contested decision as far as the following services of the contested European Union trade mark application No 17 301 359 are concerned:






  — | class 35: Advertising, Business management; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

partially annul the contested decision as far as the following services of the contested European Union trade mark application No 17 301 359 are concerned:

—

class 35: Advertising, Business management;

| — | class 38: Telecommunication services; |
| --- | --- |

—

class 38: Telecommunication services;

| — | class 41: Entertainment services, Sporting and cultural activities, Teaching, Training; |
| --- | --- |

—

class 41: Entertainment services, Sporting and cultural activities, Teaching, Training;

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

—

order EUIPO to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

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

—

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

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

—

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

---

| 10.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/33

---

Action brought on 15 June 2020 — Dermavita Company v EUIPO — Allergan Holdings France (JUVEDERM)

(Case T-372/20)

(2020/C 262/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Dermavita Company SARL (Beirut, Lebanon) (represented by: D. Todorov, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Allergan Holdings France SAS (Courbevoie, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark JUVEDERM — European Union trade mark No 2 196 822

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 April 2020 in Case R 877/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | partially annul the contested decision concerning the rejection of the application for revocation of EUTM No 2 196 822 JUVEDERM for the contested goods ‘biocompatible substances for medical purposes for reducing wrinkles’; |
| --- | --- |

—

partially annul the contested decision concerning the rejection of the application for revocation of EUTM No 2 196 822 JUVEDERM for the contested goods ‘biocompatible substances for medical purposes for reducing wrinkles’;

| — | order EUIPO and the other party to bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant at every stage of the action for revocation and appeal proceedings, including the cost of the proceedings before EUIPO and the Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the other party to bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant at every stage of the action for revocation and appeal proceedings, including the cost of the proceedings before EUIPO and the Court.

Pleas in law

| — | Erroneous interpretation of the relevant law, concerning the assessment of the nature of the goods, the trade mark has been used for; |
| --- | --- |

—

Erroneous interpretation of the relevant law, concerning the assessment of the nature of the goods, the trade mark has been used for;

| — | Lack of proof concerning the use of the trade mark by third parties with the consent of the EUTM proprietor under the meaning of Article 18(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Lack of proof concerning the use of the trade mark by third parties with the consent of the EUTM proprietor under the meaning of Article 18(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 10.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/34

---

Action brought on 15 June 2020 — Poupart v Commission

(Case T-376/20)

(2020/C 262/46)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Nicole Poupart (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of 1 October 2019 to apply the rules of the Staff Regulations in force since 1 May 2004 to the calculation of her old-age pension; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 1 October 2019 to apply the rules of the Staff Regulations in force since 1 May 2004 to the calculation of her old-age pension;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of her action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law alleging infringement of Articles 21 and 22 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union.

---

| 10.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/35

---

Action brought on 16 June 2020 — Moloko Beverage v EUIPO — Nexus Liquids (moloko)

(Case T-383/20)

(2020/C 262/47)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Moloko Beverage GmbH (Göppingen, Germany) (represented by: D. Wieland, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nexus Liquids GmbH (Bielefeld, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘moloko’ — European Union trade mark No 16 415 838

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 March 2020 in Case R 1485/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and register European Union trade mark No 16 415 838 also for the goods:
  tobacco and tobacco products, including tobacco substitutes; flavourings and solutions for vaporisers for personal use and electronic cigarettes |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and register European Union trade mark No 16 415 838 also for the goods:

tobacco and tobacco products, including tobacco substitutes; flavourings and solutions for vaporisers for personal use and electronic cigarettes

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Court and Nexus Liquids GmbH to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings before EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Court and Nexus Liquids GmbH to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings before EUIPO.

Pleas in law

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

—

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

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

—

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

---

| 10.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/35

---

Action brought on 23 June 2020 — DK Company v EUIPO — Hunter Boot (DENIM HUNTER)

(Case T-387/20)

(2020/C 262/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: DK Company A/S (Ikast, Denmark) (represented by: S. Hansen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hunter Boot Ltd (Edinburgh, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark DENIM HUNTER — Application for registration No 14 649 891

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 April 2020 in Case R 849/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | reverse the contested decision in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

reverse the contested decision in its entirety;

| — | order EUIPO to bear the costs including cost incurred by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to bear the costs including cost incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law

| — | The Board of Appeal has erred in the assessment of the consequence of the (administrative) limitation of the goods in the applicant’s trademark application, and the impact of the figurative element in the applicant’s mark; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal has erred in the assessment of the consequence of the (administrative) limitation of the goods in the applicant’s trademark application, and the impact of the figurative element in the applicant’s mark;

| — | The Board of Appeal completely ignored the fact that the General Court had already assessed the distinctiveness of the word ‘HUNTER’ for goods in class 25. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal completely ignored the fact that the General Court had already assessed the distinctiveness of the word ‘HUNTER’ for goods in class 25.

---

| 10.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/36

---

Action brought on 26 June 2020 — Ryanair v Commission

(Case T-388/20)

(2020/C 262/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the European Commission’s decision (EU) of 18 May 2020 on State Aid SA.56809 (2020/N) — Finland — COVID –19: State loan guarantee for Finnair (1); and, |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the European Commission’s decision (EU) of 18 May 2020 on State Aid SA.56809 (2020/N) — Finland — COVID –19: State loan guarantee for Finnair (1); and,

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

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the European Commission misapplied Article 107(3)(b) TFEU by considering that the aid addresses a serious disturbance in the Finnish economy and by violating the obligation to weigh the beneficial effects of aid against its adverse effects on trading conditions and the maintenance of undistorted competition (i.e., the ‘balancing test’). |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the European Commission misapplied Article 107(3)(b) TFEU by considering that the aid addresses a serious disturbance in the Finnish economy and by violating the obligation to weigh the beneficial effects of aid against its adverse effects on trading conditions and the maintenance of undistorted competition (i.e., the ‘balancing test’).

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

2.

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

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the European Commission failed to initiate a formal investigation procedure despite serious difficulties and violated the applicant’s procedural rights. |
| --- | --- |

3.

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

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the decision violated the Commission’s duty to state reasons. |
| --- | --- |

4.

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

---

(1)  European Commission Decision (EU) of 18 May 2020 on State Aid SA.56809 (2020/N) — Finland -- COVID-19: State loan guarantee for Finnair (not yet published in the Official Journal)

---

| 10.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/37

---

Action brought on 29 June 2020 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Rudolf Böckenholt (LLOYD’S)

(Case T-400/20)

(2020/C 262/50)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

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

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Rudolf Böckenholt GmbH & Co. KG (Ostbevern, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Figurative mark LLOYD’S — EU trade mark No 2 957 132

Procedure before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 April 2020 in Case R 1119/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision, inasmuch as, by dismissing the appeal brought by El Corte Inglés, S.A., it upholds the decision of the Cancellation Division partially upholding application No 18 381 C for a declaration of invalidity, and upholds the partial invalidity of EU trade mark No 2 957 132 LLOYD’S (figurative) for ‘goods made of these materials (leather and imitation of leather) and not included in other classes, excluding leather used for making footwear’ in Class 18; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision, inasmuch as, by dismissing the appeal brought by El Corte Inglés, S.A., it upholds the decision of the Cancellation Division partially upholding application No 18 381 C for a declaration of invalidity, and upholds the partial invalidity of EU trade mark No 2 957 132 LLOYD’S (figurative) for ‘goods made of these materials (leather and imitation of leather) and not included in other classes, excluding leather used for making footwear’ in Class 18;

| — | order the party or parties opposing this action to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the party or parties opposing this action to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

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

—

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

| — | Contradiction with the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO in Case R 562/2006-1 of 23 October 2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Contradiction with the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO in Case R 562/2006-1 of 23 October 2009.

| — | Contradiction and lack of consistency of the decision as regards the arguments on which it is based, and infringement of Article 32(i) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430. |
| --- | --- |

—

Contradiction and lack of consistency of the decision as regards the arguments on which it is based, and infringement of Article 32(i) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430.

---

| 10.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/38

---

Order of the General Court of 8 June 2020 — Limango v EUIPO — Consolidated Artists (limango)

(Case T-23/19) (1)

(2020/C 262/51)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 93, 11.3.2019.

---

| 10.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/38

---

Order of the General Court of 8 June 2020 — TestBioTech v Commission

(Case T-534/19) (1)

(2020/C 262/52)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 363, 28.10.2019.

---

| 10.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/38

---

Order of the General Court of 4 June 2020 — UPL Europe and Aceto Agricultural Chemicals v Commission

(Case T-612/19) (1)

(2020/C 262/53)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 399, 25.11.2019.

---

| 10.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/38

---

Order of the General Court of 10 June 2020 — Bujar v Commission

(Case T-708/19) (1)

(2020/C 262/54)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 10, 13.1.2020.

---