# Official Journal C 412/11 O

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 412 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6411 October 2021 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 412

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6411 October 2021

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2021/C 412/01 | Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union | 1 |
| | General Court |
| 2021/C 412/02 | Formation of Chambers and assignment of Judges to Chambers | 2 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

2021/C 412/01

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

General Court

2021/C 412/02

Formation of Chambers and assignment of Judges to Chambers

2

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2021/C 412/03 | Case C-445/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 15 July 2021 — EUROBANK BULGARIA AD v NI, RZ, DMD DEVELOPMENTS OOD | 6 |
| 2021/C 412/04 | Case C-463/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 28 July 2021 — Global Starnet Ltd v Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri | 7 |
| 2021/C 412/05 | Case C-485/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rayonen sad Nesebar (Bulgaria) lodged on 5 August 2021 — S.V. OOD v E. Ts. D. | 7 |
| 2021/C 412/06 | Case C-505/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 18 August 2021 — FU v Agence fédérale pour l’Accueil des demandeurs d’asile (Fedasil) | 8 |
| | General Court |
| 2021/C 412/07 | Case T-146/20: Order of the General Court of 28 July 2021 — Csordas and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — Civil service — Officials — Regularity of the elections for the Luxembourg local section of the Commission’s Staff Committee — Presentation of a joint list of six trade unions or professional organisations — Supervisory obligation of the institution — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law) | 9 |
| 2021/C 412/08 | Case T-634/20: Order of the General Court of 28 July 2021 — UPTR v Parliament and Council (Action for annulment — Road transport — Regulation (EU) 2020/1055 — International road haulage market — Cabotage — Trade association — Legal standing — Lack of individual concern — Inadmissibility) | 10 |
| 2021/C 412/09 | Case T-645/20: Order of the General Court of 28 July 2021 — Dual Star Logistic and Others v Parliament and Council (Action for annulment — Road transport — Regulation (EU) 2020/1055 — Conditions relating to the requirement of establishment of undertakings — Return of vehicles to the operational centre in the Member State of origin within a maximum period of eight weeks — Professional association — Standing to bring proceedings — Act not of individual concern — Inadmissibility) | 10 |
| 2021/C 412/10 | Case T-646/20: Order of the General Court of 28 July 2021 — NG and Others v Parliament and Council (Action for annulment — Road transport — Regulation (EU) 2020/1054 — Driver’s rest periods — Impossibility of taking certain rest periods in the vehicle — Return to the employer’s operational centre or to the place of residence for certain rest periods — Professional association — Standing to bring proceedings — Act not of individual concern — Inadmissibility) | 11 |
| 2021/C 412/11 | Case T-760/20: Order of the General Court of 10 August 2021 — Jakeliūnas v ESMA (Action for annulment and for failure to act — Request to launch an inquiry — Refusal of the President of ESMA — Act not open to challenge — Inadmissibility — Application for an injunction — Lack of jurisdiction) | 12 |
| 2021/C 412/12 | Case T-52/21: Order of the General Court of 29 July 2021 — ClientEarth v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Aarhus Convention — Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 — Documents held by the Commission concerning the control system established for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy — Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 — Implied refusal of access — Express decision adopted after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate) | 12 |
| 2021/C 412/13 | Case T-272/21 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 30 July 2021 — Puigdemont i Casamajó and Others v Parliament (Interim relief — Institutional law — Member of Parliament — Privileges and immunities — Waiver of the parliamentary immunity of a Member of the Parliament — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency) | 13 |
| 2021/C 412/14 | Case T-441/21: Action brought on 23 July 2021 — UBS Group and UBS v Commission | 13 |
| 2021/C 412/15 | Case T-442/21: Action brought on 23 July 2021 — Thomas and Julien v Council | 14 |
| 2021/C 412/16 | Case T-448/21: Action brought on 30 July 2021 — Saure v Commission | 15 |
| 2021/C 412/17 | Case T-455/21: Action brought on 2 August 2021 — Nomura International and Nomura Holdings v Commission | 16 |
| 2021/C 412/18 | Case T-460/21: Action brought on 3 August 2021 — MCO (IP) v EUIPO — C8 (C2 CYPRUS CASINOS) | 17 |
| 2021/C 412/19 | Case T-461/21: Action brought on 3 August 2021 — MCO (IP) v EUIPO — C8 (C2) | 18 |
| 2021/C 412/20 | Case T-470/21: Action brought on 30 July 2021 — Klymenko v Council | 19 |
| 2021/C 412/21 | Case T-479/21: Action brought on 7 August 2021 — Haswani v Conseil | 20 |
| 2021/C 412/22 | Case T-481/21: Action brought on 9 August 2021 — Foz v Council | 21 |
| 2021/C 412/23 | Case T-483/21: Action brought on 9 August 2021 — Polskie sieci elektroenergetyczne v ACER | 22 |
| 2021/C 412/24 | Case T-484/21: Action brought on 9 August 2021 — Polskie sieci elektroenergetyczne v ACER | 23 |
| 2021/C 412/25 | Case T-489/21: Action brought on 10 August 2021 — Spain v Commission | 24 |
| 2021/C 412/26 | Case T-497/21: Action brought on 14 August 2021 — Girardi v EUIPO | 25 |
| 2021/C 412/27 | Case T-506/21: Action brought on 16 August 2021 — Saure v Commission | 25 |
| 2021/C 412/28 | Case T-512/21: Action brought on 20 August 2021 — Epsilon Data Management v EUIPO — Epsilon Technologies (EPSILON TECHNOLOGIES) | 26 |
| 2021/C 412/29 | Case T-516/21: Action brought on 21 August 2021 — Italy v Commission | 27 |
| 2021/C 412/30 | Case T-523/21: Action brought on 27 August 2021 — Shatrov v Council | 28 |
| 2021/C 412/31 | Case T-524/21: Action brought on 27 August 2021 — Saure v Commission | 28 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2021/C 412/03

Case C-445/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 15 July 2021 — EUROBANK BULGARIA AD v NI, RZ, DMD DEVELOPMENTS OOD

6

2021/C 412/04

Case C-463/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 28 July 2021 — Global Starnet Ltd v Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri

7

2021/C 412/05

Case C-485/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rayonen sad Nesebar (Bulgaria) lodged on 5 August 2021 — S.V. OOD v E. Ts. D.

7

2021/C 412/06

Case C-505/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 18 August 2021 — FU v Agence fédérale pour l’Accueil des demandeurs d’asile (Fedasil)

8

General Court

2021/C 412/07

Case T-146/20: Order of the General Court of 28 July 2021 — Csordas and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — Civil service — Officials — Regularity of the elections for the Luxembourg local section of the Commission’s Staff Committee — Presentation of a joint list of six trade unions or professional organisations — Supervisory obligation of the institution — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

9

2021/C 412/08

Case T-634/20: Order of the General Court of 28 July 2021 — UPTR v Parliament and Council (Action for annulment — Road transport — Regulation (EU) 2020/1055 — International road haulage market — Cabotage — Trade association — Legal standing — Lack of individual concern — Inadmissibility)

10

2021/C 412/09

Case T-645/20: Order of the General Court of 28 July 2021 — Dual Star Logistic and Others v Parliament and Council (Action for annulment — Road transport — Regulation (EU) 2020/1055 — Conditions relating to the requirement of establishment of undertakings — Return of vehicles to the operational centre in the Member State of origin within a maximum period of eight weeks — Professional association — Standing to bring proceedings — Act not of individual concern — Inadmissibility)

10

2021/C 412/10

Case T-646/20: Order of the General Court of 28 July 2021 — NG and Others v Parliament and Council (Action for annulment — Road transport — Regulation (EU) 2020/1054 — Driver’s rest periods — Impossibility of taking certain rest periods in the vehicle — Return to the employer’s operational centre or to the place of residence for certain rest periods — Professional association — Standing to bring proceedings — Act not of individual concern — Inadmissibility)

11

2021/C 412/11

Case T-760/20: Order of the General Court of 10 August 2021 — Jakeliūnas v ESMA (Action for annulment and for failure to act — Request to launch an inquiry — Refusal of the President of ESMA — Act not open to challenge — Inadmissibility — Application for an injunction — Lack of jurisdiction)

12

2021/C 412/12

Case T-52/21: Order of the General Court of 29 July 2021 — ClientEarth v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Aarhus Convention — Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 — Documents held by the Commission concerning the control system established for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy — Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 — Implied refusal of access — Express decision adopted after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate)

12

2021/C 412/13

Case T-272/21 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 30 July 2021 — Puigdemont i Casamajó and Others v Parliament (Interim relief — Institutional law — Member of Parliament — Privileges and immunities — Waiver of the parliamentary immunity of a Member of the Parliament — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency)

13

2021/C 412/14

Case T-441/21: Action brought on 23 July 2021 — UBS Group and UBS v Commission

13

2021/C 412/15

Case T-442/21: Action brought on 23 July 2021 — Thomas and Julien v Council

14

2021/C 412/16

Case T-448/21: Action brought on 30 July 2021 — Saure v Commission

15

2021/C 412/17

Case T-455/21: Action brought on 2 August 2021 — Nomura International and Nomura Holdings v Commission

16

2021/C 412/18

Case T-460/21: Action brought on 3 August 2021 — MCO (IP) v EUIPO — C8 (C2 CYPRUS CASINOS)

17

2021/C 412/19

Case T-461/21: Action brought on 3 August 2021 — MCO (IP) v EUIPO — C8 (C2)

18

2021/C 412/20

Case T-470/21: Action brought on 30 July 2021 — Klymenko v Council

19

2021/C 412/21

Case T-479/21: Action brought on 7 August 2021 — Haswani v Conseil

20

2021/C 412/22

Case T-481/21: Action brought on 9 August 2021 — Foz v Council

21

2021/C 412/23

Case T-483/21: Action brought on 9 August 2021 — Polskie sieci elektroenergetyczne v ACER

22

2021/C 412/24

Case T-484/21: Action brought on 9 August 2021 — Polskie sieci elektroenergetyczne v ACER

23

2021/C 412/25

Case T-489/21: Action brought on 10 August 2021 — Spain v Commission

24

2021/C 412/26

Case T-497/21: Action brought on 14 August 2021 — Girardi v EUIPO

25

2021/C 412/27

Case T-506/21: Action brought on 16 August 2021 — Saure v Commission

25

2021/C 412/28

Case T-512/21: Action brought on 20 August 2021 — Epsilon Data Management v EUIPO — Epsilon Technologies (EPSILON TECHNOLOGIES)

26

2021/C 412/29

Case T-516/21: Action brought on 21 August 2021 — Italy v Commission

27

2021/C 412/30

Case T-523/21: Action brought on 27 August 2021 — Shatrov v Council

28

2021/C 412/31

Case T-524/21: Action brought on 27 August 2021 — Saure v Commission

28

---

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 11.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 412/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 412/1

---

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

(2021/C 412/01)

Last publication

OJ C 401, 4.10.2021

Past publications

OJ C 391, 27.9.2021

OJ C 382, 20.9.2021

OJ C 368, 13.9.2021

OJ C 357, 6.9.2021

OJ C 349, 30.8.2021

OJ C 338, 23.8.2021

These texts are available on:

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

---

General Court

| 11.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 412/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 412/2

---

Formation of Chambers and assignment of Judges to Chambers

(2021/C 412/02)

On 27 September 2021, the General Court decided, following the entry into office of Mr Zilgalvis as Judge of the General Court, to amend the decision on the formation of the Chambers of 30 September 2019, (1) as amended, (2) and the decision on the assignment of Judges to Chambers of 4 October 2019, (3) as amended, (4) for the period from 27 September 2021 to 31 August 2022 and to assign the Judges to Chambers as follows:

First Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

Mr Kanninen, President of the Chamber, Mr Jaeger, Ms Półtorak, Ms Porchia and Ms Stancu, Judges.

First Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

Mr Kanninen, President of the Chamber;

Formation A: Mr Jaeger and Ms Półtorak, Judges;

Formation B: Mr Jaeger and Ms Porchia, Judges;

Formation C: Mr Jaeger and Ms Stancu, Judges;

Formation D: Ms Półtorak and Ms Porchia, Judges;

Formation E: Ms Półtorak and Ms Stancu, Judges;

Formation F: Ms Porchia and Ms Stancu, Judges.

Second Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

Ms Tomljenović, President of the Chamber, Mr Schalin, Ms Škvařilová-Pelzl, Mr Nõmm and Ms Steinfatt, Judges.

Second Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

Ms Tomljenović, President of the Chamber;

Formation A: Mr Schalin and Ms Škvařilová-Pelzl, Judges;

Formation B: Mr Schalin and Mr Nõmm, Judges;

Formation C: Ms Škvařilová-Pelzl and Mr Nõmm, Judges.

Third Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

Mr Collins, President of the Chamber, Mr Kreuschitz, Mr Csehi, Mr De Baere and Ms Steinfatt, Judges.

Third Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

Mr Collins, President of the Chamber;

Formation A: Mr Kreuschitz and Mr Csehi, Judges;

Formation B: Mr Kreuschitz and Mr De Baere, Judges;

Formation C: Mr Kreuschitz and Ms Steinfatt, Judges;

Formation D: Mr Csehi and Mr De Baere, Judges;

Formation E: Mr Csehi and Ms Steinfatt, Judges;

Formation F: Mr De Baere and Ms Steinfatt, Judges.

Fourth Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

Mr Gervasoni, President of the Chamber, Mr Madise, Mr Nihoul, Ms Frendo and Mr Martín y Pérez de Nanclares, Judges.

Fourth Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

Mr Gervasoni, President of the Chamber;

Formation A: Mr Madise and Mr Nihoul, Judges;

Formation B: Mr Madise and Ms Frendo, Judges;

Formation C: Mr Madise and Mr Martín y Pérez de Nanclares, Judges;

Formation D: Mr Nihoul and Ms Frendo, Judges;

Formation E: Mr Nihoul and Mr Martín y Pérez de Nanclares, Judges;

Formation F: Ms Frendo and Mr Martín y Pérez de Nanclares, Judges.

Fifth Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

Mr Spielmann, President of the Chamber, Mr Öberg, Ms Spineanu-Matei, Mr Mastroianni and Ms Brkan, Judges.

Fifth Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

Mr Spielmann, President of the Chamber;

Formation A: Mr Öberg and Ms Spineanu-Matei, Judges;

Formation B: Mr Öberg and Mr Mastroianni, Judges;

Formation C: Mr Öberg and Ms Brkan, Judges;

Formation D: Ms Spineanu-Matei and Mr Mastroianni, Judges;

Formation E: Ms Spineanu-Matei and Ms Brkan, Judges;

Formation F: Mr Mastroianni and Ms Brkan, Judges.

Sixth Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

Ms Marcoulli, President of the Chamber, Mr Frimodt Nielsen, Mr Schwarcz, Mr Iliopoulos and Mr Norkus, Judges.

Sixth Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

Ms Marcoulli, President of the Chamber;

Formation A: Mr Frimodt Nielsen and Mr Schwarcz, Judges;

Formation B: Mr Frimodt Nielsen and Mr Iliopoulos, Judges;

Formation C: Mr Frimodt Nielsen and Mr Norkus, Judges;

Formation D: Mr Schwarcz and Mr Iliopoulos, Judges;

Formation E: Mr Schwarcz and Mr Norkus, Judges;

Formation F: Mr Iliopoulos and Mr Norkus, Judges.

Seventh Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

Mr da Silva Passos, President of the Chamber, Mr Valančius, Ms Reine, Mr Truchot and Mr Sampol Pucurull, Judges.

Seventh Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

Mr da Silva Passos, President of the Chamber;

Formation A: Mr Valančius and Ms Reine, Judges;

Formation B: Mr Valančius and Mr Truchot, Judges;

Formation C: Mr Valančius and Mr Sampol Pucurull, Judges;

Formation D: Ms Reine and Mr Truchot, Judges;

Formation E: Ms Reine and Mr Sampol Pucurull, Judges;

Formation F: Mr Truchot and Mr Sampol Pucurull, Judges.

Eighth Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

Mr Svenningsen, President of the Chamber, Mr Barents, Mr Mac Eochaidh, Ms Pynnä and Mr Laitenberger, Judges.

Eighth Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

Mr Svenningsen, President of the Chamber;

Formation A: Mr Barents and Mr Mac Eochaidh, Judges;

Formation B: Mr Barents and Ms Pynnä, Judges;

Formation C: Mr Barents and Mr Laitenberger, Judges;

Formation D: Mr Mac Eochaidh and Ms Pynnä, Judges;

Formation E: Mr Mac Eochaidh and Mr Laitenberger, Judges;

Formation F: Ms Pynnä and Mr Laitenberger, Judges.

Ninth Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

Ms Costeira, President of the Chamber, Mr Gratsias, Ms Kancheva, Ms Perišin and Mr Zilgalvis, Judges.

Ninth Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

Ms Costeira, President of the Chamber;

Formation A: Mr Gratsias and Ms Kancheva, Judges;

Formation B: Mr Gratsias and Ms Perišin, Judges;

Formation C: Mr Gratsias and Mr Zilgalvis, Judges;

Formation D: Ms Kancheva and Ms Perišin, Judges;

Formation E: Ms Kancheva and Mr Zilgalvis, Judges;

Formation F: Ms Perišin and Mr Zilgalvis, Judges.

Tenth Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

Mr Kornezov, President of the Chamber, Mr Buttigieg, Ms Kowalik-Bańczyk, Mr Hesse and Mr Petrlík, Judges.

Tenth Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

Mr Kornezov, President of the Chamber;

Formation A: Mr Buttigieg and Ms Kowalik-Bańczyk, Judges;

Formation B: Mr Buttigieg and Mr Hesse, Judges;

Formation C: Mr Buttigieg and Mr Petrlík, Judges;

Formation D: Ms Kowalik-Bańczyk and Mr Hesse, Judges;

Formation E: Ms Kowalik-Bańczyk and Mr Petrlík, Judges;

Formation F: Mr Hesse and Mr Petrlík, Judges.

The Second Chamber, composed of four Judges, will be extended by the addition of a fifth Judge from the Third Chamber. The fifth Judge shall be designated according to the reverse order to the order laid down in Article 8 of the Rules of Procedure for the period ending on 31 August 2022.

The General Court confirms its decision of 4 October 2019 that the First, Fourth, Seventh and Eighth Chambers shall hear cases brought under Article 270 TFEU and, where appropriate, Article 50a of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, and that the Second, Third, Fifth, Sixth, Ninth and Tenth Chambers shall hear cases relating to intellectual property rights referred to in Title IV of the Rules of Procedure.

It also confirms that:

| — | the President and the Vice-President shall not be attached permanently to a Chamber, |
| --- | --- |

—

the President and the Vice-President shall not be attached permanently to a Chamber,

| — | in the course of each judicial year, the Vice-President shall sit in each of the ten Chambers sitting with five Judges, on the basis of one case per Chamber in the following order:






  — | the first case referred back, by decision of the General Court, to an extended Chamber sitting with five Judges of the First Chamber, the Second Chamber, the Third Chamber, the Fourth Chamber and the Fifth Chamber, |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

in the course of each judicial year, the Vice-President shall sit in each of the ten Chambers sitting with five Judges, on the basis of one case per Chamber in the following order:

—

the first case referred back, by decision of the General Court, to an extended Chamber sitting with five Judges of the First Chamber, the Second Chamber, the Third Chamber, the Fourth Chamber and the Fifth Chamber,

| — | the third case referred back, by decision of the General Court, to an extended Chamber sitting with five Judges of the Sixth Chamber, the Seventh Chamber, the Eighth Chamber, the Ninth Chamber and the Tenth Chamber. |
| --- | --- |

—

the third case referred back, by decision of the General Court, to an extended Chamber sitting with five Judges of the Sixth Chamber, the Seventh Chamber, the Eighth Chamber, the Ninth Chamber and the Tenth Chamber.

Where the Chamber in which the Vice-President sits is composed of:

| — | five Judges, the extended Chamber shall be composed of the Vice-President, Judges from the Chamber sitting with three Judges originally seised as well as one of the other Judges of the Chamber in question, determined on the basis of the reverse order to the order laid down in Article 8 of the Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

five Judges, the extended Chamber shall be composed of the Vice-President, Judges from the Chamber sitting with three Judges originally seised as well as one of the other Judges of the Chamber in question, determined on the basis of the reverse order to the order laid down in Article 8 of the Rules of Procedure,

| — | four Judges, the extended Chamber shall be composed of the Vice-President, Judges from the Chamber sitting with three Judges originally seised and the fourth Judge of the Chamber in question. |
| --- | --- |

—

four Judges, the extended Chamber shall be composed of the Vice-President, Judges from the Chamber sitting with three Judges originally seised and the fourth Judge of the Chamber in question.

---

(1)  OJ 2019 C 372, p. 3.

(2)  OJ 2020 C 68, p. 2, OJ 2020 C 114, p. 2, OJ 2020 C 371, p. 2, OJ 2021 C 110, p. 2, OJ 2021 C 297, p. 2, and OJ 2021 C 368, p. 2.

(3)  OJ 2019 C 372, p. 3.

(4)  OJ 2020 C 68, p. 2, OJ 2020 C 114, p. 2, OJ 2020 C 371, p. 2, OJ 2021 C 110, p. 2, OJ 2021 C 297, p. 2, and OJ 2021 C 368, p. 2.

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 11.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 412/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 412/6

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 15 July 2021 — EUROBANK BULGARIA AD v NI, RZ, DMD DEVELOPMENTS OOD

(Case C-445/21)

(2021/C 412/03)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski gradski sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: EUROBANK BULGARIA AD

Defendants: NI, RZ, DMD DEVELOPMENTS OOD

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the concept of ‘consumer’, as used in Article 17 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, be interpreted in the light of its content as defined in the context of Council Directive 87/102/EEC (2) of 22 December 1986 for the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning consumer credit, or is its content independent? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must the concept of ‘consumer’, as used in Article 17 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, be interpreted in the light of its content as defined in the context of Council Directive 87/102/EEC (2) of 22 December 1986 for the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning consumer credit, or is its content independent?

| 2. | In considering whether a person is a ‘consumer’, is it the purpose arising from the legitimate effect of the contract, which in this case grants the possibility of a future profit (investment project), that is relevant, or is it the connection between the contract and the commercial or professional activity pursued by the person at the time of conclusion of the contract? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In considering whether a person is a ‘consumer’, is it the purpose arising from the legitimate effect of the contract, which in this case grants the possibility of a future profit (investment project), that is relevant, or is it the connection between the contract and the commercial or professional activity pursued by the person at the time of conclusion of the contract?

| 3. | Must the term ‘loan repayable by instalments’, as used in Article 17(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, be interpreted as referring only to contracts relating to goods (tangible property, movable property) or does it cover all loans, including those under a bank loan agreement concluded for the purpose of purchasing a residential property? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Must the term ‘loan repayable by instalments’, as used in Article 17(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, be interpreted as referring only to contracts relating to goods (tangible property, movable property) or does it cover all loans, including those under a bank loan agreement concluded for the purpose of purchasing a residential property?

| 4. | Where Regulation No 1215/2012 refers to the national law of the court seised in relation to the concept of being ‘domiciled’ in Article 62(1), is it possible to infer from that regulation autonomous criteria (for example, a formal indication of connection with a particular territory) for determining whether a party is domiciled in the territory of the Member State before whose court an action against a consumer is pending? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Where Regulation No 1215/2012 refers to the national law of the court seised in relation to the concept of being ‘domiciled’ in Article 62(1), is it possible to infer from that regulation autonomous criteria (for example, a formal indication of connection with a particular territory) for determining whether a party is domiciled in the territory of the Member State before whose court an action against a consumer is pending?

| 5. | To the extent that a credit agreement entered into for the purpose of purchasing a residential property is a consumer contract within the meaning of Article 17(1)(c), what is the meaning of the term ‘habitually resident’ as used in Article 19(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters and, in particular, is it possible that it is related to the centre of the consumer’s main interests? |
| --- | --- |

5.

To the extent that a credit agreement entered into for the purpose of purchasing a residential property is a consumer contract within the meaning of Article 17(1)(c), what is the meaning of the term ‘habitually resident’ as used in Article 19(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters and, in particular, is it possible that it is related to the centre of the consumer’s main interests?

| 6. | If, in order to ensure its effective application, Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 lays down autonomous criteria in relation to the concept of ‘domicile’, must local jurisdiction also be determined on the basis of that concept? |
| --- | --- |

6.

If, in order to ensure its effective application, Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 lays down autonomous criteria in relation to the concept of ‘domicile’, must local jurisdiction also be determined on the basis of that concept?

---

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

(2)  OJ 1987 L 42, p. 48.

---

| 11.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 412/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 412/7

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 28 July 2021 — Global Starnet Ltd v Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri

(Case C-463/21)

(2021/C 412/04)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Global Starnet Ltd

Respondents: Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the introduction of a provision, such as that contained in Article 1(649) of Law 190/14, which reduces commission and fees only in respect of a specific and limited category of operator, namely operators of games played on gaming machines, and not all operators in the gaming sector, compatible with the exercise of the freedom of establishment guaranteed by Article 49 TFEU and with the exercise of the freedom to provide services guaranteed by Article 56 TFEU? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the introduction of a provision, such as that contained in Article 1(649) of Law 190/14, which reduces commission and fees only in respect of a specific and limited category of operator, namely operators of games played on gaming machines, and not all operators in the gaming sector, compatible with the exercise of the freedom of establishment guaranteed by Article 49 TFEU and with the exercise of the freedom to provide services guaranteed by Article 56 TFEU?

| 2. | Is the introduction of the abovementioned provision contained in Article 1(649) of Law 190/14, which for economic reasons alone reduced the fees agreed to in a concession agreement concluded between a company and an Italian State authority during the term of that agreement, compatible with the EU-law principle of the protection of legitimate expectations? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the introduction of the abovementioned provision contained in Article 1(649) of Law 190/14, which for economic reasons alone reduced the fees agreed to in a concession agreement concluded between a company and an Italian State authority during the term of that agreement, compatible with the EU-law principle of the protection of legitimate expectations?

---

| 11.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 412/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 412/7

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rayonen sad Nesebar (Bulgaria) lodged on 5 August 2021 — S.V. OOD v E. Ts. D.

(Case C-485/21)

(2021/C 412/05)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Rayonen sad Nesebar

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: S.V. OOD

Defendant: E. Ts. D.

Questions referred

| 1. | Are natural persons who own individual units in a co-owned building ‘consumers’ (within the meaning of Article 2(b) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts and Article 2(1) of Directive 2011/83/EU (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011) in terms of the legal relationships they enter into regarding the management and maintenance of the communal areas of the building? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are natural persons who own individual units in a co-owned building ‘consumers’ (within the meaning of Article 2(b) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts and Article 2(1) of Directive 2011/83/EU (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011) in terms of the legal relationships they enter into regarding the management and maintenance of the communal areas of the building?

| 2. | Does the status of natural persons who own individual units in a co-owned building as ‘consumers’ depend on the nature of the legal relationships they enter into (individual contract for the management and maintenance of the communal areas, contract under Article 2 of the Zakon za upravlenie na etazhnata sobstvenost (Law on the management of co-owned property; ‘the ZUES’), management by the general meeting of the property owners)? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the status of natural persons who own individual units in a co-owned building as ‘consumers’ depend on the nature of the legal relationships they enter into (individual contract for the management and maintenance of the communal areas, contract under Article 2 of the Zakon za upravlenie na etazhnata sobstvenost (Law on the management of co-owned property; ‘the ZUES’), management by the general meeting of the property owners)?

| 3. | Is legislation which permits the same owners of individual units in a building to be treated differently (in relation to the status of ‘consumer’), depending on whether they have entered into an individual contract for the management and maintenance of the communal areas of the building or not (the management body being the general meeting of the property owners in the latter case), compatible with Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is legislation which permits the same owners of individual units in a building to be treated differently (in relation to the status of ‘consumer’), depending on whether they have entered into an individual contract for the management and maintenance of the communal areas of the building or not (the management body being the general meeting of the property owners in the latter case), compatible with Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011?

---

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

(2)  Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2011 L 304, p. 64).

---

| 11.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 412/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 412/8

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 18 August 2021 — FU v Agence fédérale pour l’Accueil des demandeurs d’asile (Fedasil)

(Case C-505/21)

(2021/C 412/06)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal du travail de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: FU

Defendant: Agence fédérale pour l’Accueil des demandeurs d’asile (Fedasil)

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 27(3) of the Dublin III Regulation (Regulation No 604/2013), (1) where appropriate read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to be interpreted as precluding national legislation which provides that an application for ordinary suspension, made together with an application for the annulment of a decision to transfer an applicant to a Member State declared responsible for examining his or her application for international protection, does not suspend the implementation of the transfer until a decision is given on that application for suspension? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 27(3) of the Dublin III Regulation (Regulation No 604/2013), (1) where appropriate read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to be interpreted as precluding national legislation which provides that an application for ordinary suspension, made together with an application for the annulment of a decision to transfer an applicant to a Member State declared responsible for examining his or her application for international protection, does not suspend the implementation of the transfer until a decision is given on that application for suspension?

| 2. | Is Article 27(3) of the Dublin III Regulation, where appropriate read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to be interpreted as precluding national legislation which provides that an application for suspension of a decision to transfer an applicant to a Member State responsible for examining his or her application for international protection suspends the implementation of the transfer until a decision is given on the application for suspension only if that application has been made on grounds of extreme urgency, where the applicant is the subject of a removal or refoulement order the enforcement of which is imminent, in particular where he or she is held in detention or is placed at the disposal of the government, and where he or she has not yet applied for the ordinary suspension of the decision at the same time as applying for its annulment? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is Article 27(3) of the Dublin III Regulation, where appropriate read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to be interpreted as precluding national legislation which provides that an application for suspension of a decision to transfer an applicant to a Member State responsible for examining his or her application for international protection suspends the implementation of the transfer until a decision is given on the application for suspension only if that application has been made on grounds of extreme urgency, where the applicant is the subject of a removal or refoulement order the enforcement of which is imminent, in particular where he or she is held in detention or is placed at the disposal of the government, and where he or she has not yet applied for the ordinary suspension of the decision at the same time as applying for its annulment?

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 31).

---

General Court

| 11.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 412/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 412/9

---

Order of the General Court of 28 July 2021 — Csordas and Others v Commission

(Case T-146/20) (1)

(Action for annulment - Civil service - Officials - Regularity of the elections for the Luxembourg local section of the Commission’s Staff Committee - Presentation of a joint list of six trade unions or professional organisations - Supervisory obligation of the institution - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

(2021/C 412/07)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Annamaria Csordas (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), Adrian Sorin Cristescu (Luxembourg), Jean Putz (Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg), Miguel Vicente-Nunez (Luxembourg) (represented by: M.-A. Lucas, lawyer)

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

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for, first, annulment or a declaration that the Commission’s failure to prevent or censure a number of acts or omissions relating to the November 2019 elections to the Luxembourg local section of the Commission's Staff Committee is unlawful; second, annulment of the Commission’s memorandum of 28 November 2019 concerning the calculation of the representativeness of representative trade unions and professional organisations in the institution; and third, the annulment of any decision concerning the allocation of additional resources to the trade unions or professional organisations signatories to the representativeness agreement of 14 October 2019 in relation to those available to them on the basis of the representativeness that had been conferred on them following the 2016 elections of the Luxembourg local section of the Staff Committee.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | The applicants shall pay the costs, including the costs relating to the interim proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicants shall pay the costs, including the costs relating to the interim proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 201, 15.6.2020.

---

| 11.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 412/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 412/10

---

Order of the General Court of 28 July 2021 — UPTR v Parliament and Council

(Case T-634/20) (1)

(Action for annulment - Road transport - Regulation (EU) 2020/1055 - International road haulage market - Cabotage - Trade association - Legal standing - Lack of individual concern - Inadmissibility)

(2021/C 412/08)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Unie van Professionele Transporteurs en Logistieke Ondernemers (UPTR) (Herstal, Belgium) (represented by: F. Vanden Bogaerde, lawyer)

Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: R. van de Westelaken and A. Tamás, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Norberg, L. Vetillard and S. Emmerechts, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Article 2(4) of Regulation (EU) 2020/1055 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2020 amending Regulations (EC) No 1071/2009, (EC) No 1072/2009 and (EU) No 1024/2012 in order to adapt them to developments in the road transport sector (OJ 2020 L 249, p. 17).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Unie van Professionele Transporteurs en Logistieke Ondernemers (UPTR) shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Unie van Professionele Transporteurs en Logistieke Ondernemers (UPTR) shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 443, 21.12.2020.

---

| 11.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 412/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 412/10

---

Order of the General Court of 28 July 2021 — Dual Star Logistic and Others v Parliament and Council

(Case T-645/20) (1)

(Action for annulment - Road transport - Regulation (EU) 2020/1055 - Conditions relating to the requirement of establishment of undertakings - Return of vehicles to the operational centre in the Member State of origin within a maximum period of eight weeks - Professional association - Standing to bring proceedings - Act not of individual concern - Inadmissibility)

(2021/C 412/09)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Dual Star Logistic SRL (Bucharest, Romania), Eliton Trans SRL (Piteşti, Romania), Agexim Spedition SRL (Piteşti), SC A & C International Road Cargo SRL (Piteşti), Uniunea Naţională a Transportatorilor Rutieri din România (UNTRR) (Bucharest) (represented by: R. Martens, lawyer)

Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: R. van de Westelaken and A. Tamás, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Norberg, L. Vétillard and S. Emmerechts, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Article 1(3) of Regulation (EU) 2020/1055 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2020 amending Regulations (EC) No 1071/2009, (EC) No 1072/2009 and (EU) No 1024/2012 with a view to adapting them to developments in the road transport sector (OJ 2020 L 249, p. 17).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | There is no longer any need to rule on Romania’s application for leave to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no longer any need to rule on Romania’s application for leave to intervene.

| 3. | Dual Star Logistic SRL, Eliton Trans SRL, Agexim Spedition SRL, SC A & C International Road Cargo SRL and Uniunea Naţională a Transportatorilor Rutieri din România (UNTRR) shall bear their own costs and those incurred by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, apart from the costs relating to the application for leave to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Dual Star Logistic SRL, Eliton Trans SRL, Agexim Spedition SRL, SC A & C International Road Cargo SRL and Uniunea Naţională a Transportatorilor Rutieri din România (UNTRR) shall bear their own costs and those incurred by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, apart from the costs relating to the application for leave to intervene.

| 4. | Dual Star Logistic, Eliton Trans, Agexim Spedition, SC A & C International Road Cargo, Uniunea Naţională a Transportatorilor Rutieri din România (UNTRR), the Parliament, the Council and Romania shall bear their own costs relating to the application for leave to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Dual Star Logistic, Eliton Trans, Agexim Spedition, SC A & C International Road Cargo, Uniunea Naţională a Transportatorilor Rutieri din România (UNTRR), the Parliament, the Council and Romania shall bear their own costs relating to the application for leave to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 9, 11.1.2021.

---

| 11.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 412/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 412/11

---

Order of the General Court of 28 July 2021 — NG and Others v Parliament and Council

(Case T-646/20) (1)

(Action for annulment - Road transport - Regulation (EU) 2020/1054 - Driver’s rest periods - Impossibility of taking certain rest periods in the vehicle - Return to the employer’s operational centre or to the place of residence for certain rest periods - Professional association - Standing to bring proceedings - Act not of individual concern - Inadmissibility)

(2021/C 412/10)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: NG and 17 other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the order (represented by: R. Martens, lawyer)

Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: R. van de Westelaken and A. Tamás, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Norberg, L. Vétillard and S. Emmerechts, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Article 1(6)(c) and (d) of Regulation (EU) 2020/1054 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2020 amending Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 as regards minimum requirements on maximum daily and weekly driving times, minimum breaks and daily and weekly rest periods and Regulation (EU) No 165/2014 as regards positioning by means of tachographs (OJ 2020 L 249, p. 1).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | NG and the other parties whose names are set out in the annex shall pay the costs of the European Parliament and of the Council of the European Union, including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

NG and the other parties whose names are set out in the annex shall pay the costs of the European Parliament and of the Council of the European Union, including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 433, 14.12.2020.

---

| 11.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 412/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 412/12

---

Order of the General Court of 10 August 2021 — Jakeliūnas v ESMA

(Case T-760/20) (1)

(Action for annulment and for failure to act - Request to launch an inquiry - Refusal of the President of ESMA - Act not open to challenge - Inadmissibility - Application for an injunction - Lack of jurisdiction)

(2021/C 412/11)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Parties

Applicant: Stasys Jakeliūnas (Vilnius, Lithuania) (represented by: R. Paukštė, lawyer)

Defendant: European Securities and Markets Authority (represented by: G. Filippa, F. Barzanti and E. Siracusa, acting as Agents)

Re:

In essence, application, first, under Article 265 TFEU seeking a declaration that ESMA unlawfully refrained from launching an inquiry in respect of the infringement of Directive 2003/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on insider dealing and market manipulation (market abuse) (OJ 2003 L 96, p. 16) and, second, under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision allegedly contained in the letter of the President of ESMA of 20 October 2020 refusing to launch that inquiry.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Mr. Stasys Jakeliūnas shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr. Stasys Jakeliūnas shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 72, 1.3.2021.

---

| 11.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 412/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 412/12

---

Order of the General Court of 29 July 2021 — ClientEarth v Commission

(Case T-52/21) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Aarhus Convention - Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 - Documents held by the Commission concerning the control system established for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy - Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 - Implied refusal of access - Express decision adopted after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate)

(2021/C 412/12)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ClientEarth AISBL (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: O.W. Brouwer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Spina and C. Ehrbar, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the Commission’s implied decision of 16 November 2020 rejecting the confirmatory application for access to several documents concerning the control system established for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

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

| 2. | The European Commission shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Commission shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 128, 12.4.2021.

---

| 11.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 412/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 412/13

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 30 July 2021 — Puigdemont i Casamajó and Others v Parliament

(Case T-272/21 R)

(Interim relief - Institutional law - Member of Parliament - Privileges and immunities - Waiver of the parliamentary immunity of a Member of the Parliament - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency)

(2021/C 412/13)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Carles Puigdemont i Casamajó (Waterloo, Belgium), Antoni Comín i Oliveres (Leuven, Belgium), Clara Ponsatí i Obiols (Leuven) (represented by: P. Bekaert, G. Boye, J. Costa i Rosselló and S. Bekaert, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Lorenz, N. Görlitz and T. Lukácsi, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: S. Centeno Huerta, acting as Agent)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU for the suspension of operation of decisions P9_TA(2021)0059, P9_TA(2021)0060 and P9_TA(2021)0061 of the Parliament of 9 March 2021 on the request for waiver of the applicants’ immunity.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The order of 2 June 2021, Puigdemont i Casamajó and Others v Parliament (T-272/21 R) is set aside. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The order of 2 June 2021, Puigdemont i Casamajó and Others v Parliament (T-272/21 R) is set aside.

| 3. | The costs of the main parties are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The costs of the main parties are reserved.

| 4. | The Kingdom of Spain shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Kingdom of Spain shall bear its own costs.

---

| 11.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 412/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 412/13

---

Action brought on 23 July 2021 — UBS Group and UBS v Commission

(Case T-441/21)

(2021/C 412/14)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: UBS Group AG (Zurich, Switzerland), UBS AG (Zurich) (represented by: D. Wood and I. Ioannidis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | Declare the Application admissible and well-founded, and annul the Commission Decision of 20 May 2021 C(2021) 3489 final relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (AT.40324 — European Government Bonds); or, in the alternative, reduce the amount of the fine to € 51,3 million in accordance with UBS’ net value traded methodology; or reduce it to € 60,6 million in accordance with UBS’ adjusted net value traded methodology; or reduce the fine by at least 65 % as a consequence of the errors and inaccuracies identified in the Commission’s methodology; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the Application admissible and well-founded, and annul the Commission Decision of 20 May 2021 C(2021) 3489 final relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (AT.40324 — European Government Bonds); or, in the alternative, reduce the amount of the fine to € 51,3 million in accordance with UBS’ net value traded methodology; or reduce it to € 60,6 million in accordance with UBS’ adjusted net value traded methodology; or reduce the fine by at least 65 % as a consequence of the errors and inaccuracies identified in the Commission’s methodology; and

| — | Order the Commission to bear its own costs as well as the costs of UBS. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to bear its own costs as well as the costs of UBS.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to apply the generally applicable EU rules for calculating the turnover of financial institutions, thus breaching the general principles of equal treatment and legitimate expectations. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to apply the generally applicable EU rules for calculating the turnover of financial institutions, thus breaching the general principles of equal treatment and legitimate expectations.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission has wrongly departed from the Fining Guidelines (1) in a way that was both arbitrary and insufficiently explained, in violation of the relevant case law and UBS’ rights of defence. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission has wrongly departed from the Fining Guidelines (1) in a way that was both arbitrary and insufficiently explained, in violation of the relevant case law and UBS’ rights of defence.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to provide sufficient reasoning supporting its choice of methodology. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to provide sufficient reasoning supporting its choice of methodology.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to use the best available figures in calculating UBS’ value of sales. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to use the best available figures in calculating UBS’ value of sales.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission applied its own methodology in a manner which was materially flawed, and is vitiated by a number of material inaccuracies and errors which resulted in the imposition of a disproportionately high fine on UBS. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission applied its own methodology in a manner which was materially flawed, and is vitiated by a number of material inaccuracies and errors which resulted in the imposition of a disproportionately high fine on UBS.

---

(1)  Guidelines on the method of setting fines pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, OJ 2006 C 210, p. 2.

---

| 11.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 412/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 412/14

---

Action brought on 23 July 2021 — Thomas and Julien v Council

(Case T-442/21)

(2021/C 412/15)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Rhiannon Thomas (London, United Kingdom), Michaël Julien (Weybridge, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Fouchet, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul the trade agreement signed on 30 December 2020 by the Council of the European Union and the UK government, and the decision of the Council of the European Union No 2021/689 to sign it, taken on 29 April 2021, in so far as they approve Article Comprov16 and in so far as they do not maintain the free movement of UK nationals with close family and ownership ties in the territory of the European Union under Article VSTV 1; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the trade agreement signed on 30 December 2020 by the Council of the European Union and the UK government, and the decision of the Council of the European Union No 2021/689 to sign it, taken on 29 April 2021, in so far as they approve Article Comprov16 and in so far as they do not maintain the free movement of UK nationals with close family and ownership ties in the territory of the European Union under Article VSTV 1;

| — | order the European Union to pay all the costs of proceedings, including lawyers’ fees amounting to EUR 5 000. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Union to pay all the costs of proceedings, including lawyers’ fees amounting to EUR 5 000.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging the infringement of the rule of law by the trade and cooperation agreement between the European Union and European Atomic Energy Community, of the one part and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of the other part (‘the agreement’). In that regard, the applicants claim that Article COMPROV16 of that agreement excludes almost all of the provisions from any possibility of being contested before the courts and in particular before the Courts of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging the infringement of the rule of law by the trade and cooperation agreement between the European Union and European Atomic Energy Community, of the one part and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of the other part (‘the agreement’). In that regard, the applicants claim that Article COMPROV16 of that agreement excludes almost all of the provisions from any possibility of being contested before the courts and in particular before the Courts of the European Union.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging the infringement of individuals’ fundamental rights, maintained in the European Union, to close family and ownership ties. That plea is divided into three limbs.






  — | The first limb alleges infringement of the applicants’ right to legal certainty in so far as the stable situation which they peacefully enjoyed for decades without restrictions has been replaced by an unstable situation. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging the infringement of individuals’ fundamental rights, maintained in the European Union, to close family and ownership ties. That plea is divided into three limbs.

—

The first limb alleges infringement of the applicants’ right to legal certainty in so far as the stable situation which they peacefully enjoyed for decades without restrictions has been replaced by an unstable situation.

| — | The second limb is alleges the infringement of the principle of equality, on the ground that the agreement equates very different situations, which leads to discrimination based on nationality. |
| --- | --- |

—

The second limb is alleges the infringement of the principle of equality, on the ground that the agreement equates very different situations, which leads to discrimination based on nationality.

| — | The third limb alleges the infringement of the principle of proportionality, in so far as the agreement ignores the consequences of the requirement of a long-term visa on the applicants’ situation, in particular with regard to their private and family life. |
| --- | --- |

—

The third limb alleges the infringement of the principle of proportionality, in so far as the agreement ignores the consequences of the requirement of a long-term visa on the applicants’ situation, in particular with regard to their private and family life.

---

| 11.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 412/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 412/15

---

Action brought on 30 July 2021 — Saure v Commission

(Case T-448/21)

(2021/C 412/16)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Hans-Wilhelm Saure (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: C. Partsch, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Commission’s decision of 2 June 2021 refusing to grant the applicant’s requested access to Commission documents through the issuing of copies of all Commission communications






  (a) | with the company BioNTech SE, |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission’s decision of 2 June 2021 refusing to grant the applicant’s requested access to Commission documents through the issuing of copies of all Commission communications

(a)

with the company BioNTech SE,

| (b) | with the Federal Chancellery, Germany, regarding the company BioNTech SE and its products, |
| --- | --- |

(b)

with the Federal Chancellery, Germany, regarding the company BioNTech SE and its products,

| (c) | with the German Federal Minister for Health regarding the purchasing of vaccines to combat the coronavirus pandemic, |
| --- | --- |

(c)

with the German Federal Minister for Health regarding the purchasing of vaccines to combat the coronavirus pandemic,

from 1 April 2020 and in particular as regards the quantity of vaccines offered by BioNTech and their delivery times, in so far as it does not grant the applicant access or grants him access only in part;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law: The applicant claims that he is entitled to access the European Commission documents at issue in accordance with Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. (1) |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law: The applicant claims that he is entitled to access the European Commission documents at issue in accordance with Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. (1)

| 2. | Second plea in law: The applicant submits that Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation No 1049/2001 does not preclude the right of access to the information at issue. The information requested is necessary in the interests of national security, public safety and the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder, and for the protection of health. Therefore, a potential interference with privacy and the integrity of the individual is permissible. Lastly, the disclosure of the information requested is of significant public interest. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law: The applicant submits that Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation No 1049/2001 does not preclude the right of access to the information at issue. The information requested is necessary in the interests of national security, public safety and the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder, and for the protection of health. Therefore, a potential interference with privacy and the integrity of the individual is permissible. Lastly, the disclosure of the information requested is of significant public interest.

| 3. | Third plea in law: The applicant submits that the second indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 does not preclude the right of access to the information at issue. There is no ground of exclusion under that provision, since it provides for a ground for exclusion which is limited in time and relates only to ongoing legal advice. The applicant’s request for information, however, concerns only the completed operations. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law: The applicant submits that the second indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 does not preclude the right of access to the information at issue. There is no ground of exclusion under that provision, since it provides for a ground for exclusion which is limited in time and relates only to ongoing legal advice. The applicant’s request for information, however, concerns only the completed operations.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law: The applicant claims that the first subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 does not preclude the right of access to the information at issue. According to the applicant, only the current decision-making process is protected by that provision. The object of the applicant’s request for access to documents is, however, documentation concerning the defendant’s negotiations on vaccine deliveries. Those negotiations have already been completed. There is, moreover, an overriding public interest in the disclosure of the information at issue, since the EU’s vaccine procurement has been discussed and reported for weeks at European level. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law: The applicant claims that the first subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 does not preclude the right of access to the information at issue. According to the applicant, only the current decision-making process is protected by that provision. The object of the applicant’s request for access to documents is, however, documentation concerning the defendant’s negotiations on vaccine deliveries. Those negotiations have already been completed. There is, moreover, an overriding public interest in the disclosure of the information at issue, since the EU’s vaccine procurement has been discussed and reported for weeks at European level.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law: The applicant submits that the first indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 does not preclude the right of access to the information at issue. Disclosure of the information would not undermine the commercial interests of a natural or legal person. According to the applicant, the information requested does not contain any trade secrets within the meaning of Directive (EU) 2016/943. (2) |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law: The applicant submits that the first indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 does not preclude the right of access to the information at issue. Disclosure of the information would not undermine the commercial interests of a natural or legal person. According to the applicant, the information requested does not contain any trade secrets within the meaning of Directive (EU) 2016/943. (2)

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

(2)  Directive (EU) 2016/943 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) against their unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure (OJ 2016 L 157, p. 1).

---

| 11.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 412/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 412/16

---

Action brought on 2 August 2021 — Nomura International and Nomura Holdings v Commission

(Case T-455/21)

(2021/C 412/17)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Nomura International plc (London, United Kingdom), Nomura Holdings, Inc. (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: W. Howard, lawyer, M. Demetriou and C. Thomas, Barristers-at-law, and N. Seay and S. Whitfield, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul Article 1, fourth bullet, of the Commission’s Decision of 20 May 2021 in Case AT.40324 (European Government Bonds) relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (the ‘Decision’), in whole or in part, and so annul the Commission’s finding of liability against the applicants in whole or in part; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Article 1, fourth bullet, of the Commission’s Decision of 20 May 2021 in Case AT.40324 (European Government Bonds) relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (the ‘Decision’), in whole or in part, and so annul the Commission’s finding of liability against the applicants in whole or in part;

| — | in the alternative, annul Article 2, second bullet, of the Decision, in whole or in part, and so annul the fine against the applicants in whole or in part; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Article 2, second bullet, of the Decision, in whole or in part, and so annul the fine against the applicants in whole or in part;

| — | in the further alternative, substantially reduce the fine imposed on the applicants under Article 2, second bullet, of the Decision to such amount as the Court may deem appropriate; and |
| --- | --- |

—

in the further alternative, substantially reduce the fine imposed on the applicants under Article 2, second bullet, of the Decision to such amount as the Court may deem appropriate; and

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

—

order the Commission to pay the applicants’ costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging an error of law in finding that the applicants engaged in a ‘by object’ infringement of Article 101(1) TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging an error of law in finding that the applicants engaged in a ‘by object’ infringement of Article 101(1) TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging an error of assessment of fact and/or law in the Commission’s classification of the contacts in question and consequently its conclusion that they are anticompetitive. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging an error of assessment of fact and/or law in the Commission’s classification of the contacts in question and consequently its conclusion that they are anticompetitive.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging an error of assessment of fact and/or law in respect of the duration of the applicants’ alleged period of infringement. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging an error of assessment of fact and/or law in respect of the duration of the applicants’ alleged period of infringement.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging an error of assessment of fact and/or law in concluding that there was a single and continuous infringement between 18 January 2011 and 28 November 2011. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging an error of assessment of fact and/or law in concluding that there was a single and continuous infringement between 18 January 2011 and 28 November 2011.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging breaches of essential procedural requirements and of the Treaties in relation to liability, including in relation to the Commission’s presentation of its findings, the way in which it has classified the relevant contacts and a breach of equal treatment in respect of the determination of the duration of the applicants’ participation. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging breaches of essential procedural requirements and of the Treaties in relation to liability, including in relation to the Commission’s presentation of its findings, the way in which it has classified the relevant contacts and a breach of equal treatment in respect of the determination of the duration of the applicants’ participation.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging an error of assessment of fact by the adoption of a value of sales proxy which is founded on assumptions which are materially inaccurate as a matter of fact, and the use of which has not been justified by the Commission; further, even on its own terms, the proposed methodology is flawed. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging an error of assessment of fact by the adoption of a value of sales proxy which is founded on assumptions which are materially inaccurate as a matter of fact, and the use of which has not been justified by the Commission; further, even on its own terms, the proposed methodology is flawed.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging breaches of the general principles of proportionality, equal treatment and that the fine should be specific to the offender in relation to the calculation of the applicants’ fine based on the Commission’s value of sales proxy. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging breaches of the general principles of proportionality, equal treatment and that the fine should be specific to the offender in relation to the calculation of the applicants’ fine based on the Commission’s value of sales proxy.

| 8. | Eighth plea in law, alleging breaches of the right of defence and duty to give reasons in relation to the Commission’s presentation of the value of sales proxy. |
| --- | --- |

8.

Eighth plea in law, alleging breaches of the right of defence and duty to give reasons in relation to the Commission’s presentation of the value of sales proxy.

| 9. | Ninth plea in law, alleging errors of assessment of fact and breach of the principle of equal treatment in characterising the gravity of the applicants’ involvement in the alleged infringement. |
| --- | --- |

9.

Ninth plea in law, alleging errors of assessment of fact and breach of the principle of equal treatment in characterising the gravity of the applicants’ involvement in the alleged infringement.

| 10. | Tenth plea in law, alleging failure to recognise the applicants’ limited role as a mitigating circumstance when calculating the applicants’ fine. |
| --- | --- |

10.

Tenth plea in law, alleging failure to recognise the applicants’ limited role as a mitigating circumstance when calculating the applicants’ fine.

---

| 11.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 412/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 412/17

---

Action brought on 3 August 2021 — MCO (IP) v EUIPO — C8 (C2 CYPRUS CASINOS)

(Case T-460/21)

(2021/C 412/18)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: MCO (IP) Holdings Ltd (Tortola, British Virgin Islands) (represented by: A. Roughton, Barrister-at-law)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: C8 (Issy-les-Moulineaux, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trademark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark C2 CYPRUS CASINOS — Application for registration No 17 867 693

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 May 2021 in Case R 908/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and allow the mark (EUIPO application number 017867693) to proceed to registration; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and allow the mark (EUIPO application number 017867693) to proceed to registration;

| — | order EUIPO to bear its own costs; |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to bear its own costs;

| — | order C8 to bear its own costs; |
| --- | --- |

—

order C8 to bear its own costs;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by MCO(IP) Holdings Limited. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by MCO(IP) Holdings Limited.

Pleas in law

| — | misapplication of the principle of interdependence leading to the incorrect rejection of the sign’s registration; |
| --- | --- |

—

misapplication of the principle of interdependence leading to the incorrect rejection of the sign’s registration;

| — | misapplication of the principle of interdependence leading to the incorrect dismissal of the appeal by the Board of Appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

misapplication of the principle of interdependence leading to the incorrect dismissal of the appeal by the Board of Appeal;

| — | misapplication of the principle of interdependence by upholding the opposition and, in consequence, by incorrectly rejecting the sign’s registration. |
| --- | --- |

—

misapplication of the principle of interdependence by upholding the opposition and, in consequence, by incorrectly rejecting the sign’s registration.

---

| 11.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 412/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 412/18

---

Action brought on 3 August 2021 — MCO (IP) v EUIPO — C8 (C2)

(Case T-461/21)

(2021/C 412/19)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: MCO (IP) Holdings Ltd (Tortola, British Virgin Islands) (represented by: A. Roughton, Barrister-at-law)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: C8 (Issy-les-Moulineaux, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trademark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark C2 — Application for registration No 17 867 689

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 May 2021 in Case R 909/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and allow the mark (EUIPO application number 017867689) to proceed to registration; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and allow the mark (EUIPO application number 017867689) to proceed to registration;

| — | order EUIPO to bear its own costs; |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to bear its own costs;

| — | order C8 to bear its own costs; |
| --- | --- |

—

order C8 to bear its own costs;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by MCO(IP) Holdings Limited. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by MCO(IP) Holdings Limited.

Pleas in law

| — | misapplication of the principle of interdependence leading to the incorrect rejection of the sign’s registration; |
| --- | --- |

—

misapplication of the principle of interdependence leading to the incorrect rejection of the sign’s registration;

| — | misapplication of the principle of interdependence leading to the incorrect dismissal of the appeal by the Board of Appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

misapplication of the principle of interdependence leading to the incorrect dismissal of the appeal by the Board of Appeal;

| — | misapplication of the principle of interdependence by upholding the opposition and, in consequence, by incorrectly rejecting the sign’s registration. |
| --- | --- |

—

misapplication of the principle of interdependence by upholding the opposition and, in consequence, by incorrectly rejecting the sign’s registration.

---

| 11.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 412/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 412/19

---

Action brought on 30 July 2021 — Klymenko v Council

(Case T-470/21)

(2021/C 412/20)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Oleksandr Viktorovych Klymenko (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: M. Cessieux, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the action of Mr. Oleksandr Viktorovytch Klymenko admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the action of Mr. Oleksandr Viktorovytch Klymenko admissible;

| — | declare that, by adopting the restrictive measures directed against Mr. Klymenko, whether or not they have been annulled, concerning:






  — | Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/394 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/391 of 4 March 2021; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

declare that, by adopting the restrictive measures directed against Mr. Klymenko, whether or not they have been annulled, concerning:

—

Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/394 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/391 of 4 March 2021;

| — | Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/373 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/370 of 5 March 2020; |
| --- | --- |

—

Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/373 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/370 of 5 March 2020;

| — | Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/354 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/352 of 4 March 2019; |
| --- | --- |

—

Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/354 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/352 of 4 March 2019;

| — | Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/33 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/326 of 5 March 2018; |
| --- | --- |

—

Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/33 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/326 of 5 March 2018;

| — | Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/381 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/374 of 3 March 2017; |
| --- | --- |

—

Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/381 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/374 of 3 March 2017;

| — | Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/318 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/311 of 4 March 2016; |
| --- | --- |

—

Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/318 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/311 of 4 March 2016;

| — | Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/364 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/357 of 5 March 2015; |
| --- | --- |

—

Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/364 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/357 of 5 March 2015;

| — | the Council of the European Union has incurred the European Union’s non-contractual liability; |
| --- | --- |

—

the Council of the European Union has incurred the European Union’s non-contractual liability;

| — | declare that, consequently, the European Union is required to compensate the applicant for the resulting damage; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, consequently, the European Union is required to compensate the applicant for the resulting damage;

| — | order the Council of the European Union to compensate the resulting damage to good character and reputation, amounting to EUR 50 000, plus statutory interest and any other sum that may be justified; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council of the European Union to compensate the resulting damage to good character and reputation, amounting to EUR 50 000, plus statutory interest and any other sum that may be justified;

| — | order the Council of the European Union to award the applicant the sum of EUR 500 for each month during which his name was entered on the lists at issue as compensation for the non-material damage resulting from the difficulties caused to his daily life and the damage to his health, to which should be added statutory interest, and any other sum that may be justified; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council of the European Union to award the applicant the sum of EUR 500 for each month during which his name was entered on the lists at issue as compensation for the non-material damage resulting from the difficulties caused to his daily life and the damage to his health, to which should be added statutory interest, and any other sum that may be justified;

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

—

order the Council 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 insufficient statement of reasons, constituting infringement of the principle of the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial protection. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging insufficient statement of reasons, constituting infringement of the principle of the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial protection.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging error of assessment, resulting from the infringement by the Council of its obligation to establish that the restrictive measures adopted are well founded. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging error of assessment, resulting from the infringement by the Council of its obligation to establish that the restrictive measures adopted are well founded.

---

| 11.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 412/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 412/20

---

Action brought on 7 August 2021 — Haswani v Conseil

(Case T-479/21)

(2021/C 412/21)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: George Haswani (Yabroud, Syria) (represented by: G. Karouni, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul, in so far as these acts affect the applicant:






  — | Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/855 of 27 May 2021 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

annul, in so far as these acts affect the applicant:

—

Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/855 of 27 May 2021 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP;

| — | Council Implementing regulation (EU) 2021/848 of 27 May 2021 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria; |
| --- | --- |

—

Council Implementing regulation (EU) 2021/848 of 27 May 2021 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria;

consequently,

| — | order the removal of Mr. George Haswani’s name from the annexes to the abovementioned acts; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the removal of Mr. George Haswani’s name from the annexes to the abovementioned acts;

| — | order the Council to pay the sum of EUR 100 000 in respect of the applicant’s non-pecuniary harm; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay the sum of EUR 100 000 in respect of the applicant’s non-pecuniary harm;

| — | under Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, pursuant to which the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs, Mr. Haswani requests that the Council bear its own costs and those incurred by him, of which supporting evidence can be shown during the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

under Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, pursuant to which the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs, Mr. Haswani requests that the Council bear its own costs and those incurred by him, of which supporting evidence can be shown during the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging the infringement of the rights of the defence and of the right to a fair trial. The applicant complains that the Council of the European Union infringed his rights of defence and in particular the right to be heard before the decision maintaining his name on the sanctions lists. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging the infringement of the rights of the defence and of the right to a fair trial. The applicant complains that the Council of the European Union infringed his rights of defence and in particular the right to be heard before the decision maintaining his name on the sanctions lists.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging the infringement of the obligation to state reasons. The applicant complains that the Council merely set out vague and general considerations and failed to state specific and concrete reasons for its view, in the exercise of its discretionary assessment, that the applicant must be subject to the restrictive measures at issue. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging the infringement of the obligation to state reasons. The applicant complains that the Council merely set out vague and general considerations and failed to state specific and concrete reasons for its view, in the exercise of its discretionary assessment, that the applicant must be subject to the restrictive measures at issue.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging the infringement of the principle of proportionality in the infringement of fundamental rights. The applicant is of the view in that regard that the measure taken against him is disproportionate in the light of the objective stated and that it constitutes excessive interference with the freedom to conduct business and the right to property, on the ground that that measure covers all influential economic activity without any other criterion. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging the infringement of the principle of proportionality in the infringement of fundamental rights. The applicant is of the view in that regard that the measure taken against him is disproportionate in the light of the objective stated and that it constitutes excessive interference with the freedom to conduct business and the right to property, on the ground that that measure covers all influential economic activity without any other criterion.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment and a lack of evidence. The applicant claims that, according to consistent case-law, the effectiveness of judicial review requires that, in order to review the legality of the grounds on which the decision to list or maintain the name of a particular person on the lists of persons subject to sanctions, the Courts of the European Union must satisfy themselves that that decision has a sufficiently sound factual basis. However, the Council’s allegations concerning both the ‘close ties with the regime’ and a supposed role as an intermediary in oil transactions between the regime and ISIL are entirely unfounded and should therefore be definitively rejected. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment and a lack of evidence. The applicant claims that, according to consistent case-law, the effectiveness of judicial review requires that, in order to review the legality of the grounds on which the decision to list or maintain the name of a particular person on the lists of persons subject to sanctions, the Courts of the European Union must satisfy themselves that that decision has a sufficiently sound factual basis. However, the Council’s allegations concerning both the ‘close ties with the regime’ and a supposed role as an intermediary in oil transactions between the regime and ISIL are entirely unfounded and should therefore be definitively rejected.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, concerning the claim for compensation for the loss suffered. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, concerning the claim for compensation for the loss suffered.

---

| 11.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 412/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 412/21

---

Action brought on 9 August 2021 — Foz v Council

(Case T-481/21)

(2021/C 412/22)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Decision 2021/855 (CFSP) of the Council of the EU of 27 May 2021 amending Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Syria (1), as far as it applies to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Decision 2021/855 (CFSP) of the Council of the EU of 27 May 2021 amending Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Syria (1), as far as it applies to the applicant;

| — | annul Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/848 of the Council of the EU of 27 May 2021 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (2), as far as it applies to the applicant; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/848 of the Council of the EU of 27 May 2021 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (2), as far as it applies to the applicant; and

| — | order the Council to pay full costs and expenses of the proceedings, including those incurred by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay full costs and expenses of the proceedings, including those incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law. The applicant alleges that the Council made a manifest error in assessing the facts by considering that the applicant is supporting the Syrian regime and benefiting from it and by considering that the applicant is a leading businessperson operating in Syria.

---

(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/855 of 27 May 2021 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2021 L 188, p. 90).

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/848 of 27 May 2021 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2021 L 188, p. 18).

---

| 11.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 412/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 412/22

---

Action brought on 9 August 2021 — Polskie sieci elektroenergetyczne v ACER

(Case T-483/21)

(2021/C 412/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Polskie sieci elektroenergetyczne S.A. (Konstancin-Jeziorna, Poland) (represented by: S. Goldberg, A. Galos and E. White, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of Board of Appeal in case A-007-2021 (consolidated) of ACER of 28 May 2021 (the ‘Contested Board of Appeal Decision’) dismissing the applications for annulment and remittal of Decision No 33/2020 of 4 December 2020 (the ‘Agency Decision’) establishing the Methodology for Regional Operational Security Coordination for the Core Capacity Calculation Region (the ‘ROSC Methodology’); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of Board of Appeal in case A-007-2021 (consolidated) of ACER of 28 May 2021 (the ‘Contested Board of Appeal Decision’) dismissing the applications for annulment and remittal of Decision No 33/2020 of 4 December 2020 (the ‘Agency Decision’) establishing the Methodology for Regional Operational Security Coordination for the Core Capacity Calculation Region (the ‘ROSC Methodology’);

| — | Order the defendant to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging an error in law committed by the Board of Appeal in assuming that ACER was competent to go beyond the strict mandate of approving the methodology developed by TSOs as set out in Articles 6(3) and 6(8) of the Regulation 2017/1485 (1) and that it was entitled to develop policy measures significantly extending the scope and the extent of regional coordination. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging an error in law committed by the Board of Appeal in assuming that ACER was competent to go beyond the strict mandate of approving the methodology developed by TSOs as set out in Articles 6(3) and 6(8) of the Regulation 2017/1485 (1) and that it was entitled to develop policy measures significantly extending the scope and the extent of regional coordination.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a failure by the Board of Appeal to provide adequate reasoning to its ruling and thus violation of Article 296 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a failure by the Board of Appeal to provide adequate reasoning to its ruling and thus violation of Article 296 TFEU.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging an error in law committed by the Board of Appeal by finding that ROSC Methodology as established by the Agency Decision is consistent with Article 35 (5) of Regulation 2019/943 (2) and Article 40 (1)(d) of Directive 2019/944 (3). |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging an error in law committed by the Board of Appeal by finding that ROSC Methodology as established by the Agency Decision is consistent with Article 35 (5) of Regulation 2019/943 (2) and Article 40 (1)(d) of Directive 2019/944 (3).

| 4. | Fourth plea of law, alleging an error in law committed by the Board of Appeal by assuming that the possibility to use central dispatching model by TSOs is not affected by the ROSC Methodology.o |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea of law, alleging an error in law committed by the Board of Appeal by assuming that the possibility to use central dispatching model by TSOs is not affected by the ROSC Methodology.o

| 5. | Fifth plea of law, alleging an error in law committed by the Board of Appeal by finding that the ROSC Methodology adopted by the Agency Decision does not fail to set fair rules for cross-border exchange in electricity and does not fail to ensure incentives compatibility regarding congestion management and investments in the hardware-related remedial measures such as phase-shifting transformers (PSTs). |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea of law, alleging an error in law committed by the Board of Appeal by finding that the ROSC Methodology adopted by the Agency Decision does not fail to set fair rules for cross-border exchange in electricity and does not fail to ensure incentives compatibility regarding congestion management and investments in the hardware-related remedial measures such as phase-shifting transformers (PSTs).

| 6. | Sixth plea of law, alleging an error in law committed by the Board of Appeal by finding that the ROSC Methodology adopted by the Agency Decision does not impede the maintenance of operational security limits, in particular voltage limits, and therefore by assuming that the ROSC Methodology is consistent with relevant legal provisions. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea of law, alleging an error in law committed by the Board of Appeal by finding that the ROSC Methodology adopted by the Agency Decision does not impede the maintenance of operational security limits, in particular voltage limits, and therefore by assuming that the ROSC Methodology is consistent with relevant legal provisions.

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/1485 of 2 August 2017 establishing a guideline on electricity transmission system operation (OJ 2017, L 220, p. 1).

(2)  Regulation (EU) 2019/943 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019 on the internal market for electricity (OJ 2019, L 158, p. 54).

(3)  Directive (EU) 2019/944 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019 on common rules for the internal market for electricity and amending Directive 2012/27/EU (OJ 2019, L 158, p. 125).

---

| 11.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 412/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 412/23

---

Action brought on 9 August 2021 — Polskie sieci elektroenergetyczne v ACER

(Case T-484/21)

(2021/C 412/24)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Polskie sieci elektroenergetyczne S.A. (Konstancin-Jeziorna, Poland) (represented by: S. Goldberg, A. Galos and E. White, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of Board of Appeal in case A-001-2021 (consolidated) of ACER of 28 May 2021 (the ‘Contested Board of Appeal Decision’) dismissing the applications for annulment and remittal of Decision No 30/2020 of 30 November 2020 (the ‘Agency Decision’) on the Core CCR TSO’s proposal for the methodology for cost sharing of redispatching and countertrading (the ‘RDCTCS Methodology’); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of Board of Appeal in case A-001-2021 (consolidated) of ACER of 28 May 2021 (the ‘Contested Board of Appeal Decision’) dismissing the applications for annulment and remittal of Decision No 30/2020 of 30 November 2020 (the ‘Agency Decision’) on the Core CCR TSO’s proposal for the methodology for cost sharing of redispatching and countertrading (the ‘RDCTCS Methodology’);

| — | Order the defendant to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging the following errors in law: an error in law by the Board of Appeal in finding that the competence of ACER was not limited by Article 16(13) of the Electricity Regulation and that ACER was effectively competent to adopt policy measures penalising cross-zonal transactions inconsistently with Article 16(13) of Regulation 2019/943 (1); an error in law by the Board of Appeal in disregarding the limits to the competence of ACER resulting from Article 9(11) of Commission Regulation 2015/1222 (2), and an error in law in finding that ACERs competence is ‘conferred’ by Article 6(10) of Regulation 2019/942 (3). |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging the following errors in law: an error in law by the Board of Appeal in finding that the competence of ACER was not limited by Article 16(13) of the Electricity Regulation and that ACER was effectively competent to adopt policy measures penalising cross-zonal transactions inconsistently with Article 16(13) of Regulation 2019/943 (1); an error in law by the Board of Appeal in disregarding the limits to the competence of ACER resulting from Article 9(11) of Commission Regulation 2015/1222 (2), and an error in law in finding that ACERs competence is ‘conferred’ by Article 6(10) of Regulation 2019/942 (3).

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a failure by the Board of Appeal to provide adequate reasoning to its ruling and thus violation of Article 296 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a failure by the Board of Appeal to provide adequate reasoning to its ruling and thus violation of Article 296 TFEU.

| 3. | Third plea in law: an error in law that the Board of Appeal found that decomposition of flows does not contradict the definitions of Article 2 of the ACER RDCTCS Methodology. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law: an error in law that the Board of Appeal found that decomposition of flows does not contradict the definitions of Article 2 of the ACER RDCTCS Methodology.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law: an error in law that the Board of Appeal found that the decomposition of flows in the ACER RDCTCS Methodology (overestimation of Loop Flow (LF) of importing bidding zones) does not infringe Article 74(6)(c) and (i) of Commission Regulation 2015/1222. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law: an error in law that the Board of Appeal found that the decomposition of flows in the ACER RDCTCS Methodology (overestimation of Loop Flow (LF) of importing bidding zones) does not infringe Article 74(6)(c) and (i) of Commission Regulation 2015/1222.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law: an error in law that the Board of Appeal found that the value of the 10 % Loop Flow (LF) of threshold set by ACER is not too high, which infringes the ‘polluter-pays’ principle, as enshrined in Article 16(13) of Regulation 2019/943. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law: an error in law that the Board of Appeal found that the value of the 10 % Loop Flow (LF) of threshold set by ACER is not too high, which infringes the ‘polluter-pays’ principle, as enshrined in Article 16(13) of Regulation 2019/943.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) 2019/943 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019 on the internal market for electricity (OJ 2019, L 158, p. 54).

(2)  Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/1222 of 24 July 2015 establishing a guideline on capacity allocation and congestion management (OJ 2015, L 197, p. 24).

(3)  Regulation (EU) 2019/942 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019 establishing a European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (OJ 2019, L 159, p. 22).

---

| 11.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 412/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 412/24

---

Action brought on 10 August 2021 — Spain v Commission

(Case T-489/21)

(2021/C 412/25)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: S. Centeno Huerta, acting as Agent)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul the Commission’s decision of 10 June 2021 on State aid SA.28599 (C 23/2010) (Ex NN 36/2010, Ex CP 163/2009) implemented by the Kingdom of Spain for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less urbanised areas (outside Castilla La Mancha); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission’s decision of 10 June 2021 on State aid SA.28599 (C 23/2010) (Ex NN 36/2010, Ex CP 163/2009) implemented by the Kingdom of Spain for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less urbanised areas (outside Castilla La Mancha);

| — | 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 eight pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Spain’s right to be heard under Article 41(2) of the Charter, (1) and infringement of Article 4(4) read in conjunction with Article 6 of Regulation 2015/1589, (2) in that the burden of proof concerning selectivity was transferred to the Kingdom of Spain. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Spain’s right to be heard under Article 41(2) of the Charter, (1) and infringement of Article 4(4) read in conjunction with Article 6 of Regulation 2015/1589, (2) in that the burden of proof concerning selectivity was transferred to the Kingdom of Spain.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 266 TFEU, in that the European Commission exceeded its powers in the implementation of the judgment of 20 December 2017, C-70/16 P, and infringement of the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations and, in particular, the principle of ‘reformatio in peius’ and Article 47 of the Charter. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 266 TFEU, in that the European Commission exceeded its powers in the implementation of the judgment of 20 December 2017, C-70/16 P, and infringement of the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations and, in particular, the principle of ‘reformatio in peius’ and Article 47 of the Charter.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to sound administration laid down in Article 41 of the Charter, on account of the undue delay of three years and six months in fulfilling the obligation, set out in the judgment, to state reasons concerning the selectivity of the measure at issue. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to sound administration laid down in Article 41 of the Charter, on account of the undue delay of three years and six months in fulfilling the obligation, set out in the judgment, to state reasons concerning the selectivity of the measure at issue.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU, in that the Commission carried out an unwarranted examination of selectivity, reversing the burden of proof. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU, in that the Commission carried out an unwarranted examination of selectivity, reversing the burden of proof.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 1(d) of Regulation 2015/1589, in that the measure was classified as an ‘aid scheme’. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 1(d) of Regulation 2015/1589, in that the measure was classified as an ‘aid scheme’.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU, in that unclear and contradictory quantification criteria were introduced with regard to the definition of ‘advantage’ contained in the decision. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU, in that unclear and contradictory quantification criteria were introduced with regard to the definition of ‘advantage’ contained in the decision.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU in that there was no advantage for the beneficiaries identified, and error of assessment in the determination of the beneficiary. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU in that there was no advantage for the beneficiaries identified, and error of assessment in the determination of the beneficiary.

| 8. | Eighth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107 TFEU, in that an error of assessment was committed in the examination of compatibility. |
| --- | --- |

8.

Eighth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107 TFEU, in that an error of assessment was committed in the examination of compatibility.

---

(1)  The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (OJ 2016 C 202/02, p. 389).

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

---

| 11.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 412/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 412/25

---

Action brought on 14 August 2021 — Girardi v EUIPO

(Case T-497/21)

(2021/C 412/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Giovanna Paola Girardi (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: G. Macías Bonilla, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the notification issued on 14 June 2021 by the Operations Department in the procedure 50057C and in all other files where the applicant/right holder has its registered address outside the European Union, by which the Applicant cannot represent clients whose registered domicile is outside of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the notification issued on 14 June 2021 by the Operations Department in the procedure 50057C and in all other files where the applicant/right holder has its registered address outside the European Union, by which the Applicant cannot represent clients whose registered domicile is outside of the European Union;

| — | declare the change of practice introduced in the EUIPO’s Guidelines in respect of the professional representation of Spanish lawyers before the EUIPO (Annex 1, Section 5, Part A) illegal; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the change of practice introduced in the EUIPO’s Guidelines in respect of the professional representation of Spanish lawyers before the EUIPO (Annex 1, Section 5, Part A) illegal;

| — | order the European Union Intellectual Property Office to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Union Intellectual Property Office to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging the infringement of the Treaties, as the EUIPO has violated the principles of legal certainty, of legitimate expectations, of proportionality and of non-discrimination by notifying to the applicant an irregularity in the power to act as a representative before the EUIPO on the grounds that in Spain, ‘abogados’ can only represent clients whose permanent place of residence is in the European Union and clients whose permanent residence is outside the European Union must be represented by a professional representative holding the title ‘Agente Oficial de la Propiedad Industrial’. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging the infringement of the Treaties, as the EUIPO has violated the principles of legal certainty, of legitimate expectations, of proportionality and of non-discrimination by notifying to the applicant an irregularity in the power to act as a representative before the EUIPO on the grounds that in Spain, ‘abogados’ can only represent clients whose permanent place of residence is in the European Union and clients whose permanent residence is outside the European Union must be represented by a professional representative holding the title ‘Agente Oficial de la Propiedad Industrial’.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging the infringement of Article 120 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 (1). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging the infringement of Article 120 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 (1).

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging the lack of competence of the EUIPO to deprive Spanish lawyers of a right that exists since 1996 to fully and unconditionally practice before the EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging the lack of competence of the EUIPO to deprive Spanish lawyers of a right that exists since 1996 to fully and unconditionally practice before the EUIPO.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark (EC) (OJ 2017 L 154, p. 1).

---

| 11.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 412/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 412/25

---

Action brought on 16 August 2021 — Saure v Commission

(Case T-506/21)

(2021/C 412/27)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Hans-Wilhelm Saure (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: C. Partsch, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Commission’s decision refusing to grant the applicant’s request to access Commission documents of 9 June 2021 through the issuing of copies of all minutes, summaries, memoranda, notes, files from meetings, negotiations, decisions, proposals, transcripts, emails, letters, records of telephone calls — in particular regarding advance purchase agreements — and specific contracts with pharmaceutical companies for the delivery of Covid-19 vaccines to combat the Covid-19 pandemic drawn up by the ‘Steering Committee’ and ‘Joint Negotiations Team’. By ‘advance purchase agreements’ we understand every contract for the purchase, delivery, securing, reservation, or development of Covid-19 vaccines for EU Member States; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission’s decision refusing to grant the applicant’s request to access Commission documents of 9 June 2021 through the issuing of copies of all minutes, summaries, memoranda, notes, files from meetings, negotiations, decisions, proposals, transcripts, emails, letters, records of telephone calls — in particular regarding advance purchase agreements — and specific contracts with pharmaceutical companies for the delivery of Covid-19 vaccines to combat the Covid-19 pandemic drawn up by the ‘Steering Committee’ and ‘Joint Negotiations Team’. By ‘advance purchase agreements’ we understand every contract for the purchase, delivery, securing, reservation, or development of Covid-19 vaccines for EU Member States;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law: The applicant claims that he is entitled to access the European Commission documents at issue in accordance with Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. (1) The Commission’s refusal to grant access infringes that provision. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law: The applicant claims that he is entitled to access the European Commission documents at issue in accordance with Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. (1) The Commission’s refusal to grant access infringes that provision.

| 2. | Second plea in law: It is submitted that no ground for exclusion precludes the applicant’s right of access. In particular, the ground for exclusion set out in Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation No 1049/2001 does not preclude the applicant’s request. The disclosure of the information requested is necessary for numerous purposes in the public interest. Therefore, a potential interference with privacy and the integrity of the individual is permissible. Furthermore, the risk of undermining must specifically and actually be raised and presented as an issue. The defendant has not however discharged that burden of raising and presenting an issue. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law: It is submitted that no ground for exclusion precludes the applicant’s right of access. In particular, the ground for exclusion set out in Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation No 1049/2001 does not preclude the applicant’s request. The disclosure of the information requested is necessary for numerous purposes in the public interest. Therefore, a potential interference with privacy and the integrity of the individual is permissible. Furthermore, the risk of undermining must specifically and actually be raised and presented as an issue. The defendant has not however discharged that burden of raising and presenting an issue.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

---

| 11.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 412/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 412/26

---

Action brought on 20 August 2021 — Epsilon Data Management v EUIPO — Epsilon Technologies (EPSILON TECHNOLOGIES)

(Case T-512/21)

(2021/C 412/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Epsilon Data Management LLC (Plano, Texas, United States) (represented by: J. Lindemans and J. Bussé, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Epsilon Technologies, SL (Sant Cugat del Valles, Spain)

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 EPSILON TECHNOLOGIES — European Union trade mark No 8 914 855

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 June 2021 in Joined Cases R 1611/2020-5 and R 1839/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the application admissible, together with all the associated documents and the corresponding copies; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the application admissible, together with all the associated documents and the corresponding copies;

| — | uphold the application, annul and set aside the contested decision and order the revocation of the contested EUTM No 8 914 855 due to non-use; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the application, annul and set aside the contested decision and order the revocation of the contested EUTM No 8 914 855 due to non-use;

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

—

order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Plea in law

| — | No genuine use of the contested EUTM is established (Articles 18(1)(a) and 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council). |
| --- | --- |

—

No genuine use of the contested EUTM is established (Articles 18(1)(a) and 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council).

---

| 11.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 412/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 412/27

---

Action brought on 21 August 2021 — Italy v Commission

(Case T-516/21)

(2021/C 412/29)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul, for the reasons set out below, Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/988 of 16 June 2021 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (1) (ad hoc Decision No 66), notified under document C(2021) 4118; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, for the reasons set out below, Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/988 of 16 June 2021 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (1) (ad hoc Decision No 66), notified under document C(2021) 4118;

| — | 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 three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging misinterpretation of Regulation (EU) 2015/1383 (2) (recital 5) and of Article 53(4) of Regulation (EU) No 639/2014, (3) as amended by Regulation (EU) 2015/1383, and infringement of Article 1 of Regulation (EU) 2015/1383 and of the principles of reasonableness, non-discrimination and proportionality with regard to the processing of late notifications to the computerised database in relation to measures providing for a retention period. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging misinterpretation of Regulation (EU) 2015/1383 (2) (recital 5) and of Article 53(4) of Regulation (EU) No 639/2014, (3) as amended by Regulation (EU) 2015/1383, and infringement of Article 1 of Regulation (EU) 2015/1383 and of the principles of reasonableness, non-discrimination and proportionality with regard to the processing of late notifications to the computerised database in relation to measures providing for a retention period.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging misinterpretation of Regulation (EU) 2015/1383 (recital 5) and of Article 53(4) of Regulation (EU) No 639/2014, as amended by Regulation (EU) 2015/1383, and infringement of the principles of reasonableness, non-discrimination and proportionality with regard to the processing of late notifications to the computerised database in relation to measures not providing for a retention period. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging misinterpretation of Regulation (EU) 2015/1383 (recital 5) and of Article 53(4) of Regulation (EU) No 639/2014, as amended by Regulation (EU) 2015/1383, and infringement of the principles of reasonableness, non-discrimination and proportionality with regard to the processing of late notifications to the computerised database in relation to measures not providing for a retention period.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging misinterpretation of Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 (4) (Article 7) with regard to the period for notifying the computerised database. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging misinterpretation of Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 (4) (Article 7) with regard to the period for notifying the computerised database.

---

(1)  OJ 2021 L 218, p. 9.

(2)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/1383 of 28 May 2015 amending Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014 as regards the eligibility conditions in relation to the identification and registration requirements for animals for coupled support under Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2015 L 214, p. 1).

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

(4)  Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 July 2000 establishing a system for the identification and registration of bovine animals and regarding the labelling of beef and beef products and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 820/97 (OJ 2000 L 204, p. 1).

---

| 11.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 412/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 412/28

---

Action brought on 27 August 2021 — Shatrov v Council

(Case T-523/21)

(2021/C 412/30)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Alexander Evgenevich Shatrov (Minsk, Belarus) (represented by: G. Lansky and A. Egger, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

| — | pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, annul Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2021/1002 of 21 June 2021 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus (OJ 2021 L 219I, p. 70) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/997 of 21 June 2021 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ 2021 L 219I, p. 3), in so far as they concern the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, annul Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2021/1002 of 21 June 2021 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus (OJ 2021 L 219I, p. 70) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/997 of 21 June 2021 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ 2021 L 219I, p. 3), in so far as they concern the applicant;

| — | pursuant to Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

pursuant to Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant alleges manifest error of assessment. In particular, the Council failed to provide any concrete evidence to justify the validity of the applicant’s inclusion on the list in the contested measures.

---

| 11.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 412/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 412/28

---

Action brought on 27 August 2021 — Saure v Commission

(Case T-524/21)

(2021/C 412/31)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Hans-Wilhelm Saure (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: C. Partsch, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Commission’s decision of 13 July 2021 to reject the applicant’s request for access to documents of the Commission by refusing to provide him with copies of all of the correspondence that it has exchanged, since 1 April 2020, with the company AstraZeneca plc or with its subsidiaries as well as with the Federal Chancellery of Germany or with the Federal Ministry of Health, relating to the company AstraZeneca plc or its subsidiaries, and in particular to the quantity of Covid-19 vaccines offered by AstraZeneca plc and its delivery deadlines; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission’s decision of 13 July 2021 to reject the applicant’s request for access to documents of the Commission by refusing to provide him with copies of all of the correspondence that it has exchanged, since 1 April 2020, with the company AstraZeneca plc or with its subsidiaries as well as with the Federal Chancellery of Germany or with the Federal Ministry of Health, relating to the company AstraZeneca plc or its subsidiaries, and in particular to the quantity of Covid-19 vaccines offered by AstraZeneca plc and its delivery deadlines;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law: The applicant has a right to access the European Commission documents at issue pursuant to Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. (1) The refusal by the Commission infringes that provision. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law: The applicant has a right to access the European Commission documents at issue pursuant to Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. (1) The refusal by the Commission infringes that provision.

| 2. | Second plea in law: The ground for exclusion laid down in the second indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 does not preclude the applicant’s right of access. That ground for exclusion is limited in time and applies only to pending court proceedings and legal advice. The pending proceedings in Belgium against AstraZeneca under No 2021/48/C relate to a substantially different set of facts and have already been disposed of by the judgment of 18 June 2021. The conditions for infringing the principles of equality of arms and sound administration of justice are not fulfilled either, since any proceedings that might be affected have already been disposed of. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law: The ground for exclusion laid down in the second indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 does not preclude the applicant’s right of access. That ground for exclusion is limited in time and applies only to pending court proceedings and legal advice. The pending proceedings in Belgium against AstraZeneca under No 2021/48/C relate to a substantially different set of facts and have already been disposed of by the judgment of 18 June 2021. The conditions for infringing the principles of equality of arms and sound administration of justice are not fulfilled either, since any proceedings that might be affected have already been disposed of.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

---