# Official Journal C 216/19 J

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 216 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6619 June 2023 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 216

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6619 June 2023

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2023/C 216/01 | Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union | 1 |
| | General Court |
| 2023/C 216/02 | Appointment of the Registrar | 2 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

2023/C 216/01

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

2023/C 216/02

Appointment of the Registrar

2

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2023/C 216/03 | Case C-537/20, L Fund: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 April 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — L Fund v Finanzamt D (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 63 TFEU — Free movement of capital — Corporate income tax — Taxation of income from immovable property situated within the territory of a Member State — Difference in treatment between resident funds and non-resident funds — Exemption for resident funds only — Comparability of situations — Taking into account of the tax system of investors — None — Justification — Need to preserve the coherence of the national tax system — Need to preserve a balanced distribution of the power of taxation between Member States — None) | 3 |
| 2023/C 216/04 | Case C-40/21, Agenția Națională de Integritate: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 May 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Timişoara — Romania) — T.A.C. v Agenția Națională de Integritate (ANI) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Decision 2006/928/EC — Mechanism for cooperation and verification of progress in Romania to address specific benchmarks in the areas of judicial reform and the fight against corruption — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 15(1) — Article 47 — Article 49(3) — Elective public office — Conflict of interests — National legislation prohibiting the holding of elective public office for a predetermined period — Penalty additional to the termination of the term of office — Principle of proportionality) | 4 |
| 2023/C 216/05 | Case C-97/21, MV — 98: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 May 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Blagoevgrad — Bulgaria) — MV — 98 v Nachalnik na otdel Operativni deynosti — Sofia v Glavna direktsia Fiskalen kontrol pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 273 — Failure to issue a fiscal cash register receipt — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 50 — Principle ne bis in idem — Cumulation of administrative penalties of a criminal nature for the same act — Article 49(3) — Proportionality of penalties — Article 47 — Right to an effective remedy — Scope of judicial review relating to the provisional enforcement of a penalty) | 5 |
| 2023/C 216/06 | Case C-200/21, BRD Groupe Societé Générale and Next Capital Solutions: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 4 May 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Bucureşti — Romania) — TU, SU v BRD Groupe Société Générale SA, Next Capital Solutions Ltd (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Enforcement proceedings in respect of a loan agreement constituting an enforceable instrument — Objection to the enforcement — Review of unfair terms — Principle of effectiveness — National legislation not permitting the court hearing the enforcement proceedings to review the possible unfairness of a clause beyond the time limit imposed on a consumer for lodging an objection — Existence of an action under ordinary law that cannot become time-barred enabling the court hearing the substance of the case to carry out such a review and to order suspension of the enforcement — Conditions which do not render impossible in practice or excessively difficult the exercise of rights conferred by EU law — Requirement for the consumer to pay a security in order to suspend the enforcement proceedings) | 5 |
| 2023/C 216/07 | Case C-300/21, Österreichische Post (Non-material damage resulting from unlawful processing of data): Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 4 May 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — UI v Österreichische Post AG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data — Regulation (EU) 2016/679 — Article 82(1) — Right to compensation for damage caused by data processing that infringes that regulation — Conditions governing the right to compensation — Mere infringement of that regulation not sufficient — Need for damage caused by that infringement — Compensation for non-material damage resulting from such processing — Incompatibility of a national rule making compensation for such damage subject to the exceeding of a threshold of seriousness — Rules for the determination of damages by national courts) | 6 |
| 2023/C 216/08 | Case C-352/21, A1 and A2 (Insurance of a pleasure craft): Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 April 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — A1, A2 v I (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Rules of jurisdiction in matters relating to insurance — Article 15(5) — Possibility of departing from those jurisdictional rules by agreement — Article 16(5) — Directive 2009/138/EC — Article 13(27) — Concept of large risks — Hull insurance contract — Jurisdiction clause between the insurer and the insured — Enforceability of that clause against the insured — Pleasure craft not used for commercial purposes) | 7 |
| 2023/C 216/09 | Case C-389/21 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 May 2023 — European Central Bank v Crédit lyonnais (Appeal — Economic and monetary policy — Prudential supervision of credit institutions — Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 — Calculation of the leverage ratio — Exposure measure — Article 429(14) — Exclusion of exposures meeting certain conditions — Partial refusal of authorisation — Discretion of the European Central Bank (ECB) — Action for annulment — Manifest error of assessment — Judicial review) | 8 |
| 2023/C 216/10 | Case C-487/21, Österreichische Datenschutzbehörde and CRIF: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 May 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Austria) — F.F. v Österreichische Datenschutzbehörde (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protection of personal data — Regulation (EU) 2016/679 — Data subject’s right of access to his or her data undergoing processing — Article 15(3) — Provision of a copy of the data — Concept of copy — Concept of information) | 8 |
| 2023/C 216/11 | Case C-492/21 P: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 27 April 2023 — Casa Regina Apostolorum della Pia Società delle Figlie di San Paolo v European Commission (Appeal — State aid — Healthcare services — Direct grants to public hospitals in the Lazio Region (Italy) — Decision finding that there is no State aid — Articles 106 and 107 TFEU — Concepts of undertaking and economic activity) | 9 |
| 2023/C 216/12 | Case C-516/21, Finanzamt X (Permanently installed equipment and machinery): Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 4 May 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt X v Y (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 135(2), first subparagraph, point (c) — Exceptions to the exemption provided for in Article 135(1)(l) — Letting of permanently installed equipment and machinery in the context of the leasing of an agricultural building) | 10 |
| 2023/C 216/13 | Case C-528/21, M.D. (Ban on Entering Hungary): Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 April 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — M.D. v Országos Idegenrendészeti Főigazgatóság Budapesti és Pest Megyei Regionális Igazgatósága (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Immigration policy — Article 20 TFEU — Genuine enjoyment of the substance of the rights which flow from the status of EU citizenship — Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Directive 2008/115/EC — Common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals — Articles 5, 11 and 13 — Direct effect — Right to an effective judicial remedy — Decision banning entry and stay adopted in respect of a third-country national, a family member of a minor EU citizen — Threat to national security — Failure to take into account the individual situation of that third-country national — Refusal to comply with a court decision suspending the effects of that prohibition decision — Consequences) | 10 |
| 2023/C 216/14 | Joined Cases C-529/21 to C-536/21 and C-732/21 to C-738/21, Glavna direktsia Pozharna bezopasnost i zashtita na naselenieto (Night work) and Others: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 4 May 2023 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Rayonen sad — Kula — Bulgaria) — OP (C-529/21), MN (C-530/21), KL (C-531/21), IJ (C-532/21), GH (C-533/21), EF (C-534/21), CD (C-535/21), AB (C-536/21), AB (C-732/21), BC (C-733/21), CD (C-734/21), DE (C-735/21), EF (C-736/21), FG (C-737/21), GH (C-738/21) v Glavna direktsia Pozharna bezopasnost i zashtita na naselenieto kam Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Organisation of working time — Directive 2003/88/EC — Article 1(3) — Scope — Article 8 — Article 12 — Health and safety of night workers at work — Level of protection for night workers appropriate to the nature of their work — Directive 89/391/EEC — Article 2 — Public sector workers and private sector workers — Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Equal treatment) | 11 |
| 2023/C 216/15 | Case C-537/21 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 27 April 2023 — PL v European Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Appraisal report — 2017 appraisal period — Errors of law — Distortion of the facts and evidence — Failure to state reasons) | 12 |
| 2023/C 216/16 | Case C-549/21 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 April 2023 — Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio di Pesaro, Montani Antaldi Srl, Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio di Fano, Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio di Jesi and Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio della Provincia di Macerata v European Commission (Appeal — Article 268 TFEU — Article 340, second paragraph, TFEU — Action for damages — Economic and monetary policy — Articles 107 and 108 TFEU — Fondo Interbancario di Tutela dei Depositi — Planned intervention — Rescue of Banca delle Marche — Letters from the European Commission — Classification as State aid not excluded — Request for the national authorities to notify the Commission of the plan for intervention — No sufficiently serious breach of EU law) | 13 |
| 2023/C 216/17 | Case C-628/21, Castorama Polska and Knor: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 27 April 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie — Poland) — TB (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual property — Directive 2004/48/EC — Measures, procedures and remedies necessary to ensure the enforcement of intellectual property rights — Right of information — Locus standi — Need to establish the existence of an intellectual property right in advance) | 13 |
| 2023/C 216/18 | Case C-677/21, Fluvius Antwerpen: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 27 April 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vredegerecht te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Fluvius Antwerpen v MX (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Taxable transactions — Article 2(1)(a) — Concept of supply of goods for consideration — Article 9(1) — Economic activity — Article 14(1) and (2)(a) — Supply of goods — Unlawful consumption of electricity — Principle of neutrality of VAT — Charging the consumer for compensation including the price of the electricity consumed — Regional legislation of a Member State — Taxable person — Sui generis entity mandated by municipalities — Concept of body governed by public law — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 13(1), third subparagraph, and Annex I — Principle of taxability of electricity distribution — Concept of negligible activity) | 14 |
| 2023/C 216/19 | Case C-681/21, BVAEB (Amount of the retirement pension): Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 27 April 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Versicherungsanstalt öffentlich Bediensteter, Eisenbahnen und Bergbau (BVAEB) v BB (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Directive 2000/78/EC — Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age — Retirement pension — National legislation providing, with retroactive effect, for a category of civil servants previously advantaged by the national legislation relating to retirement pension rights to be treated in the same way as a category of civil servants previously disadvantaged by that legislation) | 15 |
| 2023/C 216/20 | Case C-686/21, Legea: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 27 April 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — VW v SW, CQ, ET, Legea Srl and Legea Srl v VW, SW, CQ, ET (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Trade mark law — Directive 89/104/EEC — Directive (EU) 2015/2436 — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Exclusive rights of the trade mark proprietor — Trade mark belonging to two or more persons — Conditions on majority required between joint proprietors for granting and terminating a licence of their trade mark) | 16 |
| 2023/C 216/21 | Case C-694/21 P: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 27 April 2023 — Brunswick Bowling Products LLC, formerly Brunswick Bowling & Billiards Corporation v European Commission, Kingdom of Sweden (Appeal — Consumer protection — Directive 2006/42/EC — Protection of the health and safety of consumers and workers from risks arising from the use of machinery — Measures adopted by the Kingdom of Sweden — Prohibition on the placing on the market of a type of pinsetter machine and a supplementary kit — Withdrawal of machines already placed on the market — Decision of the European Commission declaring the measures justified) | 16 |
| 2023/C 216/22 | Case C-705/21, AxFina Hungary: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 27 April 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Győri Ítélőtábla — Hungary) — MJ v AxFina Hungary Zrt. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Articles 6 and 7 — Loan agreements denominated in foreign currency — Legal consequences of a declaration that a loan agreement is invalid because of the unfairness of a term in that agreement — Contractual term placing the exchange rate risk on the consumer) | 17 |
| 2023/C 216/23 | Case C-782/21 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 April 2023 — Aeris Invest Sàrl v European Central Bank, European Commission, and Banco Santander, S.A. (Appeal — Access to documents of the EU institutions — Decision 2004/258/EC — Application for access to certain documents concerning the adoption of a resolution scheme for Banco Popular Español, S.A. — Refusal to grant access — Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union) | 18 |
| 2023/C 216/24 | Case C-60/22, Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Court electronic mailbox): Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 May 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Wiesbaden — Germany) — UZ v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data — Regulation (EU) 2016/679 — Article 5 — Principles relating to processing — Controllership — Article 6 — Lawfulness of processing — Electronic file compiled by an administrative authority relating to an asylum application — Transmission to the competent national court via an electronic mailbox — Infringement of Articles 26 and 30 — No arrangement determining joint responsibility for processing and maintaining the record of processing activities — Consequences — Article 17(1) — Right to erasure (right to be forgotten) — Article 18(1) — Right to restriction of processing — Concept of unlawful processing — Taking into account of the electronic file by a national court — Absence of consent of the data subject) | 18 |
| 2023/C 216/25 | Case C-78/22, ALD Automotive: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 4 May 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrchní soud v Praze — Czech Republic) — ALD Automotive s.r. o. v DY, acting as insolvency administrator of the debtor company GEDEM-STAV a.s. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2011/7/EU — Combating late payments in commercial transactions — Article 6 — Fixed minimum sum of EUR 40 as compensation for the recovery costs incurred by the creditor — Late payment regarding contracts for successive performance — Fixed compensation due in respect of each late payment — Obligation to give full effect to EU law — Obligation of interpretation in compliance with EU law — General principles of national private law) | 19 |
| 2023/C 216/26 | Case C-99/22, Kapniki A. Michailidis: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 4 May 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias — Greece) — Kapniki A. Michailidis AE v Organismos Pliromon kai Elenchou Koinotikon Enischiseon Prosanatolismou kai Engyiseon (OPEKEPE) and Ypourgos Agrotikis Anaptyxis kai Trofimon (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Agriculture — Regulation (EEC) No 2062/92 — Article 3(3) — Validity — Common organisation of the markets — Raw tobacco — Premiums granted to purchasers of leaf tobacco — Reduction of those premiums according to the quantity of tobacco of low class, category or quality purchased — Principles of non-retroactivity and of the protection of legitimate expectations) | 20 |
| 2023/C 216/27 | Case C-100/22 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 4 May 2023 — KY v Court of Justice of the European Union (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union — Article 77 — Pension — Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Transfer of national pension rights to the pension scheme of the European Union institutions — Crediting of additional pensionable years — Article 2 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Pension calculation — Fourth paragraph of Article 77 of the Staff Regulations — The minimum subsistence figure rule — Request for reimbursement of the portion of the transferred pension rights not reflected in the EU pension amount — Unjust enrichment) | 21 |
| 2023/C 216/28 | Case C-127/22, Balgarska telekomunikatsionna kompania: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 4 May 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — Balgarska telekomunikatsionna kompania EAD v Direktor na Direktsia Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika — Sofia (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 185 — Adjustment of deductions of input VAT — Goods written off — Subsequent sale as waste — Destruction or disposal duly proved or confirmed) | 21 |
| 2023/C 216/29 | Case C-484/22, Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Return of a minor without his parents): Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Bundesrepublik Deutschland v GS, represented by his parents (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Immigration policy — Return of illegally staying third-country nationals — Directive 2008/115/EC — Article 5(a) and (b) — Return decision adopted in respect of a third-country national — Minor third-country national separated from parents in the event of return — Best interests of the child — Right to respect for family life) | 22 |
| 2023/C 216/30 | Case C-306/22 P: Appeal brought on 8 May 2022 by Nigar Kirimova against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 9 March 2022 in Case T-727/20, Kirimova v EUIPO | 23 |
| 2023/C 216/31 | Case C-5/23 P: Appeal brought on 5 January 2023 by the European Union Intellectual Property Office against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 26 October 2022 in Case T-298/20, KD v EUIPO | 23 |
| 2023/C 216/32 | Case C-129/23, BG Technik: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 3 March 2023 — BG Technik cs, a.s. v Generální ředitelství cel | 24 |
| 2023/C 216/33 | Case C-175/23, Obshtina Svishtov: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo (Bulgaria) lodged on 21 March 2023 — Obshtina Svishtov v Rakovoditel na Upravlyavashtia organ na Operativna programa Regioni v rastezh 2014–2020 | 25 |
| 2023/C 216/34 | Case C-188/23, Conti 11. Container Schiffahrt: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München (Germany) lodged on 23 March 2023 — Land Niedersachsen v Conti 11. Container Schiffahrts-GmbH & Co. KG MS MSC Flaminia | 25 |
| 2023/C 216/35 | Case C-189/23, Consorzio Nazionale Servizi: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 23 March 2023 — Consorzio Nazionale Servizi Società Cooperativa (CNS) v Consip SpA | 26 |
| 2023/C 216/36 | Case C-213/23: Action brought on 31 March 2023 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands | 27 |
| 2023/C 216/37 | Case C-215/23: Action brought on 31 March 2023 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium | 27 |
| 2023/C 216/38 | Case C-226/23, Consorzio Leonardo Servizi e Lavori: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 5 April 2023 — Consorzio Leonardo Servizi e Lavori Società Cooperativa Consortile Stabile v Consip SpA | 28 |
| 2023/C 216/39 | Case C-233/23, Alphabet and Others: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 13 April 2023 — Alphabet Inc., Google LLC and Google Italy Srl v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato | 29 |
| 2023/C 216/40 | Case C-240/23, Herbaria Kräuterparadies: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 17 April 2023 — Herbaria Kräuterparadies GmbH v Freistaat Bayern | 30 |
| 2023/C 216/41 | Case C-261/23 P: Appeal brought on 23 April 2023 by Hengshi Egypt Fiberglass Fabrics SAE and Jushi Egypt for Fiberglass Industry SAE against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 1 March 2023 in Case T-301/20, Hengshi Egypt Fiberglass Fabrics and Jushi Egypt for Fiberglass Industry v Commission | 30 |
| 2023/C 216/42 | Case C-262/23 P: Appeal brought on 24 April 2023 by UPL Europe Ltd and Indofil Industries (Netherlands) BV against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 15 February 2023 in Case T-742/20, UPL Europe and Indofil Industries (Netherlands) v Commission | 32 |
| 2023/C 216/43 | Case C-269/23 P: Appeal brought on 25 April 2023 by Hengshi Egypt Fiberglass Fabrics SAE and Jushi Egypt for Fiberglass Industry SAE against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 1 March 2023 in Case T-480/20, Hengshi Egypt Fiberglass Fabrics and Jushi Egypt for Fiberglass Industry v Commission | 33 |
| 2023/C 216/44 | Case C-271/23: Action brought on 27 April 2023 — European Commission v Hungary | 34 |
| 2023/C 216/45 | Case C-272/23 P: Appeal brought on 27 April 2023 by Jushi Egypt for Fiberglass Industry SAE against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 1 March 2023 in Case T-540/20, Jushi Egypt for Fiberglass Industry v Commission | 35 |
| 2023/C 216/46 | Case C-780/21 P: Order of the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of 16 February 2023 — Oriol Junqueras i Vies v European Parliament, intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain | 37 |
| 2023/C 216/47 | Case C-824/21 P: Order of the President of the Court of 16 February 2023 — Oriol Junqueras i Vies v European Parliament, intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain | 37 |
| | General Court |
| 2023/C 216/48 | Case T-20/18: Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2023 — CV v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Social security — Article 73 of the Staff Regulations — Common rules on the insurance against the risk of accident and of occupational disease — Occupational disease — Medical Committee — Article 22 — Refusal to recognise the occupational nature of a disease — Proper conduct of the pre-litigation procedure — Obligation to state reasons) | 38 |
| 2023/C 216/49 | Case T-557/20: Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2023 — SRB v EDPS (Protection of personal data — Procedure for granting compensation to shareholders and creditors following the resolution of a bank — Decision of the EDPS in which it found that the SRB failed to fulfil its obligations concerning the processing of personal data — Article 15(1)(d) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 — Concept of personal data — Article 3(1) of Regulation 2018/1725 — Right of access to the file) | 38 |
| 2023/C 216/50 | Case T–54/21: Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2023 — OHB System v Commission (Public supply contracts — Tendering procedure — Competitive dialogue — Procurement of Galileo transition satellites — Rejection of a tenderer’s tender — Exclusion criteria — Serious professional misconduct on the part of a tenderer — No final judgment or final administrative decision — Referral to the panel referred to in Article 143 of the Financial Regulation — Equal treatment — Abnormally low tender — Manifest error of assessment) | 39 |
| 2023/C 216/51 | Case T-546/21: Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2023 — Rochem Group v EUIPO — Rochem Marine (R.T.S. ROCHEM Technical Services) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark R.T.S. ROCHEM Technical Services — Earlier national figurative mark ROCHEM MARINE — Relative ground for invalidity — Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark — Articles 15 and 57(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Articles 18 and 64(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 40 |
| 2023/C 216/52 | Case T-547/21: Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2023 — Rochem Group v EUIPO — Rochem Marine (R.T.S. Rochem Technical Services) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark R.T.S. Rochem Technical Services — Earlier national figurative mark ROCHEM MARINE — Relative ground for invalidity — Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark — Articles 15 and 57(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Articles 18 and 64(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 40 |
| 2023/C 216/53 | Case T-548/21: Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2023 — Rochem Group v EUIPO — Rochem Marine (ROCHEM) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark ROCHEM — Earlier national figurative mark ROCHEM MARINE — Relative ground for invalidity — Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark — Articles 15 and 57(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Articles 18 and 64(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 41 |
| 2023/C 216/54 | Case T-549/21: Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2023 — Rochem Group v EUIPO — Rochem Marine (ROCHEM) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark ROCHEM — Earlier national figurative mark ROCHEM MARINE — Relative ground for invalidity — Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark — Articles 15 and 57(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Articles 18 and 64(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 42 |
| 2023/C 216/55 | Case T-681/21: Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2023 — Alves Casas v EUIPO — Make-Up Art Cosmetics (mccosmetics NY) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark mccosmetics NY — Earlier EU figurative mark MAC MAKE-UP ART COSMETICS — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Damage to reputation — Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001) | 42 |
| 2023/C 216/56 | Case T-757/21: Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2023 — Activa — Grillküche v EUIPO — Targa (Apparatus for grilling) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing apparatus for grilling — Disclosure of the earlier design — Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002) | 43 |
| 2023/C 216/57 | Case T-794/21: Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2023 — Wenz Kunststoff v EUIPO — Mouldpro (MOULDPRO) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark MOULDPRO — Genuine use of the mark — Nature of use — Use in connection with the goods in respect of which the mark is registered — Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Legitimate expectations) | 43 |
| 2023/C 216/58 | Case T-35/22: Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2023 — Kaminski v EUIPO — Polfarmex (SYRENA) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark SYRENA — Application of the law ratione temporis — Partial inadmissibility of the action — Res judicata — Article 15(1) and Article 51(1)(a) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 18(1) and Article 58(1)(a) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Genuine use in the European Union — Obligation to state reasons — First sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001) | 44 |
| 2023/C 216/59 | Case T-147/22: Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2023 — Pinar Kuruyemiş Gida Ve Ihtiyaç Maddeleri Sanayi Ticaret v EUIPO — Yadex International (pinar KURUYEMIŞ) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark pinar KURUYEMIȘ — Earlier German word mark PINAR — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Right to be heard — Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Suspension of proceedings — Article 71(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625) | 45 |
| 2023/C 216/60 | Case T-148/22: Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2023 — Pinar Kuruyemiş Gida Ve Ihtiyaç Maddeleri Sanayi Ticaret v EUIPO — Yadex International (pinar KURUYEMIŞ) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark pinar KURUYEMIȘ — Earlier German word mark PINAR — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Right to be heard — Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Suspension of proceedings — Article 71(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625) | 45 |
| 2023/C 216/61 | Case T-153/22: Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2023 — Volkswagen v EUIPO — XTG (XTG) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark XTG — Earlier EU word mark GTX — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 46 |
| 2023/C 216/62 | Case T-154/22: Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2023 — Volkswagen v EUIPO — XTG (XTG) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark XTG — Earlier EU word mark GTX — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 47 |
| 2023/C 216/63 | Case T-138/23: Action brought on 13 March 2023 — Semmelweis Egyetem v Council | 47 |
| 2023/C 216/64 | Case T-174/23: Action brought on 31 March 2023 — Willemsen v Commission | 49 |
| 2023/C 216/65 | Case T-207/23: Action brought on 21 April 2023 — Sta Grupa v EUIPO — Axis (VAPIX) | 50 |
| 2023/C 216/66 | Case T-208/23: Action brought on 21 April 2023 — Clofor v EUIPO — Sitges Alonso (Posts) | 50 |
| 2023/C 216/67 | Case T-209/23: Action brought on 21 April 2023 — Yadex International v EUIPO — Armada Gida (doyum) | 51 |
| 2023/C 216/68 | Case T-210/23: Action brought on 23 April 2023 — Azienda Agricola F.lli Buccalletti v EUIPO — Sunservice (Poles for supporting plants) | 52 |
| 2023/C 216/69 | Case T-213/23: Action brought on 24 April 2023 — EFFAS v EUIPO — CFA Institute (CEFA Certified European Financial Analyst) | 53 |
| 2023/C 216/70 | Case T-219/23: Action brought on 26 April 2023 — Bategu Gummitechnologie v Commission | 53 |
| 2023/C 216/71 | Case T-225/23: Action brought on 2 May 2023 — Debonair Trading Internacional v EUIPO — Lea Nature Services (LEA NATURE SO’BIO ETIC) | 54 |
| 2023/C 216/72 | Case T-229/23: Action brought on 2 May 2023 — Bonami.CZ v EUIPO — Roval Print (bonami) | 55 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2023/C 216/03

Case C-537/20, L Fund: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 April 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — L Fund v Finanzamt D (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 63 TFEU — Free movement of capital — Corporate income tax — Taxation of income from immovable property situated within the territory of a Member State — Difference in treatment between resident funds and non-resident funds — Exemption for resident funds only — Comparability of situations — Taking into account of the tax system of investors — None — Justification — Need to preserve the coherence of the national tax system — Need to preserve a balanced distribution of the power of taxation between Member States — None)

3

2023/C 216/04

Case C-40/21, Agenția Națională de Integritate: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 May 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Timişoara — Romania) — T.A.C. v Agenția Națională de Integritate (ANI) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Decision 2006/928/EC — Mechanism for cooperation and verification of progress in Romania to address specific benchmarks in the areas of judicial reform and the fight against corruption — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 15(1) — Article 47 — Article 49(3) — Elective public office — Conflict of interests — National legislation prohibiting the holding of elective public office for a predetermined period — Penalty additional to the termination of the term of office — Principle of proportionality)

4

2023/C 216/05

Case C-97/21, MV — 98: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 May 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Blagoevgrad — Bulgaria) — MV — 98 v Nachalnik na otdel Operativni deynosti — Sofia v Glavna direktsia Fiskalen kontrol pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 273 — Failure to issue a fiscal cash register receipt — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 50 — Principle ne bis in idem — Cumulation of administrative penalties of a criminal nature for the same act — Article 49(3) — Proportionality of penalties — Article 47 — Right to an effective remedy — Scope of judicial review relating to the provisional enforcement of a penalty)

5

2023/C 216/06

Case C-200/21, BRD Groupe Societé Générale and Next Capital Solutions: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 4 May 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Bucureşti — Romania) — TU, SU v BRD Groupe Société Générale SA, Next Capital Solutions Ltd (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Enforcement proceedings in respect of a loan agreement constituting an enforceable instrument — Objection to the enforcement — Review of unfair terms — Principle of effectiveness — National legislation not permitting the court hearing the enforcement proceedings to review the possible unfairness of a clause beyond the time limit imposed on a consumer for lodging an objection — Existence of an action under ordinary law that cannot become time-barred enabling the court hearing the substance of the case to carry out such a review and to order suspension of the enforcement — Conditions which do not render impossible in practice or excessively difficult the exercise of rights conferred by EU law — Requirement for the consumer to pay a security in order to suspend the enforcement proceedings)

5

2023/C 216/07

Case C-300/21, Österreichische Post (Non-material damage resulting from unlawful processing of data): Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 4 May 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — UI v Österreichische Post AG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data — Regulation (EU) 2016/679 — Article 82(1) — Right to compensation for damage caused by data processing that infringes that regulation — Conditions governing the right to compensation — Mere infringement of that regulation not sufficient — Need for damage caused by that infringement — Compensation for non-material damage resulting from such processing — Incompatibility of a national rule making compensation for such damage subject to the exceeding of a threshold of seriousness — Rules for the determination of damages by national courts)

6

2023/C 216/08

Case C-352/21, A1 and A2 (Insurance of a pleasure craft): Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 April 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — A1, A2 v I (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Rules of jurisdiction in matters relating to insurance — Article 15(5) — Possibility of departing from those jurisdictional rules by agreement — Article 16(5) — Directive 2009/138/EC — Article 13(27) — Concept of large risks — Hull insurance contract — Jurisdiction clause between the insurer and the insured — Enforceability of that clause against the insured — Pleasure craft not used for commercial purposes)

7

2023/C 216/09

Case C-389/21 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 May 2023 — European Central Bank v Crédit lyonnais (Appeal — Economic and monetary policy — Prudential supervision of credit institutions — Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 — Calculation of the leverage ratio — Exposure measure — Article 429(14) — Exclusion of exposures meeting certain conditions — Partial refusal of authorisation — Discretion of the European Central Bank (ECB) — Action for annulment — Manifest error of assessment — Judicial review)

8

2023/C 216/10

Case C-487/21, Österreichische Datenschutzbehörde and CRIF: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 May 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Austria) — F.F. v Österreichische Datenschutzbehörde (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protection of personal data — Regulation (EU) 2016/679 — Data subject’s right of access to his or her data undergoing processing — Article 15(3) — Provision of a copy of the data — Concept of copy — Concept of information)

8

2023/C 216/11

Case C-492/21 P: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 27 April 2023 — Casa Regina Apostolorum della Pia Società delle Figlie di San Paolo v European Commission (Appeal — State aid — Healthcare services — Direct grants to public hospitals in the Lazio Region (Italy) — Decision finding that there is no State aid — Articles 106 and 107 TFEU — Concepts of undertaking and economic activity)

9

2023/C 216/12

Case C-516/21, Finanzamt X (Permanently installed equipment and machinery): Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 4 May 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt X v Y (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 135(2), first subparagraph, point (c) — Exceptions to the exemption provided for in Article 135(1)(l) — Letting of permanently installed equipment and machinery in the context of the leasing of an agricultural building)

10

2023/C 216/13

Case C-528/21, M.D. (Ban on Entering Hungary): Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 April 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — M.D. v Országos Idegenrendészeti Főigazgatóság Budapesti és Pest Megyei Regionális Igazgatósága (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Immigration policy — Article 20 TFEU — Genuine enjoyment of the substance of the rights which flow from the status of EU citizenship — Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Directive 2008/115/EC — Common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals — Articles 5, 11 and 13 — Direct effect — Right to an effective judicial remedy — Decision banning entry and stay adopted in respect of a third-country national, a family member of a minor EU citizen — Threat to national security — Failure to take into account the individual situation of that third-country national — Refusal to comply with a court decision suspending the effects of that prohibition decision — Consequences)

10

2023/C 216/14

Joined Cases C-529/21 to C-536/21 and C-732/21 to C-738/21, Glavna direktsia Pozharna bezopasnost i zashtita na naselenieto (Night work) and Others: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 4 May 2023 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Rayonen sad — Kula — Bulgaria) — OP (C-529/21), MN (C-530/21), KL (C-531/21), IJ (C-532/21), GH (C-533/21), EF (C-534/21), CD (C-535/21), AB (C-536/21), AB (C-732/21), BC (C-733/21), CD (C-734/21), DE (C-735/21), EF (C-736/21), FG (C-737/21), GH (C-738/21) v Glavna direktsia Pozharna bezopasnost i zashtita na naselenieto kam Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Organisation of working time — Directive 2003/88/EC — Article 1(3) — Scope — Article 8 — Article 12 — Health and safety of night workers at work — Level of protection for night workers appropriate to the nature of their work — Directive 89/391/EEC — Article 2 — Public sector workers and private sector workers — Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Equal treatment)

11

2023/C 216/15

Case C-537/21 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 27 April 2023 — PL v European Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Appraisal report — 2017 appraisal period — Errors of law — Distortion of the facts and evidence — Failure to state reasons)

12

2023/C 216/16

Case C-549/21 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 April 2023 — Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio di Pesaro, Montani Antaldi Srl, Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio di Fano, Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio di Jesi and Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio della Provincia di Macerata v European Commission (Appeal — Article 268 TFEU — Article 340, second paragraph, TFEU — Action for damages — Economic and monetary policy — Articles 107 and 108 TFEU — Fondo Interbancario di Tutela dei Depositi — Planned intervention — Rescue of Banca delle Marche — Letters from the European Commission — Classification as State aid not excluded — Request for the national authorities to notify the Commission of the plan for intervention — No sufficiently serious breach of EU law)

13

2023/C 216/17

Case C-628/21, Castorama Polska and Knor: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 27 April 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie — Poland) — TB (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual property — Directive 2004/48/EC — Measures, procedures and remedies necessary to ensure the enforcement of intellectual property rights — Right of information — Locus standi — Need to establish the existence of an intellectual property right in advance)

13

2023/C 216/18

Case C-677/21, Fluvius Antwerpen: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 27 April 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vredegerecht te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Fluvius Antwerpen v MX (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Taxable transactions — Article 2(1)(a) — Concept of supply of goods for consideration — Article 9(1) — Economic activity — Article 14(1) and (2)(a) — Supply of goods — Unlawful consumption of electricity — Principle of neutrality of VAT — Charging the consumer for compensation including the price of the electricity consumed — Regional legislation of a Member State — Taxable person — Sui generis entity mandated by municipalities — Concept of body governed by public law — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 13(1), third subparagraph, and Annex I — Principle of taxability of electricity distribution — Concept of negligible activity)

14

2023/C 216/19

Case C-681/21, BVAEB (Amount of the retirement pension): Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 27 April 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Versicherungsanstalt öffentlich Bediensteter, Eisenbahnen und Bergbau (BVAEB) v BB (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Directive 2000/78/EC — Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age — Retirement pension — National legislation providing, with retroactive effect, for a category of civil servants previously advantaged by the national legislation relating to retirement pension rights to be treated in the same way as a category of civil servants previously disadvantaged by that legislation)

15

2023/C 216/20

Case C-686/21, Legea: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 27 April 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — VW v SW, CQ, ET, Legea Srl and Legea Srl v VW, SW, CQ, ET (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Trade mark law — Directive 89/104/EEC — Directive (EU) 2015/2436 — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Exclusive rights of the trade mark proprietor — Trade mark belonging to two or more persons — Conditions on majority required between joint proprietors for granting and terminating a licence of their trade mark)

16

2023/C 216/21

Case C-694/21 P: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 27 April 2023 — Brunswick Bowling Products LLC, formerly Brunswick Bowling & Billiards Corporation v European Commission, Kingdom of Sweden (Appeal — Consumer protection — Directive 2006/42/EC — Protection of the health and safety of consumers and workers from risks arising from the use of machinery — Measures adopted by the Kingdom of Sweden — Prohibition on the placing on the market of a type of pinsetter machine and a supplementary kit — Withdrawal of machines already placed on the market — Decision of the European Commission declaring the measures justified)

16

2023/C 216/22

Case C-705/21, AxFina Hungary: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 27 April 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Győri Ítélőtábla — Hungary) — MJ v AxFina Hungary Zrt. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Articles 6 and 7 — Loan agreements denominated in foreign currency — Legal consequences of a declaration that a loan agreement is invalid because of the unfairness of a term in that agreement — Contractual term placing the exchange rate risk on the consumer)

17

2023/C 216/23

Case C-782/21 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 April 2023 — Aeris Invest Sàrl v European Central Bank, European Commission, and Banco Santander, S.A. (Appeal — Access to documents of the EU institutions — Decision 2004/258/EC — Application for access to certain documents concerning the adoption of a resolution scheme for Banco Popular Español, S.A. — Refusal to grant access — Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)

18

2023/C 216/24

Case C-60/22, Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Court electronic mailbox): Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 May 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Wiesbaden — Germany) — UZ v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data — Regulation (EU) 2016/679 — Article 5 — Principles relating to processing — Controllership — Article 6 — Lawfulness of processing — Electronic file compiled by an administrative authority relating to an asylum application — Transmission to the competent national court via an electronic mailbox — Infringement of Articles 26 and 30 — No arrangement determining joint responsibility for processing and maintaining the record of processing activities — Consequences — Article 17(1) — Right to erasure (right to be forgotten) — Article 18(1) — Right to restriction of processing — Concept of unlawful processing — Taking into account of the electronic file by a national court — Absence of consent of the data subject)

18

2023/C 216/25

Case C-78/22, ALD Automotive: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 4 May 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrchní soud v Praze — Czech Republic) — ALD Automotive s.r. o. v DY, acting as insolvency administrator of the debtor company GEDEM-STAV a.s. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2011/7/EU — Combating late payments in commercial transactions — Article 6 — Fixed minimum sum of EUR 40 as compensation for the recovery costs incurred by the creditor — Late payment regarding contracts for successive performance — Fixed compensation due in respect of each late payment — Obligation to give full effect to EU law — Obligation of interpretation in compliance with EU law — General principles of national private law)

19

2023/C 216/26

Case C-99/22, Kapniki A. Michailidis: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 4 May 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias — Greece) — Kapniki A. Michailidis AE v Organismos Pliromon kai Elenchou Koinotikon Enischiseon Prosanatolismou kai Engyiseon (OPEKEPE) and Ypourgos Agrotikis Anaptyxis kai Trofimon (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Agriculture — Regulation (EEC) No 2062/92 — Article 3(3) — Validity — Common organisation of the markets — Raw tobacco — Premiums granted to purchasers of leaf tobacco — Reduction of those premiums according to the quantity of tobacco of low class, category or quality purchased — Principles of non-retroactivity and of the protection of legitimate expectations)

20

2023/C 216/27

Case C-100/22 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 4 May 2023 — KY v Court of Justice of the European Union (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union — Article 77 — Pension — Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Transfer of national pension rights to the pension scheme of the European Union institutions — Crediting of additional pensionable years — Article 2 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Pension calculation — Fourth paragraph of Article 77 of the Staff Regulations — The minimum subsistence figure rule — Request for reimbursement of the portion of the transferred pension rights not reflected in the EU pension amount — Unjust enrichment)

21

2023/C 216/28

Case C-127/22, Balgarska telekomunikatsionna kompania: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 4 May 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — Balgarska telekomunikatsionna kompania EAD v Direktor na Direktsia Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika — Sofia (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 185 — Adjustment of deductions of input VAT — Goods written off — Subsequent sale as waste — Destruction or disposal duly proved or confirmed)

21

2023/C 216/29

Case C-484/22, Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Return of a minor without his parents): Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Bundesrepublik Deutschland v GS, represented by his parents (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Immigration policy — Return of illegally staying third-country nationals — Directive 2008/115/EC — Article 5(a) and (b) — Return decision adopted in respect of a third-country national — Minor third-country national separated from parents in the event of return — Best interests of the child — Right to respect for family life)

22

2023/C 216/30

Case C-306/22 P: Appeal brought on 8 May 2022 by Nigar Kirimova against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 9 March 2022 in Case T-727/20, Kirimova v EUIPO

23

2023/C 216/31

Case C-5/23 P: Appeal brought on 5 January 2023 by the European Union Intellectual Property Office against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 26 October 2022 in Case T-298/20, KD v EUIPO

23

2023/C 216/32

Case C-129/23, BG Technik: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 3 March 2023 — BG Technik cs, a.s. v Generální ředitelství cel

24

2023/C 216/33

Case C-175/23, Obshtina Svishtov: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo (Bulgaria) lodged on 21 March 2023 — Obshtina Svishtov v Rakovoditel na Upravlyavashtia organ na Operativna programa Regioni v rastezh 2014–2020

25

2023/C 216/34

Case C-188/23, Conti 11. Container Schiffahrt: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München (Germany) lodged on 23 March 2023 — Land Niedersachsen v Conti 11. Container Schiffahrts-GmbH & Co. KG MS MSC Flaminia

25

2023/C 216/35

Case C-189/23, Consorzio Nazionale Servizi: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 23 March 2023 — Consorzio Nazionale Servizi Società Cooperativa (CNS) v Consip SpA

26

2023/C 216/36

Case C-213/23: Action brought on 31 March 2023 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands

27

2023/C 216/37

Case C-215/23: Action brought on 31 March 2023 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

27

2023/C 216/38

Case C-226/23, Consorzio Leonardo Servizi e Lavori: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 5 April 2023 — Consorzio Leonardo Servizi e Lavori Società Cooperativa Consortile Stabile v Consip SpA

28

2023/C 216/39

Case C-233/23, Alphabet and Others: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 13 April 2023 — Alphabet Inc., Google LLC and Google Italy Srl v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato

29

2023/C 216/40

Case C-240/23, Herbaria Kräuterparadies: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 17 April 2023 — Herbaria Kräuterparadies GmbH v Freistaat Bayern

30

2023/C 216/41

Case C-261/23 P: Appeal brought on 23 April 2023 by Hengshi Egypt Fiberglass Fabrics SAE and Jushi Egypt for Fiberglass Industry SAE against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 1 March 2023 in Case T-301/20, Hengshi Egypt Fiberglass Fabrics and Jushi Egypt for Fiberglass Industry v Commission

30

2023/C 216/42

Case C-262/23 P: Appeal brought on 24 April 2023 by UPL Europe Ltd and Indofil Industries (Netherlands) BV against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 15 February 2023 in Case T-742/20, UPL Europe and Indofil Industries (Netherlands) v Commission

32

2023/C 216/43

Case C-269/23 P: Appeal brought on 25 April 2023 by Hengshi Egypt Fiberglass Fabrics SAE and Jushi Egypt for Fiberglass Industry SAE against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 1 March 2023 in Case T-480/20, Hengshi Egypt Fiberglass Fabrics and Jushi Egypt for Fiberglass Industry v Commission

v Commission

33

2023/C 216/44

Case C-271/23: Action brought on 27 April 2023 — European Commission v Hungary

34

2023/C 216/45

Case C-272/23 P: Appeal brought on 27 April 2023 by Jushi Egypt for Fiberglass Industry SAE against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 1 March 2023 in Case T-540/20, Jushi Egypt for Fiberglass Industry v Commission

35

2023/C 216/46

Case C-780/21 P: Order of the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of 16 February 2023 — Oriol Junqueras i Vies v European Parliament, intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain

intervener in support of the defendant:

37

2023/C 216/47

Case C-824/21 P: Order of the President of the Court of 16 February 2023 — Oriol Junqueras i Vies v European Parliament, intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain

intervener in support of the defendant:

37

General Court

2023/C 216/48

Case T-20/18: Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2023 — CV v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Social security — Article 73 of the Staff Regulations — Common rules on the insurance against the risk of accident and of occupational disease — Occupational disease — Medical Committee — Article 22 — Refusal to recognise the occupational nature of a disease — Proper conduct of the pre-litigation procedure — Obligation to state reasons)

38

2023/C 216/49

Case T-557/20: Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2023 — SRB v EDPS (Protection of personal data — Procedure for granting compensation to shareholders and creditors following the resolution of a bank — Decision of the EDPS in which it found that the SRB failed to fulfil its obligations concerning the processing of personal data — Article 15(1)(d) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 — Concept of personal data — Article 3(1) of Regulation 2018/1725 — Right of access to the file)

38

2023/C 216/50

Case T–54/21: Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2023 — OHB System v Commission (Public supply contracts — Tendering procedure — Competitive dialogue — Procurement of Galileo transition satellites — Rejection of a tenderer’s tender — Exclusion criteria — Serious professional misconduct on the part of a tenderer — No final judgment or final administrative decision — Referral to the panel referred to in Article 143 of the Financial Regulation — Equal treatment — Abnormally low tender — Manifest error of assessment)

39

2023/C 216/51

Case T-546/21: Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2023 — Rochem Group v EUIPO — Rochem Marine (R.T.S. ROCHEM Technical Services) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark R.T.S. ROCHEM Technical Services — Earlier national figurative mark ROCHEM MARINE — Relative ground for invalidity — Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark — Articles 15 and 57(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Articles 18 and 64(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

40

2023/C 216/52

Case T-547/21: Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2023 — Rochem Group v EUIPO — Rochem Marine (R.T.S. Rochem Technical Services) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark R.T.S. Rochem Technical Services — Earlier national figurative mark ROCHEM MARINE — Relative ground for invalidity — Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark — Articles 15 and 57(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Articles 18 and 64(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

40

2023/C 216/53

Case T-548/21: Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2023 — Rochem Group v EUIPO — Rochem Marine (ROCHEM) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark ROCHEM — Earlier national figurative mark ROCHEM MARINE — Relative ground for invalidity — Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark — Articles 15 and 57(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Articles 18 and 64(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

41

2023/C 216/54

Case T-549/21: Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2023 — Rochem Group v EUIPO — Rochem Marine (ROCHEM) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark ROCHEM — Earlier national figurative mark ROCHEM MARINE — Relative ground for invalidity — Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark — Articles 15 and 57(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Articles 18 and 64(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

42

2023/C 216/55

Case T-681/21: Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2023 — Alves Casas v EUIPO — Make-Up Art Cosmetics (mccosmetics NY) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark mccosmetics NY — Earlier EU figurative mark MAC MAKE-UP ART COSMETICS — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Damage to reputation — Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001)

42

2023/C 216/56

Case T-757/21: Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2023 — Activa — Grillküche v EUIPO — Targa (Apparatus for grilling) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing apparatus for grilling — Disclosure of the earlier design — Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

43

2023/C 216/57

Case T-794/21: Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2023 — Wenz Kunststoff v EUIPO — Mouldpro (MOULDPRO) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark MOULDPRO — Genuine use of the mark — Nature of use — Use in connection with the goods in respect of which the mark is registered — Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Legitimate expectations)

43

2023/C 216/58

Case T-35/22: Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2023 — Kaminski v EUIPO — Polfarmex (SYRENA) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark SYRENA — Application of the law ratione temporis — Partial inadmissibility of the action — Res judicata — Article 15(1) and Article 51(1)(a) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 18(1) and Article 58(1)(a) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Genuine use in the European Union — Obligation to state reasons — First sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)

44

2023/C 216/59

Case T-147/22: Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2023 — Pinar Kuruyemiş Gida Ve Ihtiyaç Maddeleri Sanayi Ticaret v EUIPO — Yadex International (pinar KURUYEMIŞ) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark pinar KURUYEMIȘ — Earlier German word mark PINAR — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Right to be heard — Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Suspension of proceedings — Article 71(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625)

45

2023/C 216/60

Case T-148/22: Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2023 — Pinar Kuruyemiş Gida Ve Ihtiyaç Maddeleri Sanayi Ticaret v EUIPO — Yadex International (pinar KURUYEMIŞ) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark pinar KURUYEMIȘ — Earlier German word mark PINAR — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Right to be heard — Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Suspension of proceedings — Article 71(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625)

45

2023/C 216/61

Case T-153/22: Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2023 — Volkswagen v EUIPO — XTG (XTG) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark XTG — Earlier EU word mark GTX — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

46

2023/C 216/62

Case T-154/22: Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2023 — Volkswagen v EUIPO — XTG (XTG) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark XTG — Earlier EU word mark GTX — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

47

2023/C 216/63

Case T-138/23: Action brought on 13 March 2023 — Semmelweis Egyetem v Council

47

2023/C 216/64

Case T-174/23: Action brought on 31 March 2023 — Willemsen v Commission

49

2023/C 216/65

Case T-207/23: Action brought on 21 April 2023 — Sta Grupa v EUIPO — Axis (VAPIX)

50

2023/C 216/66

Case T-208/23: Action brought on 21 April 2023 — Clofor v EUIPO — Sitges Alonso (Posts)

50

2023/C 216/67

Case T-209/23: Action brought on 21 April 2023 — Yadex International v EUIPO — Armada Gida (doyum)

51

2023/C 216/68

Case T-210/23: Action brought on 23 April 2023 — Azienda Agricola F.lli Buccalletti v EUIPO — Sunservice (Poles for supporting plants)

52

2023/C 216/69

Case T-213/23: Action brought on 24 April 2023 — EFFAS v EUIPO — CFA Institute (CEFA Certified European Financial Analyst)

53

2023/C 216/70

Case T-219/23: Action brought on 26 April 2023 — Bategu Gummitechnologie v Commission

53

2023/C 216/71

Case T-225/23: Action brought on 2 May 2023 — Debonair Trading Internacional v EUIPO — Lea Nature Services (LEA NATURE SO’BIO ETIC)

54

2023/C 216/72

Case T-229/23: Action brought on 2 May 2023 — Bonami.CZ v EUIPO — Roval Print (bonami)

55

---

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/1

---

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

(2023/C 216/01)

Last publication

OJ C 205, 12.6.2023

Past publications

OJ C 189, 30.5.2023

OJ C 173, 15.5.2023

OJ C 164, 8.5.2023

OJ C 155, 2.5.2023

OJ C 134, 17.4.2023

OJ C 127, 11.4.2023

These texts are available on:

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

---

General Court

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/2

---

Appointment of the Registrar

(2023/C 216/02)

On 30 April 2023, Mr Emmanuel Coulon, Registrar of the General Court of the European Union, ceased to hold office. Mr Vittorio Di Bucci, appointed Registrar of the General Court of the European Union by decision of the General Court of 26 April 2023, in accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 254 TFEU and with Article 32 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, was sworn in on 5 June 2023 and took up his duties for a term of six years until 4 June 2029 inclusive.

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/3

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 April 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — L Fund v Finanzamt D

(Case C-537/20, (1) L Fund)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 63 TFEU - Free movement of capital - Corporate income tax - Taxation of income from immovable property situated within the territory of a Member State - Difference in treatment between resident funds and non-resident funds - Exemption for resident funds only - Comparability of situations - Taking into account of the tax system of investors - None - Justification - Need to preserve the coherence of the national tax system - Need to preserve a balanced distribution of the power of taxation between Member States - None)

(2023/C 216/03)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: L Fund

Defendant: Finanzamt D

in the presence of: Bundesministerium der Finanzen

Operative part of the judgment

Article 63 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which makes non-resident specialised property funds partially liable to corporate income tax in respect of the income from property which they receive in the territory of that Member State, whereas resident specialised property funds are exempted from that tax.

---

(1)  OJ C 19, 18.1.2021.

---

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/4

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 May 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Timişoara — Romania) — T.A.C. v Agenția Națională de Integritate (ANI)

(Case C-40/21, (1) Agenția Națională de Integritate)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Decision 2006/928/EC - Mechanism for cooperation and verification of progress in Romania to address specific benchmarks in the areas of judicial reform and the fight against corruption - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 15(1) - Article 47 - Article 49(3) - Elective public office - Conflict of interests - National legislation prohibiting the holding of elective public office for a predetermined period - Penalty additional to the termination of the term of office - Principle of proportionality)

(2023/C 216/04)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Timişoara

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: T.A.C.

Defendant: Agenția Națională de Integritate (ANI)

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 49(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as meaning that it does not apply to national legislation which provides, following an administrative procedure, for a measure prohibiting the holding of any elective public office for a predetermined period of three years against a person who has been found to have a conflict of interest in the holding of such an office, in the event that that measure is not criminal in nature. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 49(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as meaning that it does not apply to national legislation which provides, following an administrative procedure, for a measure prohibiting the holding of any elective public office for a predetermined period of three years against a person who has been found to have a conflict of interest in the holding of such an office, in the event that that measure is not criminal in nature.

| 2. | The principle of proportionality must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude national legislation which provides for a measure prohibiting the holding of any elective public office for a predetermined period of three years against a person who has been found to have a conflict of interest in the holding of such an office provided that, in the light of all the relevant circumstances, the application of that legislation results in the imposition of a penalty commensurate with the seriousness of the breach which it penalises, having regard to the objective of ensuring integrity and transparency in the exercise and holding of public functions and offices and preventing institutional corruption. That would not be the case where, exceptionally, the unlawful conduct found to have taken place, having regard to that objective, does not have an element of seriousness, whereas the impact of that measure on the personal, professional and economic situation of that person proves particularly serious. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The principle of proportionality must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude national legislation which provides for a measure prohibiting the holding of any elective public office for a predetermined period of three years against a person who has been found to have a conflict of interest in the holding of such an office provided that, in the light of all the relevant circumstances, the application of that legislation results in the imposition of a penalty commensurate with the seriousness of the breach which it penalises, having regard to the objective of ensuring integrity and transparency in the exercise and holding of public functions and offices and preventing institutional corruption. That would not be the case where, exceptionally, the unlawful conduct found to have taken place, having regard to that objective, does not have an element of seriousness, whereas the impact of that measure on the personal, professional and economic situation of that person proves particularly serious.

| 3. | Article 15(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights must be interpreted as meaning that the right to exercise an electoral mandate obtained following a democratic electoral process, such as that of mayor, is not covered by that provision. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 15(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights must be interpreted as meaning that the right to exercise an electoral mandate obtained following a democratic electoral process, such as that of mayor, is not covered by that provision.

| 4. | Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude national legislation which provides for a measure prohibiting the holding of any elective public office for a predetermined period of three years against a person who has been found to have a conflict of interest in the holding of such an office, provided that the person concerned has had an effective opportunity to challenge the legality of the report that made that finding and the penalty imposed on the basis of it, including its proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude national legislation which provides for a measure prohibiting the holding of any elective public office for a predetermined period of three years against a person who has been found to have a conflict of interest in the holding of such an office, provided that the person concerned has had an effective opportunity to challenge the legality of the report that made that finding and the penalty imposed on the basis of it, including its proportionality.

---

(1)  OJ C 289, 19.7.2021.

---

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/5

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 May 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Blagoevgrad — Bulgaria) — MV — 98 v Nachalnik na otdel ‘Operativni deynosti’ — Sofia v Glavna direktsia ‘Fiskalen kontrol’ pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite

(Case C-97/21, (1) MV — 98)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 273 - Failure to issue a fiscal cash register receipt - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 50 - Principle ne bis in idem - Cumulation of administrative penalties of a criminal nature for the same act - Article 49(3) - Proportionality of penalties - Article 47 - Right to an effective remedy - Scope of judicial review relating to the provisional enforcement of a penalty)

(2023/C 216/05)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad — Blagoevgrad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: MV — 98

Defendant: Nachalnik na otdel ‘Operativni deynosti’ — Sofia v Glavna direktsia ‘Fiskalen kontrol’ pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite

Operative part of the judgment

Article 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax and Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which a financial penalty and a measure involving sealing of business premises may be imposed on a taxpayer for one and the same offence relating to a tax obligation at the end of separate and autonomous procedures, where those measures are liable to challenge before different courts and where that legislation does not ensure coordination of the procedures enabling the additional disadvantage associated with the cumulation of those measures to be reduced to what is strictly necessary and does not ensure that the severity of all penalties imposed is commensurate with the seriousness of the offence concerned.

---

(1)  OJ C 163, 3.5.2021.

---

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 4 May 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Bucureşti — Romania) — TU, SU v BRD Groupe Société Générale SA, Next Capital Solutions Ltd

(Case C-200/21, (1) BRD Groupe Societé Générale and Next Capital Solutions)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Enforcement proceedings in respect of a loan agreement constituting an enforceable instrument - Objection to the enforcement - Review of unfair terms - Principle of effectiveness - National legislation not permitting the court hearing the enforcement proceedings to review the possible unfairness of a clause beyond the time limit imposed on a consumer for lodging an objection - Existence of an action under ordinary law that cannot become time-barred enabling the court hearing the substance of the case to carry out such a review and to order suspension of the enforcement - Conditions which do not render impossible in practice or excessively difficult the exercise of rights conferred by EU law - Requirement for the consumer to pay a security in order to suspend the enforcement proceedings)

(2023/C 216/06)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Bucureşti

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: TU, SU

Defendants: BRD Groupe Société Générale SA, Next Capital Solutions Ltd

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts,

must be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law that does not allow the court which is responsible for the enforcement proceedings and which hears, outside the 15-day period laid down by that provision, an objection to the enforcement of a contract that is concluded between a consumer and a seller or supplier and constitutes an enforceable instrument, to assess, of its own motion or at the request of the consumer, the unfairness of the terms of that contract, when that consumer also has an action on the merits which enables him or her to request the court hearing that action to carry out such a review and to order the suspension of the enforcement pending the outcome of that action, in accordance with another provision of that national law, where that suspension is possible only by way of payment of a security the amount of which is likely to dissuade the consumer from bringing and continuing such an action, which it is for the referring court to verify. Where it is not possible to interpret and apply the national legislation in a manner that is consistent with the requirements of that directive, the national court hearing an objection to the enforcement of such a contract is obliged to examine of its own motion whether the terms of that contract are unfair, and, where necessary, is to disapply any national provisions which preclude such an examination.

---

(1)  OJ C 320, 9.8.2021.

---

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 4 May 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — UI v Österreichische Post AG

(Case C-300/21, (1) Österreichische Post (Non-material damage resulting from unlawful processing of data))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data - Regulation (EU) 2016/679 - Article 82(1) - Right to compensation for damage caused by data processing that infringes that regulation - Conditions governing the right to compensation - Mere infringement of that regulation not sufficient - Need for damage caused by that infringement - Compensation for non-material damage resulting from such processing - Incompatibility of a national rule making compensation for such damage subject to the exceeding of a threshold of seriousness - Rules for the determination of damages by national courts)

(2023/C 216/07)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: UI

Defendant: Österreichische Post AG

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 82(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation)
  must be interpreted as meaning that the mere infringement of the provisions of that regulation is not sufficient to confer a right to compensation. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 82(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation)

must be interpreted as meaning that the mere infringement of the provisions of that regulation is not sufficient to confer a right to compensation.

| 2. | Article 82(1) of Regulation 2016/679
  must be interpreted as precluding a national rule or practice which makes compensation for non-material damage, within the meaning of that provision, subject to the condition that the damage suffered by the data subject has reached a certain degree of seriousness. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 82(1) of Regulation 2016/679

must be interpreted as precluding a national rule or practice which makes compensation for non-material damage, within the meaning of that provision, subject to the condition that the damage suffered by the data subject has reached a certain degree of seriousness.

| 3. | Article 82 of Regulation 2016/679
  must be interpreted as meaning that for the purposes of determining the amount of damages payable under the right to compensation enshrined in that article, national courts must apply the domestic rules of each Member State relating to the extent of financial compensation, provided that the principles of equivalence and effectiveness of EU law are complied with. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 82 of Regulation 2016/679

must be interpreted as meaning that for the purposes of determining the amount of damages payable under the right to compensation enshrined in that article, national courts must apply the domestic rules of each Member State relating to the extent of financial compensation, provided that the principles of equivalence and effectiveness of EU law are complied with.

---

(1)  OJ C 320, 9.8.2021.

---

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 April 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — A1, A2 v I

(Case C-352/21, (1) A1 and A2 (Insurance of a pleasure craft))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Rules of jurisdiction in matters relating to insurance - Article 15(5) - Possibility of departing from those jurisdictional rules by agreement - Article 16(5) - Directive 2009/138/EC - Article 13(27) - Concept of ‘large risks’ - Hull insurance contract - Jurisdiction clause between the insurer and the insured - Enforceability of that clause against the insured - Pleasure craft not used for commercial purposes)

(2023/C 216/08)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Østre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: A1, A2

Defendant: I

Operative part of the judgment

Article 15(5) 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, read in conjunction with Article 16(5) thereof,

must be interpreted as meaning that a hull insurance contract relating to a pleasure craft not used for commercial purposes does not fall under Article 15(5) of that regulation.

---

(1)  OJ C 320, 9.8.2021.

---

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/8

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 May 2023 — European Central Bank v Crédit lyonnais

(Case C-389/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - Economic and monetary policy - Prudential supervision of credit institutions - Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 - Calculation of the leverage ratio - Exposure measure - Article 429(14) - Exclusion of exposures meeting certain conditions - Partial refusal of authorisation - Discretion of the European Central Bank (ECB) - Action for annulment - Manifest error of assessment - Judicial review)

(2023/C 216/09)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: European Central Bank (represented by: F. Bonnard, M. Ioannidis, R. Ugena and C. Zilioli, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Crédit lyonnais (represented by: A. Champsaur and A. Delors, avocates)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 14 April 2021, Crédit lyonnais v ECB (T-504/19, EU:T:2021:185), in so far as it upholds the first part of the third plea in law and, in part, the third part of the first plea in law relied on at first instance and annuls Decision ECB-SSM-2019-FRCAG-39 of the European Central Bank (ECB) of 3 May 2019, in so far as that decision refused to exclude from the calculation of the leverage ratio of Crédit lyonnais 34 % of its exposures on the Caisse des dépôts et consignations; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 14 April 2021, Crédit lyonnais v ECB (T-504/19, EU:T:2021:185), in so far as it upholds the first part of the third plea in law and, in part, the third part of the first plea in law relied on at first instance and annuls Decision ECB-SSM-2019-FRCAG-39 of the European Central Bank (ECB) of 3 May 2019, in so far as that decision refused to exclude from the calculation of the leverage ratio of Crédit lyonnais 34 % of its exposures on the Caisse des dépôts et consignations;

| 2. | Dismisses the action brought in Case T-504/19 by Crédit lyonnais at first instance; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action brought in Case T-504/19 by Crédit lyonnais at first instance;

| 3. | Orders Crédit lyonnais to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Crédit lyonnais to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 320, 9.8.2021.

---

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/8

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 May 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Austria) — F.F. v Österreichische Datenschutzbehörde

(Case C-487/21, (1) Österreichische Datenschutzbehörde and CRIF)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of personal data - Regulation (EU) 2016/679 - Data subject’s right of access to his or her data undergoing processing - Article 15(3) - Provision of a copy of the data - Concept of ‘copy’ - Concept of ‘information’)

(2023/C 216/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: F.F.

Defendant: Österreichische Datenschutzbehörde

intervening party: CRIF GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The first sentence of Article 15(3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation),
  must be interpreted as meaning that the right to obtain from the controller a copy of the personal data undergoing processing means that the data subject must be given a faithful and intelligible reproduction of all those data. That right entails the right to obtain copies of extracts from documents or even entire documents or extracts from databases which contain, inter alia, those data, if the provision of such a copy is essential in order to enable the data subject to exercise effectively the rights conferred on him or her by that regulation, bearing in mind that account must be taken, in that regard, of the rights and freedoms of others. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The first sentence of Article 15(3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation),

must be interpreted as meaning that the right to obtain from the controller a copy of the personal data undergoing processing means that the data subject must be given a faithful and intelligible reproduction of all those data. That right entails the right to obtain copies of extracts from documents or even entire documents or extracts from databases which contain, inter alia, those data, if the provision of such a copy is essential in order to enable the data subject to exercise effectively the rights conferred on him or her by that regulation, bearing in mind that account must be taken, in that regard, of the rights and freedoms of others.

| 2. | The third sentence of Article 15(3) of Regulation 2016/679
  must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘information’ to which it refers relates exclusively to the personal data of which the controller must provide a copy pursuant to the first sentence of that paragraph. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The third sentence of Article 15(3) of Regulation 2016/679

must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘information’ to which it refers relates exclusively to the personal data of which the controller must provide a copy pursuant to the first sentence of that paragraph.

---

(1)  OJ C 431, 25.10.2021.

---

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 27 April 2023 — Casa Regina Apostolorum della Pia Società delle Figlie di San Paolo v European Commission

(Case C-492/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Healthcare services - Direct grants to public hospitals in the Lazio Region (Italy) - Decision finding that there is no State aid - Articles 106 and 107 TFEU - Concepts of ‘undertaking’ and ‘economic activity’)

(2023/C 216/11)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Casa Regina Apostolorum della Pia Società delle Figlie di San Paolo (represented by: F. Rosi, avvocato)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: K. Herrmann and F. Tomat, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Republic of Finland (represented by: M. Pere, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Casa Regina Apostolorum della Pia Società delle Figlie di San Paolo to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Casa Regina Apostolorum della Pia Società delle Figlie di San Paolo to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders the Republic of Finland to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Republic of Finland to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 471, 22.11.2021.

---

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 4 May 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt X v Y

(Case C-516/21, (1) Finanzamt X (Permanently installed equipment and machinery))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 135(2), first subparagraph, point (c) - Exceptions to the exemption provided for in Article 135(1)(l) - Letting of permanently installed equipment and machinery in the context of the leasing of an agricultural building)

(2023/C 216/12)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Finanzamt X

Defendant: Y

Operative part of the judgment

Article 135(2), first subparagraph, point (c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax

must be interpreted as not applying to the letting of permanently installed equipment and machinery where that letting constitutes a supply ancillary to a principal supply of leasing a building, carried out under a leasing agreement concluded between the same parties and exempt under Article 135(1)(l) of that directive, and those supplies form a single economic supply.

---

(1)  OJ C 95, 28.2.2022.

---

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 April 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — M.D. v Országos Idegenrendészeti Főigazgatóság Budapesti és Pest Megyei Regionális Igazgatósága

(Case C-528/21, (1) M.D. (Ban on Entering Hungary))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Immigration policy - Article 20 TFEU - Genuine enjoyment of the substance of the rights which flow from the status of EU citizenship - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Directive 2008/115/EC - Common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals - Articles 5, 11 and 13 - Direct effect - Right to an effective judicial remedy - Decision banning entry and stay adopted in respect of a third-country national, a family member of a minor EU citizen - Threat to national security - Failure to take into account the individual situation of that third-country national - Refusal to comply with a court decision suspending the effects of that prohibition decision - Consequences)

(2023/C 216/13)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: M.D.

Defendant: Országos Idegenrendészeti Főigazgatóság Budapesti és Pest Megyei Regionális Igazgatósága

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 20 TFEU
  must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from adopting a decision banning entry into the territory of the European Union in respect of a third-country national, who is a family member of a Union citizen, a national of that Member State who has never exercised his or her right to free movement, without having examined beforehand whether there is, between those persons, a relationship of dependency which would de facto compel that Union citizen to leave the territory of the European Union altogether in order to go with that family member and, if so, whether the grounds on which that decision was adopted allow a derogation from the derived right of residence of that third-country national. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 20 TFEU

must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from adopting a decision banning entry into the territory of the European Union in respect of a third-country national, who is a family member of a Union citizen, a national of that Member State who has never exercised his or her right to free movement, without having examined beforehand whether there is, between those persons, a relationship of dependency which would de facto compel that Union citizen to leave the territory of the European Union altogether in order to go with that family member and, if so, whether the grounds on which that decision was adopted allow a derogation from the derived right of residence of that third-country national.

| 2. | Article 5 of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals
  must be interpreted as precluding that a third-country national, who should have been the addressee of a return decision, is the subject — in a direct extension of the decision which withdrew from him or her, for reasons connected with national security, his or her right of residence on the territory of the Member State concerned — of a decision banning entry into the territory of the European Union, adopted for identical reasons, without consideration being given, beforehand, to his or her state of health and, where appropriate, his or her family life and the best interests of his or her minor child. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 5 of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals

must be interpreted as precluding that a third-country national, who should have been the addressee of a return decision, is the subject — in a direct extension of the decision which withdrew from him or her, for reasons connected with national security, his or her right of residence on the territory of the Member State concerned — of a decision banning entry into the territory of the European Union, adopted for identical reasons, without consideration being given, beforehand, to his or her state of health and, where appropriate, his or her family life and the best interests of his or her minor child.

| 3. | Article 5 of Directive 2008/115
  must be interpreted as meaning that, where a national court is seised of an action against an entry ban decision adopted pursuant to national legislation which is incompatible with that Article 5 and which cannot be interpreted consistently with it, that court must disapply that legislation to the extent that it does not comply with that article and, where necessary to ensure the full effectiveness of Article 5, apply that article directly in the dispute before it. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 5 of Directive 2008/115

must be interpreted as meaning that, where a national court is seised of an action against an entry ban decision adopted pursuant to national legislation which is incompatible with that Article 5 and which cannot be interpreted consistently with it, that court must disapply that legislation to the extent that it does not comply with that article and, where necessary to ensure the full effectiveness of Article 5, apply that article directly in the dispute before it.

| 4. | Article 13 of Directive 2008/115, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,
  must be interpreted as precluding a national practice by which the administrative authorities of a Member State refuse to apply a final court decision ordering the suspension of enforcement of an entry ban decision on the ground that that decision had already been the object of an alert in the Schengen Information System. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Article 13 of Directive 2008/115, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

must be interpreted as precluding a national practice by which the administrative authorities of a Member State refuse to apply a final court decision ordering the suspension of enforcement of an entry ban decision on the ground that that decision had already been the object of an alert in the Schengen Information System.

---

(1)  OJ C 431, 25.10.2021.

---

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 4 May 2023 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Rayonen sad — Kula — Bulgaria) — OP (C-529/21), MN (C-530/21), KL (C-531/21), IJ (C-532/21), GH (C-533/21), EF (C-534/21), CD (C-535/21), AB (C-536/21), AB (C-732/21), BC (C-733/21), CD (C-734/21), DE (C-735/21), EF (C-736/21), FG (C-737/21), GH (C-738/21) v Glavna direktsia ‘Pozharna bezopasnost i zashtita na naselenieto’ kam Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti

(Joined Cases C-529/21 to C-536/21 and C-732/21 to C-738/21, (1) Glavna direktsia ‘Pozharna bezopasnost i zashtita na naselenieto’ (Night work) and Others)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Organisation of working time - Directive 2003/88/EC - Article 1(3) - Scope - Article 8 - Article 12 - Health and safety of night workers at work - Level of protection for night workers appropriate to the nature of their work - Directive 89/391/EEC - Article 2 - Public sector workers and private sector workers - Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Equal treatment)

(2023/C 216/14)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Rayonen sad — Kula

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: OP (C-529/21), MN (C-530/21), KL (C-531/21), IJ (C-532/21), GH (C-533/21), EF (C-534/21), CD (C-535/21), AB (C-536/21), AB (C-732/21), BC (C-733/21), CD (C-734/21), DE (C-735/21), EF (C-736/21), FG (C-737/21), GH (C-738/21)

Defendant: Glavna direktsia ‘Pozharna bezopasnost i zashtita na naselenieto’ kam Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 1(3) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, read in conjunction with Article 2 of Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work,
  must be interpreted as meaning that Directive 2003/88 applies to public sector workers, such as firefighters, who are considered to be night workers, in so far as those workers carry out their activities under normal circumstances. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 1(3) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, read in conjunction with Article 2 of Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work,

must be interpreted as meaning that Directive 2003/88 applies to public sector workers, such as firefighters, who are considered to be night workers, in so far as those workers carry out their activities under normal circumstances.

| 2. | Article 12 of Directive 2003/88, read in the light of Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,
  must be interpreted as not precluding the normal length of night work fixed at seven hours in the legislation of a Member State for workers in the private sector from not applying to public sector workers, such as firefighters, if, in so far as the categories of workers concerned are in a comparable situation, that difference in treatment is based on an objective and reasonable criterion, that is, if the difference relates to a legally permitted aim pursued by that legislation, and it is proportionate to that aim. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 12 of Directive 2003/88, read in the light of Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

must be interpreted as not precluding the normal length of night work fixed at seven hours in the legislation of a Member State for workers in the private sector from not applying to public sector workers, such as firefighters, if, in so far as the categories of workers concerned are in a comparable situation, that difference in treatment is based on an objective and reasonable criterion, that is, if the difference relates to a legally permitted aim pursued by that legislation, and it is proportionate to that aim.

---

(1)  OJ C 257, 4.7.2022.

---

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 27 April 2023 — PL v European Commission

(Case C-537/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Appraisal report - 2017 appraisal period - Errors of law - Distortion of the facts and evidence - Failure to state reasons)

(2023/C 216/15)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: PL (represented by: N. de Montigny, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: I. Melo Sampaio and L. Vernier, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders PL to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders PL to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 64, 7.2.2022.

---

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 April 2023 — Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio di Pesaro, Montani Antaldi Srl, Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio di Fano, Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio di Jesi and Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio della Provincia di Macerata v European Commission

(Case C-549/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - Article 268 TFEU - Article 340, second paragraph, TFEU - Action for damages - Economic and monetary policy - Articles 107 and 108 TFEU - Fondo Interbancario di Tutela dei Depositi - Planned intervention - Rescue of Banca delle Marche - Letters from the European Commission - Classification as ‘State aid’ not excluded - Request for the national authorities to notify the Commission of the plan for intervention - No sufficiently serious breach of EU law)

(2023/C 216/16)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellants: Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio di Pesaro, Montani Antaldi Srl, Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio di Fano, Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio di Jesi and Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio della Provincia di Macerata (represented by: S. Battini, B. Cimino and A. Sandulli, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: I. Barcew, A. Bouchagiar, D. Recchia and P. Stancanelli, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio di Pesaro, Montani Antaldi Srl, Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio di Fano, Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio di Jesi and Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio della Provincia di Macerata to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio di Pesaro, Montani Antaldi Srl, Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio di Fano, Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio di Jesi and Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio della Provincia di Macerata to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 431, 25.10.2021.

---

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 27 April 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie — Poland) — TB

(Case C-628/21, (1) Castorama Polska and Knor)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual property - Directive 2004/48/EC - Measures, procedures and remedies necessary to ensure the enforcement of intellectual property rights - Right of information - Locus standi - Need to establish the existence of an intellectual property right in advance)

(2023/C 216/17)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: TB

Other parties to the proceedings: Castorama Polska sp. z o.o., ‘Knor’ sp. z o.o.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 8(1) of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights

must be interpreted as meaning that, in proceedings concerning an infringement of an intellectual property right under that provision, the applicant must, for the purpose of a request for information under Article 8, provide any reasonably available evidence enabling the court seised of that request to satisfy itself with a sufficient degree of certainty that the applicant is the rightholder, by submitting evidence appropriate to the nature of that right and any special applicable formalities.

---

(1)  OJ C 95, 28.2.2022.

---

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 27 April 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vredegerecht te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Fluvius Antwerpen v MX

(Case C-677/21, (1) Fluvius Antwerpen)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Taxable transactions - Article 2(1)(a) - Concept of ‘supply of goods for consideration’ - Article 9(1) - Economic activity - Article 14(1) and (2)(a) - Supply of goods - Unlawful consumption of electricity - Principle of neutrality of VAT - Charging the consumer for compensation including the price of the electricity consumed - Regional legislation of a Member State - Taxable person - Sui generis entity mandated by municipalities - Concept of ‘body governed by public law’ - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 13(1), third subparagraph, and Annex I - Principle of taxability of electricity distribution - Concept of ‘negligible activity’)

(2023/C 216/18)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Vredegerecht te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Fluvius Antwerpen

Defendant: MX

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 2(1)(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2009/162/EU of 22 December 2009, read in conjunction with Article 14(1) of that directive,
  must be interpreted as meaning that the supply of electricity by a distribution network operator, even if involuntary and the result of unlawful conduct on the part of a third party, constitutes a supply of goods for consideration entailing the transfer of the right to dispose of tangible property. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 2(1)(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2009/162/EU of 22 December 2009, read in conjunction with Article 14(1) of that directive,

must be interpreted as meaning that the supply of electricity by a distribution network operator, even if involuntary and the result of unlawful conduct on the part of a third party, constitutes a supply of goods for consideration entailing the transfer of the right to dispose of tangible property.

| 2. | Article 9(1) of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2009/162,
  must be interpreted as meaning that the supply of electricity by a distribution network operator, even if involuntary and the result of unlawful conduct on the part of a third party, constitutes an economic activity of that operator inasmuch as it gives rise to a risk inherent in its activity as an electricity distribution network operator. Where that economic activity is carried out by a body governed by public law acting as a public authority, such an activity, referred to in Annex I to that directive, can be regarded as being carried out on such a small scale as to be negligible within the meaning of the third subparagraph of Article 13(1) of that directive only if it is of such minimal scale in space or time and, consequently, of such a slight economic impact that the distortions of competition likely to result are liable to be, if not nil, at the very least insignificant. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 9(1) of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2009/162,

must be interpreted as meaning that the supply of electricity by a distribution network operator, even if involuntary and the result of unlawful conduct on the part of a third party, constitutes an economic activity of that operator inasmuch as it gives rise to a risk inherent in its activity as an electricity distribution network operator. Where that economic activity is carried out by a body governed by public law acting as a public authority, such an activity, referred to in Annex I to that directive, can be regarded as being carried out on such a small scale as to be negligible within the meaning of the third subparagraph of Article 13(1) of that directive only if it is of such minimal scale in space or time and, consequently, of such a slight economic impact that the distortions of competition likely to result are liable to be, if not nil, at the very least insignificant.

---

(1)  OJ C 84, 21.2.2022.

---

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/15

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 27 April 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Versicherungsanstalt öffentlich Bediensteter, Eisenbahnen und Bergbau (BVAEB) v BB

(Case C-681/21, (1) BVAEB (Amount of the retirement pension))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Directive 2000/78/EC - Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age - Retirement pension - National legislation providing, with retroactive effect, for a category of civil servants previously advantaged by the national legislation relating to retirement pension rights to be treated in the same way as a category of civil servants previously disadvantaged by that legislation)

(2023/C 216/19)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Versicherungsanstalt öffentlich Bediensteter, Eisenbahnen und Bergbau (BVAEB)

Respondent: BB

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(1) and (2)(a) and Article 6(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation

must be interpreted as precluding, in the absence of an overriding reason in the public interest, national legislation which, in order to end discrimination on grounds of age, provides for the retirement pension scheme for a category of civil servants previously advantaged by the national legislation relating to retirement pension rights to be treated, with retroactive effect, in the same way as the retirement pension scheme for the category of civil servants previously disadvantaged by that legislation.

---

(1)  OJ C 84, 21.2.2022.

---

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 27 April 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — VW v SW, CQ, ET, Legea Srl and Legea Srl v VW, SW, CQ, ET

(Case C-686/21, (1) Legea)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Trade mark law - Directive 89/104/EEC - Directive (EU) 2015/2436 - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Exclusive rights of the trade mark proprietor - Trade mark belonging to two or more persons - Conditions on majority required between joint proprietors for granting and terminating a licence of their trade mark)

(2023/C 216/20)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: VW, Legea Srl

Defendants: SW, CQ, ET, Legea Srl, VW

Operative part of the judgment

First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks and Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark

must be interpreted as meaning that the question of whether the grant or the termination of a licence to use a national trade mark or an EU trade mark held in joint proprietorship requires a unanimous decision by the joint proprietors or a decision by a majority of them comes within the scope of the applicable national law.

---

(1)  OJ C 37, 24.1.2022.

---

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 27 April 2023 — Brunswick Bowling Products LLC, formerly Brunswick Bowling & Billiards Corporation v European Commission, Kingdom of Sweden

(Case C-694/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - Consumer protection - Directive 2006/42/EC - Protection of the health and safety of consumers and workers from risks arising from the use of machinery - Measures adopted by the Kingdom of Sweden - Prohibition on the placing on the market of a type of pinsetter machine and a supplementary kit - Withdrawal of machines already placed on the market - Decision of the European Commission declaring the measures justified)

(2023/C 216/21)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Brunswick Bowling Products LLC, formerly Brunswick Bowling & Billiards Corporation (represented by: R. Martens, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by M. Huttunen and P. Ondrůšek, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Sweden (represented initially by: H. Eklinder, J. Lundberg, C. Meyer-Seitz, A. Runeskjöld, M. Salborn Hodgson, R. Shahsavan Eriksson, H. Shev and O. Simonsson, and subsequently by: H. Eklinder, C. Meyer-Seitz, A. Runeskjöld, M. Salborn Hodgson, R. Shahsavan Eriksson, H. Shev and O. Simonsson, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Brunswick Bowling Products LLC to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Brunswick Bowling Products LLC to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 37, 24.1.2022.

---

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/17

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 27 April 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Győri Ítélőtábla — Hungary) — MJ v AxFina Hungary Zrt.

(Case C-705/21, (1) AxFina Hungary)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Articles 6 and 7 - Loan agreements denominated in foreign currency - Legal consequences of a declaration that a loan agreement is invalid because of the unfairness of a term in that agreement - Contractual term placing the exchange rate risk on the consumer)

(2023/C 216/22)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Győri Ítélőtábla

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: MJ

Defendant: AxFina Hungary Zrt.

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts
  must be interpreted as meaning that, where a term which places the exchange risk on the consumer results — because of its unfairness — in the invalidity of a loan agreement denominated in a foreign currency, but repayable in the national currency, in which that term appears, those provisions preclude that agreement from being declared valid and the content of the consumer’s obligations arising from that term from being adapted by means of a change in the currency of that agreement and the interest rate set in that agreement, or a ceiling on the exchange rate of that currency. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts

must be interpreted as meaning that, where a term which places the exchange risk on the consumer results — because of its unfairness — in the invalidity of a loan agreement denominated in a foreign currency, but repayable in the national currency, in which that term appears, those provisions preclude that agreement from being declared valid and the content of the consumer’s obligations arising from that term from being adapted by means of a change in the currency of that agreement and the interest rate set in that agreement, or a ceiling on the exchange rate of that currency.

| 2. | Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13
  must be interpreted as meaning that, where a term which places the exchange risk on the consumer results — because of its unfairness — in the invalidity of a loan agreement denominated in a foreign currency, but repayable in the national currency, in which that term appears, that provision precludes that agreement, during the period from the date of its conclusion to the date of the entry into force of national legislation providing for the conversion into national currency of loan agreements denominated in a foreign currency, from being maintained in force by replacing that term with general provisions of national law, in so far as those provisions of national law cannot usefully replace the same term by a mere substitution by the national court which does not require action on the part of that court that would amount to revising the content of an unfair term in that contract. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13

must be interpreted as meaning that, where a term which places the exchange risk on the consumer results — because of its unfairness — in the invalidity of a loan agreement denominated in a foreign currency, but repayable in the national currency, in which that term appears, that provision precludes that agreement, during the period from the date of its conclusion to the date of the entry into force of national legislation providing for the conversion into national currency of loan agreements denominated in a foreign currency, from being maintained in force by replacing that term with general provisions of national law, in so far as those provisions of national law cannot usefully replace the same term by a mere substitution by the national court which does not require action on the part of that court that would amount to revising the content of an unfair term in that contract.

---

(1)  OJ C 64, 7.2.2022.

---

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/18

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 April 2023 — Aeris Invest Sàrl v European Central Bank, European Commission, and Banco Santander, S.A.

(Case C-782/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - Access to documents of the EU institutions - Decision 2004/258/EC - Application for access to certain documents concerning the adoption of a resolution scheme for Banco Popular Español, S.A. - Refusal to grant access - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)

(2023/C 216/23)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Aeris Invest Sàrl (represented initially by E. Galán Burgos, R. Vallina Hoset and M. Varela Suárez, abogados, and subsequently by R. Vallina Hoset and M. Varela Suárez, abogados)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Central Bank (represented by: D. Báez Seara and M. Estrada Cañamares, acting as Agents, and by M. Kottmann, Rechtsanwalt), European Commission (represented by: C. Ehrbar, P. Němečková and A. Steiblytė, acting as Agents), and Banco Santander, S.A. (represented by: J. Rodríguez Cárcamo and A.M. Rodríguez Conde, abogados)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Aeris Invest Sàrl to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Central Bank (ECB) and Banco Santander, S.A.; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Aeris Invest Sàrl to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Central Bank (ECB) and Banco Santander, S.A.;

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

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 128, 21.3.2022.

---

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/18

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 May 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Wiesbaden — Germany) — UZ v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-60/22, (1) Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Court electronic mailbox))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data - Regulation (EU) 2016/679 - Article 5 - Principles relating to processing - Controllership - Article 6 - Lawfulness of processing - Electronic file compiled by an administrative authority relating to an asylum application - Transmission to the competent national court via an electronic mailbox - Infringement of Articles 26 and 30 - No arrangement determining joint responsibility for processing and maintaining the record of processing activities - Consequences - Article 17(1) - Right to erasure (‘right to be forgotten’) - Article 18(1) - Right to restriction of processing - Concept of ‘unlawful processing’ - Taking into account of the electronic file by a national court - Absence of consent of the data subject)

(2023/C 216/24)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Wiesbaden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: UZ

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 17(1)(d) and Article 18(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation)
  must be interpreted as meaning that failure by the controller to comply with the obligations laid down in Articles 26 and 30 of that regulation, which relate, respectively, to the conclusion of an arrangement determining joint responsibility for processing and to the maintenance of a record of processing activities, does not constitute unlawful processing conferring on the data subject a right to erasure or restriction of processing, where such a failure does not, as such, entail an infringement by the controller of the principle of ‘accountability’ as set out in Article 5(2) of that regulation, read in conjunction with Article 5(1)(a) and the first subparagraph of Article 6(1) thereof. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 17(1)(d) and Article 18(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation)

must be interpreted as meaning that failure by the controller to comply with the obligations laid down in Articles 26 and 30 of that regulation, which relate, respectively, to the conclusion of an arrangement determining joint responsibility for processing and to the maintenance of a record of processing activities, does not constitute unlawful processing conferring on the data subject a right to erasure or restriction of processing, where such a failure does not, as such, entail an infringement by the controller of the principle of ‘accountability’ as set out in Article 5(2) of that regulation, read in conjunction with Article 5(1)(a) and the first subparagraph of Article 6(1) thereof.

| 2. | EU law must be interpreted as meaning that, where the controller of personal data has failed to comply with its obligations under Articles 26 or 30 of Regulation 2016/679, the lawfulness of the taking into account of such data by a national court is not subject to the data subject’s consent. |
| --- | --- |

2.

EU law must be interpreted as meaning that, where the controller of personal data has failed to comply with its obligations under Articles 26 or 30 of Regulation 2016/679, the lawfulness of the taking into account of such data by a national court is not subject to the data subject’s consent.

---

(1)  OJ C 198, 16.5.2022.

---

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/19

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 4 May 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrchní soud v Praze — Czech Republic) — ALD Automotive s.r. o. v DY, acting as insolvency administrator of the debtor company GEDEM-STAV a.s.

(Case C-78/22, (1) ALD Automotive)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2011/7/EU - Combating late payments in commercial transactions - Article 6 - Fixed minimum sum of EUR 40 as compensation for the recovery costs incurred by the creditor - Late payment regarding contracts for successive performance - Fixed compensation due in respect of each late payment - Obligation to give full effect to EU law - Obligation of interpretation in compliance with EU law - General principles of national private law)

(2023/C 216/25)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Vrchní soud v Praze

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ALD Automotive s.r. o.

Defendant: DY, acting as insolvency administrator of the debtor company GEDEM-STAV a.s.

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 6(1) of Directive 2011/7/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on combating late payment in commercial transactions, read in conjunction with Article 3 of that directive,
  must be interpreted as meaning that, where a single contract provides for periodic payments, each of which must be made within a specified period, the fixed minimum sum of EUR 40 provided for in Article 6(1) is payable, by way of compensation for the creditor’s recovery costs, in respect of each late payment. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 6(1) of Directive 2011/7/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on combating late payment in commercial transactions, read in conjunction with Article 3 of that directive,

must be interpreted as meaning that, where a single contract provides for periodic payments, each of which must be made within a specified period, the fixed minimum sum of EUR 40 provided for in Article 6(1) is payable, by way of compensation for the creditor’s recovery costs, in respect of each late payment.

| 2. | Article 6(1) of Directive 2011/7, read in conjunction with Article 6(3), and point (c) of the second subparagraph of Article 7(1) of that directive,
  must be interpreted as precluding a national court from refusing or reducing the fixed sum provided for in the first provision, on the basis of the general principles of national private law, including where late payments which have arisen in the context of a single contract relate, inter alia, to amounts that are low or lower than that fixed sum. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 6(1) of Directive 2011/7, read in conjunction with Article 6(3), and point (c) of the second subparagraph of Article 7(1) of that directive,

must be interpreted as precluding a national court from refusing or reducing the fixed sum provided for in the first provision, on the basis of the general principles of national private law, including where late payments which have arisen in the context of a single contract relate, inter alia, to amounts that are low or lower than that fixed sum.

---

(1)  OJ C 213, 30.5.2022.

---

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/20

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 4 May 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias — Greece) — Kapniki A. Michailidis AE v Organismos Pliromon kai Elenchou Koinotikon Enischiseon Prosanatolismou kai Engyiseon (OPEKEPE) and Ypourgos Agrotikis Anaptyxis kai Trofimon

(Case C-99/22, (1) Kapniki A. Michailidis)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - Regulation (EEC) No 2062/92 - Article 3(3) - Validity - Common organisation of the markets - Raw tobacco - Premiums granted to purchasers of leaf tobacco - Reduction of those premiums according to the quantity of tobacco of low class, category or quality purchased - Principles of non-retroactivity and of the protection of legitimate expectations)

(2023/C 216/26)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Symvoulio tis Epikrateias

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Kapniki A. Michailidis AE

Respondents: Organismos Pliromon kai Elenchou Koinotikon Enischiseon Prosanatolismou kai Engyiseon (OPEKEPE) and Ypourgos Agrotikis Anaptyxis kai Trofimon

Operative part of the judgment

Consideration of the question referred has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 3(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2062/92 of 30 June 1992 fixing, for the 1992 harvest, the norm and intervention prices and the premiums granted to purchasers of leaf tobacco, the derived intervention prices for baled tobacco, the reference qualities, and the production areas, in the light of the principles of non-retroactivity of rules of law and of the protection of legitimate expectations.

---

(1)  OJ C 191, 10.5.2022.

---

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/21

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 4 May 2023 — KY v Court of Justice of the European Union

(Case C-100/22 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union - Article 77 - Pension - Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Transfer of national pension rights to the pension scheme of the European Union institutions - Crediting of additional pensionable years - Article 2 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Pension calculation - Fourth paragraph of Article 77 of the Staff Regulations - The ‘minimum subsistence figure’ rule - Request for reimbursement of the portion of the transferred pension rights not reflected in the EU pension amount - Unjust enrichment)

(2023/C 216/27)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: KY (represented by: J.-N. Louis, avocat, and N. Maes, advocaat)

Other party to the proceedings: Court of Justice of the European Union (represented by: J. Inghelram and A. Ysebaert, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court of Justice:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders KY to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the Court of Justice of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders KY to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the Court of Justice of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 237, 20.6.2022.

---

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/21

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 4 May 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — ‘Balgarska telekomunikatsionna kompania’ EAD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ — Sofia

(Case C-127/22, (1) Balgarska telekomunikatsionna kompania)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 185 - Adjustment of deductions of input VAT - Goods written off - Subsequent sale as waste - Destruction or disposal duly proved or confirmed)

(2023/C 216/28)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven administrativen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘Balgarska telekomunikatsionna kompania’ EAD

Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ — Sofia

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 185(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax
  must be interpreted as meaning that writing off goods which the taxable person considered to have become unusable in the course of his or her usual economic activities, followed by the sale of those goods as waste, which was subject to value added tax (VAT), does not constitute a ‘change ... in the factors used to determine the amount to be deducted’, within the meaning of that provision. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 185(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax

must be interpreted as meaning that writing off goods which the taxable person considered to have become unusable in the course of his or her usual economic activities, followed by the sale of those goods as waste, which was subject to value added tax (VAT), does not constitute a ‘change ... in the factors used to determine the amount to be deducted’, within the meaning of that provision.

| 2. | Article 185 of Directive 2006/112
  must be interpreted as meaning that writing off goods, which the taxable person considered to have become unusable in the course of his or her usual economic activities, followed by the voluntary destruction of those goods, constitutes a ‘change ... in the factors used to determine the amount to be deducted’, within the meaning of paragraph 1 of that article. However, such a situation constitutes ‘destruction’, within the meaning of the first subparagraph of paragraph 2 of that article, irrespective of its voluntary nature, with the result that that change does not give rise to an adjustment obligation provided that that destruction is duly proved or confirmed and that the goods had objectively lost all usefulness in the taxable person’s economic activities. The duly proven disposal of goods must be treated in the same way as their destruction in so far as it actually entails the irreversible disappearance of those goods. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 185 of Directive 2006/112

must be interpreted as meaning that writing off goods, which the taxable person considered to have become unusable in the course of his or her usual economic activities, followed by the voluntary destruction of those goods, constitutes a ‘change ... in the factors used to determine the amount to be deducted’, within the meaning of paragraph 1 of that article. However, such a situation constitutes ‘destruction’, within the meaning of the first subparagraph of paragraph 2 of that article, irrespective of its voluntary nature, with the result that that change does not give rise to an adjustment obligation provided that that destruction is duly proved or confirmed and that the goods had objectively lost all usefulness in the taxable person’s economic activities. The duly proven disposal of goods must be treated in the same way as their destruction in so far as it actually entails the irreversible disappearance of those goods.

| 3. | Article 185 of Directive 2006/112
  must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes provisions of national law which provide for the adjustment of input VAT deducted upon acquisition of goods where they have been written off, the taxable person having considered that they had become unusable in the course of his or her usual economic activities and where, subsequently, those goods were either sold subject to VAT or destroyed or disposed of in a way which effectively means that they have disappeared irreversibly, provided that such destruction is duly proved or confirmed and that the goods had objectively lost all usefulness in the taxable person’s economic activities. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 185 of Directive 2006/112

must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes provisions of national law which provide for the adjustment of input VAT deducted upon acquisition of goods where they have been written off, the taxable person having considered that they had become unusable in the course of his or her usual economic activities and where, subsequently, those goods were either sold subject to VAT or destroyed or disposed of in a way which effectively means that they have disappeared irreversibly, provided that such destruction is duly proved or confirmed and that the goods had objectively lost all usefulness in the taxable person’s economic activities.

---

(1)  OJ C 191, 10.5.2022.

---

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/22

---

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Bundesrepublik Deutschland v GS, represented by his parents

(Case C-484/22, (1) Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Return of a minor without his parents))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Immigration policy - Return of illegally staying third-country nationals - Directive 2008/115/EC - Article 5(a) and (b) - Return decision adopted in respect of a third-country national - Minor third-country national separated from parents in the event of return - Best interests of the child - Right to respect for family life)

(2023/C 216/29)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Defendant: GS, represented by his parents

interested party: Vertreterin des Bundesinteresses beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Operative part of the order

Article 5(a) and (b) of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals

must be interpreted as requiring that the best interests of the child and the family life of that child be protected in proceedings leading to the adoption of a return decision in respect of a minor, and that it is not sufficient for that minor to be able to rely on those two protected interests in subsequent proceedings relating to the enforcement of that return decision in order to obtain a suspension of that enforcement, if appropriate.

---

(1)  OJ C 380, 3.10.2022.

---

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/23

---

Appeal brought on 8 May 2022 by Nigar Kirimova against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 9 March 2022 in Case T-727/20, Kirimova v EUIPO

(Case C-306/22 P)

(2023/C 216/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Nigar Kirimova (represented by: A. Parassina, avvocato, A. García López, abogado)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 21 April 2023, the Court of Justice held that the order of the General Court of the European Union of 9 March 2022, Kirimova v EUIPO (T-727/20), was set aside and Case T 727/20 was referred back to the General Court. The costs were reserved.

---

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/23

---

Appeal brought on 5 January 2023 by the European Union Intellectual Property Office against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 26 October 2022 in Case T-298/20, KD v EUIPO

(Case C-5/23 P)

(2023/C 216/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: G. Predonzani, K. Tóth, Agents)

Other party: KD

Form of order sought

The Appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment under appeal (1); |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment under appeal (1);

| — | dismiss the annulment action as inadmissible, or reject it as unfounded or, should the Court of Justice find itself unable to take a final decision, refer the case back to the General Court, and |
| --- | --- |

—

dismiss the annulment action as inadmissible, or reject it as unfounded or, should the Court of Justice find itself unable to take a final decision, refer the case back to the General Court, and

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

—

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the EUIPO puts forward four grounds of appeal.

By its first ground of appeal, directed against paragraphs 23 to 31 of the judgment under appeal, the Office alleges an error of law in the interpretation of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations read in combination with Article 110 of the Staff Regulations.

By its second ground of appeal, directed against paragraphs 67, 72 to 76, 79 and 80 of the judgment under appeal, the Office puts forward errors of law as regards the legal nature of the Reporting Officer’s Practical Dossier, the sanctioned infringement of the duty to state reasons and the consequences derived therefrom.

By its third ground of appeal, directed against paragraphs 93 and 96 to 103 of the judgment under appeal, the Office alleges a distortion of the facts and a wrongful appraisal of the evidence.

By its fourth ground of appeal, directed against paragraphs 121 to 129 of the judgment under appeal, the Office claims that the General Court erred in law in its interpretation of the duty of care and infringed its duty to provide a statement of reasons.

---

(1)  Judgment of the General Court of 26 October 2022, KD v EUIPO (T-298/20, EU:T:2022:671; the ‘judgment under appeal’).

---

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/24

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 3 March 2023 — BG Technik cs, a.s. v Generální ředitelství cel

(Case C-129/23, BG Technik)

(2023/C 216/32)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: BG Technik cs, a.s.

Defendant: Generální ředitelství cel

Questions referred

| 1. | Can an electric mobility vehicle whose maximum speed exceeds 10 km/hr, and which is equipped with a separate adjustable steering column, be classified under heading 8713 of the Combined Nomenclature, despite the Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of 6 May 2011 (1) and 4 March 2015? (2) |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can an electric mobility vehicle whose maximum speed exceeds 10 km/hr, and which is equipped with a separate adjustable steering column, be classified under heading 8713 of the Combined Nomenclature, despite the Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of 6 May 2011 (1) and 4 March 2015? (2)

| 2. | Does Commission Regulation (EC) No 718/2009 (3) apply — aside from the vehicles directly described therein — also to an electric mobility vehicle with the following characteristics:






  — | Four wheels (the rear pair of wheels are anti-tip); |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Does Commission Regulation (EC) No 718/2009 (3) apply — aside from the vehicles directly described therein — also to an electric mobility vehicle with the following characteristics:

—

Four wheels (the rear pair of wheels are anti-tip);

| — | An adjustable and rotating seat with armrests, |
| --- | --- |

—

An adjustable and rotating seat with armrests,

| — | A horizontal platform between the front and rear sections of the mobility vehicle; |
| --- | --- |

—

A horizontal platform between the front and rear sections of the mobility vehicle;

| — | An 800 W electric motor, enabling the attainment of a speed of up to 16 km/hr and a range of up to 45 km, |
| --- | --- |

—

An 800 W electric motor, enabling the attainment of a speed of up to 16 km/hr and a range of up to 45 km,

| — | An electromagnetic brake on the rear wheels; |
| --- | --- |

—

An electromagnetic brake on the rear wheels;

| — | Closed handlebars mounted on a separate steering column that can be folded down and equipped with levers for speed selection? |
| --- | --- |

—

Closed handlebars mounted on a separate steering column that can be folded down and equipped with levers for speed selection?

---

(1)  Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union (OJ 2011 C 137, p. 1).

(2)  Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union (OJ 2015 C 76, p. 1).

(3)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 718/2009 of 4 August 2009 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (OJ 2009 L 205, p. 7).

---

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/25

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo (Bulgaria) lodged on 21 March 2023 — Obshtina Svishtov v Rakovoditel na Upravlyavashtia organ na Operativna programa ‘Regioni v rastezh’ 2014–2020

(Case C-175/23, Obshtina Svishtov)

(2023/C 216/33)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Obshtina Svishtov

Defendant: Rakovoditel na Upravlyavashtia organ na Operativna programa ‘Regioni v rastezh’ 2014–2020

Questions referred

| 1. | In view of the logical and purposive interpretation of Articles 2(36) and 143(2) of the Regulation (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006, is a national provision such as that of Article 70(2) of the ZUSEFSU in conjunction with Article 2(1) and (2) of the Naredba za posochvane na nerednosti, predstavlyavashti osnovania za izvarshvane na finansovi korektsii, i protsentnite pokazateli za opredelyane razmera na finansovite korektsii po reda na Zakona za upravlenie na sredstvata ot Evropeyskite strukturni i investitsionni fondove (Regulation on the detection of irregularities that constitute grounds for making financial corrections, and the percentage indicators for determining the amount of financial corrections under the Law on the Management of Funds from the European Structural and Investment Funds), which always assumes that there has been an irregularity in the event of a breach of the rules on the award of public contracts that are laid down in a schedule contained in a legislative act, compatible [with EU law]? |
| --- | --- |

1.

In view of the logical and purposive interpretation of Articles 2(36) and 143(2) of the Regulation (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006, is a national provision such as that of Article 70(2) of the ZUSEFSU in conjunction with Article 2(1) and (2) of the Naredba za posochvane na nerednosti, predstavlyavashti osnovania za izvarshvane na finansovi korektsii, i protsentnite pokazateli za opredelyane razmera na finansovite korektsii po reda na Zakona za upravlenie na sredstvata ot Evropeyskite strukturni i investitsionni fondove (Regulation on the detection of irregularities that constitute grounds for making financial corrections, and the percentage indicators for determining the amount of financial corrections under the Law on the Management of Funds from the European Structural and Investment Funds), which always assumes that there has been an irregularity in the event of a breach of the rules on the award of public contracts that are laid down in a schedule contained in a legislative act, compatible [with EU law]?

| 2. | In view of the need to individualise each concrete and specific breach of a rule applicable in the field of public procurement, does the national provision of Article 70(2) of the ZUSEFSU, in conjunction with Article 2(1) and (2) of the Regulation on the detection of irregularities that constitute grounds for making financial corrections, and the percentage indicators for determining the amount of financial corrections under the Law on the Management of European Structural and Investment Funds, comply with the principle of proportionality laid down in the [third] sentence of Article 143(2) of the Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In view of the need to individualise each concrete and specific breach of a rule applicable in the field of public procurement, does the national provision of Article 70(2) of the ZUSEFSU, in conjunction with Article 2(1) and (2) of the Regulation on the detection of irregularities that constitute grounds for making financial corrections, and the percentage indicators for determining the amount of financial corrections under the Law on the Management of European Structural and Investment Funds, comply with the principle of proportionality laid down in the [third] sentence of Article 143(2) of the Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006?

---

(1)  OJ 2013 L 347, p. 320.

---

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/25

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München (Germany) lodged on 23 March 2023 — Land Niedersachsen v Conti 11. Container Schiffahrts-GmbH & Co. KG MS ‘MSC Flaminia’

(Case C-188/23, Conti 11. Container Schiffahrt)

(2023/C 216/34)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings

Defendant and appellant: Land Niedersachsen

Applicant and respondent: Conti 11. Container Schiffahrts-GmbH & Co. KG MS ‘MSC Flaminia’

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the exemption from the obligation to notify, set out in Article 1(3)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste, invalid, as being contrary to the provisions of the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal of 22 March 1989, in so far as the exemption would also remove the obligation to notify hazardous waste that is attributable to damage incurred by a ship at sea and that is to be regarded as waste within the meaning of that exemption provision in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 16 May 2019 in Case C-689/17? (2) |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the exemption from the obligation to notify, set out in Article 1(3)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste, invalid, as being contrary to the provisions of the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal of 22 March 1989, in so far as the exemption would also remove the obligation to notify hazardous waste that is attributable to damage incurred by a ship at sea and that is to be regarded as waste within the meaning of that exemption provision in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 16 May 2019 in Case C-689/17? (2)

| 2. | In the event that Question (a) is answered in the negative, is the exemption provided for in Article 1(3)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006, to be interpreted, in the light of the requirements of the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal of 22 March 1989, restrictively as meaning that residues in the form of scrap metal and fire-extinguishing water mixed with sludge and cargo residues such as those in the present case that are attributable to damage incurred at sea are not to be regarded as waste generated on board ships within the meaning of that provision? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the event that Question (a) is answered in the negative, is the exemption provided for in Article 1(3)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006, to be interpreted, in the light of the requirements of the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal of 22 March 1989, restrictively as meaning that residues in the form of scrap metal and fire-extinguishing water mixed with sludge and cargo residues such as those in the present case that are attributable to damage incurred at sea are not to be regarded as waste generated on board ships within the meaning of that provision?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste (OJ 2006 L 190, p. 1).

(2)  ECLI:EU:C:2019:420.

---

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/26

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 23 March 2023 — Consorzio Nazionale Servizi Società Cooperativa (CNS) v Consip SpA

(Case C-189/23, Consorzio Nazionale Servizi)

(2023/C 216/35)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Consorzio Nazionale Servizi Società Cooperativa (CNS)

Respondent: Consip SpA

Question referred

Do Articles 16, 49, 50 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 4 of Protocol No 7 to the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 6 TEU, and the principles of proportionality, competition, freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services laid down in Articles 49, 50, 54 and 56 TFEU preclude national rules (Articles 38(1)(f), 48 and 75 of decreto legislativo n. 163 (Legislative Decree No 163) of 2006) which provide for the application of the penalty of forfeiture of the provisional security, as an automatic consequence of the exclusion of an economic operator from a procedure for the award of a public service contract, even though that economic operator has already been the addressee, in relation to the same single conduct, of another penalty determined following a specific procedure initiated by another competent authority of the same Member State?

---

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/27

---

Action brought on 31 March 2023 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-213/23)

(2023/C 216/36)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P.-J. Loewenthal, U. Małecka, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that the Kingdom of the Netherlands, in not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive (EU) 2019/1024 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on open data and the re-use of public sector information and in not immediately communicating those measures to the Commission, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 17 of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the Kingdom of the Netherlands, in not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive (EU) 2019/1024 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on open data and the re-use of public sector information and in not immediately communicating those measures to the Commission, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 17 of that directive;

| — | order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the Commission a lump sum which corresponds to the level of the following two amounts: (i) a daily amount of EUR 13 900, multiplied by the number of days between the day after the expiry of the time limit for transposition fixed in Directive (EU) 2019/1024 and the day on which the infringement is rectified or, in the absence of rectification, the day on which the present judgment is rendered, or (ii) a minimum lump sum in the amount of EUR 3 892 000; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the Commission a lump sum which corresponds to the level of the following two amounts: (i) a daily amount of EUR 13 900, multiplied by the number of days between the day after the expiry of the time limit for transposition fixed in Directive (EU) 2019/1024 and the day on which the infringement is rectified or, in the absence of rectification, the day on which the present judgment is rendered, or (ii) a minimum lump sum in the amount of EUR 3 892 000;

| — | in the event that the infringement persists until the date of delivery of the judgment in the present case, order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the Commission a periodic penalty payment in the amount of EUR 75 060 per day from the day of delivery of the judgment in this case until the date on which that Member State fulfils its obligations under the directive, and |
| --- | --- |

—

in the event that the infringement persists until the date of delivery of the judgment in the present case, order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the Commission a periodic penalty payment in the amount of EUR 75 060 per day from the day of delivery of the judgment in this case until the date on which that Member State fulfils its obligations under the directive, and

| — | order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pursuant to Article 17(1) of Directive (EU) 2019/1024, the Member States were required by 17 July 2021 at the latest to adopt the national measures necessary to transpose that directive and to communicate them to the Commission.

According to the Commission, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under the abovementioned provision by not having adopted the required transposition measures on time, or at least by not having immediately communicated those measures to the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ 2019 L 172, p. 56.

---

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/27

---

Action brought on 31 March 2023 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-215/23)

(2023/C 216/37)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P.-J. Loewenthal, U. Małecka, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that the Kingdom of Belgium, in not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive (EU) 2019/1024 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on open data and the re-use of public sector information and in not immediately communicating those measures to the Commission, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 17 of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the Kingdom of Belgium, in not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive (EU) 2019/1024 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on open data and the re-use of public sector information and in not immediately communicating those measures to the Commission, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 17 of that directive;

| — | order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the Commission a lump sum which corresponds to the level of the following two amounts: (i) a daily amount of EUR 2 520, multiplied by the number of days between the day after the expiry of the time limit for transposition fixed in Directive (EU) 2019/1024 and the day on which the infringement is rectified or, in the absence of rectification, the day on which the present judgment is rendered, or (ii) a minimum lump sum in the amount of EUR 2 352 000; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the Commission a lump sum which corresponds to the level of the following two amounts: (i) a daily amount of EUR 2 520, multiplied by the number of days between the day after the expiry of the time limit for transposition fixed in Directive (EU) 2019/1024 and the day on which the infringement is rectified or, in the absence of rectification, the day on which the present judgment is rendered, or (ii) a minimum lump sum in the amount of EUR 2 352 000;

| — | in the event that the infringement persists until the date of delivery of the judgment in the present case, order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the Commission a periodic penalty payment in the amount of EUR 13 608 per day from the day of delivery of the judgment in this case until the date on which that Member State fulfils its obligations under the directive, and |
| --- | --- |

—

in the event that the infringement persists until the date of delivery of the judgment in the present case, order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the Commission a periodic penalty payment in the amount of EUR 13 608 per day from the day of delivery of the judgment in this case until the date on which that Member State fulfils its obligations under the directive, and

| — | order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pursuant to Article 17(1) of Directive (EU) 2019/1024, the Member States were required by 17 July 2021 at the latest to adopt the national measures necessary to transpose that directive and to communicate them to the Commission.

According to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the abovementioned provision by not having adopted the required transposition measures for the Walloon Region, the French Community and at federal level on time, or at least by not having immediately communicated those measures to the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ 2019 L 172, p. 56.

---

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/28

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 5 April 2023 — Consorzio Leonardo Servizi e Lavori ‘Società Cooperativa Consortile Stabile’ v Consip SpA

(Case C-226/23, Consorzio Leonardo Servizi e Lavori)

(2023/C 216/38)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Consorzio Leonardo Servizi e Lavori ‘Società Cooperativa Consortile Stabile’, PH Facility Srl

Respondent: Consip SpA

Question referred

Do Articles 16, 49, 50 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 4 of Protocol No 7 to the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 6 TEU, the principles of proportionality, competition, freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services laid down in Articles 49, 50, 54 and 56 TFEU preclude national rules (Articles 38(1)(f), 48 and 75 of decreto legislativo n. 163 del 2006) (Legislative Decree No 163 of 2006) which provide for the application of the penalty of forfeiture of the provisional security, as an automatic consequence of the exclusion of an economic operator from a procedure for the award of a public service contract, irrespective of whether or not that economic operator has been awarded the contract?

---

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/29

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 13 April 2023 — Alphabet Inc., Google LLC and Google Italy Srl v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato

(Case C-233/23, Alphabet and Others)

(2023/C 216/39)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Alphabet Inc., Google LLC and Google Italy Srl

Respondent: Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato

Other parties to the proceedings: Enel X Italia Srl and Enel X Way Srl

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the requirement that the product that is the subject of a refusal to supply be indispensable be interpreted, for the purposes of Article 102 TFEU, as meaning that access must be indispensable to the exercise of a particular activity in a neighbouring market, or is it sufficient that access be indispensable for a more convenient use of the product or service offered by the undertaking requesting access, especially where the essential function of the product that is the subject of the refusal to supply is to make it easier and more convenient to use existing products or services? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must the requirement that the product that is the subject of a refusal to supply be indispensable be interpreted, for the purposes of Article 102 TFEU, as meaning that access must be indispensable to the exercise of a particular activity in a neighbouring market, or is it sufficient that access be indispensable for a more convenient use of the product or service offered by the undertaking requesting access, especially where the essential function of the product that is the subject of the refusal to supply is to make it easier and more convenient to use existing products or services?

| 2. | Is it possible, in the context of conduct constituting a refusal to supply, to consider behaviour to be abusive, within the meaning of Article 102 TFEU, in a situation where, notwithstanding the lack of access to the requested product, (i) the undertaking requesting access was already active in the market and had continued to grow within that market throughout the period of the alleged abuse and (ii) other operators competing with the undertaking requesting access to the product had continued to operate in the market? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is it possible, in the context of conduct constituting a refusal to supply, to consider behaviour to be abusive, within the meaning of Article 102 TFEU, in a situation where, notwithstanding the lack of access to the requested product, (i) the undertaking requesting access was already active in the market and had continued to grow within that market throughout the period of the alleged abuse and (ii) other operators competing with the undertaking requesting access to the product had continued to operate in the market?

| 3. | Must Article 102 TFEU, in the context of abuse consisting in a refusal to grant access to an allegedly indispensable product or service, be interpreted as meaning that the fact that the product or service did not exist at the time of the request to supply must be taken into consideration as an objective justification for that refusal, or, at least, is a competition authority required to conduct an analysis, based on objective elements, of the time needed for a dominant undertaking to develop the product or service in respect of which access has been requested, or must the dominant undertaking, given the responsibility it has within the market, be required to inform the undertaking requesting access of the time required to develop the product? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Must Article 102 TFEU, in the context of abuse consisting in a refusal to grant access to an allegedly indispensable product or service, be interpreted as meaning that the fact that the product or service did not exist at the time of the request to supply must be taken into consideration as an objective justification for that refusal, or, at least, is a competition authority required to conduct an analysis, based on objective elements, of the time needed for a dominant undertaking to develop the product or service in respect of which access has been requested, or must the dominant undertaking, given the responsibility it has within the market, be required to inform the undertaking requesting access of the time required to develop the product?

| 4. | Must Article 102 TFEU be interpreted as meaning that a dominant undertaking that has control over a digital platform may be required to modify its own products, or to develop new ones, so that those who so request may access such products? In that case, is a dominant undertaking required to consider the general requirements of the market or the requirements of a single undertaking requesting access to the allegedly indispensable input, or, at least, given the special responsibility it has within the market, to lay down in advance objective criteria for reviewing the requests that it receives and for ranking them in order of priority? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Must Article 102 TFEU be interpreted as meaning that a dominant undertaking that has control over a digital platform may be required to modify its own products, or to develop new ones, so that those who so request may access such products? In that case, is a dominant undertaking required to consider the general requirements of the market or the requirements of a single undertaking requesting access to the allegedly indispensable input, or, at least, given the special responsibility it has within the market, to lay down in advance objective criteria for reviewing the requests that it receives and for ranking them in order of priority?

| 5. | Must Article 102 TFEU, in the context of abuse consisting in a refusal to grant access to an allegedly indispensable product or service, be interpreted as meaning that a competition authority is required to define and identify in advance the relevant downstream market to which the abuse applies, and can this market also be only potential? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Must Article 102 TFEU, in the context of abuse consisting in a refusal to grant access to an allegedly indispensable product or service, be interpreted as meaning that a competition authority is required to define and identify in advance the relevant downstream market to which the abuse applies, and can this market also be only potential?

---

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/30

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 17 April 2023 — Herbaria Kräuterparadies GmbH v Freistaat Bayern

(Case C-240/23, Herbaria Kräuterparadies)

(2023/C 216/40)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law: Herbaria Kräuterparadies GmbH

Respondent on a point of law: Freistaat Bayern

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 33(1) of Regulation (EU) 2018/848 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the organic production logo of the European Union may be used for a processed foodstuff which is imported for the purpose of placing it on the market within the Union as an organic product, under the conditions laid down in Article 45(1) of Regulation (EU) 2018/848, but, because it contains, in addition to plant products, minerals and vitamins of non-plant origin, does not meet the requirements of Article 16(1) of Regulation (EU) 2018/848 in conjunction with Annex II, Part IV, point 2.2.2(f) thereto? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 33(1) of Regulation (EU) 2018/848 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the organic production logo of the European Union may be used for a processed foodstuff which is imported for the purpose of placing it on the market within the Union as an organic product, under the conditions laid down in Article 45(1) of Regulation (EU) 2018/848, but, because it contains, in addition to plant products, minerals and vitamins of non-plant origin, does not meet the requirements of Article 16(1) of Regulation (EU) 2018/848 in conjunction with Annex II, Part IV, point 2.2.2(f) thereto?

| 2. | If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative, does it follow from Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union that the organic production logo of the European Union may be used for a processed foodstuff if it originates from the European Union and complies with the equivalent production and control provisions of a third country recognised in accordance with Article 48(1) of Regulation (EU) 2018/848, but does not meet the requirements of Article 16(1) of Regulation (EU) 2018/848 in conjunction with Annex II, Part IV, point 2.2.2(f) thereto? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative, does it follow from Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union that the organic production logo of the European Union may be used for a processed foodstuff if it originates from the European Union and complies with the equivalent production and control provisions of a third country recognised in accordance with Article 48(1) of Regulation (EU) 2018/848, but does not meet the requirements of Article 16(1) of Regulation (EU) 2018/848 in conjunction with Annex II, Part IV, point 2.2.2(f) thereto?

| 3. | Does it follow from Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union that such a processed product originating from the European Union may bear terms referring to organic production, in accordance with Article 30(1) of Regulation (EU) 2018/848, without using the organic production logo of the European Union? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does it follow from Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union that such a processed product originating from the European Union may bear terms referring to organic production, in accordance with Article 30(1) of Regulation (EU) 2018/848, without using the organic production logo of the European Union?

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) 2018/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 on organic production and labelling of organic products and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 (OJ 2018 L 150, p. 1).

---

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/30

---

Appeal brought on 23 April 2023 by Hengshi Egypt Fiberglass Fabrics SAE and Jushi Egypt for Fiberglass Industry SAE against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 1 March 2023 in Case T-301/20, Hengshi Egypt Fiberglass Fabrics and Jushi Egypt for Fiberglass Industry v Commission

(Case C-261/23 P)

(2023/C 216/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Hengshi Egypt Fiberglass Fabrics SAE and Jushi Egypt for Fiberglass Industry SAE (represented by: B. Servais and V. Crochet, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission and Tech-Fab Europe eV

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul the judgment under appeal, |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the judgment under appeal,

| — | accept the first, third and fifth parts of the first plea in law at first instance, and |
| --- | --- |

—

accept the first, third and fifth parts of the first plea in law at first instance, and

| — | order the Appellee and any intervening party to pay the costs including those incurred at first instance. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Appellee and any intervening party to pay the costs including those incurred at first instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the judgment under appeal, the General Court dismissed the action for annulment brought by the appellants against Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/492 (1) of 1 April 2020 imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain woven and/or stitched glass fibre fabrics originating in the People’s Republic of China and Egypt.

In support of the present appeal, the Appellants rely on three grounds of appeal, namely that:

| — | First ground of appeal: the General Court erred in law when it concluded that since the price of glass fibre roving in Hengshi’s records was not at arm’s length, that price had to be adjusted under the second condition of the first subparagraph of Article 2(5) of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation (2). |
| --- | --- |

—

First ground of appeal: the General Court erred in law when it concluded that since the price of glass fibre roving in Hengshi’s records was not at arm’s length, that price had to be adjusted under the second condition of the first subparagraph of Article 2(5) of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation (2).

| — | Second ground of appeal: the General Court misinterpreted and misapplied the second subparagraph of Article 2(5) of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation when ruling that the Commission was justified in making an adjustment to the cost of Hengshi’s glass fibre roving on ‘any other reasonable basis’ and misapplied the law when it decided that the Commission did not infringe its obligation to state reasons and mistakenly accepted reasons brought up for the first time before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

Second ground of appeal: the General Court misinterpreted and misapplied the second subparagraph of Article 2(5) of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation when ruling that the Commission was justified in making an adjustment to the cost of Hengshi’s glass fibre roving on ‘any other reasonable basis’ and misapplied the law when it decided that the Commission did not infringe its obligation to state reasons and mistakenly accepted reasons brought up for the first time before the General Court.

| — | Third ground of appeal: the General Court erred in law when it ruled that the Commission did not impose an anti-dumping duty which exceeds the dumping margin and, hence, did not infringe Article 9(4) of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

—

Third ground of appeal: the General Court erred in law when it ruled that the Commission did not impose an anti-dumping duty which exceeds the dumping margin and, hence, did not infringe Article 9(4) of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation.

With regard to the first ground of appeal, the Appellants in essence submit that the General Court erred in law when it concluded that since the price of glass fibre roving in Hengshi’s records was not at arm’s length, that price could not be regarded as reasonably taking into account the costs associated with the production and sale of the product under consideration, and that, consequently, that price had to be adjusted under the second condition of the first subparagraph of Article 2(5) of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation. In particular, the Appellants submit that the General Court did not draw the correct conclusion from the fact that the second condition of the first subparagraph of Article 2(5) of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation must be interpreted narrowly. Furthermore, the General Court did not reach the right conclusion from the fact that the second condition of the first subparagraph of Article 2(5) of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation must be interpreted in light of Article 2.2.1.1 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement as interpreted by the WTO Dispute Settlement Body.

With regard to the second ground of appeal, the Appellants submit two arguments. First, they contend that the General Court erred in law when it held that the Commission was justified in making an adjustment to the cost of Hengshi’s glass fibre roving on ‘any other reasonable basis’ in accordance with the exception provided for in the second subparagraph of Article 2(5) of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation because that exception must be interpreted strictly. Second, the Appellants contend that the General Court misapplied the law when it decided that the Commission did not infringe its obligation to state reasons for making the aforementioned adjustment because the General Court misconstrued the relevant statement of the Contested Regulation allegedly explaining why it had to resort to the exception provided in the second subparagraph of Article 2(5) of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation and was incorrect in finding that the reasons relating to the ‘comparability’ of Hengshi and Jushi were ‘merely a background matter’.

With regard to the third ground of appeal, the Appellants submit that for the reasons explained in the first and second grounds of appeal, the General Court erred in law by considering that the Appellants did not demonstrate that the Commission committed errors of law or a manifest error of assessment when establishing Hengshi’s constructed normal value. As a result, the General Court also erred in law when it ruled that the Commission did not impose an anti-dumping duty which exceeds the dumping margin and, hence, did not infringe Article 9(4) of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation.

---

(1)  OJ 2020, L 108, p. 1.

(2)  Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (OJ 2016, L 176, p. 21).

---

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/32

---

Appeal brought on 24 April 2023 by UPL Europe Ltd and Indofil Industries (Netherlands) BV against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 15 February 2023 in Case T-742/20, UPL Europe and Indofil Industries (Netherlands) v Commission

(Case C-262/23 P)

(2023/C 216/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: UPL Europe Ltd and Indofil Industries (Netherlands) BV (represented by: C. Mereu, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

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

—

set aside the judgment under appeal;

| — | annul the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2087 of 14 December 2020 concerning the non-renewal of approval of the active substance mancozeb, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 (1) and award the costs of this appeal and of the proceedings before the General Court to the appellants; or |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2087 of 14 December 2020 concerning the non-renewal of approval of the active substance mancozeb, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 (1) and award the costs of this appeal and of the proceedings before the General Court to the appellants; or

| — | award the costs of this appeal to the appellants and refer the case back to the General Court for re-consideration. |
| --- | --- |

—

award the costs of this appeal to the appellants and refer the case back to the General Court for re-consideration.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging that the General Court:

| — | distorted the evidence on record, and in turn deprived the appellant’s effective right of defence, when it held that the failure to take into consideration data on endocrine disruption was unfounded; |
| --- | --- |

—

distorted the evidence on record, and in turn deprived the appellant’s effective right of defence, when it held that the failure to take into consideration data on endocrine disruption was unfounded;

| — | failed to address the appellant’s claim concerning the lack of assessment of data on the risk to birds and mammals, non-target arthropods, soil organisms and toxicological reference values; |
| --- | --- |

—

failed to address the appellant’s claim concerning the lack of assessment of data on the risk to birds and mammals, non-target arthropods, soil organisms and toxicological reference values;

| — | distorted the evidence, erred in law, misinterpreted and/or misapplied Regulation 844/2012 (2) and/or the case law concerning the amplification of pleas in law; |
| --- | --- |

—

distorted the evidence, erred in law, misinterpreted and/or misapplied Regulation 844/2012 (2) and/or the case law concerning the amplification of pleas in law;

| — | failed to address and state the reasons concerning the appellant’s plea on the interim and new endocrine disruption criteria and/or to raise it ex officio; |
| --- | --- |

—

failed to address and state the reasons concerning the appellant’s plea on the interim and new endocrine disruption criteria and/or to raise it ex officio;

| — | erred in law, misinterpreted and/or misapplied the procedure under Regulation 844/2012 concerning public consultations; |
| --- | --- |

—

erred in law, misinterpreted and/or misapplied the procedure under Regulation 844/2012 concerning public consultations;

| — | misinterpreted and/or misapplied the procedure under Regulation 844/2012 concerning the defendant's submission of the draft renewal report before the new rapporteur Member State (‘RMS’) Greece had finalized its assessment. |
| --- | --- |

—

misinterpreted and/or misapplied the procedure under Regulation 844/2012 concerning the defendant's submission of the draft renewal report before the new rapporteur Member State (‘RMS’) Greece had finalized its assessment.

Second plea in law, alleging that the General Court did not clearly state the reasons for the rejection of the second plea.

Third plea in law, alleging that the General Court distorted the evidence and made an error of assessment when it ruled that the defendant was not biased when proposing the non-renewal of the active substance mancozeb without waiting for the final scientific conclusions from the RMS Greece.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the General Court's reasoning concerning (i) the weight of the opinion of the European Chemicals Agency’s Risk Assessment Committee is erroneous, illogical, inconsistent and contrary to the principle of legal certainty, (ii) the defendant's failure to take into account new elements on the classification of mancozeb is erroneous, illogical and contradictory, and (iii) the undue influence to the metabolite ethylene thiourea is illogical, contradictory and not supported by the available evidence.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the General Court erred in law, distorted the evidence and misinterpreted the principle of legitimate expectations.

---

(1)  OJ 2020 L 423, p. 50.

(2)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 844/2012 of 18 September 2012 setting out the provisions necessary for the implementation of the renewal procedure for active substances, as provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ 2012, L 252, p. 26).

---

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/33

---

Appeal brought on 25 April 2023 by Hengshi Egypt Fiberglass Fabrics SAE and Jushi Egypt for Fiberglass Industry SAE against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 1 March 2023 in Case T-480/20, Hengshi Egypt Fiberglass Fabrics and Jushi Egypt for Fiberglass Industry v Commission

(Case C-269/23 P)

(2023/C 216/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Hengshi Egypt Fiberglass Fabrics SAE and Jushi Egypt for Fiberglass Industry SAE (represented by: B. Servais and V. Crochet, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission and Tech-Fab Europe eV

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul the judgment under appeal, |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the judgment under appeal,

| — | accept the first part of the first plea in law and the second, fourth and fifth pleas in law of the action for annulment brought by Hengshi Egypt Fiberglass Fabrics S.A.E. and Jushi Egypt for Fiberglass Industry S.A.E, and |
| --- | --- |

—

accept the first part of the first plea in law and the second, fourth and fifth pleas in law of the action for annulment brought by Hengshi Egypt Fiberglass Fabrics S.A.E. and Jushi Egypt for Fiberglass Industry S.A.E, and

| — | order the Appellee and any intervening party to pay the costs including those incurred at first instance. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Appellee and any intervening party to pay the costs including those incurred at first instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the judgment under appeal, the General Court dismissed the action for annulment brought by the appellants against Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/776 (1) of 12 June 2020 imposing definitive countervailing duties on imports of certain woven and/or stitched glass fibre fabrics originating in the People’s Republic of China and Egypt and amending Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/492 imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain woven and/or stitched glass fibre fabrics originating in the People’s Republic of China and Egypt.

In support of the present appeal, the Appellants rely on five grounds of appeal, namely that the General Court erred in law when it:

| — | determined that the Commission did not infringe Articles 1(1), 5 and 6 of the Basic Regulation when adopting its method for calculating the Appellants’ subsidy margin; |
| --- | --- |

—

determined that the Commission did not infringe Articles 1(1), 5 and 6 of the Basic Regulation when adopting its method for calculating the Appellants’ subsidy margin;

| — | concluded that the Commission did not infringe Articles 2(a), 2(b) and 3(1)(a) of the Basic Regulation when it attributed financial contributions by governments and public bodies linked to the Government of the People’s Republic of China to the government of the country of origin or export, namely the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt; |
| --- | --- |

—

concluded that the Commission did not infringe Articles 2(a), 2(b) and 3(1)(a) of the Basic Regulation when it attributed financial contributions by governments and public bodies linked to the Government of the People’s Republic of China to the government of the country of origin or export, namely the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt;

| — | found that the Commission did not violate Articles 4(2) and 4(3) of the Basic Regulation when it concluded that the Government of Egypt has the status of authority which granted the preferential financing that was granted by the Government of China; |
| --- | --- |

—

found that the Commission did not violate Articles 4(2) and 4(3) of the Basic Regulation when it concluded that the Government of Egypt has the status of authority which granted the preferential financing that was granted by the Government of China;

| — | concluded that the Commission did not violate Articles 3(1)(a)(ii), 3(2) and 5 of the Basic Regulation when calculating the amount of the benefit conferred to Jushi under the duty drawback scheme; and |
| --- | --- |

—

concluded that the Commission did not violate Articles 3(1)(a)(ii), 3(2) and 5 of the Basic Regulation when calculating the amount of the benefit conferred to Jushi under the duty drawback scheme; and

| — | deemed that the Commission did not violate Articles 3(2) and 4(2)(c) of the Basic Regulation when determining that the tax treatment of foreign exchange losses conferred a benefit to the Appellants and constituted a specific subsidy. |
| --- | --- |

—

deemed that the Commission did not violate Articles 3(2) and 4(2)(c) of the Basic Regulation when determining that the tax treatment of foreign exchange losses conferred a benefit to the Appellants and constituted a specific subsidy.

With regard to the first ground of appeal, the Appellants in essence submit that the General Court erred in law when it considered that the Commission’s use of the Appellants’ combined total turnover from all products as an appropriate denominator for the calculation of the benefit in percentage (that is the amount of countervailable subsidy) was not vitiated by a manifest error of assessment.

With regard to the second ground of appeal, the Appellants in essence submit that the General Court erred in law when it concluded that the Basic Regulation does not rule out the possibility that, even if the financial contribution does not come directly from the government of the country of origin or export, that financial contribution may be attributed to it, under Articles 2(b) and 3(1) of the Basic Regulation.

With regard to the third ground of appeal, the Appellants in essence submit that the General Court erred in law when it concluded that the Government of Egypt has the status of authority which granted the preferential financing that was granted by the Government of China. Instead, the General Court should have concluded that the Commission violated Articles 4(2) and (3) of the Basic Regulation because it was the Chinese entities providing the financial contributions that were the granting authority.

With regard to the fourth ground of appeal, the Appellants in essence submit that the General Court erred in law when it concluded that the only comparable situation for the purpose of determining whether Jushi received a benefit is that of an undertaking established, like Jushi, in the Suez Canal Economic Zone (SCZone) which sells products containing materials that have benefited from exemption from customs duties to an undertaking established outside the SCZone.

With regard to the fifth ground of appeal, the Appellants in essence submit that the General Court erred in law when it concluded that the Commission did not consider that the tax treatment in itself constituted a subsidy capable of being the subject of a countervailing measure and that the Applicants at first instance failed to adduce evidence that might render implausible the factual assessments made by the Commission in the contested implementing regulation regarding the fact that the tax treatment benefited all undertakings with liabilities in foreign currencies.

---

(1)  OJ 2020, L 189, p. 1.

---

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/34

---

Action brought on 27 April 2023 — European Commission v Hungary

(Case C-271/23)

(2023/C 216/44)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Baumgart, M. Carpus Carcea and Zs. Teleki, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Hungary

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by not following the European Union’s position, at the reconvened sixty-third session of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs of the United Nations Economic and Social Council, in respect of amending the scheduling of cannabis and cannabis-related substances, Hungary has (i) failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Decision (EU) 2021/3, (1) which was binding on Hungary in accordance with Article 218(9) TFEU, in conjunction with the fourth paragraph of Article 288 TFEU; (ii) interfered in the exclusive external competence of the European Union laid down in Article 3(2) TFEU; and (iii) breached the principle of sincere cooperation enshrined in Article 4(3) TEU; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by not following the European Union’s position, at the reconvened sixty-third session of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs of the United Nations Economic and Social Council, in respect of amending the scheduling of cannabis and cannabis-related substances, Hungary has (i) failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Decision (EU) 2021/3, (1) which was binding on Hungary in accordance with Article 218(9) TFEU, in conjunction with the fourth paragraph of Article 288 TFEU; (ii) interfered in the exclusive external competence of the European Union laid down in Article 3(2) TFEU; and (iii) breached the principle of sincere cooperation enshrined in Article 4(3) TEU;

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

—

order Hungary to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

First plea in law: At the session of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs held on 2 December 2020, Hungary voted contrary to the provisions of the Council Decision establishing the position of the European Union. The Council Decision, which was adopted on the basis of Article 218(9) TFEU, and which establishes the positions to be adopted on the European Union’s behalf, was binding on Hungary under the fourth paragraph of Article 288 TFEU.

Second plea in law: In accordance with Article 3(2) TFEU, Council Decision (EU) 2021/3 concerns an exclusive external competence of the European Union, and Hungary therefore should not have established its own position in that respect.

Third plea in law: By voting contrary to the European Union’s position, without the prior agreement of the EU institutions, Hungary breached the principle of sincere cooperation laid down in Article 4(3) TEU.

The Commission sent Hungary a letter of formal notice on 18 February 2021 and a reasoned opinion on 12 November 2021 and considered Hungary’s replies to be unsatisfactory.

---

(1)  Council Decision (EU) 2021/3 of 23 November 2020 on the position to be taken, on behalf of the European Union, at the reconvened sixty-third session of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs, on the scheduling of cannabis and cannabis-related substances under the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961, as amended by the 1972 Protocol, and the Convention on Psychotropic Substances of 1971 (OJ 2021 L 4, p. 1).

---

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/35

---

Appeal brought on 27 April 2023 by Jushi Egypt for Fiberglass Industry SAE against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 1 March 2023 in Case T-540/20, Jushi Egypt for Fiberglass Industry v Commission

(Case C-272/23 P)

(2023/C 216/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Jushi Egypt for Fiberglass Industry SAE (represented by: B. Servais and V. Crochet, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission and Association des producteurs de fibres de verre européens (APFE)

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the judgment under appeal, |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the judgment under appeal,

| — | accept the first, third and fourth pleas in law of the action for annulment brought by Jushi Egypt for Fiberglass Industry S.A.E, and |
| --- | --- |

—

accept the first, third and fourth pleas in law of the action for annulment brought by Jushi Egypt for Fiberglass Industry S.A.E, and

| — | order the Appellee and any intervening party to pay the costs including those incurred at first instance. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Appellee and any intervening party to pay the costs including those incurred at first instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the judgment under appeal, the General Court dismissed the action for annulment brought by the appellant against Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/870 (1) of 24 June 2020 imposing a definitive countervailing duty and definitively collecting the provisional countervailing duty imposed on imports of continuous filament glass fibre products originating in Egypt, and levying the definitive countervailing duty on the registered imports of continuous filament glass fibre products originating in Egypt.

In support of the present appeal, the Appellant relies on four grounds of appeal, namely that the General Court erred in law when it:

| — | concluded that the Commission did not infringe Articles 2(a), 2(b) and 3(1)(a) of the Basic Regulation (2) when it attributed financial contributions by governments and public bodies linked to the Government of the People’s Republic of China to the government of the country of origin or export, namely the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt; |
| --- | --- |

—

concluded that the Commission did not infringe Articles 2(a), 2(b) and 3(1)(a) of the Basic Regulation (2) when it attributed financial contributions by governments and public bodies linked to the Government of the People’s Republic of China to the government of the country of origin or export, namely the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt;

| — | found that the Commission did not violate Articles 4(2) and 4(3) of the Basic Regulation when it deemed the financial contributions attributed to the Government of Egypt specific; |
| --- | --- |

—

found that the Commission did not violate Articles 4(2) and 4(3) of the Basic Regulation when it deemed the financial contributions attributed to the Government of Egypt specific;

| — | concluded that the Commission did not violate Articles 3(1)(a)(ii), 3(2) and 5 of the Basic Regulation when calculating the amount of the benefit conferred to the Appellant under the duty drawback scheme; and |
| --- | --- |

—

concluded that the Commission did not violate Articles 3(1)(a)(ii), 3(2) and 5 of the Basic Regulation when calculating the amount of the benefit conferred to the Appellant under the duty drawback scheme; and

| — | deemed that the Commission did not violate Articles 3(2) and 4(2)(c) of the Basic Regulation when determining that the tax treatment of foreign exchange losses conferred a benefit to the Appellant and constituted a specific subsidy. |
| --- | --- |

—

deemed that the Commission did not violate Articles 3(2) and 4(2)(c) of the Basic Regulation when determining that the tax treatment of foreign exchange losses conferred a benefit to the Appellant and constituted a specific subsidy.

With regard to the first ground of appeal, the Appellant in essence submits that the General Court erred in law when it concluded that the Basic Regulation does not rule out the possibility that, even if the financial contribution does not come directly from the government of the country of origin or export, that financial contribution may be attributed to it, under Articles 2(b) and 3(1) of the Basic Regulation.

With regard to the second ground of appeal, the Appellant in essence submits that the General Court erred in law when it concluded that the Government of Egypt has the status of authority which granted the preferential financing that was granted by the Government of China. Instead, the General Court should have concluded that the Commission violated Articles 4(2) and (3) of the Basic Regulation because it was the Chinese entities providing the financial contributions that were the granting authority.

With regard to the third ground of appeal, the Appellant in essence submits that the General Court erred in law when it concluded that the only comparable situation for the purpose of determining whether the Appellant received a benefit is that of an undertaking established, like the Appellant, in the Suez Canal Economic Zone (SCZone) which sells products containing materials that have benefited from exemption from customs duties to an undertaking established outside the SCZone.

With regard to the fourth ground of appeal, the Appellant in essence submits that the General Court erred in law when it concluded that the Commission did not consider that the tax treatment in itself constituted a subsidy capable of being the subject of a countervailing measure and that the Applicant at first instance failed to adduce evidence that might render implausible the factual assessments made by the Commission in the contested implementing regulation, regarding the fact that the tax treatment benefited all undertakings with liabilities in foreign currencies.

---

(1)  OJ 2020, L 201, p. 10.

(2)  Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Union (OJ 2016, L 176, p. 55).

---

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/37

---

Order of the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of 16 February 2023 — Oriol Junqueras i Vies v European Parliament, intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-780/21 P) (1)

(2023/C 216/46)

Language of the case: Spanish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 73, 14.2.2022.

---

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/37

---

Order of the President of the Court of 16 February 2023 — Oriol Junqueras i Vies v European Parliament, intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-824/21 P) (1)

(2023/C 216/47)

Language of the case: Spanish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 84, 21.2.2022.

---

General Court

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/38

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2023 — CV v Commission

(Case T-20/18) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Social security - Article 73 of the Staff Regulations - Common rules on the insurance against the risk of accident and of occupational disease - Occupational disease - Medical Committee - Article 22 - Refusal to recognise the occupational nature of a disease - Proper conduct of the pre-litigation procedure - Obligation to state reasons)

(2023/C 216/48)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: CV (represented by: F. Moyse and L. Heisten, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T.S. Bohr and L. Vernier, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his action under Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks, first, the annulment of the decision of the European Commission of 20 March 2017 rejecting his application for recognition of the occupational origin of his disease and the decision of the Commission of 15 March 2017 imposing on the applicant certain costs and fees of the members of the Medical Committee that ruled on that application and, secondly, compensation for the material and non-material damage which the applicant claims to have suffered as a result of those decisions.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

Orders CV to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 112, 26.3.2018.

---

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/38

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2023 — SRB v EDPS

(Case T-557/20) (1)

(Protection of personal data - Procedure for granting compensation to shareholders and creditors following the resolution of a bank - Decision of the EDPS in which it found that the SRB failed to fulfil its obligations concerning the processing of personal data - Article 15(1)(d) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 - Concept of personal data - Article 3(1) of Regulation 2018/1725 - Right of access to the file)

(2023/C 216/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Single Resolution Board (represented by: H. Ehlers, M. Fernández Rupérez, A. Lapresta Bienz, acting as Agents, and by H.-G. Kamann, M. Braun, F. Louis, and L. Hesse, lawyers)

Defendant: European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) (represented by: P. Candellier, X. Lareo and T. Zerdick, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the Single Resolution Board (SRB) seeks, first, annulment of the revised decision of the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) of 24 November 2020 adopted following the SRB’s request for review of the decision of the EDPS of 24 June 2020 concerning five complaints submitted by several complainants (Cases 2019-947, 2019-998, 2019-999, 2019-1000 and 2019-1122) and, second, a declaration that the decision of the EDPS of 24 June 2020 is illegal.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the revised decision of the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) of 24 November 2020 adopted following the request from the Single Resolution Board (SRB) for review of the decision of the EDPS of 24 June 2020 concerning five complaints submitted by several complainants (Cases 2019-947, 2019-998, 2019-999, 2019-1000 and 2019-1122); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the revised decision of the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) of 24 November 2020 adopted following the request from the Single Resolution Board (SRB) for review of the decision of the EDPS of 24 June 2020 concerning five complaints submitted by several complainants (Cases 2019-947, 2019-998, 2019-999, 2019-1000 and 2019-1122);

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders the EDPS to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the EDPS to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 390, 16.11.2020.

---

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/39

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2023 — OHB System v Commission

(Case T–54/21) (1)

(Public supply contracts - Tendering procedure - Competitive dialogue - Procurement of Galileo transition satellites - Rejection of a tenderer’s tender - Exclusion criteria - Serious professional misconduct on the part of a tenderer - No final judgment or final administrative decision - Referral to the panel referred to in Article 143 of the Financial Regulation - Equal treatment - Abnormally low tender - Manifest error of assessment)

(2023/C 216/50)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: OHB System AG (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: W. Würfel and F. Hausmann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Wilms, L. André, J. Estrada de Solà and L. Mantl, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and by P. Gentili and G. Santini, avvocati dello stato) and Airbus Defence and Space GmbH (Taufkirchen, Germany) (represented by: P.-E. Partsch, F. Dewald and C.-E. Seestädt, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decisions of the European Commission, communicated to the applicant by letter of 19 January 2021 and by fax of 22 January 2021, not to accept its tender, submitted in the context of Call for Tenders in the form of a competitive dialogue 2018/S 091-206089 relating to the procurement of Galileo transition satellites, and to award the contract to two other tenderers.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders OHB System AG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, including those relating to the proceedings for interim relief; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHB System AG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, including those relating to the proceedings for interim relief;

| 3. | Orders the Italian Republic and Airbus Defence and Space GmbH to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Italian Republic and Airbus Defence and Space GmbH to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 88, 15.3.2021.

---

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/40

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2023 — Rochem Group v EUIPO — Rochem Marine (R.T.S. ROCHEM Technical Services)

(Case T-546/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark R.T.S. ROCHEM Technical Services - Earlier national figurative mark ROCHEM MARINE - Relative ground for invalidity - Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark - Articles 15 and 57(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Articles 18 and 64(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2023/C 216/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Rochem Group AG (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by: K. Guridi Sedlak, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Rochem Marine Srl (Genoa, Italy) (represented by: R. Gioia and L. Mansi, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 28 June 2021 (Case R 1544/2019-1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Rochem Group AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Rochem Group AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 422, 18.10.2021.

---

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/40

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2023 — Rochem Group v EUIPO — Rochem Marine (R.T.S. Rochem Technical Services)

(Case T-547/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark R.T.S. Rochem Technical Services - Earlier national figurative mark ROCHEM MARINE - Relative ground for invalidity - Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark - Articles 15 and 57(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Articles 18 and 64(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2023/C 216/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Rochem Group AG (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by: K. Guridi Sedlak, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Rochem Marine Srl (Genoa, Italy) (represented by: R. Gioia and L. Mansi, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 28 June 2021 (Case R 1545/2019-1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Rochem Group AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Rochem Group AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 422, 18.10.2021.

---

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/41

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2023 — Rochem Group v EUIPO — Rochem Marine (ROCHEM)

(Case T-548/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark ROCHEM - Earlier national figurative mark ROCHEM MARINE - Relative ground for invalidity - Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark - Articles 15 and 57(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Articles 18 and 64(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2023/C 216/53)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Rochem Group AG (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by: K. Guridi Sedlak, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Rochem Marine Srl (Genoa, Italy) (represented by: R. Gioia and L. Mansi, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 28 June 2021 (Case R 1546/2019-1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Rochem Group AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Rochem Group AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 422, 18.10.2021.

---

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/42

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2023 — Rochem Group v EUIPO — Rochem Marine (ROCHEM)

(Case T-549/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark ROCHEM - Earlier national figurative mark ROCHEM MARINE - Relative ground for invalidity - Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark - Articles 15 and 57(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Articles 18 and 64(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2023/C 216/54)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Rochem Group AG (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by: K. Guridi Sedlak, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Rochem Marine Srl (Genoa, Italy) (represented by: R. Gioia and L. Mansi, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 28 June 2021 (Case R 1547/2019-1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Rochem Group AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Rochem Group AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 422, 18.10.2021.

---

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/42

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2023 — Alves Casas v EUIPO — Make-Up Art Cosmetics (mccosmetics NY)

(Case T-681/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark mccosmetics NY - Earlier EU figurative mark MAC MAKE-UP ART COSMETICS - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Damage to reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2023/C 216/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ana Maria Alves Casas (Porto, Portugal) (represented by: A. Martins, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Ringelhann and D. Gája, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Make-Up Art Cosmetics, Inc. (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: I. Fowler, B. Worbes and I. Junkar, lawyers)

Re:

By her action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 20 August 2021 (Case R 2398/2020-2).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Ms Ana Maria Alves Casas to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ms Ana Maria Alves Casas to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 2, 3.1.2022.

---

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/43

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2023 — Activa — Grillküche v EUIPO — Targa (Apparatus for grilling)

(Case T-757/21) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing apparatus for grilling - Disclosure of the earlier design - Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

(2023/C 216/56)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Activa — Grillküche GmbH (Selb, Germany) (represented by: F. Stangl and M. Würth, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Targa GmbH (Soest, Germany) (represented by: M.-H. Hoffmann, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 4 October 2021 (Case R 1651/2020-3).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Activa — Grillküche GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Activa — Grillküche GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 37, 24.1.2022.

---

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/43

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2023 — Wenz Kunststoff v EUIPO — Mouldpro (MOULDPRO)

(Case T-794/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark MOULDPRO - Genuine use of the mark - Nature of use - Use in connection with the goods in respect of which the mark is registered - Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Legitimate expectations)

(2023/C 216/57)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Wenz Kunststoff GmbH & Co. KG (Lüdenscheid, Germany) (represented by: J. Bühling and D. Graetsch, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Mouldpro ApS (Ballerup, Denmark) (represented by: W. Rebernik, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 8 October 2021 (Case R 646/2020-2).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

Orders Wenz Kunststoff GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 73, 14.2.2022.

---

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/44

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2023 — Kaminski v EUIPO — Polfarmex (SYRENA)

(Case T-35/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark SYRENA - Application of the law ratione temporis - Partial inadmissibility of the action - Res judicata - Article 15(1) and Article 51(1)(a) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 18(1) and Article 58(1)(a) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Genuine use in the European Union - Obligation to state reasons - First sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2023/C 216/58)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Arkadiusz Kaminski (Etobicoke, Ontario, Canada) (represented by: W. Trybowski, E. Pijewska and M. Mazurek, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Polfarmex S.A. (Kutno, Poland)

Re:

By his action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks, in essence, principally, alteration of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 26 October 2021 (Joined Cases R 1952/2020-1 and R 1953/2020-1) and, in the alternative, partial annulment of that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Arkadiusz Kaminski to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Arkadiusz Kaminski to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 119, 14.3.2022.

---

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/45

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2023 — Pinar Kuruyemiş Gida Ve Ihtiyaç Maddeleri Sanayi Ticaret v EUIPO — Yadex International (pinar KURUYEMIŞ)

(Case T-147/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark pinar KURUYEMIȘ - Earlier German word mark PINAR - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Right to be heard - Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Suspension of proceedings - Article 71(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625)

(2023/C 216/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Pinar Kuruyemiş Gida Ve Ihtiyaç Maddeleri Sanayi Ticaret AŞ (Karatay, Konya, Türkiye) (represented by: M.E. López Camba and A.M. Lyubomirova Geleva, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Yadex International GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: P. Kohl, lawyer)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 12 January 2022 (Case R 1148/2021-1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Pinar Kuruyemiş Gida Ve Ihtiyaç Maddeleri Sanayi Ticaret AŞ to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Yadex International GmbH for the purposes of the proceedings before the Court. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Pinar Kuruyemiş Gida Ve Ihtiyaç Maddeleri Sanayi Ticaret AŞ to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Yadex International GmbH for the purposes of the proceedings before the Court.

---

(1)  OJ C 198, 16.5.2022.

---

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/45

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2023 — Pinar Kuruyemiş Gida Ve Ihtiyaç Maddeleri Sanayi Ticaret v EUIPO — Yadex International (pinar KURUYEMIŞ)

(Case T-148/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark pinar KURUYEMIȘ - Earlier German word mark PINAR - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Right to be heard - Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Suspension of proceedings - Article 71(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625)

(2023/C 216/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Pinar Kuruyemiş Gida Ve Ihtiyaç Maddeleri Sanayi Ticaret AŞ (Karatay, Konya, Türkiye) (represented by: M.E. López Camba and A.M. Lyubomirova Geleva, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Yadex International GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: P. Kohl, lawyer)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 12 January 2022 (Case R 1149/2021-1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Pinar Kuruyemiş Gida Ve Ihtiyaç Maddeleri Sanayi Ticaret AŞ to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Yadex International GmbH for the purposes of the proceedings before the Court. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Pinar Kuruyemiş Gida Ve Ihtiyaç Maddeleri Sanayi Ticaret AŞ to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Yadex International GmbH for the purposes of the proceedings before the Court.

---

(1)  OJ C 198, 16.5.2022.

---

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/46

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2023 — Volkswagen v EUIPO — XTG (XTG)

(Case T-153/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark XTG - Earlier EU word mark GTX - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2023/C 216/61)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Volkswagen AG (Wolfsburg, Germany) (represented by: S. Machei and G. Orsoni, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: XTG S.A. (Wrocław, Poland)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 20 December 2021 (Case R 1387/2021-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Volkswagen AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Volkswagen AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 198, 16.5.2022.

---

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/47

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2023 — Volkswagen v EUIPO — XTG (XTG)

(Case T-154/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark XTG - Earlier EU word mark GTX - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2023/C 216/62)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Volkswagen AG (Wolfsburg, Germany) (represented by: S. Machei and G. Orsoni, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: XTG S.A. (Wrocław, Poland)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 20 December 2021 (Case R 1385/2021-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Volkswagen AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Volkswagen AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 198, 16.5.2022.

---

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/47

---

Action brought on 13 March 2023 — Semmelweis Egyetem v Council

(Case T-138/23)

(2023/C 216/63)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Semmelweis Egyetem (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: P. Nagy and B. Karsai, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Article 2(2) of Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/2506 of 15 December 2022, (1) insofar as it concerns the applicant; or alternatively, |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Article 2(2) of Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/2506 of 15 December 2022, (1) insofar as it concerns the applicant; or alternatively,

| — | annul Article 2(2) of Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/2506 in its entirety; and, in either case, |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Article 2(2) of Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/2506 in its entirety; and, in either case,

| — | order that the defendant pay the applicant’s costs of these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order that the defendant pay the applicant’s costs of these 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 that the contested decision lacks a sufficiently solid factual basis. The defendant should have based its decision to adopt the contested decision on duly established facts. Instead, it is argued that the defendant relied on the unsubstantiated assessment and proposal from the European Commission.






  — | First sub-plea: The defendant failed to ensure that the inclusion of the applicant in the group of entities made subject to the restrictive measures by Article 2(2) of the contested decision rested on a sufficiently solid factual basis. In connection with the issue of alleged breaches of the principles of the rule of law, the Commission’s fact-finding was not extended to the composition, decision-making, finances and operation of any of the ‘public interest trusts’, such as the foundation in charge of the maintenance of the applicant. Neither the defendant nor the Commission, it is argued, analysed the potential impact, nature, duration or the seriousness and scope of the alleged breaches and/or the restrictive measures, which has resulted in damage to applicant’s businesses and good reputation. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision lacks a sufficiently solid factual basis. The defendant should have based its decision to adopt the contested decision on duly established facts. Instead, it is argued that the defendant relied on the unsubstantiated assessment and proposal from the European Commission.

—

First sub-plea: The defendant failed to ensure that the inclusion of the applicant in the group of entities made subject to the restrictive measures by Article 2(2) of the contested decision rested on a sufficiently solid factual basis. In connection with the issue of alleged breaches of the principles of the rule of law, the Commission’s fact-finding was not extended to the composition, decision-making, finances and operation of any of the ‘public interest trusts’, such as the foundation in charge of the maintenance of the applicant. Neither the defendant nor the Commission, it is argued, analysed the potential impact, nature, duration or the seriousness and scope of the alleged breaches and/or the restrictive measures, which has resulted in damage to applicant’s businesses and good reputation.

| — | Second sub-plea: The defendant made manifest errors of assessment of facts. The concerns raised by the Commission in connection with the ‘public interest trusts’ relate to public procurement and conflict of interests. It skipped the defendant’s attention that the public procurement issue had already been resolved prior to the adoption of the decision and that — in terms of the applicant — no conflict of interest has ever existed. |
| --- | --- |

—

Second sub-plea: The defendant made manifest errors of assessment of facts. The concerns raised by the Commission in connection with the ‘public interest trusts’ relate to public procurement and conflict of interests. It skipped the defendant’s attention that the public procurement issue had already been resolved prior to the adoption of the decision and that — in terms of the applicant — no conflict of interest has ever existed.

| — | Third sub-plea: Pursuant to Article 6(9) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2020 (the ‘Conditionality Regulation’), (2) the defendant failed to state adequate reasons. The Commission’s proposal and, consequently, the contested decision, was supposed to set out specific grounds and evidence on which that decision should have been based. However, no such valid grounds have been named in the contested decision or the proposal, which has penalised the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

Third sub-plea: Pursuant to Article 6(9) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2020 (the ‘Conditionality Regulation’), (2) the defendant failed to state adequate reasons. The Commission’s proposal and, consequently, the contested decision, was supposed to set out specific grounds and evidence on which that decision should have been based. However, no such valid grounds have been named in the contested decision or the proposal, which has penalised the applicant.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the applicant, a person affected by the contested decision, has been denied the opportunity to defend its rights; and so its right to be heard has been infringed. Should the applicant’s right to be heard not have been denied, it would have resulted in considerations leading to proper, proportionate, relevant and honest limitations of the measures adopted. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the applicant, a person affected by the contested decision, has been denied the opportunity to defend its rights; and so its right to be heard has been infringed. Should the applicant’s right to be heard not have been denied, it would have resulted in considerations leading to proper, proportionate, relevant and honest limitations of the measures adopted.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision lacks proper authorisation and that the defendant misused its rights.






  — | First sub-plea: The Conditionality Regulation contains no authorisation appropriate for the measures set out in Article 2(2) of the Decision. The authorisation embedded in the Conditionality Regulation is not a carte blanche, it must be limited (a) by purpose (‘the protection of the Union budget’) and (b) to the means that are appropriate for attaining such a purpose. There is an absence of appropriate means and proportionality in the contested decision, which would have limited its scope concerning the applicant, and which consequently lacks requisite authorisation, which infringes the rights of the applicant. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision lacks proper authorisation and that the defendant misused its rights.

—

First sub-plea: The Conditionality Regulation contains no authorisation appropriate for the measures set out in Article 2(2) of the Decision. The authorisation embedded in the Conditionality Regulation is not a carte blanche, it must be limited (a) by purpose (‘the protection of the Union budget’) and (b) to the means that are appropriate for attaining such a purpose. There is an absence of appropriate means and proportionality in the contested decision, which would have limited its scope concerning the applicant, and which consequently lacks requisite authorisation, which infringes the rights of the applicant.

| — | Second sub-plea: The defendant misused its power. In this regard the applicant submits the following reference: ‘In accordance with settled case-law, a measure is vitiated by misuse of powers only if it appears, on the basis of objective, relevant and consistent evidence, to have been taken solely, or at the very least chiefly, for ends other than those for which the power in question was conferred or with the aim of evading a procedure specifically prescribed by the FEU Treaty for dealing with the circumstances of the case ...’. (3) |
| --- | --- |

—

Second sub-plea: The defendant misused its power. In this regard the applicant submits the following reference: ‘In accordance with settled case-law, a measure is vitiated by misuse of powers only if it appears, on the basis of objective, relevant and consistent evidence, to have been taken solely, or at the very least chiefly, for ends other than those for which the power in question was conferred or with the aim of evading a procedure specifically prescribed by the FEU Treaty for dealing with the circumstances of the case ...’. (3)

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant has infringed the principle of proportionality, a fundamental principle of EU law. In order to ensure strict adherence to the principle of proportionality, the institution adopting an act has an obligation to weigh up appropriately the various interests at play, analyse their function and role, and make decisions accordingly. In this case, the applicant asserts that there is no identifiable evidence that would suggest that the interests of the applicant were taken into account at any level or in any form or that the situation of the applicant was analysed, let alone objectively, diligently, and proportionally, prior to the adoption of the measures included in Article 2(2) of the contested decision, hence its detrimental effect on the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant has infringed the principle of proportionality, a fundamental principle of EU law. In order to ensure strict adherence to the principle of proportionality, the institution adopting an act has an obligation to weigh up appropriately the various interests at play, analyse their function and role, and make decisions accordingly. In this case, the applicant asserts that there is no identifiable evidence that would suggest that the interests of the applicant were taken into account at any level or in any form or that the situation of the applicant was analysed, let alone objectively, diligently, and proportionally, prior to the adoption of the measures included in Article 2(2) of the contested decision, hence its detrimental effect on the applicant.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision distorts the market in which the applicant is competing. Prohibition of distortion of the market with no justification is embedded in the fundamental freedoms of the Union. Limiting the applicant’s business for the benefit of its competitors violates the fundamental freedoms of the Union. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision distorts the market in which the applicant is competing. Prohibition of distortion of the market with no justification is embedded in the fundamental freedoms of the Union. Limiting the applicant’s business for the benefit of its competitors violates the fundamental freedoms of the Union.

---

(1)  Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/2506 of 15 December 2022 on measures for the protection of the Union budget against breaches of the principles of the rule of law in Hungary (OJ 2022 L 325, p. 94).

(2)  Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2020 on a general regime of conditionality for the protection of the Union budget (OJ 2020 L 433I, p. 1).

(3)  See paragraph 56 of the judgment of 5 May 2015 in Kingdom of Spain v European Parliament and Council of the European Union (Case C-146/13, EU:C:2015:298).

---

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/49

---

Action brought on 31 March 2023 — Willemsen v Commission

(Case T-174/23)

(2023/C 216/64)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Merel Johanna Willemsen (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: G. Geelkerken, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the European Commission of 14 December 2021 concerning the recovery of a claim registered under debit note No 4840200003 (‘the contested decision’) and declare that the applicant owes nothing to the Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the European Commission of 14 December 2021 concerning the recovery of a claim registered under debit note No 4840200003 (‘the contested decision’) and declare that the applicant owes nothing to the Commission;

| — | in the alternative, annul the contested decision and declare that the applicant — after the settlement of their mutual claims — owes nothing to the Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul the contested decision and declare that the applicant — after the settlement of their mutual claims — owes nothing to the Commission;

| — | in the further alternative, annul the contested decision and to the extent that the applicant still owes an amount to the Commission thereafter, limit that amount to zero; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the further alternative, annul the contested decision and to the extent that the applicant still owes an amount to the Commission thereafter, limit that amount to zero;

| — | in the even further alternative, annul the contested decision and to the extent that the applicant still owes an amount to the Commission thereafter, moderate that amount in a reasonable manner; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the even further alternative, annul the contested decision and to the extent that the applicant still owes an amount to the Commission thereafter, moderate that amount in a reasonable manner;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the applicant in the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law: the termination of the applicant’s participation in the research project for which the Commission had signed a grant agreement, and the fact that the applicant could not deliver and complete the agreed work, are the result of the actions of the Project Officer and the coordinator and are not attributable to the applicant herself. Given that is within the Commission’s sphere of control that the applicant has had to withdraw and in view of the course of events during the project, the applicant owes nothing to the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law: the termination of the applicant’s participation in the research project for which the Commission had signed a grant agreement, and the fact that the applicant could not deliver and complete the agreed work, are the result of the actions of the Project Officer and the coordinator and are not attributable to the applicant herself. Given that is within the Commission’s sphere of control that the applicant has had to withdraw and in view of the course of events during the project, the applicant owes nothing to the Commission.

| 2. | Second plea in law: the errors committed by the Project Officer and the coordinator and procedural irregularities are so serious that nothing can be claimed from the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law: the errors committed by the Project Officer and the coordinator and procedural irregularities are so serious that nothing can be claimed from the applicant.

| 3. | Third plea in law: on account of the withholding of the applicant’s research results and material she has suffered harm, such that nothing can be claimed from her. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law: on account of the withholding of the applicant’s research results and material she has suffered harm, such that nothing can be claimed from her.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law: the course of events throughout the entire implementation of the project, both the unacceptable attitude of those in charge towards the applicant mean that no claim can be made against her. There is a situation of ‘force majeure’ and the applicant’s personal circumstances, too, should be a reason for the Commission to waive recovery from the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law: the course of events throughout the entire implementation of the project, both the unacceptable attitude of those in charge towards the applicant mean that no claim can be made against her. There is a situation of ‘force majeure’ and the applicant’s personal circumstances, too, should be a reason for the Commission to waive recovery from the applicant.

---

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/50

---

Action brought on 21 April 2023 — Sta Grupa v EUIPO — Axis (VAPIX)

(Case T-207/23)

(2023/C 216/65)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Sta Grupa AS (Riga, Latvia) (represented by: I. Stankeviča, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Axis AB (Lund, Sweden)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark VAPIX — European Union trade mark No 5 040 118

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 February 2023 in Case R 1098/2022-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | overturn the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

overturn the contested decision;

| — | revoke the trade mark at issue for the goods which remained as registered after the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

revoke the trade mark at issue for the goods which remained as registered after the contested decision;

The applicant requests an award of costs in relation to these proceedings.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/50

---

Action brought on 21 April 2023 — Clofor v EUIPO — Sitges Alonso (Posts)

(Case T-208/23)

(2023/C 216/66)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Clofor (Renage, France) (represented by: P. Debré, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Paul Sitges Alonso (Barcelona, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant

Design at issue: Community design (Posts) — Community design No 2 951 335-0001

Proceedings before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 February 2023 in Case R 1103/2022-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | amend the contested decision in such a way as to reject the application for declaration of invalidity of Community design No 2 951 335-0001; |
| --- | --- |

—

amend the contested decision in such a way as to reject the application for declaration of invalidity of Community design No 2 951 335-0001;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred before the Third Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred before the Third Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 25(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002, read in conjunction with Article 7 of that regulation; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 25(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002, read in conjunction with Article 7 of that regulation;

| — | Reversal of the burden of proof and infringement of Article 52(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002. |
| --- | --- |

—

Reversal of the burden of proof and infringement of Article 52(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002.

---

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/51

---

Action brought on 21 April 2023 — Yadex International v EUIPO — Armada Gida (doyum)

(Case T-209/23)

(2023/C 216/67)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Yadex International GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: P. Kohl, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Armada Gida Ticaret Sanayi AŞ (Akdeniz, Türkiye)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative trade mark doyum — Application for registration No 18 249 375

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 February 2023 in Case R 1436/2022-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and reject the European Union trade mark application No 18 249 375 in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and reject the European Union trade mark application No 18 249 375 in its entirety;

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

—

order EUIPO to bear the costs incurred by the applicant.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/52

---

Action brought on 23 April 2023 — Azienda Agricola F.lli Buccalletti v EUIPO — Sunservice (Poles for supporting plants)

(Case T-210/23)

(2023/C 216/68)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Azienda Agricola F.lli Buccalletti Srl (Castiglion Fiorentino, Italy) (represented by: A. Pagani, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sunservice Srl (Castiglione del Lago, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Design at issue: Community design (Poles for supporting plants) — Community design No 8 262 364-0001

Proceedings before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 February 2023 in Case R 370/2022-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and, consequently, also rectify the decision of the Invalidity Division of 20 January 2019 (invalidity proceedings No ICD 115 222) by declaring Community design No 8 262 364-0001 invalid; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and, consequently, also rectify the decision of the Invalidity Division of 20 January 2019 (invalidity proceedings No ICD 115 222) by declaring Community design No 8 262 364-0001 invalid;

| — | order the hearing of witness evidence and any investigation or other appropriate on-site assessment in order to ascertain from third parties (experts and/or technicians) appointed by the Court (i) the status of the supports relied upon in the documents from the applicant and (ii) the similarities between the poles used to make them and those that are the subject of the Community design which the applicant is seeking to have declared invalid; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the hearing of witness evidence and any investigation or other appropriate on-site assessment in order to ascertain from third parties (experts and/or technicians) appointed by the Court (i) the status of the supports relied upon in the documents from the applicant and (ii) the similarities between the poles used to make them and those that are the subject of the Community design which the applicant is seeking to have declared invalid;

| — | order Sunservice Srl to pay the costs incurred in all stages of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Sunservice Srl to pay the costs incurred in all stages of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

| — | Misapplication of the criteria for assessing the evidence adduced by the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Misapplication of the criteria for assessing the evidence adduced by the applicant;

| — | Misapplication or failure to apply Article 7(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 and, in any event, failure to acknowledge or failure to acknowledge properly the probative value of the evidence adduced by the applicant to establish the disclosure referred to in Article 7(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002; |
| --- | --- |

—

Misapplication or failure to apply Article 7(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 and, in any event, failure to acknowledge or failure to acknowledge properly the probative value of the evidence adduced by the applicant to establish the disclosure referred to in Article 7(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;

| — | Misapplication of or failure to apply the criteria for assessing the requirement for novelty referred to in Article 5 of Council Regulation No 6/2002; |
| --- | --- |

—

Misapplication of or failure to apply the criteria for assessing the requirement for novelty referred to in Article 5 of Council Regulation No 6/2002;

| — | Misapplication of or failure to apply the criteria for assessing the requirement for individual character referred to in Article 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002, either because the Board of Appeal failed to acknowledge or failed to acknowledge properly that the shape would be identified by an informed user or because the ‘model against model’ criteria were misapplied or were not applied. |
| --- | --- |

—

Misapplication of or failure to apply the criteria for assessing the requirement for individual character referred to in Article 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002, either because the Board of Appeal failed to acknowledge or failed to acknowledge properly that the shape would be identified by an informed user or because the ‘model against model’ criteria were misapplied or were not applied.

---

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/53

---

Action brought on 24 April 2023 — EFFAS v EUIPO — CFA Institute (CEFA Certified European Financial Analyst)

(Case T-213/23)

(2023/C 216/69)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: European Federation of Financial Analysts’Societies (EFFAS) (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: E. Manresa Medina, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: CFA Institute (Charlottesville, Virginia, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark CEFA Certified European Financial Analyst — Application for registration No 14 902 341

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 February 2023 in Case R 1418/2022-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and the possible intervener to pay for all expenses of this procedure. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the possible intervener to pay for all expenses of this procedure.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/53

---

Action brought on 26 April 2023 — Bategu Gummitechnologie v Commission

(Case T-219/23)

(2023/C 216/70)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Bategu Gummitechnologie GmbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: G. Maderbacher, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should,

| — | annul Commission Decision C(2023) 1205 final of 15 February 2023 in Case AT.40492 — Fire Protection Bogies (Decision pursuant to Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 773/2004 regarding the rejection of complaints); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Decision C(2023) 1205 final of 15 February 2023 in Case AT.40492 — Fire Protection Bogies (Decision pursuant to Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 773/2004 regarding the rejection of complaints);

| — | 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 four pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging errors in law






  — | The Commission erred in taking the view in respect of point 7.1.1.5 of the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 1302/2014, (1) that the application of the EN 45545-2:2013+A1:2015 standard concerning fire protection on railway vehicles (Requirements for fire behaviour of materials and components) was required only from 1 January 2018 on authorised railway vehicles in Germany and Austria. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging errors in law

—

The Commission erred in taking the view in respect of point 7.1.1.5 of the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 1302/2014, (1) that the application of the EN 45545-2:2013+A1:2015 standard concerning fire protection on railway vehicles (Requirements for fire behaviour of materials and components) was required only from 1 January 2018 on authorised railway vehicles in Germany and Austria.

| — | The Commission misunderstood and manifestly incorrectly misinterpreted point 4.7 of the EN 45545-2:2013+A1:2015 standard. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Commission misunderstood and manifestly incorrectly misinterpreted point 4.7 of the EN 45545-2:2013+A1:2015 standard.

| — | The Commission misunderstood and manifestly incorrectly misinterpreted points 4.3 and 4.2(n) of the EN 45545-2:2013+A1:2015 standard. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Commission misunderstood and manifestly incorrectly misinterpreted points 4.3 and 4.2(n) of the EN 45545-2:2013+A1:2015 standard.

| — | The Commission erred in law in assessing the required burden of proof in the context of the complaint procedure under Regulation No 1/2003. (2) |
| --- | --- |

—

The Commission erred in law in assessing the required burden of proof in the context of the complaint procedure under Regulation No 1/2003. (2)

| — | The Commission erred in law in assessing the presence of collusion or an anti-competitive information exchange between manufacturers of railway vehicles established in the internal market (OEM). |
| --- | --- |

—

The Commission erred in law in assessing the presence of collusion or an anti-competitive information exchange between manufacturers of railway vehicles established in the internal market (OEM).

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission made clear errors of assessment in its assessment of the complaint






  — | the Commission wrongly took the view that the OEM were not obliged to establish business relationships with the applicant |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission made clear errors of assessment in its assessment of the complaint

—

the Commission wrongly took the view that the OEM were not obliged to establish business relationships with the applicant

| — | the Commission made several incorrect determinations concerning a coordinated misinterpretation of the EN 45545-2:2013+A1:2015 standard by the OEM. |
| --- | --- |

—

the Commission made several incorrect determinations concerning a coordinated misinterpretation of the EN 45545-2:2013+A1:2015 standard by the OEM.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a misuse of power
  The Commission misused its power and put the economic interests of the OEM before the security interests of rail passengers and staff in the EU railway system. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a misuse of power

The Commission misused its power and put the economic interests of the OEM before the security interests of rail passengers and staff in the EU railway system.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s right to good administration under Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (3) |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s right to good administration under Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (3)

The Commission deprived the applicant of its right to be heard in respect of the main results of the investigation and failed to provide it with sufficiently precise information that would have enabled it to take a relevant view of the contested decision prior to its adoption.

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 1302/2014 of 18 November 2014 concerning a technical specification for interoperability relating to the ‘rolling stock — locomotives and passenger rolling stock’ subsystem of the rail system in the European Union (OJ 2014 L 356, p. 228).

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

(3)  OJ 2012 C 326, p. 391.

---

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/54

---

Action brought on 2 May 2023 — Debonair Trading Internacional v EUIPO — Lea Nature Services (LEA NATURE SO’BIO ETIC)

(Case T-225/23)

(2023/C 216/71)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Debonair Trading Internacional Lda (Funchal, Portugal) (represented by: J. Quirin and J.-P. Jacquey, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lea Nature Services (Périgny, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark LEA NATURE SO’BIO ETIC — Application for registration No 17 592 486

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 February 2023 in Case R 206/2022-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | annul all cost orders made against the applicant by EUIPO and to order the latter to bear the costs of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

annul all cost orders made against the applicant by EUIPO and to order the latter to bear the costs of the applicant.

Pleas in law

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

—

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

| — | Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

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

—

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

---

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/55

---

Action brought on 2 May 2023 — Bonami.CZ v EUIPO — Roval Print (bonami)

(Case T-229/23)

(2023/C 216/72)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Bonami.CZ, a.s. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: M.-G. Marinescu, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: SC Roval Print SRL (Galati, Romania)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative trade mark bonami in yellow, red, pink, purple, blue, dark green and light green — Application for registration No 18 024 693

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 February 2023 in Case R 1292/2022-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and reject the opposition entirely; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and reject the opposition entirely;

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

—

order EUIPO to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of procedural requirements related to the (online) substantiation of the opposition; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of procedural requirements related to the (online) substantiation of the opposition;

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

—

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

---