# Official Journal C 314/4 Se

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 314 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 664 September 2023 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 314

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 664 September 2023

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2023/C 314/01 | Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union | 1 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

2023/C 314/01

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

Official Journal of the European Union

1

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2023/C 314/02 | Case C-156/23, Ararat: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Roermond (Netherlands) lodged on 14 March 2023 — K, L, M and N v Staatssecretaris van Justitie and Veiligheid | 2 |
| 2023/C 314/03 | Case C-280/23 P: Appeal brought on 1 May 2023 by Canai Technology Co. Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 1 March 2023 in Case T-25/22, Canai Technology v EUIPO — Trend Fin (HE&ME) | 3 |
| 2023/C 314/04 | Case C-331/23, Dranken Van Eetvelde: Request for a preliminary ruling from the rechtbank van eerste aanleg Oost-Vlaanderen, afdeling Gent (Belgium) lodged on 25 May 2023 — Dranken Van Eetvelde NV v Belgische Staat | 3 |
| 2023/C 314/05 | Case C-339/23, Horyzont: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Siemianowicach Śląskich (Poland) lodged on 30 May 2023 — Horyzont Niestandaryzowany Sekurytyzacyjny Fundusz Inwestycyjny Zamknięty v LC | 4 |
| 2023/C 314/06 | Case C-352/23, Changu: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria) lodged on 7 June 2023 — LF v Zamestnik-predsedatel na Darzhavna agentsia za bezhantsite | 4 |
| 2023/C 314/07 | Case C-354/23, Seberts: Request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 8 June 2023 — LM BV v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit | 5 |
| 2023/C 314/08 | Case C-369/23, Vivacom Bulgaria: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 9 June 2023 — Vivacom Bulgaria EAD v Varhoven administrativen sad, Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite | 6 |
| 2023/C 314/09 | Case C-385/23, Finnair: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland) lodged on 22 June 2023 — Passenger A v Finnair Oyj | 6 |
| 2023/C 314/10 | Case C-412/23: Action brought on 5 July 2023 — European Commission v Slovak Republic | 7 |
| 2023/C 314/11 | Case C-430/23 P: Appeal brought on 12 July 2023 by SN against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 3 May 2023 in Case T-249/21, SN v Parliament | 8 |
| | General Court |
| 2023/C 314/12 | Case T-487/22: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2023 — Multiópticas v EUIPO — Nike Innovate (Representation of two black geometrical shapes) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark representing two black geometrical shapes — Earlier EU and national figurative marks mó — Relative ground for refusal — No damage to reputation — Non-similarity of the signs — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 9 |
| 2023/C 314/13 | Case T-348/23: Action brought on 27 June 2023 — Zalando v Commission | 9 |
| 2023/C 314/14 | Case T-369/23: Action brought on 5 July 2023 — Hypo Vorarlberg Bank v SRB | 11 |
| 2023/C 314/15 | Case T-374/23: Action brought on 6 July 2023 — Volkskreditbank v SRB | 13 |
| 2023/C 314/16 | Case T-386/23: Action brought on 6 July 2023 — Hypo-Bank Burgenland v SRB | 14 |
| 2023/C 314/17 | Case T-387/23: Action brought on 6 July 2023 — Schelhammer Capital Bank v SRB | 14 |
| 2023/C 314/18 | Case T-390/23: Action brought on 12 July 2023 — Barry’s Bootcamp v EUIPO — Hummel (Device of two black horizontal chevrons) | 15 |
| 2023/C 314/19 | Case T-391/23: Action brought on 13 July 2023 — Imerys Aluminates Groupe v Commission | 16 |
| 2023/C 314/20 | Case T-396/23: Action brought on 14 July 2023 — Stada Arzneimittel v EUIPO — Bioiberica (DAOgest) | 16 |
| 2023/C 314/21 | Case T-398/23: Action brought on 14 July 2023 — Bodegas Aguiuncho v EUIPO — Mar de Frades (ALBARIÑO mar de ons) | 17 |
| 2023/C 314/22 | Case T-400/23: Action brought on 12 July 2023 — Erste Group Bank v SRB | 18 |
| 2023/C 314/23 | Case T-401/23: Action brought on 12 July 2023 — Erste Bank der österreichischen Sparkassen v SRB | 19 |
| 2023/C 314/24 | Case T-402/23: Action brought on 13 July 2023 — Steiermärkische Bank und Sparkasse v SRB | 20 |
| 2023/C 314/25 | Case T-403/23: Action brought on 13 July 2023 — Dornbirner Sparkasse Bank v SRB | 21 |
| 2023/C 314/26 | Case T-404/23: Action brought on 13 July 2023 — Kärntner Sparkasse v SRB | 22 |
| 2023/C 314/27 | Case T-405/23: Action brought on 13 July 2023 — Sparkasse Niederösterreich Mitte West v SRB | 23 |
| 2023/C 314/28 | Case T-406/23: Action brought on 13 July 2023 — Tiroler Sparkasse v SRB | 23 |
| 2023/C 314/29 | Case T-407/23: Action brought on 13 July 2023 — Salzburger Sparkasse Bank v SRB | 24 |
| 2023/C 314/30 | Case T-408/23: Action brought on 17 July 2023 — Sparkasse Oberösterreich Bank v SRB | 25 |
| 2023/C 314/31 | Case T-434/23: Action brought on 26 July 2023 — Essity Hygiene and Health AB v EUIPO (Representation of a leaf) | 25 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2023/C 314/02

Case C-156/23, Ararat: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Roermond (Netherlands) lodged on 14 March 2023 — K, L, M and N v Staatssecretaris van Justitie and Veiligheid

2

2023/C 314/03

Case C-280/23 P: Appeal brought on 1 May 2023 by Canai Technology Co. Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 1 March 2023 in Case T-25/22, Canai Technology v EUIPO — Trend Fin (HE&ME)

3

2023/C 314/04

Case C-331/23, Dranken Van Eetvelde: Request for a preliminary ruling from the rechtbank van eerste aanleg Oost-Vlaanderen, afdeling Gent (Belgium) lodged on 25 May 2023 — Dranken Van Eetvelde NV v Belgische Staat

3

2023/C 314/05

Case C-339/23, Horyzont: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Siemianowicach Śląskich (Poland) lodged on 30 May 2023 — Horyzont Niestandaryzowany Sekurytyzacyjny Fundusz Inwestycyjny Zamknięty v LC

4

2023/C 314/06

Case C-352/23, Changu: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria) lodged on 7 June 2023 — LF v Zamestnik-predsedatel na Darzhavna agentsia za bezhantsite

4

2023/C 314/07

Case C-354/23, Seberts: Request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 8 June 2023 — LM BV v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit

5

2023/C 314/08

Case C-369/23, Vivacom Bulgaria: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 9 June 2023 — Vivacom Bulgaria EAD v Varhoven administrativen sad, Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite

6

2023/C 314/09

Case C-385/23, Finnair: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland) lodged on 22 June 2023 — Passenger A v Finnair Oyj

6

2023/C 314/10

Case C-412/23: Action brought on 5 July 2023 — European Commission v Slovak Republic

7

2023/C 314/11

Case C-430/23 P: Appeal brought on 12 July 2023 by SN against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 3 May 2023 in Case T-249/21, SN v Parliament

8

General Court

2023/C 314/12

Case T-487/22: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2023 — Multiópticas v EUIPO — Nike Innovate (Representation of two black geometrical shapes) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark representing two black geometrical shapes — Earlier EU and national figurative marks mó — Relative ground for refusal — No damage to reputation — Non-similarity of the signs — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

9

2023/C 314/13

Case T-348/23: Action brought on 27 June 2023 — Zalando v Commission

9

2023/C 314/14

Case T-369/23: Action brought on 5 July 2023 — Hypo Vorarlberg Bank v SRB

11

2023/C 314/15

Case T-374/23: Action brought on 6 July 2023 — Volkskreditbank v SRB

13

2023/C 314/16

Case T-386/23: Action brought on 6 July 2023 — Hypo-Bank Burgenland v SRB

14

2023/C 314/17

Case T-387/23: Action brought on 6 July 2023 — Schelhammer Capital Bank v SRB

14

2023/C 314/18

Case T-390/23: Action brought on 12 July 2023 — Barry’s Bootcamp v EUIPO — Hummel (Device of two black horizontal chevrons)

15

2023/C 314/19

Case T-391/23: Action brought on 13 July 2023 — Imerys Aluminates Groupe v Commission

16

2023/C 314/20

Case T-396/23: Action brought on 14 July 2023 — Stada Arzneimittel v EUIPO — Bioiberica (DAOgest)

16

2023/C 314/21

Case T-398/23: Action brought on 14 July 2023 — Bodegas Aguiuncho v EUIPO — Mar de Frades (ALBARIÑO mar de ons)

17

2023/C 314/22

Case T-400/23: Action brought on 12 July 2023 — Erste Group Bank v SRB

18

2023/C 314/23

Case T-401/23: Action brought on 12 July 2023 — Erste Bank der österreichischen Sparkassen v SRB

19

2023/C 314/24

Case T-402/23: Action brought on 13 July 2023 — Steiermärkische Bank und Sparkasse v SRB

20

2023/C 314/25

Case T-403/23: Action brought on 13 July 2023 — Dornbirner Sparkasse Bank v SRB

21

2023/C 314/26

Case T-404/23: Action brought on 13 July 2023 — Kärntner Sparkasse v SRB

22

2023/C 314/27

Case T-405/23: Action brought on 13 July 2023 — Sparkasse Niederösterreich Mitte West v SRB

23

2023/C 314/28

Case T-406/23: Action brought on 13 July 2023 — Tiroler Sparkasse v SRB

23

2023/C 314/29

Case T-407/23: Action brought on 13 July 2023 — Salzburger Sparkasse Bank v SRB

24

2023/C 314/30

Case T-408/23: Action brought on 17 July 2023 — Sparkasse Oberösterreich Bank v SRB

25

2023/C 314/31

Case T-434/23: Action brought on 26 July 2023 — Essity Hygiene and Health AB v EUIPO (Representation of a leaf)

25

---

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 4.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/1

---

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

(2023/C 314/01)

Last publication

OJ C 304, 28.8.2023

Past publications

OJ C 296, 21.8.2023

OJ C 286, 14.8.2023

OJ C 278, 7.8.2023

OJ C 271, 31.7.2023

OJ C 261, 24.7.2023

OJ C 252, 17.7.2023

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 4.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/2

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Roermond (Netherlands) lodged on 14 March 2023 — K, L, M and N v Staatssecretaris van Justitie and Veiligheid

(Case C-156/23, Ararat (1))

(2023/C 314/02)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Roermond

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: K, L, M and N

Respondent: Staatssecretaris van Justitie and Veiligheid

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, read in conjunction with Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 19(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 5 of the Return Directive (2) to be interpreted as meaning that a judicial authority must establish ex officio that the principle of non-refoulement has not been complied with on the basis of the information in the file brought to its attention and as supplemented or clarified in the adversarial proceedings brought before it? Does the scope of that obligation depend on whether the adversarial proceedings were initiated with an application for international protection, and is the scope of that obligation therefore different where a refoulement risk is assessed in the context of admission or in the context of return? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, read in conjunction with Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 19(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 5 of the Return Directive (2) to be interpreted as meaning that a judicial authority must establish ex officio that the principle of non-refoulement has not been complied with on the basis of the information in the file brought to its attention and as supplemented or clarified in the adversarial proceedings brought before it? Does the scope of that obligation depend on whether the adversarial proceedings were initiated with an application for international protection, and is the scope of that obligation therefore different where a refoulement risk is assessed in the context of admission or in the context of return?

| 2. | Is Article 5 of the Return Directive, read in conjunction with Article 19(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to be interpreted as meaning that, where a return decision is issued in proceedings which have not been initiated with an application for international protection, the question whether or not the refoulement prohibition precludes return must be examined before the issue of a return decision and does an established refoulement risk then preclude the imposition of a return decision or is an established refoulement risk in that situation an obstacle to removal? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is Article 5 of the Return Directive, read in conjunction with Article 19(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to be interpreted as meaning that, where a return decision is issued in proceedings which have not been initiated with an application for international protection, the question whether or not the refoulement prohibition precludes return must be examined before the issue of a return decision and does an established refoulement risk then preclude the imposition of a return decision or is an established refoulement risk in that situation an obstacle to removal?

| 3. | Is a return decision revived if that return decision has been suspended because of new proceedings which have not been initiated with an application for international protection, or is Article 5 of the Return Directive, read in conjunction with Article 19(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to be interpreted as meaning that, where the refoulement risk has not been assessed in the proceedings leading to the renewed finding of illegal residence, a current assessment of the refoulement risk should follow and a new return decision should be imposed? Is the answer to that question different if there is no suspended return decision but a return decision which has not been complied with by the third-country national and the authorities for a prolonged period of time? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is a return decision revived if that return decision has been suspended because of new proceedings which have not been initiated with an application for international protection, or is Article 5 of the Return Directive, read in conjunction with Article 19(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to be interpreted as meaning that, where the refoulement risk has not been assessed in the proceedings leading to the renewed finding of illegal residence, a current assessment of the refoulement risk should follow and a new return decision should be imposed? Is the answer to that question different if there is no suspended return decision but a return decision which has not been complied with by the third-country national and the authorities for a prolonged period of time?

---

(1)  The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.

(2)  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 (OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98).

---

| 4.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/3

---

Appeal brought on 1 May 2023 by Canai Technology Co. Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 1 March 2023 in Case T-25/22, Canai Technology v EUIPO — Trend Fin (HE&ME)

(Case C-280/23 P)

(2023/C 314/03)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Canai Technology Co. Ltd (represented by: J. F. Gallego Jiménez E. Sanz Valls, P. Bauzá Martínez and Y. Hernández Viñes, abogados)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Trend Fin BV

By order of 17 July 2023, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal was not allowed to proceed and that Canai Technology Co. Ltd should bear its own costs.

---

| 4.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/3

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the rechtbank van eerste aanleg Oost-Vlaanderen, afdeling Gent (Belgium) lodged on 25 May 2023 — Dranken Van Eetvelde NV v Belgische Staat

(Case C-331/23, Dranken Van Eetvelde)

(2023/C 314/04)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank van eerste aanleg Oost-Vlaanderen, afdeling Gent

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Dranken Van Eetvelde NV

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Questions referred

| 1. | Does Article 51bis(4) of the WBTW (1) infringe Article 205 of Directive 2006/112 (2) in conjunction with the principle of proportionality in so far as that provision provides for unconditional overall liability and does not allow the court to assess liability on the basis of each person’s contribution to the tax fraud? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does Article 51bis(4) of the WBTW (1) infringe Article 205 of Directive 2006/112 (2) in conjunction with the principle of proportionality in so far as that provision provides for unconditional overall liability and does not allow the court to assess liability on the basis of each person’s contribution to the tax fraud?

| 2. | Does Article 51bis(4) of the WBTW infringe Article 205 of Directive 2006/112 on the common system of VAT, read in conjunction with the principle of VAT neutrality, if that provision is to be interpreted as meaning that a person is jointly and severally liable to pay VAT in the place of the legal debtor, without any account having to be taken of the deduction of VAT that can be claimed by the legal debtor? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does Article 51bis(4) of the WBTW infringe Article 205 of Directive 2006/112 on the common system of VAT, read in conjunction with the principle of VAT neutrality, if that provision is to be interpreted as meaning that a person is jointly and severally liable to pay VAT in the place of the legal debtor, without any account having to be taken of the deduction of VAT that can be claimed by the legal debtor?

| 3. | Must Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which permits the cumulation of (administrative and criminal) penalties of a criminal nature, resulting from different proceedings, in respect of offences which are materially identical yet occurred over consecutive years (but which, in criminal law, would be regarded as a continuing offence with unity of purpose), and where the offences are subject to administrative prosecution in respect of one year and criminal prosecution in respect of another year? Are those offences not regarded as inseparable because they occurred over consecutive years? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Must Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which permits the cumulation of (administrative and criminal) penalties of a criminal nature, resulting from different proceedings, in respect of offences which are materially identical yet occurred over consecutive years (but which, in criminal law, would be regarded as a continuing offence with unity of purpose), and where the offences are subject to administrative prosecution in respect of one year and criminal prosecution in respect of another year? Are those offences not regarded as inseparable because they occurred over consecutive years?

| 4. | Must Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as not precluding national legislation under which proceedings may be brought against a person for the imposition of an administrative fine of a criminal nature in respect of an offence for which he or she has already been finally convicted under criminal law, the two sets of proceedings being conducted entirely independently of one another and the only guarantee that the gravity of the entirety of the penalties imposed is commensurate with the gravity of the offence in question consisting in the fact that the tax court may carry out a substantive review of proportionality, even though the national legislation does not lay down any rules in that regard, nor does it lay down any rules allowing the administrative authority to take account of the criminal penalty already imposed? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Must Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as not precluding national legislation under which proceedings may be brought against a person for the imposition of an administrative fine of a criminal nature in respect of an offence for which he or she has already been finally convicted under criminal law, the two sets of proceedings being conducted entirely independently of one another and the only guarantee that the gravity of the entirety of the penalties imposed is commensurate with the gravity of the offence in question consisting in the fact that the tax court may carry out a substantive review of proportionality, even though the national legislation does not lay down any rules in that regard, nor does it lay down any rules allowing the administrative authority to take account of the criminal penalty already imposed?

---

(1)  Btw-wetboek (Belgian VAT Code).

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

---

| 4.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/4

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Siemianowicach Śląskich (Poland) lodged on 30 May 2023 — Horyzont Niestandaryzowany Sekurytyzacyjny Fundusz Inwestycyjny Zamknięty v LC

(Case C-339/23, Horyzont)

(2023/C 314/05)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy w Siemianowicach Śląskich

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Horyzont Niestandaryzowany Sekurytyzacyjny Fundusz Inwestycyjny Zamknięty

Defendant: LC

Question referred

Must Article 8 of Directive 2008/48/EC of 28 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC (1) be interpreted as meaning that the obligation on the creditor to assess the creditworthiness of the consumer (borrower), as set out therein, is equivalent to the other obligations laid down in that directive (in particular the obligations to provide information set out in Articles 10 et seq.), and therefore the penalties referred to in Article 23 of the directive cannot be different, that is to say, cannot provide for different legal consequences for infringement of each of those obligations separately?

---

(1)  OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66.

---

| 4.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/4

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria) lodged on 7 June 2023 — LF v Zamestnik-predsedatel na Darzhavna agentsia za bezhantsite

(Case C-352/23, Changu (1))

(2023/C 314/06)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Sofia-grad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: LF

Defendant: Zamestnik-predsedatel na Darzhavna agentsia za bezhantsite

Questions referred

| 1. | Must recital 15, Article 2(h) and Article 3 of Directive 2011/95 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted, be interpreted as allowing a Member State to introduce national legislation on the grant of international protection on the basis of compassionate or humanitarian grounds which bears no relation to the logic and spirit of Directive 2011/95 in accordance with recital 15 and Article 2(h) of Directive 2011/95 (another kind of protection), or must, in that case also, the possibility provided for in national law of granting protection on ‘humanitarian grounds’ be compatible with the standards of international protection under Article 3 of Directive 2011/95? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must recital 15, Article 2(h) and Article 3 of Directive 2011/95 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted, be interpreted as allowing a Member State to introduce national legislation on the grant of international protection on the basis of compassionate or humanitarian grounds which bears no relation to the logic and spirit of Directive 2011/95 in accordance with recital 15 and Article 2(h) of Directive 2011/95 (another kind of protection), or must, in that case also, the possibility provided for in national law of granting protection on ‘humanitarian grounds’ be compatible with the standards of international protection under Article 3 of Directive 2011/95?

| 2. | Do recital 12 and Article 14(2) of Directive 2008/[1]15 (3) 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, in conjunction with Articles 1 and 4 of the Charter, categorically compel a Member State to provide third-country nationals with written confirmation attesting that they are staying illegally but cannot yet be removed? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Do recital 12 and Article 14(2) of Directive 2008/[1]15 (3) 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, in conjunction with Articles 1 and 4 of the Charter, categorically compel a Member State to provide third-country nationals with written confirmation attesting that they are staying illegally but cannot yet be removed?

| 3. | In the case of a national legal framework whose only provision on regularising the status of a third-country national on ‘humanitarian grounds’ is contained in Article 9(8) of the Zakon za ubezhishteto i bezhantsite (Law on Asylum and Refugees; ‘the ZUB’), is an interpretation of that national provision which bears no relation to the character and grounds of Directive 2011/95 compatible with recital 15 and Article 2(h) and Article 3 of Directive 2011/95? |
| --- | --- |

3.

In the case of a national legal framework whose only provision on regularising the status of a third-country national on ‘humanitarian grounds’ is contained in Article 9(8) of the Zakon za ubezhishteto i bezhantsite (Law on Asylum and Refugees; ‘the ZUB’), is an interpretation of that national provision which bears no relation to the character and grounds of Directive 2011/95 compatible with recital 15 and Article 2(h) and Article 3 of Directive 2011/95?

| 4. | Do Articles 1, 4 and 7 of the Charter require, for the purposes of the application of Directive 2011/95, an assessment of whether the fact that a third-country national has been staying in a Member State for a long time without a regularised status constitutes an independent reason for granting international protection on ‘compelling humanitarian grounds’? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Do Articles 1, 4 and 7 of the Charter require, for the purposes of the application of Directive 2011/95, an assessment of whether the fact that a third-country national has been staying in a Member State for a long time without a regularised status constitutes an independent reason for granting international protection on ‘compelling humanitarian grounds’?

| 5. | Does the positive obligation of a Member State to ensure compliance with Articles 1 and 4 of the Charter allow a broad interpretation of the national measure envisaged in Article 9(8) of the ZUB that goes beyond the logic and standards of international protection as provided for in Directive 2011/95, and does it call for an interpretation that is consistent exclusively with the observance of the absolute fundamental rights enshrined in Articles 1 and 4 of the Charter? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Does the positive obligation of a Member State to ensure compliance with Articles 1 and 4 of the Charter allow a broad interpretation of the national measure envisaged in Article 9(8) of the ZUB that goes beyond the logic and standards of international protection as provided for in Directive 2011/95, and does it call for an interpretation that is consistent exclusively with the observance of the absolute fundamental rights enshrined in Articles 1 and 4 of the Charter?

| 6. | Is the fact of not granting the protection provided for in Article 9(8) of the ZUB to a third-country national in the applicant’s situation capable of constituting a failure by the Member State to fulfil its obligations under Articles 1, 4 and 7 of the Charter? |
| --- | --- |

6.

Is the fact of not granting the protection provided for in Article 9(8) of the ZUB to a third-country national in the applicant’s situation capable of constituting a failure by the Member State to fulfil its obligations under Articles 1, 4 and 7 of the Charter?

---

(1)  The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.

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

(3)  OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98.

---

| 4.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/5

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 8 June 2023 — LM BV v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit

(Case C-354/23, Seberts (1))

(2023/C 314/07)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: LM BV

Defendant: Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit

Question referred

Are the European Union Guidelines for State Aid in the agricultural and forestry sectors and in rural areas 2014-2020 (2014/C 204/01) (2) and, in particular, paragraphs 135, 136 and 137 and point 144(a) thereof, to be interpreted as meaning that there is investment aid that serves to finance the costs of the construction, procurement or improvement of immovable property only if the grant beneficiary itself also is or is to become the owner of the immovable property to which the costs relate?

---

(1)  The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.

(2)  OJ 2014 C 204, p. 1.

---

| 4.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/6

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 9 June 2023 — ‘Vivacom Bulgaria’ EAD v Varhoven administrativen sad, Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite

(Case C-369/23, Vivacom Bulgaria)

(2023/C 314/08)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven administrativen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant and appellant in cassation:‘Vivacom Bulgaria’ EAD

Defendants and respondents in cassation: Varhoven administrativen sad, Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite

Question referred

Do the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union preclude national legislation such as Article 2c(1)(1) of the Zakon za otgovornostta na darzhavata i obshtinite za vredi (Bulgarian Law on Liability of the State and of Municipalities for Damage), read in conjunction with Article 203(3) and Article 128(1)(6) of the Administrativnoprotsesualen kodeks (Bulgarian Code of Administrative Procedure), under which an action for compensation for damage caused by an infringement of EU law by the Varhoven administrativen sad (Supreme Administrative Court, Bulgaria), in which the Supreme Administrative Court is the defendant, must be examined by that court at last instance?

---

| 4.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/6

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland) lodged on 22 June 2023 — Passenger A v Finnair Oyj

(Case C-385/23, Finnair)

(2023/C 314/09)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Passenger A

Defendant: Finnair Oyj

Questions referred

| 1. | Can an air carrier rely on extraordinary circumstances within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 (1) on the sole ground that the aircraft manufacturer discovered the existence of a hidden design defect detrimental to flight safety and affecting the entire aircraft type, even though that discovery was not made until after the flight was delayed and cancelled? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can an air carrier rely on extraordinary circumstances within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 (1) on the sole ground that the aircraft manufacturer discovered the existence of a hidden design defect detrimental to flight safety and affecting the entire aircraft type, even though that discovery was not made until after the flight was delayed and cancelled?

| 2. | If the first question is answered in the negative, and it falls to be examined whether the circumstances in question are the result of events which are inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and are not beyond the actual control of that carrier on account of their nature or origin, is the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the premature failure of certain technical parts of an aircraft applicable in a case such as that here, in which, at the time when the flight was cancelled, neither the manufacturer nor the air carrier knew the nature of the defect in the new aircraft type at issue or how it could be rectified? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the first question is answered in the negative, and it falls to be examined whether the circumstances in question are the result of events which are inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and are not beyond the actual control of that carrier on account of their nature or origin, is the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the premature failure of certain technical parts of an aircraft applicable in a case such as that here, in which, at the time when the flight was cancelled, neither the manufacturer nor the air carrier knew the nature of the defect in the new aircraft type at issue or how it could be rectified?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).

---

| 4.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/7

---

Action brought on 5 July 2023 — European Commission v Slovak Republic

(Case C-412/23)

(2023/C 314/10)

Language of the case: Slovak

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara and R. Lindenthal, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Slovak Republic

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that, by continuously failing, in 2015, 2016, 2017 and from 2018, to ensure that public entities providing healthcare paid their commercial debts within a period of a maximum of 60 calendar days, and as a result of this situation continuing to exist, the Slovak Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 2011/7 (1) on combating late payment in commercial transactions, in particular Article 4(3) and 4(4)(b) thereof; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by continuously failing, in 2015, 2016, 2017 and from 2018, to ensure that public entities providing healthcare paid their commercial debts within a period of a maximum of 60 calendar days, and as a result of this situation continuing to exist, the Slovak Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 2011/7 (1) on combating late payment in commercial transactions, in particular Article 4(3) and 4(4)(b) thereof;

| — | order Slovak Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Slovak Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Under Article 4(3) of Directive 2011/7, the Slovak Republic was to ensure that, in commercial transactions where the debtor was a public authority, the period for payment of those sums due as remuneration for those transactions with undertakings did not exceed 30 calendar days from fulfilment of the factual circumstances listed therein. Meanwhile, under Article 4(4)(b) of the Directive, in the Slovak Republic public entities providing healthcare can extend that deadline to 60 calendar days.

However, the Slovak Republic has failed to ensure that, in the case of those public entities providing healthcare, the period for payment in commercial transactions where those entities constitute the debtors did not exceed 60 calendar days.

From data concerning the average period for payment of debts on the part of public hospitals in commercial transactions, it is apparent that in 2015, 2016, 2017 and from 2018 until the point at which the present application was lodged, the Slovak Republic has continuously failed to comply with Article 4(3) and Article 4(4)(b) of the Directive.

---

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

---

| 4.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/8

---

Appeal brought on 12 July 2023 by SN against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 3 May 2023 in Case T-249/21, SN v Parliament

(Case C-430/23 P)

(2023/C 314/11)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: SN (represented by: P. Eleftheriadis, Barrister)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The Appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside in part the judgment delivered on 3 May 2023 by the Fifth Chamber of the General Court of the European Union in Case T-249/21, SN v European Parliament, to the extent that the judgment affirms the partial validity of the Decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament, regarding SN, dated 21 December 2020and Debit Note No 7010000021, addressed to SN, for the amount of 196 199,84 Euros, dated 15 January 2021, |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside in part the judgment delivered on 3 May 2023 by the Fifth Chamber of the General Court of the European Union in Case T-249/21, SN v European Parliament, to the extent that the judgment affirms the partial validity of the Decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament, regarding SN, dated 21 December 2020and Debit Note No 7010000021, addressed to SN, for the amount of 196 199,84 Euros, dated 15 January 2021,

| — | annul in whole the Decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament, regarding SN, dated 21 December 2020, |
| --- | --- |

—

annul in whole the Decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament, regarding SN, dated 21 December 2020,

| — | annul in whole the Debit Note No 7010000021, addressed to SN, for the amount of 196 199,84 Euros, dated 15 January 2021, |
| --- | --- |

—

annul in whole the Debit Note No 7010000021, addressed to SN, for the amount of 196 199,84 Euros, dated 15 January 2021,

| — | order the European Parliament to pay the costs of the Appellants for the present proceedings, including the costs before this Court and before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay the costs of the Appellants for the present proceedings, including the costs before this Court and before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

| 1) | Failure to apply the ‘knowledge’ test of 137 CEOS
   (1): The General Court infringed EU law by failing to consider that the recovery of the salary of a Parliamentary Assistance by a Member of Parliament is subject to the ‘knowledge’ tests of Article 137 CEOS and 85 of the Staff Regulations, which requires that the recipient of a payment in cases of parliamentary assistance has actual or assumed knowledge that the payment was not due. |
| --- | --- |

1)

Failure to apply the ‘knowledge’ test of 137 CEOS
   (1): The General Court infringed EU law by failing to consider that the recovery of the salary of a Parliamentary Assistance by a Member of Parliament is subject to the ‘knowledge’ tests of Article 137 CEOS and 85 of the Staff Regulations, which requires that the recipient of a payment in cases of parliamentary assistance has actual or assumed knowledge that the payment was not due.

| 2) | Failure to apply the true meaning of Article 33 IMMS
   (2): The General Court infringed EU law by failing to correctly apply Articles 33 and 68 IMMS which require that the payment of a salary to a parliamentary assistant is a salary and not a fee for services rendered, so that it becomes ‘undue’ under EU law, only when the payment is not due under the terms of the contract of employment, under standard terms of employment for parliamentary assistants. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Failure to apply the true meaning of Article 33 IMMS
   (2): The General Court infringed EU law by failing to correctly apply Articles 33 and 68 IMMS which require that the payment of a salary to a parliamentary assistant is a salary and not a fee for services rendered, so that it becomes ‘undue’ under EU law, only when the payment is not due under the terms of the contract of employment, under standard terms of employment for parliamentary assistants.

| 3) | Failure to Protect a Member’s Right to Freedom and Independence
  : The General Court infringed EU law by failing to sufficiently protect the Members’ Right to Freedom and Independence (Articles 2 and 21(2) Statute for Members of the European Parliament), by imposing a system of strict liability for innocent errors that is so unpredictable and so onerous so as to be incompatible with a Members’ right to freedom and independence. |
| --- | --- |

3)

Failure to Protect a Member’s Right to Freedom and Independence
  : The General Court infringed EU law by failing to sufficiently protect the Members’ Right to Freedom and Independence (Articles 2 and 21(2) Statute for Members of the European Parliament), by imposing a system of strict liability for innocent errors that is so unpredictable and so onerous so as to be incompatible with a Members’ right to freedom and independence.

---

(1)  Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community (OJ 1962, 45, p. 1385).

(2)  Decision of the Bureau of 19 May and 9 July 2008 concerning implementing measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament (OJ 2009, C 159, p. 1).

---

General Court

| 4.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/9

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2023 — Multiópticas v EUIPO — Nike Innovate (Representation of two black geometrical shapes)

(Case T-487/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark representing two black geometrical shapes - Earlier EU and national figurative marks mó - Relative ground for refusal - No damage to reputation - Non-similarity of the signs - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2023/C 314/12)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Multiópticas S. Coop. (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: M. López Camba and A. Lyubomirova Geleva, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Nike Innovate CV (Beaverton, Oregon, United States)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 2 June 2022 (Case R 1762/2021-4)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Multiópticas S. Coop. and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Multiópticas S. Coop. and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 368, 26.9.2022.

---

| 4.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/9

---

Action brought on 27 June 2023 — Zalando v Commission

(Case T-348/23)

(2023/C 314/13)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Zalando SE (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: R. Briske, K. Ewald, L. Schneider und J. Trouet, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the European Commission of 25 April 2023, C(2023) 2727 final; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the European Commission of 25 April 2023, C(2023) 2727 final;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging misapplication of the scope of Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 (1) (Digital Services Act; ‘the DSA’) and an error in law in the application of the DSA
  The applicant is of the opinion that the DSA is not applicable to it, as it is already not an intermediary service and consequently neither a hosting service nor an online platform within the meaning of the DSA. It lacks the necessary provision of third-party content. The applicant provides its own content through the sale of its articles and has also fully adopted the content of its partners through a strict onboarding process.
  Even if part of the service qualified as an online platform, it did not reach the threshold of 45 million monthly active users. The defendant disregards the hybrid nature of the service: not all users of the service are automatically exposed to content provided by third parties, but a precise differentiation is required.
  The defendant relied on erroneous criteria, such as the alleged non-identifiability of the provider. It fails to recognise that this is not a decisive characteristic, but rather, taking into account EU law evaluations, supports the assumption of the existence of own content. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging misapplication of the scope of Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 (1) (Digital Services Act; ‘the DSA’) and an error in law in the application of the DSA

The applicant is of the opinion that the DSA is not applicable to it, as it is already not an intermediary service and consequently neither a hosting service nor an online platform within the meaning of the DSA. It lacks the necessary provision of third-party content. The applicant provides its own content through the sale of its articles and has also fully adopted the content of its partners through a strict onboarding process.

Even if part of the service qualified as an online platform, it did not reach the threshold of 45 million monthly active users. The defendant disregards the hybrid nature of the service: not all users of the service are automatically exposed to content provided by third parties, but a precise differentiation is required.

The defendant relied on erroneous criteria, such as the alleged non-identifiability of the provider. It fails to recognise that this is not a decisive characteristic, but rather, taking into account EU law evaluations, supports the assumption of the existence of own content.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that Article 33(1) and (4) in conjunction with Article 24(2) of the DSA are vague
  The specifications for calculating the threshold value are too imprecise and infringe the principle of certainty under EU law. Article 33(1) of the DSA is therefore not a legal basis in conformity with Union law. Recital 77 of the DSA is insufficient for the determinability of the calculation method due to its legal nature and its incomplete content, as too many essential questions are left open. It describes only who should be covered, but not how. In the end, the criteria could not be sufficiently determined without the adoption of a delegated act. The inadequacy is made clear by a comparison with Regulation (EU) 2022/1925 (2) (Digital Markets Act): the latter is partially based on the same threshold, but goes further and even specifies the calculation criteria in a separate annex. However, it also lacks sufficiently concrete calculatory specifications. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that Article 33(1) and (4) in conjunction with Article 24(2) of the DSA are vague

The specifications for calculating the threshold value are too imprecise and infringe the principle of certainty under EU law. Article 33(1) of the DSA is therefore not a legal basis in conformity with Union law. Recital 77 of the DSA is insufficient for the determinability of the calculation method due to its legal nature and its incomplete content, as too many essential questions are left open. It describes only who should be covered, but not how. In the end, the criteria could not be sufficiently determined without the adoption of a delegated act. The inadequacy is made clear by a comparison with Regulation (EU) 2022/1925 (2) (Digital Markets Act): the latter is partially based on the same threshold, but goes further and even specifies the calculation criteria in a separate annex. However, it also lacks sufficiently concrete calculatory specifications.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the general principle of equality
  The indeterminacy of the calculation method infringes the first sentence of Article 2 TEU and Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as this leads to a (de facto) unequal treatment of providers of online platforms. The providers fill the gap, which is created in particular by the fact that tracking of individual users is prohibited, with inconsistent and non-transparent methods. At the same time, the DSA does not provide for a mandatory control of all calculation methods, but only ad-hoc checks. This does not create a fair level playing field for competing service providers. Moreover, the DSA infringes the principle of equal treatment by applying a blanket threshold to all online platforms, regardless of the risk-based criteria of the respective services. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the general principle of equality

The indeterminacy of the calculation method infringes the first sentence of Article 2 TEU and Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as this leads to a (de facto) unequal treatment of providers of online platforms. The providers fill the gap, which is created in particular by the fact that tracking of individual users is prohibited, with inconsistent and non-transparent methods. At the same time, the DSA does not provide for a mandatory control of all calculation methods, but only ad-hoc checks. This does not create a fair level playing field for competing service providers. Moreover, the DSA infringes the principle of equal treatment by applying a blanket threshold to all online platforms, regardless of the risk-based criteria of the respective services.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality
  The application of the DSA disproportionately interferes with the applicant’s fundamental freedoms and rights and thus infringes the principle of proportionality set out in the second subparagraph of Article 5(4) TEU. On the one hand, the blanket threshold is inappropriate, and, on the other hand, the imposition of further obligations on the applicant is no longer necessary, as online trade is already (over-) regulated. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality

The application of the DSA disproportionately interferes with the applicant’s fundamental freedoms and rights and thus infringes the principle of proportionality set out in the second subparagraph of Article 5(4) TEU. On the one hand, the blanket threshold is inappropriate, and, on the other hand, the imposition of further obligations on the applicant is no longer necessary, as online trade is already (over-) regulated.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons
  In its decision, the defendant infringed the obligation to state reasons under Article 296 TFEU, so that it was not comprehensible to the applicant as an addressee. There is no subsumption under the definition of hosting service according to Article 3(g)(iii) of the DSA, although this is decisive for the applicability of Article 33 of the DSA. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons

In its decision, the defendant infringed the obligation to state reasons under Article 296 TFEU, so that it was not comprehensible to the applicant as an addressee. There is no subsumption under the definition of hosting service according to Article 3(g)(iii) of the DSA, although this is decisive for the applicability of Article 33 of the DSA.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 October 2022 on a Single Market For Digital Services and amending Directive 2000/31/EC (Digital Services Act) (OJ 2022 L 277, p. 1).

(2)  Regulation (EU) 2022/1925 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 September 2022 on contestable and fair markets in the digital sector and amending Directives (EU) 2019/1937 and (EU) 2020/1828 (Digital Markets Act) (OJ 2022 L 265, p. 1).

---

| 4.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/11

---

Action brought on 5 July 2023 — Hypo Vorarlberg Bank v SRB

(Case T-369/23)

(2023/C 314/14)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Hypo Vorarlberg Bank AG (Bregenz, Austria) (represented by: G. Eisenberger, A. Brenneis and J. Holzmann, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 2 May 2023 on the calculation of the 2023 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2023/23) together with annexes, at least in so far as it concerns the applicant, and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 2 May 2023 on the calculation of the 2023 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2023/23) together with annexes, at least in so far as it concerns the applicant, and

| — | order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 102 of Directive 2014/59/EU, (1) Articles 69 and 70(2) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014, (2) Articles 3 and 4(2) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 (3) and the principle of proportionality due to an incorrect determination of the target level, as the defendant set an excessive target level contrary to the EU legal framework. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 102 of Directive 2014/59/EU, (1) Articles 69 and 70(2) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014, (2) Articles 3 and 4(2) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 (3) and the principle of proportionality due to an incorrect determination of the target level, as the defendant set an excessive target level contrary to the EU legal framework.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 70(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014, Article 103(7) of Directive 2014/59/EU, Article 6(1) to (6), Article 7(2), Article 20 and Annex II to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 on account of the failure to apply three risk indicators since, contrary to the requirements of EU law, the defendant did not apply the risk indicators: (i) ‘own funds and eligible liabilities held by the institution in excess of the minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities’, (ii) ‘complexity’ and (iii) ‘resolvability’. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 70(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014, Article 103(7) of Directive 2014/59/EU, Article 6(1) to (6), Article 7(2), Article 20 and Annex II to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 on account of the failure to apply three risk indicators since, contrary to the requirements of EU law, the defendant did not apply the risk indicators: (i) ‘own funds and eligible liabilities held by the institution in excess of the minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities’, (ii) ‘complexity’ and (iii) ‘resolvability’.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 6(5) and (7), Article 7(2), Article 4 and Step 2 of Annex I to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 on account of the incorrect application and weighting of the risk indicator ‘membership of an institutional protection scheme’ (IPS), in particular since no assessment of the IPS was carried out. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 6(5) and (7), Article 7(2), Article 4 and Step 2 of Annex I to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 on account of the incorrect application and weighting of the risk indicator ‘membership of an institutional protection scheme’ (IPS), in particular since no assessment of the IPS was carried out.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements due to a lack of a statement of reasons for the contested decision.
  The contested decision infringes the obligation to state reasons pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41(1) and (2)(c) of the Charter, as the requirements set down by the Court of Justice in Case C-584/20 P (4) regarding the scope of the obligation to state reasons were not complied with. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements due to a lack of a statement of reasons for the contested decision.

The contested decision infringes the obligation to state reasons pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41(1) and (2)(c) of the Charter, as the requirements set down by the Court of Justice in Case C-584/20 P (4) regarding the scope of the obligation to state reasons were not complied with.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements due to a failure to state adequate reasons for the exercise of significant discretionary powers.
  The contested decision infringes the obligation to state reasons under the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41(1) and (2)(c) of the Charter, since, as regards the defendant’s discretionary powers, it was not explained which assessments the defendant made on which grounds. An arbitrary exercise of discretion by the defendant therefore cannot be excluded. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements due to a failure to state adequate reasons for the exercise of significant discretionary powers.

The contested decision infringes the obligation to state reasons under the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41(1) and (2)(c) of the Charter, since, as regards the defendant’s discretionary powers, it was not explained which assessments the defendant made on which grounds. An arbitrary exercise of discretion by the defendant therefore cannot be excluded.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements due to the absence of a hearing and a failure to respect the right to be heard.
  The applicant was not granted the right to be heard either before the contested decision was adopted or before the contribution notice based on that decision was issued, contrary to Article 41(1) and (2)(a) of the Charter. In addition, the consultation carried out by the defendant did not provide an opportunity to comment effectively and fully on the actual contribution calculation. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements due to the absence of a hearing and a failure to respect the right to be heard.

The applicant was not granted the right to be heard either before the contested decision was adopted or before the contribution notice based on that decision was issued, contrary to Article 41(1) and (2)(a) of the Charter. In addition, the consultation carried out by the defendant did not provide an opportunity to comment effectively and fully on the actual contribution calculation.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging the unlawfulness of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 as a legal basis for the contested decision and the unlawfulness of the risk adjustment methodology laid down in Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 and of the discretionary powers granted to the SRB.
  Articles 4 to 7 and Articles 9, 17 and 20 as well as Annexes I and II to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63, on which the contested decision is based, create a non-transparent and irrelevant system for determining contributions which is contrary to Articles 16, 17, 41 and 47 of the Charter, and under which compliance with Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter and observance of the principles of proportionality and legal certainty are not guaranteed. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging the unlawfulness of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 as a legal basis for the contested decision and the unlawfulness of the risk adjustment methodology laid down in Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 and of the discretionary powers granted to the SRB.

Articles 4 to 7 and Articles 9, 17 and 20 as well as Annexes I and II to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63, on which the contested decision is based, create a non-transparent and irrelevant system for determining contributions which is contrary to Articles 16, 17, 41 and 47 of the Charter, and under which compliance with Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter and observance of the principles of proportionality and legal certainty are not guaranteed.

| 8. | Eighth plea in law, alleging the unlawfulness of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/81 (5) as a legal basis for the contested decision.
  The contested decision infringes the Treaties, since Article 8 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/81 exceeds the limits laid down by Article 70(7) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 read in conjunction with Article 291 TFEU, and neither the Implementing Regulation nor the legal basis provides a statement of reasons in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

8.

Eighth plea in law, alleging the unlawfulness of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/81 (5) as a legal basis for the contested decision.

The contested decision infringes the Treaties, since Article 8 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/81 exceeds the limits laid down by Article 70(7) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 read in conjunction with Article 291 TFEU, and neither the Implementing Regulation nor the legal basis provides a statement of reasons in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU.

| 9. | Ninth plea in law, alleging the unlawfulness of Directive 2014/59/EU and Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 as a legal basis for Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 and for Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/81, and therefore for the contested decision.
  In the alternative, the applicant alleges that the provisions of Directive 2014/59/EU and Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 which prescribe the contribution system implemented by way of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 and grant the defendant far-reaching discretionary powers, are unlawful. In so far as those provisions, in particular Article 69(1) and (2), Article 70(2) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 and Article 102(1) and (2) of Directive 2014/59/EU, are not capable of being interpreted in compliance with primary law, they are contrary to the principle of providing reasons for legal acts, the principle of legal certainty, and the Treaties (in particular the second paragraph of Article 1 TEU, and Articles 15, 296 and 298 TFEU) and the Charter (in particular Articles 16, 17, 41, 42 and 47 thereof). |
| --- | --- |

9.

Ninth plea in law, alleging the unlawfulness of Directive 2014/59/EU and Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 as a legal basis for Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 and for Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/81, and therefore for the contested decision.

In the alternative, the applicant alleges that the provisions of Directive 2014/59/EU and Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 which prescribe the contribution system implemented by way of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 and grant the defendant far-reaching discretionary powers, are unlawful. In so far as those provisions, in particular Article 69(1) and (2), Article 70(2) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 and Article 102(1) and (2) of Directive 2014/59/EU, are not capable of being interpreted in compliance with primary law, they are contrary to the principle of providing reasons for legal acts, the principle of legal certainty, and the Treaties (in particular the second paragraph of Article 1 TEU, and Articles 15, 296 and 298 TFEU) and the Charter (in particular Articles 16, 17, 41, 42 and 47 thereof).

---

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

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

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

(4)  Judgment of 15 July 2021, Commission v Landesbank Baden-Württemberg and SRB, C-584/20 P and C-621/20 P, EU:C:2021:601.

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

---

| 4.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/13

---

Action brought on 6 July 2023 — Volkskreditbank v SRB

(Case T-374/23)

(2023/C 314/15)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Volkskreditbank AG (Linz, Austria) (represented by: G. Eisenberger, A. Brenneis and J. Holzmann, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 2 May 2023 on the calculation of the 2023 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2023/23) together with annexes, at least in so far as it concerns the applicant, and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 2 May 2023 on the calculation of the 2023 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2023/23) together with annexes, at least in so far as it concerns the applicant, and

| — | order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on nine pleas in law which are identical to those relied on in Case T-369/23, Hypo Vorarlberg Bank v SRB.

---

| 4.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/14

---

Action brought on 6 July 2023 — Hypo-Bank Burgenland v SRB

(Case T-386/23)

(2023/C 314/16)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Hypo-Bank Burgenland AG (Eisenstadt, Austria) (represented by: G. Eisenberger, A. Brenneis and J. Holzmann, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 2 May 2023 on the calculation of the 2023 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2023/23) together with annexes, at least in so far as it concerns the applicant, and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 2 May 2023 on the calculation of the 2023 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2023/23) together with annexes, at least in so far as it concerns the applicant, and

| — | order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs.

Further, the applicant claims that the present action for annulment should be joined to Case T-387/23, Schelhammer Capital Bank v SRB, on account of their connection and same subject matter, for the purposes of the written or oral part of the procedure and decision, pursuant to Article 68 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on nine pleas in law which are identical to those relied on in Case T-369/23, Hypo Vorarlberg Bank v SRB.

---

| 4.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/14

---

Action brought on 6 July 2023 — Schelhammer Capital Bank v SRB

(Case T-387/23)

(2023/C 314/17)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Schelhammer Capital Bank AG (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: G. Eisenberger, A. Brenneis and J. Holzmann, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 2 May 2023 on the calculation of the 2023 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2023/23) together with annexes, at least in so far as it concerns the applicant, and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 2 May 2023 on the calculation of the 2023 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2023/23) together with annexes, at least in so far as it concerns the applicant, and

| — | order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs.

Further, the applicant claims that the present action for annulment should be joined to Case T-386/23, Hypo-Bank Burgenland v SRB, on account of their connection and same subject matter, for the purposes of the written or oral part of the procedure and decision, pursuant to Article 68 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on nine pleas in law which are identical to those relied on in Case T-369/23, Hypo Vorarlberg Bank v SRB.

---

| 4.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/15

---

Action brought on 12 July 2023 — Barry’s Bootcamp v EUIPO — Hummel (Device of two black horizontal chevrons)

(Case T-390/23)

(2023/C 314/18)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Barry’s Bootcamp Holdings LLC (Miami, Florida, United States) (represented by: M. Hawkins, T. Dolde and C. Zimmer, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hummel Holding A/S (Aarhus, Denmark)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark (Device of two black horizontal chevrons) — European Union trade mark No 3 015 377

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 April 2023 in Case R 1423/2022-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, should it intervene, to bear the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, should it intervene, to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | 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.

---

| 4.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/16

---

Action brought on 13 July 2023 — Imerys Aluminates Groupe v Commission

(Case T-391/23)

(2023/C 314/19)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Imerys Aluminates Groupe (Paris, France) (represented by: Y. Martinet, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that the European Commission, by a document of 22 July 2019 entitled ‘Frequently Asked Questions on the Free Allocation Rules for the EU ETS post-2020’, adopted an interpretation which adversely affects the applicant and which is binding on the Member States, as interpreted by the Conseil d’État (Council of State, France) (a national court of last instance); |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the European Commission, by a document of 22 July 2019 entitled ‘Frequently Asked Questions on the Free Allocation Rules for the EU ETS post-2020’, adopted an interpretation which adversely affects the applicant and which is binding on the Member States, as interpreted by the Conseil d’État (Council of State, France) (a national court of last instance);

| — | order the European Commission to pay compensation for the damage suffered by the company Imerys Aluminates as a result of the adoption of the document of 22 July 2019 entitled ‘Frequently Asked Questions on the Free Allocation Rules for the EU ETS post-2020’, calculated at EUR 40 075 347; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay compensation for the damage suffered by the company Imerys Aluminates as a result of the adoption of the document of 22 July 2019 entitled ‘Frequently Asked Questions on the Free Allocation Rules for the EU ETS post-2020’, calculated at EUR 40 075 347;

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

—

order the European Commission to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission acted wrongfully in adopting the document of 22 July 2019 entitled ‘Frequently Asked Questions on the Free Allocation Rules for the EU ETS post-2020’ (‘the FAQ’). This plea is divided into three parts:






  — | the first part, alleging breach of the principle of legitimate expectations; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission acted wrongfully in adopting the document of 22 July 2019 entitled ‘Frequently Asked Questions on the Free Allocation Rules for the EU ETS post-2020’ (‘the FAQ’). This plea is divided into three parts:

—

the first part, alleging breach of the principle of legitimate expectations;

| — | the second part, alleging breach of the principle of legal certainty; |
| --- | --- |

—

the second part, alleging breach of the principle of legal certainty;

| — | the third part, alleging infringement of Article 6 of the Aarhus Convention. |
| --- | --- |

—

the third part, alleging infringement of Article 6 of the Aarhus Convention.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging failure to observe the principle of legal certainty, should Implementing Regulation No 2021/447 (1) be interpreted as implicitly setting out the rules of interpretation explicitly set out in the FAQ of 22 July 2019. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging failure to observe the principle of legal certainty, should Implementing Regulation No 2021/447 (1) be interpreted as implicitly setting out the rules of interpretation explicitly set out in the FAQ of 22 July 2019.

---

(1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/447 of 12 March 2021 determining revised benchmark values for free allocation of emission allowances for the period from 2021 to 2025 pursuant to Article 10a(2) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2021 L 87, p. 29).

---

| 4.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/16

---

Action brought on 14 July 2023 — Stada Arzneimittel v EUIPO — Bioiberica (DAOgest)

(Case T-396/23)

(2023/C 314/20)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Stada Arzneimittel AG (Bad Vilbel, Germany) (represented by: J.-C. Plate, R. Kaase and K. Schmid-Burgk, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bioiberica, SAU (Palafolls, Spain)

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 DAOgest — Application for registration No 18 332 942

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 April 2023 in Case R 1384/2022-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

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

—

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

---

| 4.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/17

---

Action brought on 14 July 2023 — Bodegas Aguiuncho v EUIPO — Mar de Frades (ALBARIÑO mar de ons)

(Case T-398/23)

(2023/C 314/21)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Bodegas Aguiuncho, SL (Sanxenxo, Spain) (represented by: J.M. Diez Roig, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mar de Frades, SL (Cartagena, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark ALBARIÑO mar de ons — Application for registration No 18 408 426

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 May 2023 in Case R 0164/2023-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul and vary the contested decision;

| — | grant the application for registration of the trade mark at issue in Class 33 of the Nice Classification, with the effects inherent in such a declaration. |
| --- | --- |

—

grant the application for registration of the trade mark at issue in Class 33 of the Nice Classification, with the effects inherent in such a declaration.

Pleas in law

| — | Interest in preserving availability. |
| --- | --- |

—

Interest in preserving availability.

| — | Peaceful coexistence of marks. |
| --- | --- |

—

Peaceful coexistence of marks.

| — | 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.

| — | Failure to comply with the judgment of 24 June 2014, Rani Refreshments v OHIM — Global-Invest Bartosz Turek (Sani), T-523/12, not published, EU:T:2014:571. |
| --- | --- |

—

Failure to comply with the judgment of 24 June 2014, Rani Refreshments v OHIM — Global-Invest Bartosz Turek (Sani), T-523/12, not published, EU:T:2014:571.

| — | Distinctiveness of the graphic representation. |
| --- | --- |

—

Distinctiveness of the graphic representation.

---

| 4.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/18

---

Action brought on 12 July 2023 — Erste Group Bank v SRB

(Case T-400/23)

(2023/C 314/22)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Erste Group Bank AG (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: G. Eisenberger, A Brenneis and J. Holzmann, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 2 May 2023 on the calculation of the 2023 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2023/23) together with annexes, at least in so far as it concerns the applicant, and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 2 May 2023 on the calculation of the 2023 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2023/23) together with annexes, at least in so far as it concerns the applicant, and

| — | order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs.

The applicant further claims that, on account of the connection between and same subject matter of the following cases, they should be joined for the purposes of the written or oral part of the procedure and decision, pursuant to Article 68 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court: T-400/23, Erste Group Bank v SRB, T-401/23, Erste Bank der österreichischen Sparkassen v SRB, T-402/23, Steiermärkische Bank und Sparkasse v SRB, T-403/23, Dornbirner Sparkasse Bank v SRB, T-404/23, Kärntner Sparkasse v SRB, T-405/23, Sparkasse Niederösterreich Mitte West v SRB, T-406/23, Tiroler Sparkasse v SRB, T-407/23, Salzburger Sparkasse Bank v SRB, T-408/23, Sparkasse Oberösterreich Bank v SRB.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

The contested decision infringes Article 102 of Directive 2014/59/EU, (1) Articles 69 and 70(2) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014, (2) Articles 3 and 4 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 (3) and the principle of proportionality due to an incorrect determination of the target level, as the defendant set an excessive target level contrary to the EU legal framework.

---

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

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

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

---

| 4.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/19

---

Action brought on 12 July 2023 — Erste Bank der österreichischen Sparkassen v SRB

(Case T-401/23)

(2023/C 314/23)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Erste Bank der österreichischen Sparkassen AG (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: G. Eisenberger, A. Brenneis and J. Holzmann, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 2 May 2023 on the calculation of the 2023 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2023/23) together with annexes, at least in so far as it concerns the applicant, and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 2 May 2023 on the calculation of the 2023 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2023/23) together with annexes, at least in so far as it concerns the applicant, and

| — | order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs.

The applicant further claims that, on account of the connection between and same subject matter of the following cases, they should be joined for the purposes of the written or oral part of the procedure and decision, pursuant to Article 68 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court: T-400/23, Erste Group Bank v SRB, T-401/23, Erste Bank der österreichischen Sparkassen v SRB, T-402/23, Steiermärkische Bank und Sparkasse v SRB, T-403/23, Dornbirner Sparkasse Bank v SRB, T-404/23, Kärntner Sparkasse v SRB, T-405/23, Sparkasse Niederösterreich Mitte West v SRB, T-406/23, Tiroler Sparkasse v SRB, T-407/23, Salzburger Sparkasse Bank v SRB, T-408/23, Sparkasse Oberösterreich Bank v SRB.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law which is identical to that relied on in Case T-400/23, Erste Group Bank v SRB.

---

| 4.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/20

---

Action brought on 13 July 2023 — Steiermärkische Bank und Sparkasse v SRB

(Case T-402/23)

(2023/C 314/24)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Steiermärkische Bank und Sparkassen AG (Graz, Austria) (represented by: G. Eisenberger, A. Brenneis and J. Holzmann, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 2 May 2023 on the calculation of the 2023 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2023/23) together with annexes, at least in so far as it concerns the applicant, and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 2 May 2023 on the calculation of the 2023 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2023/23) together with annexes, at least in so far as it concerns the applicant, and

| — | order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs.

The applicant further claims that, on account of the connection between and same subject matter of the following cases, they should be joined for the purposes of the written or oral part of the procedure and decision, pursuant to Article 68 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court: T-400/23, Erste Group Bank v SRB, T-401/23, Erste Bank der österreichischen Sparkassen v SRB, T-402/23, Steiermärkische Bank und Sparkasse v SRB, T-403/23, Dornbirner Sparkasse Bank v SRB, T-404/23, Kärntner Sparkasse v SRB, T-405/23, Sparkasse Niederösterreich Mitte West v SRB, T-406/23, Tiroler Sparkasse v SRB, T-407/23, Salzburger Sparkasse Bank v SRB, T-408/23, Sparkasse Oberösterreich Bank v SRB.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 102 of Directive 2014/59/EU, (1) Articles 69 and 70(2) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014, (2) Articles 3 and 4(2) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 (3) and the principle of proportionality due to an incorrect determination of the target level, as the defendant set an excessive target level contrary to the EU legal framework. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 102 of Directive 2014/59/EU, (1) Articles 69 and 70(2) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014, (2) Articles 3 and 4(2) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 (3) and the principle of proportionality due to an incorrect determination of the target level, as the defendant set an excessive target level contrary to the EU legal framework.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements due to a failure to state adequate reasons for the contested decision.
  The contested decision infringes the obligation to state reasons pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41(1) and (2)(c) of the Charter, as the requirements set down by the Court of Justice in Case C-584/20 P (4) regarding the scope of the obligation to state reasons were not complied with. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements due to a failure to state adequate reasons for the contested decision.

The contested decision infringes the obligation to state reasons pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41(1) and (2)(c) of the Charter, as the requirements set down by the Court of Justice in Case C-584/20 P (4) regarding the scope of the obligation to state reasons were not complied with.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements due to a failure to state adequate reasons for the exercise of significant discretionary powers.
  The contested decision infringes the obligation to state reasons under the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41(1) and (2)(c) of the Charter, since, as regards the defendant’s discretionary powers, it was not explained which assessments the defendant made on which grounds. An arbitrary exercise of discretion by the defendant therefore cannot be excluded. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements due to a failure to state adequate reasons for the exercise of significant discretionary powers.

The contested decision infringes the obligation to state reasons under the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41(1) and (2)(c) of the Charter, since, as regards the defendant’s discretionary powers, it was not explained which assessments the defendant made on which grounds. An arbitrary exercise of discretion by the defendant therefore cannot be excluded.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements due to the absence of a hearing and a failure to respect the right to be heard.
  The applicant was not granted the right to be heard either before the contested decision was adopted or before the contribution notice based on that decision was issued, contrary to Article 41(1) and (2)(a) of the Charter. In addition, the consultation carried out by the defendant did not provide an opportunity to comment effectively and fully on the actual contribution calculation. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements due to the absence of a hearing and a failure to respect the right to be heard.

The applicant was not granted the right to be heard either before the contested decision was adopted or before the contribution notice based on that decision was issued, contrary to Article 41(1) and (2)(a) of the Charter. In addition, the consultation carried out by the defendant did not provide an opportunity to comment effectively and fully on the actual contribution calculation.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging the unlawfulness of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 as a legal basis for the contested decision and the unlawfulness of the risk adjustment methodology laid down in Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 and of the discretionary powers granted to the SRB.
  Articles 4 to 7 and Articles 9, 17 and 20 as well as Annexes I and II to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63, on which the contested decision is based, create a non-transparent and irrelevant system for determining contributions which is contrary to Articles 16, 17, 41 and 47 of the Charter, and under which compliance with Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter and observance of the principles of proportionality and legal certainty are not guaranteed. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging the unlawfulness of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 as a legal basis for the contested decision and the unlawfulness of the risk adjustment methodology laid down in Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 and of the discretionary powers granted to the SRB.

Articles 4 to 7 and Articles 9, 17 and 20 as well as Annexes I and II to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63, on which the contested decision is based, create a non-transparent and irrelevant system for determining contributions which is contrary to Articles 16, 17, 41 and 47 of the Charter, and under which compliance with Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter and observance of the principles of proportionality and legal certainty are not guaranteed.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging the unlawfulness of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/81 (5) as a legal basis for the contested decision.
  The contested decision infringes the Treaties, since Article 8 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/81 exceeds the limits laid down by Article 70(7) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 read in conjunction with Article 291 TFEU, and neither the Implementing Regulation nor the legal basis provides a statement of reasons in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging the unlawfulness of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/81 (5) as a legal basis for the contested decision.

The contested decision infringes the Treaties, since Article 8 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/81 exceeds the limits laid down by Article 70(7) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 read in conjunction with Article 291 TFEU, and neither the Implementing Regulation nor the legal basis provides a statement of reasons in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging the unlawfulness of Directive 2014/59/EU and Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 as a legal basis for Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 and for Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/81, and therefore for the contested decision.
  In the alternative, the applicant alleges that the provisions of Directive 2014/59/EU and Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 which prescribe the contribution system implemented by way of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 and grant the defendant far-reaching discretionary powers, are unlawful. In so far as those provisions, in particular Article 69(1) and (2), Article 70(2) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 and Article 102(1) and (2) of Directive 2014/59/EU, are not capable of being interpreted in compliance with primary law, they are contrary to the principle of providing reasons for legal acts, the principle of legal certainty, and the Treaties (in particular the second paragraph of Article 1 TEU, and Articles 15, 296 and 298 TFEU) and the Charter (in particular Articles 16, 17, 41, 42 and 47 thereof). |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging the unlawfulness of Directive 2014/59/EU and Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 as a legal basis for Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 and for Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/81, and therefore for the contested decision.

In the alternative, the applicant alleges that the provisions of Directive 2014/59/EU and Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 which prescribe the contribution system implemented by way of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 and grant the defendant far-reaching discretionary powers, are unlawful. In so far as those provisions, in particular Article 69(1) and (2), Article 70(2) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 and Article 102(1) and (2) of Directive 2014/59/EU, are not capable of being interpreted in compliance with primary law, they are contrary to the principle of providing reasons for legal acts, the principle of legal certainty, and the Treaties (in particular the second paragraph of Article 1 TEU, and Articles 15, 296 and 298 TFEU) and the Charter (in particular Articles 16, 17, 41, 42 and 47 thereof).

---

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

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

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

(4)  Judgment of 15 July 2021, Commission v Landesbank Baden-Württemberg and SRB, C-584/20 P and C-621/20 P, EU:C:2021:601.

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

---

| 4.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/21

---

Action brought on 13 July 2023 — Dornbirner Sparkasse Bank v SRB

(Case T-403/23)

(2023/C 314/25)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Dornbirner Sparkasse Bank AG (Dornbirn, Austria) (represented by: G. Eisenberger, A. Brenneis and J. Holzmann, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 2 May 2023 on the calculation of the 2023 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2023/23) together with annexes, at least in so far as it concerns the applicant, and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 2 May 2023 on the calculation of the 2023 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2023/23) together with annexes, at least in so far as it concerns the applicant, and

| — | order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs.

The applicant further claims that, on account of the connection between and same subject matter of the following cases, they should be joined for the purposes of the written or oral part of the procedure and decision, pursuant to Article 68 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court: T-400/23, Erste Group Bank v SRB, T-401/23, Erste Bank der österreichischen Sparkassen v SRB, T-402/23, Steiermärkische Bank und Sparkasse v SRB, T-403/23, Dornbirner Sparkasse Bank v SRB, T-404/23, Kärntner Sparkasse v SRB, T-405/23, Sparkasse Niederösterreich Mitte West v SRB, T-406/23, Tiroler Sparkasse v SRB, T-407/23, Salzburger Sparkasse Bank v SRB, T-408/23, Sparkasse Oberösterreich Bank v SRB.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law which are identical to those relied on in Case T-402/23, Steiermärkische Bank und Sparkasse v SRB.

---

| 4.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/22

---

Action brought on 13 July 2023 — Kärntner Sparkasse v SRB

(Case T-404/23)

(2023/C 314/26)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Kärntner Sparkasse AG (Klagenfurt, Austria) (represented by: G. Eisenberger, A. Brenneis and J. Holzmann, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 2 May 2023 on the calculation of the 2023 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2023/23) together with annexes, at least in so far as it concerns the applicant, and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 2 May 2023 on the calculation of the 2023 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2023/23) together with annexes, at least in so far as it concerns the applicant, and

| — | order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs.

The applicant further claims that, on account of the connection between and same subject matter of the following cases, they should be joined for the purposes of the written or oral part of the procedure and decision, pursuant to Article 68 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court: T-400/23, Erste Group Bank v SRB, T-401/23, Erste Bank der österreichischen Sparkassen v SRB, T-402/23, Steiermärkische Bank und Sparkasse v SRB, T-403/23, Dornbirner Sparkasse Bank v SRB, T-404/23, Kärntner Sparkasse v SRB, T-405/23, Sparkasse Niederösterreich Mitte West v SRB, T-406/23, Tiroler Sparkasse v SRB, T-407/23, Salzburger Sparkasse Bank v SRB, T-408/23, Sparkasse Oberösterreich Bank v SRB.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law which are identical to those relied on in Case T-402/23, Steiermärkische Bank und Sparkasse v SRB.

---

| 4.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/23

---

Action brought on 13 July 2023 — Sparkasse Niederösterreich Mitte West v SRB

(Case T-405/23)

(2023/C 314/27)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Sparkasse Niederösterreich Mitte West AG (St. Pölten, Austria) (represented by: G. Eisenberger, A. Brenneis and J. Holzmann, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 2 May 2023 on the calculation of the 2023 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2023/23) together with annexes, at least in so far as it concerns the applicant, and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 2 May 2023 on the calculation of the 2023 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2023/23) together with annexes, at least in so far as it concerns the applicant, and

| — | order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs.

The applicant further claims that, on account of the connection between and same subject matter of the following cases, they should be joined for the purposes of the written or oral part of the procedure and decision, pursuant to Article 68 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court: T-400/23, Erste Group Bank v SRB, T-401/23, Erste Bank der österreichischen Sparkassen v SRB, T-402/23, Steiermärkische Bank und Sparkasse v SRB, T-403/23, Dornbirner Sparkasse Bank v SRB, T-404/23, Kärntner Sparkasse v SRB, T-405/23, Sparkasse Niederösterreich Mitte West v SRB, T-406/23, Tiroler Sparkasse v SRB, T-407/23, Salzburger Sparkasse Bank v SRB, T-408/23, Sparkasse Oberösterreich Bank v SRB.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law which are identical to those relied on in Case T-402/23, Steiermärkische Bank und Sparkasse v SRB.

---

| 4.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/23

---

Action brought on 13 July 2023 — Tiroler Sparkasse v SRB

(Case T-406/23)

(2023/C 314/28)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Tiroler Sparkasse Bankaktiengesellschaft Innsbruck (Innsbruck, Austria) (represented by: G. Eisenberger, A. Brenneis and J. Holzmann, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 2 May 2023 on the calculation of the 2023 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2023/23) together with annexes, at least in so far as it concerns the applicant, and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 2 May 2023 on the calculation of the 2023 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2023/23) together with annexes, at least in so far as it concerns the applicant, and

| — | order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs.

The applicant further claims that, on account of the connection between and same subject matter of the following cases, they should be joined for the purposes of the written or oral part of the procedure and decision, pursuant to Article 68 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court: T-400/23, Erste Group Bank v SRB, T-401/23, Erste Bank der österreichischen Sparkassen v SRB, T-402/23, Steiermärkische Bank und Sparkasse v SRB, T-403/23, Dornbirner Sparkasse Bank v SRB, T-404/23, Kärntner Sparkasse v SRB, T-405/23, Sparkasse Niederösterreich Mitte West v SRB, T-406/23, Tiroler Sparkasse v SRB, T-407/23, Salzburger Sparkasse Bank v SRB, T-408/23, Sparkasse Oberösterreich Bank v SRB.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law which is identical to that relied on in Case T-400/23, Erste Bank v SRB.

---

| 4.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/24

---

Action brought on 13 July 2023 — Salzburger Sparkasse Bank v SRB

(Case T-407/23)

(2023/C 314/29)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Salzburger Sparkasse Bank (Salzburg, Austria) (represented by: G. Eisenberger, A. Brenneis and J. Holzmann, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 2 May 2023 on the calculation of the 2023 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2023/23) together with annexes, at least in so far as it concerns the applicant, and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 2 May 2023 on the calculation of the 2023 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2023/23) together with annexes, at least in so far as it concerns the applicant, and

| — | order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs.

The applicant further claims that, on account of the connection between and same subject matter of the following cases, they should be joined for the purposes of the written or oral part of the procedure and decision, pursuant to Article 68 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court: T-400/23, Erste Group Bank v SRB, T-401/23, Erste Bank der österreichischen Sparkassen v SRB, T-402/23, Steiermärkische Bank und Sparkasse v SRB, T-403/23, Dornbirner Sparkasse Bank v SRB, T-404/23, Kärntner Sparkasse v SRB, T-405/23, Sparkasse Niederösterreich Mitte West v SRB, T-406/23, Tiroler Sparkasse v SRB, T-407/23, Salzburger Sparkasse Bank v SRB, T-408/23, Sparkasse Oberösterreich Bank v SRB.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law which is identical to that relied on in Case T-400/23, Erste Group Bank v SRB.

---

| 4.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/25

---

Action brought on 17 July 2023 — Sparkasse Oberösterreich Bank v SRB

(Case T-408/23)

(2023/C 314/30)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Sparkasse Oberösterreich Bank AG (Linz, Austria) (represented by: G. Eisenberger, A. Brenneis and J. Holzmann, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 2 May 2023 on the calculation of the 2023 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2023/23) together with annexes, at least in so far as it concerns the applicant, and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 2 May 2023 on the calculation of the 2023 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2023/23) together with annexes, at least in so far as it concerns the applicant, and

| — | order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs.

The applicant further claims that, on account of the connection between and same subject matter of the following cases, they should be joined for the purposes of the written or oral part of the procedure and decision, pursuant to Article 68 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court: T-400/23, Erste Group Bank v SRB, T-401/23, Erste Bank der österreichischen Sparkassen v SRB, T-402/23, Steiermärkische Bank und Sparkasse v SRB, T-403/23, Dornbirner Sparkasse Bank v SRB, T-404/23, Kärntner Sparkasse v SRB, T-405/23, Sparkasse Niederösterreich Mitte West v SRB, T-406/23, Tiroler Sparkasse v SRB, T-407/23, Salzburger Sparkasse Bank v SRB, T-408/23, Sparkasse Oberösterreich Bank v SRB.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law which are identical to those relied on in Case T-402/23, Steiermärkische Bank und Sparkasse v SRB.

---

| 4.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/25

---

Action brought on 26 July 2023 — Essity Hygiene and Health AB v EUIPO (Representation of a leaf)

(Case T-434/23)

(2023/C 314/31)

Language of the case: Swedish

Parties

Applicant: Essity Hygiene and Health AB (Gothenburg, Sweden) (represented by: U. Wennermark, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for registration of an EU figurative mark (Representation of a leaf) — Application No 16 709 305

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 May 2023 in Case R 2196/2017-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims primarily that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision in so far as the appeal is dismissed (point two of the operative part of the decision); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in so far as the appeal is dismissed (point two of the operative part of the decision);

| — | amend the contested decision by granting the appeal against the examiner’s decision for goods in Class 16 covered by the application; |
| --- | --- |

—

amend the contested decision by granting the appeal against the examiner’s decision for goods in Class 16 covered by the application;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the applicant’s costs incurred before EUIPO and before the Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the applicant’s costs incurred before EUIPO and before the Court.

The applicant claims in the alternative that the Court should:

| — | order EUIPO to bear its own legal costs and, in addition, pay the applicant’s costs incurred before the Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to bear its own legal costs and, in addition, pay the applicant’s costs incurred before the Court.

The applicant claims in the further alternative that the Court should:

| — | order EUIPO to pay its costs incurred before the Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay its costs incurred before the Court.

Pleas in law

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

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

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

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---