# Official Journal C 271/17 A

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 271 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6317 August 2020 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 271

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6317 August 2020

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2020/C 271/01 | Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union | 1 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

2020/C 271/01

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

Official Journal of the European Union

1

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2020/C 271/02 | Case C-78/18: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 June 2020 — European Commission v Hungary (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Admissibility — Article 63 TFEU — Free movement of capital — Existence of a restriction — Burden of proof — Indirect discrimination linked to the origin of the capital — Article 12 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Right to freedom of association — National rules imposing on associations receiving financial support sent from other Member States or from third countries legally binding obligations of registration, declaration and publication which can be enforced — Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Right to respect for private life — Article 8(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Right to the protection of personal data — National rules imposing the disclosure of information on persons providing financial support to associations and of the amount of that support — Justification — Overriding reason in the public interest — Transparency of the financing of associations — Article 65 TFEU — Public policy — Public security — Fight against money laundering, financing of terrorism and organised crime — Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights) | 2 |
| 2020/C 271/03 | Joined Cases C-262/18 P and C-271/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 11 June 2020 — European Commission v Dôvera zdravotná poist'ovňa a.s., Slovak Republic, Union zdravotná poist’ovňa a.s. (Appeal — State aid — Article 107(1) TFEU — Social security system — Health insurance bodies — Concepts of undertaking and economic activity — Social objective — Principle of solidarity — State supervision — Overall assessment — Possibility of seeking profits — Residual competition on quality and on health insurance services offered) | 3 |
| 2020/C 271/04 | Case C-276/18: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — KrakVet Marek Batko sp.k. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 33 — Determination of the place where taxable transactions are carried out — Supply of goods with transport — Supply of goods dispatched or transported by or on behalf of the supplier — Regulation (EU) No 904/2010 — Articles 7, 13 and 28 to 30 — Cooperation between the Member States — Exchange of information) | 4 |
| 2020/C 271/05 | Case C-581/18: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 11 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main — Germany) — RB v TÜV Rheinland LGA Products GmbH, Allianz IARD SA, (Reference for a preliminary ruling — EU law — General principles — Article 18 TFEU — Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality — Applicability of EU law — Defective breast implants — Insurance against civil liability arising from the production of medical devices — Insurance contract prescribing a geographical limitation on insurance coverage) | 5 |
| 2020/C 271/06 | Case C-634/18: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Słupsku — Poland) — Criminal proceedings against JI (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision 2004/757/JHA — Minimum provisions on the constituent elements of criminal acts and penalties involving illicit drug trafficking — Article 2(1)(c) — Article 4(2)(a) — Concept of large quantities of drugs — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Equal treatment — Articles 20 and 21 — Principle of legality of criminal offences and penalties — Article 49) | 5 |
| 2020/C 271/07 | Case C-639/18: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Kiel — Germany) — KH v Sparkasse Südholstein (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Distance marketing of financial services — Directive 2002/65/EC — Article 1 — Scope — Contracts concerning financial services consisting of an initial agreement followed by successive operations — Application of Directive 2002/65/EC to the first agreement alone — Article 2(a) — Concept of contract concerning financial services — Amendment to a loan agreement altering the interest rate initially set) | 6 |
| 2020/C 271/08 | Case C-702/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 18 June 2020 — Przedsiębiorstwo Produkcyjno-Handlowe Primart Marek Łukasiewicz v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Bolton Cile España, SA (Appeal — EU trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Application for EU figurative mark PRIMART Marek Łukasiewicz — Earlier national trade mark PRIMA — Article 8(1)(b) — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 76(1) — Scope of review by the General Court of the European Union) | 6 |
| 2020/C 271/09 | Case C-754/18: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Ryanair Designated Activity Company v Országos Rendőr-főkapitányság (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Citizenship of the European Union — Directive 2004/38/CE — Articles 5, 10 and 20 — Right of entry to a Member State of a third-country national who is a member of the family of an EU citizen — Evidence of holding such a right — Possession of a residence card of a family member of a Union citizen — Possession of a permanent residence card) | 7 |
| 2020/C 271/10 | Case C-786/18: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — ratiopharm GmbH v Novartis Consumer Health GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protection of public health — Internal market — Medicinal products for human use — Directive 2001/83/EC — Advertising — Article 96 — Distribution of free samples of medicinal products to persons qualified to prescribe them — Pharmacists excluded from the distribution of free samples of medicinal products — Inapplicability to distribution of free samples of non-prescription medicinal products — Consequences for the Member States) | 8 |
| 2020/C 271/11 | Case C-831/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 18 June 2020 — European Commission v RQ (Appeal — Civil Service — Officials — Director-General of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) — Immunity from legal proceedings — Decision waiving immunity — Act adversely affecting a person — Rights of the defence) | 8 |
| 2020/C 271/12 | Case C-833/18: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the tribunal de l’entreprise de Liège — Belgium) — SI, Brompton Bicycle Ltd v Chedech/Get2Get (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual and industrial property — Copyright and related rights — Directive 2001/29/EC — Articles 2 to 5 — Scope — Utilitarian object — Concept of work — Copyright protection of works — Conditions — Shape of a product which is necessary to obtain a technical result — Folding bicycle) | 9 |
| 2020/C 271/13 | Case C-19/19: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — Belgium) — État belge v Pantochim SA, in liquidation (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Mutual assistance for the recovery of claims — Directive 76/308/EEC — Article 6(2) and Article 10 — Directive 2008/55/EC — Second paragraph of Article 6 and Article 10 — Tax claim of requesting Member State recovered by requested Member State — Status of that claim — Concept of privilege — Statutory set-off of that claim against tax debt of requested Member State) | 10 |
| 2020/C 271/14 | Case C-43/19: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 11 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) — Portugal) — Vodafone Portugal — Comunicações Pessoais SA v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 2(1)(c) — Scope — Taxable transactions — Services supplied for consideration — Monies paid where customers fail to comply with the contractual tie-in period — Characterisation) | 10 |
| 2020/C 271/15 | Case C-74/19: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Lisboa — Juízo Local Cível de Lisboa — Juiz 18 — Portugal) — LE v Transport Aéreos Portugueses SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Article 5(3) — Article 7(1) — Compensation to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights — Exemption — Concept of extraordinary circumstances — Unruly passengers — Possibility of relying on the occurrence of an extraordinary circumstance in respect of a flight not affected by that circumstance — Concept of reasonable measures) | 11 |
| 2020/C 271/16 | Case C-88/19: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Zărnești — Romania) — Asociaţia Alianța pentru combaterea abuzurilor v TM, UN, Asociaţia DMPA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora — Directive 92/43/EEC — Article 12(1) — System of strict protection of animal species — Annex IV — Canis lupus (wolf) — Article 16(1) — Natural range — Capture and relocation of a wild animal of the species canis lupus — Public safety) | 12 |
| 2020/C 271/17 | Case C-115/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 11 June 2020 — China Construction Bank Corp. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Groupement des cartes bancaires (Appeal — EU trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Opposition — Article 8(1)(b) — Likelihood of confusion — Assessment of the similarity of the signs at issue — Assessment of the distinctive character of the earlier mark) | 13 |
| 2020/C 271/18 | Case C-142/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 June 2020 — Dovgan GmbH v Monolith Frost GmbH — European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (Appeal — EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Application for a declaration of invalidity of EU word mark PLOMBIR — Rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity — Obligation to state reasons — Distortion of facts and evidence) | 13 |
| 2020/C 271/19 | Case C-146/19: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije — Slovenia) — SCT d.d., in liquidation v Republic of Slovenia (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 90 and 273 — Taxable amount — Reduction — Refusal — Non-payment — Taxable person who did not lodge a claim in insolvency proceedings commenced against the debtor — Principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality — Direct effect) | 14 |
| 2020/C 271/20 | Case C-206/19: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā rajona tiesa — Latvia) — KOB SIA v Madonas novada pašvaldības Administratīvo aktu strīdu komisija (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 49 and 63 TFEU — Freedom of establishment and the free movement of capital — Directive 2006/123/EC — Acquisition of agricultural land in Latvia for the purpose of use — System of prior authorisation for legal persons — Specific conditions applying only to legal persons controlled or represented by nationals of another Member State — Requirements for residence and knowledge of the official language of the Republic of Latvia — Direct discrimination on grounds of nationality) | 15 |
| 2020/C 271/21 | Case C-219/19: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 11 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Parsec Fondazione Parco delle Scienze e della Cultura v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, Autorità nazionale anticorruzione (ANAC) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts — Directive 2014/24/EU — Procurement procedure for the award of a service contract — Architectural and engineering services — Article 19(1) and Article 80(2) — National legislation limiting participation solely to economic operators in certain legal forms) | 15 |
| 2020/C 271/22 | Case C-242/19: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 11 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Bucureşti — Romania) — CHEP Equipment Pooling NV v Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Bucureşti — Serviciul Soluţionare Contestaţii, Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Bucureşti — Administraţia Fiscală pentru Contribuabili Nerezidenţi (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 17(2)(g) — Transfer of movable property within the European Union with a view to the supply of services — Articles 170 and 171 — Right to VAT refund of taxable persons not established in the Member State of refund — Directive 2008/9/EC — Concept of taxable person not established in the Member State of refund — Taxable person not identified for VAT purposes in the Member State of refund) | 16 |
| 2020/C 271/23 | Case C-328/19: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 18 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — proceedings brought by Porin kaupunki (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Directive 2004/18/EC — Article 1(2)(a) — Public procurement in the field of transport services — Cooperation agreement between municipalities regarding the organisation and provision of social and healthcare services based on the model of the municipality responsible under Finnish law — Transfer of responsibility for the organisation of the services to one of the municipalities in the relevant cooperation zone — In-house contract — Award of contract for transport services to a company wholly owned by the municipality responsible without a call for tenders) | 17 |
| 2020/C 271/24 | Case C-340/19: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) — Latvia) — Valsts ieņēmumu dienests v SIA Hydro Energo (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common Customs Tariff — Combined Nomenclature — Tariff classification — Tariff heading 7407 — Copper bars, rods and profiles — Hot-rolled copper or copper alloy ingots in a rectangular shape) | 18 |
| 2020/C 271/25 | Case C-378/19: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Ústavný súd Slovenskej republiky — Slovak Republic) — proceedings brought by Prezident Slovenskej republiky (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Internal market in electricity — Directive 2009/72/EC — Article 35(4) and (5) — Independence of regulatory authorities — National legislation transferring the power to appoint the president of the national regulatory authority from the Head of State to the government — national ministries participating in price-setting procedures) | 18 |
| 2020/C 271/26 | Case C-448/19: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 11 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha — Spain) — WT v Subdelegación del Gobierno en Guadalajara (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents — Directive 2003/109/EC — Article 12 — Adoption of a decision to expel a long-term resident — Elements to be taken into consideration — National case-law — Failure to take those elements into consideration — Compatibility — Directive 2001/40/EC — Mutual recognition of decisions on the expulsion of third-country nationals — Relevance) | 19 |
| 2020/C 271/27 | Case C-472/19: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 11 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Vert Marine SAS v Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Concession contract award procedure — Directive 2014/23/EU — Article 38(9) — System of compliance measures to demonstrate the reliability of an economic operator affected by a ground for exclusion — National legislation prohibiting economic operators which are the subject of a ground for compulsory exclusion from participating, for a period of 5 years, in a concession contract award procedure — Impossible for such operators to demonstrate that compliance measures have been taken) | 20 |
| 2020/C 271/28 | Case C-128/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Klagenfurt (Austria) lodged on 19 February 2020 — GSMB Invest GmbH & Co. KG v Auto Krainer Gesellschaft m.b.H. | 21 |
| 2020/C 271/29 | Case C-134/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Eisenstadt (Austria) lodged on 11 March 2020 — IR v Volkswagen AG | 21 |
| 2020/C 271/30 | Case C-167/20 P: Appeal brought on 22 April 2020 by WD against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 12 February 2020 in Case T-320/18, WD v EFSA | 22 |
| 2020/C 271/31 | Case C-188/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 30 April 2020 — JG, represented for legal purposes by MI and LH, and Others v OP, acting as liquidator of Azurair GmbH | 23 |
| 2020/C 271/32 | Case C-196/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 6 May 2020 — Eurowings GmbH v Flightright GmbH | 24 |
| 2020/C 271/33 | Case C-204/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 13 May 2020 — Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH v kohlpharma GmbH | 25 |
| 2020/C 271/34 | Case C-228/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Niedersächsisches Finanzgericht (Germany) lodged on 2 June 2020 — I GmbH v Finanzamt H | 26 |
| 2020/C 271/35 | Case C-229/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 29 May 2020 — P v K EOOD | 27 |
| 2020/C 271/36 | Case C-236/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Emilia Romagna (Italy) lodged on 4 June 2020 — PG v Ministero della Giustizia, CSM — Consiglio Superiore della Magistratura, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri | 28 |
| 2020/C 271/37 | Case C-243/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Polymeles Protodikeio Αthinon (Greece) lodged on 5 June 2020 — DP, SG v Trapeza Peiraios AE | 29 |
| 2020/C 271/38 | Case C-256/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 10 June 2020 — Toplofikatsia Sofia EAD | 29 |
| 2020/C 271/39 | Case C-260/20 P: Appeal brought on 11 June 2020 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 2 April 2020 in Case T-383/17, Hansol Paper v Commission | 30 |
| 2020/C 271/40 | Case C-278/20: Action brought on 24 June 2020 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain | 31 |
| | General Court |
| 2020/C 271/41 | Case T-40/16: Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2020 — MU v Parliament (Action for annulment — Article 263 TFEU — Internal Rules governing Traineeships and Study Visits in the Secretariat of the Parliament — Trainee with disabilities — Additional disability allowance — Refusal — Conditions for grant of additional amount prescribed for trainees with disabilities — Error in law) | 33 |
| 2020/C 271/42 | Case T-511/18: Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2020 — XH v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Promotion — 2017 promotion exercise — Decision not to promote — Clarity and precision of a plea in law in the application — Rule requiring correspondence — Challenge of definitive acts — Admissibility — Article 45 of the Staff Regulations — Interim probation report — End-of-probation report — Appraisal report — Factors taken into account for the consideration of the comparative merits — Regularity of the procedure — Liability — Non-material damage) | 33 |
| 2020/C 271/43 | Case T-737/18: Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2020 — Siberia Oriental v CPVO (Siberia) (Plant variety rights — Application for amendment of the date of expiry of the Community protection of plant variety rights in respect of the Siberia variety of the species Lilium L. — Appeal before the Board of Appeal of the CPVO — Inadmissibility — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 — Effective judicial protection — Article 67(1) and Article 87 of Regulation No 2100/94 — Correction of patent mistakes — Article 53(4) of Regulation (EC) No 874/2009) | 34 |
| 2020/C 271/44 | Case T-114/19: Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2020 –Pavel v EUIPO — bugatti (B) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark B — Earlier international figurative mark b — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Misuse of power — Partial annulment) | 35 |
| 2020/C 271/45 | Case T-295/19: Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2020 — Klymenko v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in respect of the situation in Ukraine — Freezing of funds — List of persons, entities and bodies to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources applies — Retention of the applicant’s name on the list — Obligation of the Council to verify that the decision of an authority of a third State has been taken in compliance with the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial protection) | 36 |
| 2020/C 271/46 | Case T-550/19: Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2020 — Nitto Pharmaceutical Industries v EUIPO — Chiesi Farmaceutici (NOSTER) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark NOSTER — Earlier EU word mark FOSTER — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 36 |
| 2020/C 271/47 | Case T-651/19: Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2020 — Brands Up v EUIPO (Credit24) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark Credit24 — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 37 |
| 2020/C 271/48 | Case T-383/19: Order of the General Court of 16 June 2020 — Walker and Others v Parliament and Council (Action for annulment — Area of freedom, security and justice — Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the Union — Regulation (EU) 2019/592 amending Regulation (EU) 2018/1806 — Short-stay visa waiver on the basis of reciprocity — Alleged loss of EU citizenship — Not individually concerned — Inadmissibility) | 38 |
| 2020/C 271/49 | Case T-558/19: Order of the General Court of 16 June 2020 — Luz Saúde v EUIPO — Clínica La Luz (HOSPITAL DA LUZ LEARNING HEALTH) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for registration of the EU figurative mark HOSPITAL DA LUZ LEARNING HEALTH — Earlier national figurative mark clínica LALUZ — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law) | 38 |
| 2020/C 271/50 | Case T-848/19: Action brought on 4 June 2020 — HS v Commission | 39 |
| 2020/C 271/51 | Case T-347/20: Action brought on 29 May 2020 — Sogia Ellas v Commission | 40 |
| 2020/C 271/52 | Case T-350/20: Action brought on 9 June 2020 — Wagenknecht v Commission | 41 |
| 2020/C 271/53 | Case T-357/20: Action brought on 7 June 2020 — Kozhuvchanka uvoz-izvoz Kavadarci v EUIPO (NASHE MAKEDONSKO PILSNER BEER MACEDONIAN PREMIUM BEER) | 42 |
| 2020/C 271/54 | Case T-373/20: Action brought on 15 June 2020 — Framery v EUIPO — Smartblock (Transportable building) | 43 |
| 2020/C 271/55 | Case T-380/20: Action brought on 17 June 2020 — Tubes Radiatori v EUIPO — Antrax It (Radiator for heating) | 44 |
| 2020/C 271/56 | Case T-382/20: Action brought on 17 June 2020 — Lee v EUIPO (Table knives, forks and spoons) | 44 |
| 2020/C 271/57 | Case T-386/20: Action brought on 16 June 2020 — Micron Technology v EUIPO (INTELLIGENCE, ACCELERATED) | 45 |
| 2020/C 271/58 | Case T-394/20: Action brought on 29 June 2020 — Hypo Vorarlberg Bank v SRB | 46 |
| 2020/C 271/59 | Case T-396/20: Action brought on 26 June 2020 — Riviera-Airport v EUIPO — Aéroports de la Côte d’Azur (RIVIERA AIRPORTS) | 46 |
| 2020/C 271/60 | Case T-398/20: Action brought on 26 June 2020 — Riviera-Airport v EUIPO — Aéroports de la Côte d’Azur (RIVIERA AIRPORT) | 47 |
| 2020/C 271/61 | Case T-399/20: Action brought on 26 June 2020 — Cole Haan v EUIPO — Samsøe & Samsøe (Ø) | 48 |
| 2020/C 271/62 | Case T-402/20: Action brought on 30 June 2020 — Zippo Manufacturing and Others v Commission | 49 |
| 2020/C 271/63 | Case T-405/20: Action brought on 2 July 2020 — DZ Hyp v SRB | 50 |
| 2020/C 271/64 | Case T-406/20: Action brought on 2 July 2020 — Landesbank Baden-Württemberg v SRB | 52 |
| 2020/C 271/65 | Case T-407/20: Action brought on 2 July 2020 — DVB Bank v SRB | 52 |
| 2020/C 271/66 | Case T-410/20: Action brought on 3 July 2020 — DZ Bank v SRB | 53 |
| 2020/C 271/67 | Case T-411/20: Action brought on 3 July 2020 — Bayerische Landesbank v SRB | 53 |
| 2020/C 271/68 | Case T-412/20: Action brought on 3 July 2020 — Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen Girozentrale v SRB | 54 |
| 2020/C 271/69 | Case T-413/20: Action brought on 3 July 2020 — Norddeutsche Landesbank — Girozentrale v SRB | 54 |
| 2020/C 271/70 | Case T-527/19: Order of the General Court 17 June 2020 — Sánchez Cano v EUIPO — Grupo Osborne (EL TORO BALLS Fini) | 56 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2020/C 271/02

Case C-78/18: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 June 2020 — European Commission v Hungary (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Admissibility — Article 63 TFEU — Free movement of capital — Existence of a restriction — Burden of proof — Indirect discrimination linked to the origin of the capital — Article 12 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Right to freedom of association — National rules imposing on associations receiving financial support sent from other Member States or from third countries legally binding obligations of registration, declaration and publication which can be enforced — Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Right to respect for private life — Article 8(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Right to the protection of personal data — National rules imposing the disclosure of information on persons providing financial support to associations and of the amount of that support — Justification — Overriding reason in the public interest — Transparency of the financing of associations — Article 65 TFEU — Public policy — Public security — Fight against money laundering, financing of terrorism and organised crime — Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights)

2

2020/C 271/03

Joined Cases C-262/18 P and C-271/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 11 June 2020 — European Commission v Dôvera zdravotná poist'ovňa a.s., Slovak Republic, Union zdravotná poist’ovňa a.s. (Appeal — State aid — Article 107(1) TFEU — Social security system — Health insurance bodies — Concepts of undertaking and economic activity — Social objective — Principle of solidarity — State supervision — Overall assessment — Possibility of seeking profits — Residual competition on quality and on health insurance services offered)

3

2020/C 271/04

Case C-276/18: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — KrakVet Marek Batko sp.k. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 33 — Determination of the place where taxable transactions are carried out — Supply of goods with transport — Supply of goods dispatched or transported by or on behalf of the supplier — Regulation (EU) No 904/2010 — Articles 7, 13 and 28 to 30 — Cooperation between the Member States — Exchange of information)

4

2020/C 271/05

Case C-581/18: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 11 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main — Germany) — RB v TÜV Rheinland LGA Products GmbH, Allianz IARD SA, (Reference for a preliminary ruling — EU law — General principles — Article 18 TFEU — Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality — Applicability of EU law — Defective breast implants — Insurance against civil liability arising from the production of medical devices — Insurance contract prescribing a geographical limitation on insurance coverage)

5

2020/C 271/06

Case C-634/18: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Słupsku — Poland) — Criminal proceedings against JI (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision 2004/757/JHA — Minimum provisions on the constituent elements of criminal acts and penalties involving illicit drug trafficking — Article 2(1)(c) — Article 4(2)(a) — Concept of large quantities of drugs — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Equal treatment — Articles 20 and 21 — Principle of legality of criminal offences and penalties — Article 49)

5

2020/C 271/07

Case C-639/18: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Kiel — Germany) — KH v Sparkasse Südholstein (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Distance marketing of financial services — Directive 2002/65/EC — Article 1 — Scope — Contracts concerning financial services consisting of an initial agreement followed by successive operations — Application of Directive 2002/65/EC to the first agreement alone — Article 2(a) — Concept of contract concerning financial services — Amendment to a loan agreement altering the interest rate initially set)

6

2020/C 271/08

Case C-702/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 18 June 2020 — Przedsiębiorstwo Produkcyjno-Handlowe Primart Marek Łukasiewicz v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Bolton Cile España, SA (Appeal — EU trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Application for EU figurative mark PRIMART Marek Łukasiewicz — Earlier national trade mark PRIMA — Article 8(1)(b) — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 76(1) — Scope of review by the General Court of the European Union)

6

2020/C 271/09

Case C-754/18: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Ryanair Designated Activity Company v Országos Rendőr-főkapitányság (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Citizenship of the European Union — Directive 2004/38/CE — Articles 5, 10 and 20 — Right of entry to a Member State of a third-country national who is a member of the family of an EU citizen — Evidence of holding such a right — Possession of a residence card of a family member of a Union citizen — Possession of a permanent residence card)

7

2020/C 271/10

Case C-786/18: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — ratiopharm GmbH v Novartis Consumer Health GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protection of public health — Internal market — Medicinal products for human use — Directive 2001/83/EC — Advertising — Article 96 — Distribution of free samples of medicinal products to persons qualified to prescribe them — Pharmacists excluded from the distribution of free samples of medicinal products — Inapplicability to distribution of free samples of non-prescription medicinal products — Consequences for the Member States)

8

2020/C 271/11

Case C-831/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 18 June 2020 — European Commission v RQ (Appeal — Civil Service — Officials — Director-General of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) — Immunity from legal proceedings — Decision waiving immunity — Act adversely affecting a person — Rights of the defence)

8

2020/C 271/12

Case C-833/18: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the tribunal de l’entreprise de Liège — Belgium) — SI, Brompton Bicycle Ltd v Chedech/Get2Get (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual and industrial property — Copyright and related rights — Directive 2001/29/EC — Articles 2 to 5 — Scope — Utilitarian object — Concept of work — Copyright protection of works — Conditions — Shape of a product which is necessary to obtain a technical result — Folding bicycle)

9

2020/C 271/13

Case C-19/19: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — Belgium) — État belge v Pantochim SA, in liquidation (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Mutual assistance for the recovery of claims — Directive 76/308/EEC — Article 6(2) and Article 10 — Directive 2008/55/EC — Second paragraph of Article 6 and Article 10 — Tax claim of requesting Member State recovered by requested Member State — Status of that claim — Concept of privilege — Statutory set-off of that claim against tax debt of requested Member State)

10

2020/C 271/14

Case C-43/19: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 11 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) — Portugal) — Vodafone Portugal — Comunicações Pessoais SA v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 2(1)(c) — Scope — Taxable transactions — Services supplied for consideration — Monies paid where customers fail to comply with the contractual tie-in period — Characterisation)

10

2020/C 271/15

Case C-74/19: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Lisboa — Juízo Local Cível de Lisboa — Juiz 18 — Portugal) — LE v Transport Aéreos Portugueses SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Article 5(3) — Article 7(1) — Compensation to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights — Exemption — Concept of extraordinary circumstances — Unruly passengers — Possibility of relying on the occurrence of an extraordinary circumstance in respect of a flight not affected by that circumstance — Concept of reasonable measures)

11

2020/C 271/16

Case C-88/19: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Zărnești — Romania) — Asociaţia Alianța pentru combaterea abuzurilor v TM, UN, Asociaţia DMPA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora — Directive 92/43/EEC — Article 12(1) — System of strict protection of animal species — Annex IV — Canis lupus (wolf) — Article 16(1) — Natural range — Capture and relocation of a wild animal of the species canis lupus — Public safety)

12

2020/C 271/17

Case C-115/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 11 June 2020 — China Construction Bank Corp. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Groupement des cartes bancaires (Appeal — EU trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Opposition — Article 8(1)(b) — Likelihood of confusion — Assessment of the similarity of the signs at issue — Assessment of the distinctive character of the earlier mark)

13

2020/C 271/18

Case C-142/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 June 2020 — Dovgan GmbH v Monolith Frost GmbH — European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (Appeal — EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Application for a declaration of invalidity of EU word mark PLOMBIR — Rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity — Obligation to state reasons — Distortion of facts and evidence)

13

2020/C 271/19

Case C-146/19: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije — Slovenia) — SCT d.d., in liquidation v Republic of Slovenia (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 90 and 273 — Taxable amount — Reduction — Refusal — Non-payment — Taxable person who did not lodge a claim in insolvency proceedings commenced against the debtor — Principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality — Direct effect)

14

2020/C 271/20

Case C-206/19: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā rajona tiesa — Latvia) — KOB SIA v Madonas novada pašvaldības Administratīvo aktu strīdu komisija (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 49 and 63 TFEU — Freedom of establishment and the free movement of capital — Directive 2006/123/EC — Acquisition of agricultural land in Latvia for the purpose of use — System of prior authorisation for legal persons — Specific conditions applying only to legal persons controlled or represented by nationals of another Member State — Requirements for residence and knowledge of the official language of the Republic of Latvia — Direct discrimination on grounds of nationality)

15

2020/C 271/21

Case C-219/19: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 11 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Parsec Fondazione Parco delle Scienze e della Cultura v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, Autorità nazionale anticorruzione (ANAC) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts — Directive 2014/24/EU — Procurement procedure for the award of a service contract — Architectural and engineering services — Article 19(1) and Article 80(2) — National legislation limiting participation solely to economic operators in certain legal forms)

15

2020/C 271/22

Case C-242/19: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 11 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Bucureşti — Romania) — CHEP Equipment Pooling NV v Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Bucureşti — Serviciul Soluţionare Contestaţii, Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Bucureşti — Administraţia Fiscală pentru Contribuabili Nerezidenţi (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 17(2)(g) — Transfer of movable property within the European Union with a view to the supply of services — Articles 170 and 171 — Right to VAT refund of taxable persons not established in the Member State of refund — Directive 2008/9/EC — Concept of taxable person not established in the Member State of refund — Taxable person not identified for VAT purposes in the Member State of refund)

16

2020/C 271/23

Case C-328/19: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 18 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — proceedings brought by Porin kaupunki (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Directive 2004/18/EC — Article 1(2)(a) — Public procurement in the field of transport services — Cooperation agreement between municipalities regarding the organisation and provision of social and healthcare services based on the model of the municipality responsible under Finnish law — Transfer of responsibility for the organisation of the services to one of the municipalities in the relevant cooperation zone — In-house contract — Award of contract for transport services to a company wholly owned by the municipality responsible without a call for tenders)

17

2020/C 271/24

Case C-340/19: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) — Latvia) — Valsts ieņēmumu dienests v SIA Hydro Energo (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common Customs Tariff — Combined Nomenclature — Tariff classification — Tariff heading 7407 — Copper bars, rods and profiles — Hot-rolled copper or copper alloy ingots in a rectangular shape)

18

2020/C 271/25

Case C-378/19: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Ústavný súd Slovenskej republiky — Slovak Republic) — proceedings brought by Prezident Slovenskej republiky (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Internal market in electricity — Directive 2009/72/EC — Article 35(4) and (5) — Independence of regulatory authorities — National legislation transferring the power to appoint the president of the national regulatory authority from the Head of State to the government — national ministries participating in price-setting procedures)

18

2020/C 271/26

Case C-448/19: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 11 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha — Spain) — WT v Subdelegación del Gobierno en Guadalajara (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents — Directive 2003/109/EC — Article 12 — Adoption of a decision to expel a long-term resident — Elements to be taken into consideration — National case-law — Failure to take those elements into consideration — Compatibility — Directive 2001/40/EC — Mutual recognition of decisions on the expulsion of third-country nationals — Relevance)

19

2020/C 271/27

Case C-472/19: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 11 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Vert Marine SAS v Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Concession contract award procedure — Directive 2014/23/EU — Article 38(9) — System of compliance measures to demonstrate the reliability of an economic operator affected by a ground for exclusion — National legislation prohibiting economic operators which are the subject of a ground for compulsory exclusion from participating, for a period of 5 years, in a concession contract award procedure — Impossible for such operators to demonstrate that compliance measures have been taken)

20

2020/C 271/28

Case C-128/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Klagenfurt (Austria) lodged on 19 February 2020 — GSMB Invest GmbH & Co. KG v Auto Krainer Gesellschaft m.b.H.

21

2020/C 271/29

Case C-134/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Eisenstadt (Austria) lodged on 11 March 2020 — IR v Volkswagen AG

21

2020/C 271/30

Case C-167/20 P: Appeal brought on 22 April 2020 by WD against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 12 February 2020 in Case T-320/18, WD v EFSA

22

2020/C 271/31

Case C-188/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 30 April 2020 — JG, represented for legal purposes by MI and LH, and Others v OP, acting as liquidator of Azurair GmbH

23

2020/C 271/32

Case C-196/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 6 May 2020 — Eurowings GmbH v Flightright GmbH

24

2020/C 271/33

Case C-204/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 13 May 2020 — Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH v kohlpharma GmbH

25

2020/C 271/34

Case C-228/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Niedersächsisches Finanzgericht (Germany) lodged on 2 June 2020 — I GmbH v Finanzamt H

26

2020/C 271/35

Case C-229/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 29 May 2020 — P v K EOOD

27

2020/C 271/36

Case C-236/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Emilia Romagna (Italy) lodged on 4 June 2020 — PG v Ministero della Giustizia, CSM — Consiglio Superiore della Magistratura, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri

28

2020/C 271/37

Case C-243/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Polymeles Protodikeio Αthinon (Greece) lodged on 5 June 2020 — DP, SG v Trapeza Peiraios AE

29

2020/C 271/38

Case C-256/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 10 June 2020 — Toplofikatsia Sofia EAD

29

2020/C 271/39

Case C-260/20 P: Appeal brought on 11 June 2020 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 2 April 2020 in Case T-383/17, Hansol Paper v Commission

30

2020/C 271/40

Case C-278/20: Action brought on 24 June 2020 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

31

General Court

2020/C 271/41

Case T-40/16: Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2020 — MU v Parliament (Action for annulment — Article 263 TFEU — Internal Rules governing Traineeships and Study Visits in the Secretariat of the Parliament — Trainee with disabilities — Additional disability allowance — Refusal — Conditions for grant of additional amount prescribed for trainees with disabilities — Error in law)

MU

Parliament

33

2020/C 271/42

Case T-511/18: Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2020 — XH v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Promotion — 2017 promotion exercise — Decision not to promote — Clarity and precision of a plea in law in the application — Rule requiring correspondence — Challenge of definitive acts — Admissibility — Article 45 of the Staff Regulations — Interim probation report — End-of-probation report — Appraisal report — Factors taken into account for the consideration of the comparative merits — Regularity of the procedure — Liability — Non-material damage)

33

2020/C 271/43

Case T-737/18: Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2020 — Siberia Oriental v CPVO (Siberia) (Plant variety rights — Application for amendment of the date of expiry of the Community protection of plant variety rights in respect of the Siberia variety of the species Lilium L. — Appeal before the Board of Appeal of the CPVO — Inadmissibility — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 — Effective judicial protection — Article 67(1) and Article 87 of Regulation No 2100/94 — Correction of patent mistakes — Article 53(4) of Regulation (EC) No 874/2009)

34

2020/C 271/44

Case T-114/19: Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2020 –Pavel v EUIPO — bugatti (B) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark B — Earlier international figurative mark b — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Misuse of power — Partial annulment)

35

2020/C 271/45

Case T-295/19: Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2020 — Klymenko v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in respect of the situation in Ukraine — Freezing of funds — List of persons, entities and bodies to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources applies — Retention of the applicant’s name on the list — Obligation of the Council to verify that the decision of an authority of a third State has been taken in compliance with the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial protection)

36

2020/C 271/46

Case T-550/19: Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2020 — Nitto Pharmaceutical Industries v EUIPO — Chiesi Farmaceutici (NOSTER) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark NOSTER — Earlier EU word mark FOSTER — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

36

2020/C 271/47

Case T-651/19: Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2020 — Brands Up v EUIPO (Credit24) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark Credit24 — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

37

2020/C 271/48

Case T-383/19: Order of the General Court of 16 June 2020 — Walker and Others v Parliament and Council (Action for annulment — Area of freedom, security and justice — Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the Union — Regulation (EU) 2019/592 amending Regulation (EU) 2018/1806 — Short-stay visa waiver on the basis of reciprocity — Alleged loss of EU citizenship — Not individually concerned — Inadmissibility)

38

2020/C 271/49

Case T-558/19: Order of the General Court of 16 June 2020 — Luz Saúde v EUIPO — Clínica La Luz (HOSPITAL DA LUZ LEARNING HEALTH) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for registration of the EU figurative mark HOSPITAL DA LUZ LEARNING HEALTH — Earlier national figurative mark clínica LALUZ — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

38

2020/C 271/50

Case T-848/19: Action brought on 4 June 2020 — HS v Commission

39

2020/C 271/51

Case T-347/20: Action brought on 29 May 2020 — Sogia Ellas v Commission

40

2020/C 271/52

Case T-350/20: Action brought on 9 June 2020 — Wagenknecht v Commission

41

2020/C 271/53

Case T-357/20: Action brought on 7 June 2020 — Kozhuvchanka uvoz-izvoz Kavadarci v EUIPO (NASHE MAKEDONSKO PILSNER BEER MACEDONIAN PREMIUM BEER)

42

2020/C 271/54

Case T-373/20: Action brought on 15 June 2020 — Framery v EUIPO — Smartblock (Transportable building)

43

2020/C 271/55

Case T-380/20: Action brought on 17 June 2020 — Tubes Radiatori v EUIPO — Antrax It (Radiator for heating)

44

2020/C 271/56

Case T-382/20: Action brought on 17 June 2020 — Lee v EUIPO (Table knives, forks and spoons)

44

2020/C 271/57

Case T-386/20: Action brought on 16 June 2020 — Micron Technology v EUIPO (INTELLIGENCE, ACCELERATED)

45

2020/C 271/58

Case T-394/20: Action brought on 29 June 2020 — Hypo Vorarlberg Bank v SRB

46

2020/C 271/59

Case T-396/20: Action brought on 26 June 2020 — Riviera-Airport v EUIPO — Aéroports de la Côte d’Azur (RIVIERA AIRPORTS)

46

2020/C 271/60

Case T-398/20: Action brought on 26 June 2020 — Riviera-Airport v EUIPO — Aéroports de la Côte d’Azur (RIVIERA AIRPORT)

47

2020/C 271/61

Case T-399/20: Action brought on 26 June 2020 — Cole Haan v EUIPO — Samsøe & Samsøe (Ø)

48

2020/C 271/62

Case T-402/20: Action brought on 30 June 2020 — Zippo Manufacturing and Others v Commission

49

2020/C 271/63

Case T-405/20: Action brought on 2 July 2020 — DZ Hyp v SRB

50

2020/C 271/64

Case T-406/20: Action brought on 2 July 2020 — Landesbank Baden-Württemberg v SRB

52

2020/C 271/65

Case T-407/20: Action brought on 2 July 2020 — DVB Bank v SRB

52

2020/C 271/66

Case T-410/20: Action brought on 3 July 2020 — DZ Bank v SRB

53

2020/C 271/67

Case T-411/20: Action brought on 3 July 2020 — Bayerische Landesbank v SRB

53

2020/C 271/68

Case T-412/20: Action brought on 3 July 2020 — Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen Girozentrale v SRB

54

2020/C 271/69

Case T-413/20: Action brought on 3 July 2020 — Norddeutsche Landesbank — Girozentrale v SRB

54

2020/C 271/70

Case T-527/19: Order of the General Court 17 June 2020 — Sánchez Cano v EUIPO — Grupo Osborne (EL TORO BALLS Fini)

56

---

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 17.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/1

---

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

(2020/C 271/01)

Last publication

OJ C 262, 10.8.2020

Past publications

OJ C 255, 3.8.2020

OJ C 247, 27.7.2020

OJ C 240, 20.7.2020

OJ C 230, 13.7.2020

OJ C 222, 6.7.2020

OJ C 215, 29.6.2020

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 17.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 June 2020 — European Commission v Hungary

(Case C-78/18) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Admissibility - Article 63 TFEU - Free movement of capital - Existence of a restriction - Burden of proof - Indirect discrimination linked to the origin of the capital - Article 12 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Right to freedom of association - National rules imposing on associations receiving financial support sent from other Member States or from third countries legally binding obligations of registration, declaration and publication which can be enforced - Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Right to respect for private life - Article 8(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Right to the protection of personal data - National rules imposing the disclosure of information on persons providing financial support to associations and of the amount of that support - Justification - Overriding reason in the public interest - Transparency of the financing of associations - Article 65 TFEU - Public policy - Public security - Fight against money laundering, financing of terrorism and organised crime - Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights)

(2020/C 271/02)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, L. Havas, L. Malferrari and K. Talabér-Ritz, then by V. Di Bucci, L. Havas and L. Malferrari, acting as Agents)

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

Intervener in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk, C. Meyer-Seitz and H. Shev, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by adopting the provisions of the a külföldről támogatott szervezetek átláthatóságáról szóló 2017. évi LXXVI. törvény (Law No LXXVI of 2017 on the Transparency of Organisations which receive Support from Abroad), which impose obligations of registration, declaration and publication on certain categories of civil society organisations directly or indirectly receiving support from abroad exceeding a certain threshold and which provide for the possibility of applying penalties to organisations that do not comply with those obligations, Hungary has introduced discriminatory and unjustified restrictions on foreign donations to civil society organisations, in breach of its obligations under Article 63 TFEU and Articles 7, 8 and 12 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by adopting the provisions of the a külföldről támogatott szervezetek átláthatóságáról szóló 2017. évi LXXVI. törvény (Law No LXXVI of 2017 on the Transparency of Organisations which receive Support from Abroad), which impose obligations of registration, declaration and publication on certain categories of civil society organisations directly or indirectly receiving support from abroad exceeding a certain threshold and which provide for the possibility of applying penalties to organisations that do not comply with those obligations, Hungary has introduced discriminatory and unjustified restrictions on foreign donations to civil society organisations, in breach of its obligations under Article 63 TFEU and Articles 7, 8 and 12 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

| 2. | Orders Hungary to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Hungary to pay the costs;

| 3. | Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 211, 18.6.2018.

---

| 17.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 11 June 2020 — European Commission v Dôvera zdravotná poist'ovňa a.s., Slovak Republic, Union zdravotná poist’ovňa a.s.

(Joined Cases C-262/18 P and C-271/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Article 107(1) TFEU - Social security system - Health insurance bodies - Concepts of ‘undertaking’ and ‘economic activity’ - Social objective - Principle of solidarity - State supervision - Overall assessment - Possibility of seeking profits - Residual competition on quality and on health insurance services offered)

(2020/C 271/03)

Language of the case: English

Parties

(Case C-262/18)

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: F. Tomat and P.-J. Loewenthal, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the appellant: Republic of Finland (represented by: S. Hartikainen, acting as Agent)

Other parties to the proceedings: Dôvera zdravotná poist'ovňa a.s. (represented by: F. Roscam Abbing, A. Pliego Selie and O.W. Brouwer, advocaten), Slovak Republic (represented by: M. Kianička, D. Kaiserová and B. Ricziová, acting as Agents), Union zdravotná poist’ovňa a.s. (represented by A.M. ter Haar, A. Kleinhout and J.K. de Pree, advocaten)

(Case C-271/18)

Appellant: Slovak Republic (represented by: M. Kianička, D. Kaiserová and B. Ricziová, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the appellant: Republic of Finland (represented by: S. Hartikainen, acting as Agent)

Other parties to the proceedings: Dôvera zdravotná poist'ovňa a.s. (represented by: F. Roscam Abbing, A. Pliego Selie and O.W. Brouwer, advocaten), European Commission (represented by: F. Tomat and P.-J. Loewenthal, acting as Agents), Union zdravotná poist’ovňa a.s. (represented by: A.M. ter Haar, A. Kleinhout and J.K. de Pree, advocaten)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 5 February 2018, Dôvera zdravotná poist'ovňa v Commission (T-216/15, not published, EU:T:2018:64); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 5 February 2018, Dôvera zdravotná poist'ovňa v Commission (T-216/15, not published, EU:T:2018:64);

| 2. | Dismisses the action brought by Dôvera zdravotná poisťovňa a.s. in Case T-216/15; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action brought by Dôvera zdravotná poisťovňa a.s. in Case T-216/15;

| 3. | Orders Dôvera zdravotná poisťovňa a.s., to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission in the context of the present appeals and of the proceedings before the General Court of the European Union; to bear its own costs incurred in the context of the present appeals and of the proceedings before the General Court of the European Union; and to pay the costs incurred by the Slovak Republic in the context of the present appeals; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Dôvera zdravotná poisťovňa a.s., to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission in the context of the present appeals and of the proceedings before the General Court of the European Union; to bear its own costs incurred in the context of the present appeals and of the proceedings before the General Court of the European Union; and to pay the costs incurred by the Slovak Republic in the context of the present appeals;

| 4. | Orders the Slovak Republic to bear its own costs incurred in the context of the proceedings before the General Court of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Slovak Republic to bear its own costs incurred in the context of the proceedings before the General Court of the European Union;

| 5. | Orders Union zdravotná poisťovňa a.s. to bear its own costs incurred in the context of the present appeals and of the proceedings before the General Court of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

5.

Orders Union zdravotná poisťovňa a.s. to bear its own costs incurred in the context of the present appeals and of the proceedings before the General Court of the European Union;

| 6. | Orders the Republic of Finland to bear its own costs incurred in the context of the present appeals. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Orders the Republic of Finland to bear its own costs incurred in the context of the present appeals.

---

(1)  OJ C 231, 2.7.2018.

OJ C 259, 23.7.2018.

---

| 17.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — KrakVet Marek Batko sp.k. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

(Case C-276/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 33 - Determination of the place where taxable transactions are carried out - Supply of goods with transport - Supply of goods dispatched or transported by or on behalf of the supplier - Regulation (EU) No 904/2010 - Articles 7, 13 and 28 to 30 - Cooperation between the Member States - Exchange of information)

(2020/C 271/04)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: KrakVet Marek Batko sp.k.

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax and Articles 7, 13 and 28 to 30 of Council Regulation (EU) No 904/2010 of 7 October 2010 on administrative cooperation and combating fraud in the field of value added tax must be interpreted as not precluding the tax authorities of a Member State from being able, unilaterally, to subject transactions to value added tax treatment different from that under which they have already been taxed in another Member State. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax and Articles 7, 13 and 28 to 30 of Council Regulation (EU) No 904/2010 of 7 October 2010 on administrative cooperation and combating fraud in the field of value added tax must be interpreted as not precluding the tax authorities of a Member State from being able, unilaterally, to subject transactions to value added tax treatment different from that under which they have already been taxed in another Member State.

| 2. | Article 33 of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that, when goods sold by a supplier established in one Member State to purchasers residing in another Member State are delivered to those purchasers by a company recommended by that supplier, but with which the purchasers are free to enter into a contract for the purpose of that delivery, those goods must be regarded as dispatched or transported ‘by or on behalf of the supplier’ where the role of that supplier is predominant in terms of initiating and organising the essential stages of the dispatch or transport of those goods, which it is for the referring court to ascertain, taking account of all the facts of the dispute in the main proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 33 of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that, when goods sold by a supplier established in one Member State to purchasers residing in another Member State are delivered to those purchasers by a company recommended by that supplier, but with which the purchasers are free to enter into a contract for the purpose of that delivery, those goods must be regarded as dispatched or transported ‘by or on behalf of the supplier’ where the role of that supplier is predominant in terms of initiating and organising the essential stages of the dispatch or transport of those goods, which it is for the referring court to ascertain, taking account of all the facts of the dispute in the main proceedings.

| 3. | EU law and, in particular, Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that it is not necessary to find that transactions by which goods sold by a supplier are delivered to purchasers by a company recommended by that supplier constitute an infringement of the law when, on the one hand, there is a connection between the supplier and that company, in the sense that, irrespective of that delivery, the company takes charge of some of the supplier’s logistical needs, but, on the other hand, the purchasers remain free to make use of another company or personally collect the goods, since those circumstances are not liable to affect the finding that the supplier and the transport company recommended by it are independent companies which engage, on their own behalf, in genuine economic activities and, consequently, those transactions cannot be classified as abusive. |
| --- | --- |

3.

EU law and, in particular, Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that it is not necessary to find that transactions by which goods sold by a supplier are delivered to purchasers by a company recommended by that supplier constitute an infringement of the law when, on the one hand, there is a connection between the supplier and that company, in the sense that, irrespective of that delivery, the company takes charge of some of the supplier’s logistical needs, but, on the other hand, the purchasers remain free to make use of another company or personally collect the goods, since those circumstances are not liable to affect the finding that the supplier and the transport company recommended by it are independent companies which engage, on their own behalf, in genuine economic activities and, consequently, those transactions cannot be classified as abusive.

---

(1)  OJ C 311, 3.9.2018.

---

| 17.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 11 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main — Germany) — RB v TÜV Rheinland LGA Products GmbH, Allianz IARD SA,

(Case C-581/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - EU law - General principles - Article 18 TFEU - Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality - Applicability of EU law - Defective breast implants - Insurance against civil liability arising from the production of medical devices - Insurance contract prescribing a geographical limitation on insurance coverage)

(2020/C 271/05)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: RB

Defendant: TÜV Rheinland LGA Products GmbH, Allianz IARD SA,

Operative part of the judgment

The first paragraph of Article 18 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that it is not applicable to a clause, stipulated in a contract concluded between an insurance company and a manufacturer of medical devices, limiting the geographical extent of the insurance coverage against civil liability arising from those devices to harm that has occurred in the territory of a single Member State, since such a situation does not fall, as EU law currently stands, within the scope of application of EU law.

---

(1)  OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.

---

| 17.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/5

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Słupsku — Poland) — Criminal proceedings against JI

(Case C-634/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2004/757/JHA - Minimum provisions on the constituent elements of criminal acts and penalties involving illicit drug trafficking - Article 2(1)(c) - Article 4(2)(a) - Concept of ‘large quantities of drugs’ - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Equal treatment - Articles 20 and 21 - Principle of legality of criminal offences and penalties - Article 49)

(2020/C 271/06)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy w Słupsku

Party in the main criminal proceedings

JI

Intervener: Prokuratura Rejonowa w Słupsku

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(2)(a) of Council Framework Decision 2004/757/JHA of 25 October 2004 laying down minimum provisions on the constituent elements of criminal acts and penalties in the field of illicit drug trafficking, read in conjunction with Article 2(1)(c) thereof, and Articles 20, 21 and 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State from classifying as a criminal offence the possession of a significant quantity of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances both for personal consumption and for the purposes of illicit drug trafficking, while leaving the interpretation of the concept of ‘significant quantity of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances’ to the discretion of the national courts, on a case-by-case basis, provided that that interpretation is reasonably foreseeable.

---

(1)  OJ C 65, 18.2.2019.

---

| 17.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/6

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Kiel — Germany) — KH v Sparkasse Südholstein

(Case C-639/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Distance marketing of financial services - Directive 2002/65/EC - Article 1 - Scope - Contracts concerning financial services consisting of an initial agreement followed by successive operations - Application of Directive 2002/65/EC to the first agreement alone - Article 2(a) - Concept of ‘contract concerning financial services’ - Amendment to a loan agreement altering the interest rate initially set)

(2020/C 271/07)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Kiel

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: KH

Defendant: Sparkasse Südholstein

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(a) of Directive 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 concerning the distance marketing of consumer financial services and amending Council Directive 90/619/EEC and Directives 97/7/EC and 98/27/EC must be interpreted as meaning that an agreed amendment to a loan agreement cannot be categorised as a ‘contract concerning financial services’, within the meaning of that provision, where the amendment does no more than alter the originally agreed rate of interest, but does not extend the term of the loan or alter its amount, and where the original clauses of the loan agreement provided for the agreement of such an amendment or, failing such agreement, the application of a variable interest rate.

---

(1)  OJ C 25, 21.1.2019.

---

| 17.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 18 June 2020 — Przedsiębiorstwo Produkcyjno-Handlowe ‘Primart’ Marek Łukasiewicz v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Bolton Cile España, SA

(Case C-702/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - EU trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Application for EU figurative mark PRIMART Marek Łukasiewicz - Earlier national trade mark PRIMA - Article 8(1)(b) - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 76(1) - Scope of review by the General Court of the European Union)

(2020/C 271/08)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Przedsiębiorstwo Produkcyjno-Handlowe ‘Primart’ Marek Łukasiewicz (represented by: J. Skołuda, radca prawny)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent), Bolton Cile España, SA (represented by: F. Celluprica, F. Fischetti and F. De Bono, avvocati)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 12 September 2018, Primart v EUIPO — Bolton Cile España (PRIMART Marek Łukasiewicz) (T-584/17, not published, EU:T:2018:530); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 12 September 2018, Primart v EUIPO — Bolton Cile España (PRIMART Marek Łukasiewicz) (T-584/17, not published, EU:T:2018:530);

| 2. | Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union;

| 3. | Reserves the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Reserves the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 82, 4.3.2019.

---

| 17.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Ryanair Designated Activity Company v Országos Rendőr-főkapitányság

(Case C-754/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Citizenship of the European Union - Directive 2004/38/CE - Articles 5, 10 and 20 - Right of entry to a Member State of a third-country national who is a member of the family of an EU citizen - Evidence of holding such a right - Possession of a residence card of a family member of a Union citizen - Possession of a permanent residence card)

(2020/C 271/09)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ryanair Designated Activity Company

Defendant: Országos Rendőr-főkapitányság

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 5(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC, must be interpreted as meaning that possession of the permanent residence card referred to in Article 20 of that directive exempts a person who is not a national of a Member State, but who is a family member of a Union citizen and who holds such a card, from the requirement to obtain a visa in order to enter the territory of the Member States; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 5(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC, must be interpreted as meaning that possession of the permanent residence card referred to in Article 20 of that directive exempts a person who is not a national of a Member State, but who is a family member of a Union citizen and who holds such a card, from the requirement to obtain a visa in order to enter the territory of the Member States;

| 2. | Article 5(2) of Directive 2004/38 must be interpreted as meaning that possession of the permanent residence card referred to in Article 20 of that directive exempts the family member of a Union citizen who holds it from the obligation to obtain a visa where that card was issued by a Member State which is not part of the Schengen area; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 5(2) of Directive 2004/38 must be interpreted as meaning that possession of the permanent residence card referred to in Article 20 of that directive exempts the family member of a Union citizen who holds it from the obligation to obtain a visa where that card was issued by a Member State which is not part of the Schengen area;

| 3. | Article 20 of Directive 2004/38 must be interpreted as meaning that possession of the residence card referred to in that article constitutes sufficient proof that the holder of that card is a family member of a Union citizen, so that the person concerned is entitled, without further verification or justification being necessary, to enter the territory of a Member State exempt from the requirement to obtain a visa under Article 5(2) of that directive. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 20 of Directive 2004/38 must be interpreted as meaning that possession of the residence card referred to in that article constitutes sufficient proof that the holder of that card is a family member of a Union citizen, so that the person concerned is entitled, without further verification or justification being necessary, to enter the territory of a Member State exempt from the requirement to obtain a visa under Article 5(2) of that directive.

---

(1)  OJ C 131, 8.4.2019.

---

| 17.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — ratiopharm GmbH v Novartis Consumer Health GmbH

(Case C-786/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of public health - Internal market - Medicinal products for human use - Directive 2001/83/EC - Advertising - Article 96 - Distribution of free samples of medicinal products to persons qualified to prescribe them - Pharmacists excluded from the distribution of free samples of medicinal products - Inapplicability to distribution of free samples of non-prescription medicinal products - Consequences for the Member States)

(2020/C 271/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ratiopharm GmbH

Defendant: Novartis Consumer Health GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 96(1) of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as amended by Directive 2004/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004, must be interpreted as precluding pharmaceutical companies from distributing free samples of medicinal products to pharmacists. On the other hand, that provision does not preclude distributing free samples of non-prescription medicinal products to pharmacists.

---

(1)  OJ C 112, 25.3.2019.

---

| 17.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 18 June 2020 — European Commission v RQ

(Case C-831/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil Service - Officials - Director-General of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) - Immunity from legal proceedings - Decision waiving immunity - Act adversely affecting a person - Rights of the defence)

(2020/C 271/11)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by J.-P. Keppenne and J. Baquero Cruz, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: RQ (represented by É. Boigelot, avocat)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 24 October 2018, RQ v Commission (T-29/17, EU:T:2018:717); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 24 October 2018, RQ v Commission (T-29/17, EU:T:2018:717);

| 2. | Dismisses the first part of the fifth plea in law in the action before the General Court of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the first part of the fifth plea in law in the action before the General Court of the European Union;

| 3. | Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for judgment on the first to fourth grounds of appeal and on the second and third parts of the fifth ground of appeal; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for judgment on the first to fourth grounds of appeal and on the second and third parts of the fifth ground of appeal;

| 4. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The costs are reserved.

---

(1)  OJ C 65, 18.2.2019.

---

| 17.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the tribunal de l’entreprise de Liège — Belgium) — SI, Brompton Bicycle Ltd v Chedech/Get2Get

(Case C-833/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual and industrial property - Copyright and related rights - Directive 2001/29/EC - Articles 2 to 5 - Scope - Utilitarian object - Concept of ‘work’ - Copyright protection of works - Conditions - Shape of a product which is necessary to obtain a technical result - Folding bicycle)

(2020/C 271/12)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de l’entreprise de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: SI, Brompton Bicycle Ltd

Defendant: Chedech/Get2Get

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 2 to 5 of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society must be interpreted as meaning that the copyright protection provided for therein applies to a product whose shape is, at least in part, necessary to obtain a technical result, where that product is an original work resulting from intellectual creation, in that, through that shape, its author expresses his creative ability in an original manner by making free and creative choices in such a way that that shape reflects his personality, which it is for the national court to verify, bearing in mind all the relevant aspects of the dispute in the main proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 82, 4.3.2019.

---

| 17.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/10

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — Belgium) — État belge v Pantochim SA, in liquidation

(Case C-19/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Mutual assistance for the recovery of claims - Directive 76/308/EEC - Article 6(2) and Article 10 - Directive 2008/55/EC - Second paragraph of Article 6 and Article 10 - Tax claim of requesting Member State recovered by requested Member State - Status of that claim - Concept of ‘privilege’ - Statutory set-off of that claim against tax debt of requested Member State)

(2020/C 271/13)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: État belge

Respondent: Pantochim SA, in liquidation

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 6(2) of Council Directive 76/308/EEC of 15 March 1976 on mutual assistance for the recovery of claims resulting from operations forming part of the system of financing the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, and of the agricultural levies and customs duties, and the second paragraph of Article 6 of Council Directive 2008/55/EC of 26 May 2008 on mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to certain levies, duties, taxes and other measures must be interpreted as meaning that the claim of the requesting Member State is not to be treated as being a claim of the requested Member State and does not acquire the status of a claim of the requested Member State. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 6(2) of Council Directive 76/308/EEC of 15 March 1976 on mutual assistance for the recovery of claims resulting from operations forming part of the system of financing the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, and of the agricultural levies and customs duties, and the second paragraph of Article 6 of Council Directive 2008/55/EC of 26 May 2008 on mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to certain levies, duties, taxes and other measures must be interpreted as meaning that the claim of the requesting Member State is not to be treated as being a claim of the requested Member State and does not acquire the status of a claim of the requested Member State.

| 2. | Article 10 of Directive 76/308 and Article 10 of Directive 2008/55 must be interpreted as meaning that:






  — | the term ‘privilege’ referred to in those provisions refers to any mechanism which results, in the event of concurrent claims, in the preferential payment of a claim; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Article 10 of Directive 76/308 and Article 10 of Directive 2008/55 must be interpreted as meaning that:

—

the term ‘privilege’ referred to in those provisions refers to any mechanism which results, in the event of concurrent claims, in the preferential payment of a claim;

| — | the option available to the requested Member State to set off claims in the event of concurrent claims constitutes a privilege, within the meaning of those provisions, where the use of that option has the effect of conferring on that Member State a preferential right or right of priority for the purposes of payment of its claims that is not available to the other creditors, which it is for the referring court to ascertain. |
| --- | --- |

—

the option available to the requested Member State to set off claims in the event of concurrent claims constitutes a privilege, within the meaning of those provisions, where the use of that option has the effect of conferring on that Member State a preferential right or right of priority for the purposes of payment of its claims that is not available to the other creditors, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.

---

(1)  OJ C 103, 18.3.2019.

---

| 17.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 11 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) — Portugal) — Vodafone Portugal — Comunicações Pessoais SA v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

(Case C-43/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 2(1)(c) - Scope - Taxable transactions - Services supplied for consideration - Monies paid where customers fail to comply with the contractual tie-in period - Characterisation)

(2020/C 271/14)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vodafone Portugal — Comunicações Pessoais SA

Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(1)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that amounts received by an economic operator in the event of early termination, for reasons specific to the customer, of a services contract requiring compliance with a tie-in period in exchange for granting that customer advantageous commercial conditions, must be considered to constitute the remuneration for a supply of services for consideration, within the meaning of that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 139, 15.4.2019.

---

| 17.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Lisboa — Juízo Local Cível de Lisboa — Juiz 18 — Portugal) — LE v Transport Aéreos Portugueses SA

(Case C-74/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Article 5(3) - Article 7(1) - Compensation to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights - Exemption - Concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ - Unruly passengers - Possibility of relying on the occurrence of an extraordinary circumstance in respect of a flight not affected by that circumstance - Concept of ‘reasonable measures’)

(2020/C 271/15)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Lisboa — Juízo Local Cível de Lisboa — Juiz 18

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: LE

Defendant: Transport Aéreos Portugueses SA

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 5(3) of 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, read in the light of recital 14 of that regulation, must be interpreted as meaning that the unruly behaviour of a passenger which has justified the pilot in command of the aircraft in diverting the flight concerned to an airport other than the airport of arrival in order to disembark that passenger and his baggage falls within the concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’, within the meaning of that provision, unless the operating air carrier contributed to the occurrence of that behaviour or failed to take appropriate measures in view of the warning signs of such behaviour, which it is for the national court to verify; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 5(3) of 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, read in the light of recital 14 of that regulation, must be interpreted as meaning that the unruly behaviour of a passenger which has justified the pilot in command of the aircraft in diverting the flight concerned to an airport other than the airport of arrival in order to disembark that passenger and his baggage falls within the concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’, within the meaning of that provision, unless the operating air carrier contributed to the occurrence of that behaviour or failed to take appropriate measures in view of the warning signs of such behaviour, which it is for the national court to verify;

| 2. | Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004, read in the light of recital 14 of that regulation, must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to be exempted from its obligation to compensate passengers in the event of a long delay or cancellation of a flight, an operating air carrier may rely on an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ which affected a previous flight which it operated using the same aircraft, provided that there is a direct causal link between the occurrence of that circumstance and the delay or cancellation of the subsequent flight, which is for the national court to determine, having regard in particular to the conditions of operation of the aircraft in question by the operating air carrier concerned; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004, read in the light of recital 14 of that regulation, must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to be exempted from its obligation to compensate passengers in the event of a long delay or cancellation of a flight, an operating air carrier may rely on an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ which affected a previous flight which it operated using the same aircraft, provided that there is a direct causal link between the occurrence of that circumstance and the delay or cancellation of the subsequent flight, which is for the national court to determine, having regard in particular to the conditions of operation of the aircraft in question by the operating air carrier concerned;

| 3. | Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004, read in the light of recital 14 of that regulation, must be interpreted as meaning that for an air carrier to re-route a passenger, on the ground that the aircraft carrying that passenger was affected by an extraordinary circumstance, by means of a flight operated by that carrier and resulting in that passenger arriving on the day following the day originally scheduled, does not constitute a ‘reasonable measure’ releasing that carrier from its obligation to pay compensation under Article 5(1)(c) and Article 7(1) of that regulation, unless there was no other possibility of direct or indirect re-routing by a flight operated by itself or any other air carrier and arriving at a time which was not as late as the next flight of the air carrier concerned or unless the implementation of such re-routing constituted an intolerable sacrifice for that air carrier in the light of the capacities of its undertaking at the relevant time, which is a matter for the national court to assess. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004, read in the light of recital 14 of that regulation, must be interpreted as meaning that for an air carrier to re-route a passenger, on the ground that the aircraft carrying that passenger was affected by an extraordinary circumstance, by means of a flight operated by that carrier and resulting in that passenger arriving on the day following the day originally scheduled, does not constitute a ‘reasonable measure’ releasing that carrier from its obligation to pay compensation under Article 5(1)(c) and Article 7(1) of that regulation, unless there was no other possibility of direct or indirect re-routing by a flight operated by itself or any other air carrier and arriving at a time which was not as late as the next flight of the air carrier concerned or unless the implementation of such re-routing constituted an intolerable sacrifice for that air carrier in the light of the capacities of its undertaking at the relevant time, which is a matter for the national court to assess.

---

(1)  OJ C 148, 29.4.2019.

---

| 17.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Zărnești — Romania) — Asociaţia ‘Alianța pentru combaterea abuzurilor’ v TM, UN, Asociaţia DMPA

(Case C-88/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora - Directive 92/43/EEC - Article 12(1) - System of strict protection of animal species - Annex IV - Canis lupus (wolf) - Article 16(1) - Natural range - Capture and relocation of a wild animal of the species canis lupus - Public safety)

(2020/C 271/16)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Judecătoria Zărnești

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Asociaţia ‘Alianța pentru combaterea abuzurilor’

Defendants: TM, UN, Asociaţia DMPA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 12(1)(a) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, as amended by Directive 2013/17/EU of 13 May 2013, must be interpreted as meaning that the capture and relocation of a specimen of an animal species protected under Annex IV to that directive, such as the wolf, on the outskirts of a human settlement area or within such an area, can fall within the scope of the prohibition laid down in that provision.

Article 16(1) of that directive must be interpreted as meaning that any form of deliberate capture of specimens of that animal species in the aforementioned circumstances is prohibited in the absence of a derogation granted by the competent national authority on the basis of that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 172, 20.5.2019.

---

| 17.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 11 June 2020 — China Construction Bank Corp. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Groupement des cartes bancaires

(Case C-115/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - EU trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Opposition - Article 8(1)(b) - Likelihood of confusion - Assessment of the similarity of the signs at issue - Assessment of the distinctive character of the earlier mark)

(2020/C 271/17)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: China Construction Bank Corp. (represented by: A. Carboni and J. Gibbs, Solicitors)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas and D. Botis, acting as Agents), Groupement des cartes bancaires (represented by: C. Herissay-Ducamp, lawyer)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 6 December 2018, China Construction Bank v EUIPO — Groupement des cartes bancaires (CCB) (T-665/17, EU:T:2018:879); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 6 December 2018, China Construction Bank v EUIPO — Groupement des cartes bancaires (CCB) (T-665/17, EU:T:2018:879);

| 2. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 14 June 2017 (Case R 2265/2016-1); |
| --- | --- |

2.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 14 June 2017 (Case R 2265/2016-1);

| 3. | Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by China Construction Bank Corp. in the present appeal and half of the costs incurred by China Construction Bank Corp. in the proceedings at first instance; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by China Construction Bank Corp. in the present appeal and half of the costs incurred by China Construction Bank Corp. in the proceedings at first instance;

| 4. | Orders the Groupement des cartes bancaires to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by China Construction Bank Corp. in the proceedings at first instance. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Groupement des cartes bancaires to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by China Construction Bank Corp. in the proceedings at first instance.

---

(1)  OJ C 213, 24.6.2019.

---

| 17.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 June 2020 — Dovgan GmbH v Monolith Frost GmbH — European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

(Case C-142/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Application for a declaration of invalidity of EU word mark PLOMBIR - Rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity - Obligation to state reasons - Distortion of facts and evidence)

(2020/C 271/18)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Dovgan GmbH (represented by C. Rohnke, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: Monolith Frost GmbH (represented by E. Liebich and S. Labesius, Rechtsanwälte), European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by A. Söder, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Dovgan GmbH shall bear its own costs and those incurred by Monolith Frost GmbH. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dovgan GmbH shall bear its own costs and those incurred by Monolith Frost GmbH.

| 3. | The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 263, 5.8.2019.

---

| 17.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije — Slovenia) — SCT d.d., in liquidation v Republic of Slovenia

(Case C-146/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 90 and 273 - Taxable amount - Reduction - Refusal - Non-payment - Taxable person who did not lodge a claim in insolvency proceedings commenced against the debtor - Principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality - Direct effect)

(2020/C 271/19)

Language of the case: Slovenian

Referring court

Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SCT d.d., in liquidation

Defendant: Republic of Slovenia

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 90(1) and Article 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which a taxable person is refused the right to a reduction of the value added tax paid in respect of an irrecoverable claim where he has failed to lodge that claim in insolvency proceedings commenced against the debtor, even though the taxable person has shown that, had he lodged the claim, he would not have been able to recover it; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 90(1) and Article 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which a taxable person is refused the right to a reduction of the value added tax paid in respect of an irrecoverable claim where he has failed to lodge that claim in insolvency proceedings commenced against the debtor, even though the taxable person has shown that, had he lodged the claim, he would not have been able to recover it;

| 2. | Article 90(1) of the Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that national courts are required, by virtue of their obligation to take all appropriate measures to ensure the implementation of that provision, to interpret national law in conformity with that provision or, if such an interpretation is not possible, to disapply any national legislation the application of which would lead to a result contrary to that provision. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 90(1) of the Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that national courts are required, by virtue of their obligation to take all appropriate measures to ensure the implementation of that provision, to interpret national law in conformity with that provision or, if such an interpretation is not possible, to disapply any national legislation the application of which would lead to a result contrary to that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 148, 29.4.2019.

---

| 17.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/15

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā rajona tiesa — Latvia) — ‘KOB’ SIA v Madonas novada pašvaldības Administratīvo aktu strīdu komisija

(Case C-206/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 49 and 63 TFEU - Freedom of establishment and the free movement of capital - Directive 2006/123/EC - Acquisition of agricultural land in Latvia for the purpose of use - System of prior authorisation for legal persons - Specific conditions applying only to legal persons controlled or represented by nationals of another Member State - Requirements for residence and knowledge of the official language of the Republic of Latvia - Direct discrimination on grounds of nationality)

(2020/C 271/20)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Administratīvā rajona tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘KOB’ SIA

Defendant: Madonas novada pašvaldības Administratīvo aktu strīdu komisija

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 9, 10 and 14 of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which makes the right for a legal person to acquire agricultural land located in the territory of that Member State –– in cases where the member or members who together represent more than half of the voting rights in the company, and all persons who are entitled to represent that company, are nationals of other Member States –– conditional upon, first, submitting a certificate of registration of those members or representatives as residents of that Member State and, second, a document demonstrating that they have a knowledge of the official language of that Member State corresponding to a level which enables them to at least converse on everyday subjects and on professional matters.

---

(1)  OJ C 155, 6.5.2019.

---

| 17.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/15

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 11 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Parsec Fondazione Parco delle Scienze e della Cultura v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, Autorità nazionale anticorruzione (ANAC)

(Case C-219/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts - Directive 2014/24/EU - Procurement procedure for the award of a service contract - Architectural and engineering services - Article 19(1) and Article 80(2) - National legislation limiting participation solely to economic operators in certain legal forms)

(2020/C 271/21)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Parsec Fondazione Parco delle Scienze e della Cultura

Defendant: Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, Autorità nazionale anticorruzione (ANAC)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 19(1) and Article 80(2) of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC, read in the light of recital 14 thereof, are to be interpreted as precluding national legislation that prevents non-profit-making entities from being able to take part in a procurement procedure for the award of a public contract for engineering and architectural services, even though those entities are entitled under national law to offer the services covered by the contract in question.

---

(1)  OJ C 206, 17.6.2019.

---

| 17.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 11 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Bucureşti — Romania) — CHEP Equipment Pooling NV v Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Bucureşti — Serviciul Soluţionare Contestaţii, Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Bucureşti — Administraţia Fiscală pentru Contribuabili Nerezidenţi

(Case C-242/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 17(2)(g) - Transfer of movable property within the European Union with a view to the supply of services - Articles 170 and 171 - Right to VAT refund of taxable persons not established in the Member State of refund - Directive 2008/9/EC - Concept of ‘taxable person not established in the Member State of refund’ - Taxable person not identified for VAT purposes in the Member State of refund)

(2020/C 271/22)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Bucureşti

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: CHEP Equipment Pooling NV

Defendants: Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Bucureşti — Serviciul Soluţionare Contestaţii, Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Bucureşti — Administraţia Fiscală pentru Contribuabili Nerezidenţi

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 17(2)(g) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2008/8/EC of 12 February 2008, must be interpreted as meaning that the transfer, by a taxable person, of goods from a Member State to the Member State of refund, for the purposes of the supply by that taxable person of services for the hiring out of those goods in the latter Member State, shall not be treated as an intra-community supply where the use of those goods for the purposes of such a supply is temporary and they have been dispatched or transported from the Member State in which that taxable person is established. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 17(2)(g) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2008/8/EC of 12 February 2008, must be interpreted as meaning that the transfer, by a taxable person, of goods from a Member State to the Member State of refund, for the purposes of the supply by that taxable person of services for the hiring out of those goods in the latter Member State, shall not be treated as an intra-community supply where the use of those goods for the purposes of such a supply is temporary and they have been dispatched or transported from the Member State in which that taxable person is established.

| 2. | The provisions of Council Directive 2008/9/EC of 12 February 2008 laying down detailed rules for the refund of value added tax, provided for in Directive 2006/112/EC, to taxable persons not established in the Member State of refund but established in another Member State, must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from denying the right to a refund of value added tax to a taxable person established in the territory of another Member State on the sole ground that that taxable person is or should have been identified for value added tax purposes in the Member State of refund. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The provisions of Council Directive 2008/9/EC of 12 February 2008 laying down detailed rules for the refund of value added tax, provided for in Directive 2006/112/EC, to taxable persons not established in the Member State of refund but established in another Member State, must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from denying the right to a refund of value added tax to a taxable person established in the territory of another Member State on the sole ground that that taxable person is or should have been identified for value added tax purposes in the Member State of refund.

---

(1)  OJ C 206, 17.6.2019.

---

| 17.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/17

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 18 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — proceedings brought by Porin kaupunki

(Case C-328/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Directive 2004/18/EC - Article 1(2)(a) - Public procurement in the field of transport services - Cooperation agreement between municipalities regarding the organisation and provision of social and healthcare services based on the model of the ‘municipality responsible’ under Finnish law - Transfer of responsibility for the organisation of the services to one of the municipalities in the relevant cooperation zone - In-house contract - Award of contract for transport services to a company wholly owned by the municipality responsible without a call for tenders)

(2020/C 271/23)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Porin kaupunki

Other party to the proceedings: Porin Linjat Oy, Lyttylän Liikenne Oy

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 1(2)(a) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts must be interpreted as meaning that an agreement under which the municipalities party to that agreement confer on one of them the responsibility for organising services for those municipalities is excluded from the scope of that directive on the ground that it is a transfer of responsibilities under Article 4(2) TEU, as interpreted in the judgment of 21 December 2016, Remondis (C-51/15, EU:C:2016:985). |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 1(2)(a) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts must be interpreted as meaning that an agreement under which the municipalities party to that agreement confer on one of them the responsibility for organising services for those municipalities is excluded from the scope of that directive on the ground that it is a transfer of responsibilities under Article 4(2) TEU, as interpreted in the judgment of 21 December 2016, Remondis (C-51/15, EU:C:2016:985).

| 2. | Article 1(2)(a) of Directive 2004/18 must be interpreted as meaning that, under a cooperation agreement in which the municipalities party to that agreement transfer to one of those municipalities the responsibility for organising services for those municipalities, that municipality may be regarded, in the event that contracts are awarded after responsibilities have been transferred, as a contracting authority and that municipality is entitled, without first issuing a call for tenders, to confer on an in-house entity responsibility for services covering not only its own needs, but also those of the other municipalities party to that agreement when, without that transfer of responsibilities, those municipalities themselves would have had to fill the vacancy for their own needs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 1(2)(a) of Directive 2004/18 must be interpreted as meaning that, under a cooperation agreement in which the municipalities party to that agreement transfer to one of those municipalities the responsibility for organising services for those municipalities, that municipality may be regarded, in the event that contracts are awarded after responsibilities have been transferred, as a contracting authority and that municipality is entitled, without first issuing a call for tenders, to confer on an in-house entity responsibility for services covering not only its own needs, but also those of the other municipalities party to that agreement when, without that transfer of responsibilities, those municipalities themselves would have had to fill the vacancy for their own needs.

---

(1)  OJ C 220, 1.7.2019.

---

| 17.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/18

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) — Latvia) — Valsts ieņēmumu dienests v SIA ‘Hydro Energo’

(Case C-340/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common Customs Tariff - Combined Nomenclature - Tariff classification - Tariff heading 7407 - Copper bars, rods and profiles - Hot-rolled copper or copper alloy ingots in a rectangular shape)

(2020/C 271/24)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa (Senāts)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Defendant: SIA ‘Hydro Energo’

Operative part of the judgment

Heading 7407 of the Combined Nomenclature, as set out in Annex I of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1006/2011 of 27 September 2011, must be interpreted as meaning that copper or copper alloy ingots in a rectangular shape, the thickness of which exceeds one-tenth of the width and which are hot-rolled, but which have irregular pores, holes and cracks in their cross-section are capable of falling under that heading.

---

(1)  OJ C 220, 1.7.2019.

---

| 17.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/18

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Ústavný súd Slovenskej republiky — Slovak Republic) — proceedings brought by Prezident Slovenskej republiky

(Case C-378/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Internal market in electricity - Directive 2009/72/EC - Article 35(4) and (5) - Independence of regulatory authorities - National legislation transferring the power to appoint the president of the national regulatory authority from the Head of State to the government - national ministries participating in price-setting procedures)

(2020/C 271/25)

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Ústavný súd Slovenskej republiky

Party to the main proceedings

Prezident Slovenskej republiky

In the presence of: Národná rada Slovenskej republiky, Vláda Slovenskej republiky

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 35(4) and (5) of Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009, concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC, must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State which provides that the government of that State is competent to appoint and dismiss the president of the national regulatory authority, to the extent that all the requirements laid down by those provisions are complied with, which is for the referring court to review. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 35(4) and (5) of Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009, concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC, must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State which provides that the government of that State is competent to appoint and dismiss the president of the national regulatory authority, to the extent that all the requirements laid down by those provisions are complied with, which is for the referring court to review.

| 2. | Article 35(4) and (5) of Directive 2009/72 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation of a Member State which, to ensure the public interest is protected, prescribes that representatives of ministries of that State participate in certain procedures before the national regulatory body concerning price setting, to the extent that that authority’s independence in decision-making is respected, which is for the referring court to review. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 35(4) and (5) of Directive 2009/72 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation of a Member State which, to ensure the public interest is protected, prescribes that representatives of ministries of that State participate in certain procedures before the national regulatory body concerning price setting, to the extent that that authority’s independence in decision-making is respected, which is for the referring court to review.

---

(1)  JO C 238 du 15.7.2019.

---

| 17.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/19

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 11 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha — Spain) — WT v Subdelegación del Gobierno en Guadalajara

(Case C-448/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents - Directive 2003/109/EC - Article 12 - Adoption of a decision to expel a long-term resident - Elements to be taken into consideration - National case-law - Failure to take those elements into consideration - Compatibility - Directive 2001/40/EC - Mutual recognition of decisions on the expulsion of third-country nationals - Relevance)

(2020/C 271/26)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: WT

Defendant: Subdelegación del Gobierno en Guadalajara

Operative part of the judgment

Article 12 of Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which, as interpreted by national case-law with reference to Council Directive 2001/40/EC of 28 May 2001 concerning the mutual recognition of decisions on the expulsion of third-country nationals, provides for the expulsion of any third-country national who holds a long-term residence permit who has committed a criminal offence punishable by a custodial sentence of at least one year, without it being necessary to examine whether the third country national represents a genuine and sufficiently serious threat to public order or public security or to take into account the duration of residence in the territory of that Member State, the age of the person concerned, the consequences of expulsion for the person concerned and family members and the links with the country of residence or the absence of links with the country of origin.

---

(1)  OJ C 328, 30.9.2019.

---

| 17.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/20

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 11 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Vert Marine SAS v Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances

(Case C-472/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Concession contract award procedure - Directive 2014/23/EU - Article 38(9) - System of compliance measures to demonstrate the reliability of an economic operator affected by a ground for exclusion - National legislation prohibiting economic operators which are the subject of a ground for compulsory exclusion from participating, for a period of 5 years, in a concession contract award procedure - Impossible for such operators to demonstrate that compliance measures have been taken)

(2020/C 271/27)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vert Marine SAS

Defendant: Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 38(9) of Directive 2014/23/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the award of concession contracts must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which does not allow an economic operator which has been definitively convicted of one of the offences referred to in Article 38(4) of that directive and which, on that ground, is automatically prohibited from participating in concession contract award procedures to provide evidence that it has taken compliance measures capable of demonstrating its restored reliability; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 38(9) of Directive 2014/23/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the award of concession contracts must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which does not allow an economic operator which has been definitively convicted of one of the offences referred to in Article 38(4) of that directive and which, on that ground, is automatically prohibited from participating in concession contract award procedures to provide evidence that it has taken compliance measures capable of demonstrating its restored reliability;

| 2. | Article 38(9) and (10) of Directive 2014/23 must be interpreted as not precluding the assessment of the appropriateness of the compliance measures taken by an economic operator from being entrusted to the judicial authorities, provided that the national rules put in place for that purpose satisfy all the requirements laid down in Article 38(9) of that directive and that the relevant procedure is compatible with the time limits laid down by the concession contract award procedure. Moreover, Article 38(9) of Directive 2014/23 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which allows the judicial authorities to release a person from an automatic prohibition on participating in concession contract award procedures following a criminal conviction, to lift such a prohibition or to remove any mention of the conviction in the criminal record, provided that such judicial procedures effectively satisfy the conditions laid down and the objective pursued by that system and, in particular, make it possible, when an economic operator wishes to take part in a concession contract award procedure, to lift, in a timely manner, the prohibition affecting it, on the sole basis of the compliance measures claimed by that operator and assessed by the competent judicial authority in accordance with the requirements laid down in that provision, which it is for the referring court to ascertain. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 38(9) and (10) of Directive 2014/23 must be interpreted as not precluding the assessment of the appropriateness of the compliance measures taken by an economic operator from being entrusted to the judicial authorities, provided that the national rules put in place for that purpose satisfy all the requirements laid down in Article 38(9) of that directive and that the relevant procedure is compatible with the time limits laid down by the concession contract award procedure. Moreover, Article 38(9) of Directive 2014/23 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which allows the judicial authorities to release a person from an automatic prohibition on participating in concession contract award procedures following a criminal conviction, to lift such a prohibition or to remove any mention of the conviction in the criminal record, provided that such judicial procedures effectively satisfy the conditions laid down and the objective pursued by that system and, in particular, make it possible, when an economic operator wishes to take part in a concession contract award procedure, to lift, in a timely manner, the prohibition affecting it, on the sole basis of the compliance measures claimed by that operator and assessed by the competent judicial authority in accordance with the requirements laid down in that provision, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.

---

(1)  OJ C 280, 19.8.2019.

---

| 17.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/21

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Klagenfurt (Austria) lodged on 19 February 2020 — GSMB Invest GmbH & Co. KG v Auto Krainer Gesellschaft m.b.H.

(Case C-128/20)

(2020/C 271/28)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht Klagenfurt

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: GSMB Invest GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: Auto Krainer Gesellschaft m.b.H.

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2007 on type approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the equipment of a vehicle, within the meaning of Article 1(1) of Regulation No 715/2007, is inadmissible if the exhaust gas recirculation valve (i.e. a component that is likely to affect emissions performance) is designed in such a way that the exhaust gas recirculation rate (i.e. the portion of the exhaust gas being recirculated) is regulated in such a way that the valve ensures a low-emission mode only between 15 and 33 degrees Celsius and only below an altitude of 1 000 m, and, outside this temperature window, per 10 degrees Celsius, and above an altitude of 1 000 m, per 250 meters of altitude, the rate decreases in a linear way down to zero, meaning that NOx emissions increase beyond the limits of Regulation No 715/2007? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2007 on type approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the equipment of a vehicle, within the meaning of Article 1(1) of Regulation No 715/2007, is inadmissible if the exhaust gas recirculation valve (i.e. a component that is likely to affect emissions performance) is designed in such a way that the exhaust gas recirculation rate (i.e. the portion of the exhaust gas being recirculated) is regulated in such a way that the valve ensures a low-emission mode only between 15 and 33 degrees Celsius and only below an altitude of 1 000 m, and, outside this temperature window, per 10 degrees Celsius, and above an altitude of 1 000 m, per 250 meters of altitude, the rate decreases in a linear way down to zero, meaning that NOx emissions increase beyond the limits of Regulation No 715/2007?

| 2. | Is Article 5(2), which states ‘in terms of protecting the engine against damage’, of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2007 on type approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information to be interpreted as meaning that an exhaust gas strategy that serves principally to protect components such as the exhaust gas recirculation value, exhaust gas recirculation cooler and diesel particle filter does not fulfil the exemption requirements? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is Article 5(2), which states ‘in terms of protecting the engine against damage’, of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2007 on type approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information to be interpreted as meaning that an exhaust gas strategy that serves principally to protect components such as the exhaust gas recirculation value, exhaust gas recirculation cooler and diesel particle filter does not fulfil the exemption requirements?

| 3. | Is Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2007 on type approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information to be interpreted as meaning that an exhaust gas strategy which ensures pollution control devices operate efficiently only between 15 and 33 degrees Celsius and only below an altitude of 1 000 m (‘temperature window’) and therefore do not generally operate fully functionally during the year in Europe, in particular in Austria, does not fulfil the requirement of Article 5(1) — operation of the vehicle under normal conditions of use — and constitutes a prohibited ‘defeat device’? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2007 on type approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information to be interpreted as meaning that an exhaust gas strategy which ensures pollution control devices operate efficiently only between 15 and 33 degrees Celsius and only below an altitude of 1 000 m (‘temperature window’) and therefore do not generally operate fully functionally during the year in Europe, in particular in Austria, does not fulfil the requirement of Article 5(1) — operation of the vehicle under normal conditions of use — and constitutes a prohibited ‘defeat device’?

---

(1)  OJ 2007 L 171, p. 1.

---

| 17.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/21

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Eisenstadt (Austria) lodged on 11 March 2020 — IR v Volkswagen AG

(Case C-134/20)

(2020/C 271/29)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht Eisenstadt

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: IR

Defendant: Volkswagen AG

Questions referred

| a) | Is Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2007 on type approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information to be interpreted as meaning that the equipment of a vehicle, within the meaning of Article 1(1) of Regulation No 715/2007, is inadmissible if the exhaust gas recirculation valve (i.e. a component that is likely to affect emissions performance) is designed in such a way that the exhaust gas recirculation rate (i.e. the portion of the exhaust gas being recirculated) is regulated in such a way that the valve ensures a low-emission mode only between 15 and 33 degrees Celsius and only below an altitude of 1 000 m, and, outside this temperature window, per 10 degrees Celsius, and above an altitude of 1 000 m, per 250 metres of altitude, the rate decreases in a linear way down to zero, meaning that NOx emissions increase beyond the limits of Regulation No 715/2007? |
| --- | --- |

a)

Is Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2007 on type approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information to be interpreted as meaning that the equipment of a vehicle, within the meaning of Article 1(1) of Regulation No 715/2007, is inadmissible if the exhaust gas recirculation valve (i.e. a component that is likely to affect emissions performance) is designed in such a way that the exhaust gas recirculation rate (i.e. the portion of the exhaust gas being recirculated) is regulated in such a way that the valve ensures a low-emission mode only between 15 and 33 degrees Celsius and only below an altitude of 1 000 m, and, outside this temperature window, per 10 degrees Celsius, and above an altitude of 1 000 m, per 250 metres of altitude, the rate decreases in a linear way down to zero, meaning that NOx emissions increase beyond the limits of Regulation No 715/2007?

| b) | Is it relevant to the assessment of Question a) whether the equipment referred to in Question a) is necessary to protect the engine against damage? |
| --- | --- |

b)

Is it relevant to the assessment of Question a) whether the equipment referred to in Question a) is necessary to protect the engine against damage?

| c) | Furthermore, is it relevant to the assessment of Question b) whether the part of the engine which is to be protected against damage is the exhaust gas recirculation valve? |
| --- | --- |

c)

Furthermore, is it relevant to the assessment of Question b) whether the part of the engine which is to be protected against damage is the exhaust gas recirculation valve?

| d) | Is it relevant to the assessment of Question a) whether the equipment of the vehicle referred to in Question a) was already installed when the vehicle was produced or whether the regulation of the exhaust gas recirculation valve described in Question a) is to be installed in the vehicle by way of a repair within the meaning of Article 3(2) of Directive 1999/44/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees? |
| --- | --- |

d)

Is it relevant to the assessment of Question a) whether the equipment of the vehicle referred to in Question a) was already installed when the vehicle was produced or whether the regulation of the exhaust gas recirculation valve described in Question a) is to be installed in the vehicle by way of a repair within the meaning of Article 3(2) of Directive 1999/44/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees?

---

(1)  OJ 2007 L 171, p. 1.

(2)  OJ 1999 L 171, p. 12.

---

| 17.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/22

---

Appeal brought on 22 April 2020 by WD against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 12 February 2020 in Case T-320/18, WD v EFSA

(Case C-167/20 P)

(2020/C 271/30)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: WD (represented by: L. Levi, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: European Food Safety Authority

Form of order sought

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court of 12 February 2020 in Case T-320/18; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of 12 February 2020 in Case T-320/18;

| — | consequently, grant the appellant the forms of order sought at first instance and, accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

—

consequently, grant the appellant the forms of order sought at first instance and, accordingly,

| — | annul the decision of 14 July 2017 taken by the Executive Director of EFSA in his capacity as AACC, according to which the appellant is not among the staff members promoted during the 2017 reclassification round; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 14 July 2017 taken by the Executive Director of EFSA in his capacity as AACC, according to which the appellant is not among the staff members promoted during the 2017 reclassification round;

| — | annul the decision of the AACC of 9 February 2018 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 10 October 2017 directed against the decision of 14 July 2017; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the AACC of 9 February 2018 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 10 October 2017 directed against the decision of 14 July 2017;

| — | annul the decision of 9 August 2017 and notified on 10 August 2017, taken by the Executive Director of EFSA in his capacity as AACC, not to renew the appellant’s employment contract; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 9 August 2017 and notified on 10 August 2017, taken by the Executive Director of EFSA in his capacity as AACC, not to renew the appellant’s employment contract;

| — | annul the decision of the AACC of 12 March 2018 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 10 November 2017 directed against the decision of 9 August 2017; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the AACC of 12 March 2018 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 10 November 2017 directed against the decision of 9 August 2017;

| — | award damages for the harm suffered; |
| --- | --- |

—

award damages for the harm suffered;

| — | order the respondent to pay all of the costs at first instance and on appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the respondent to pay all of the costs at first instance and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

As regards EFSA’s decision of 14 July 2017 not to reclassify the appellant at grade AST 6 in the 2017 reclassification round, the first ground of appeal alleges infringement of the procedural rules applicable and more specifically the rules on admissibility of pleas, infringement of the obligation to state reasons and distortion of the file. The second ground is based on infringement of the applicable regulatory framework (Article 54 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union, decision of 22 April 2008 and guidance document of 30 June 2010), infringement of the rules on adducing evidence and the obligation to state reasons.

As regards EFSA’s decision of 9 August 2017 not to renew the appellant’s employment contract, the first ground alleges infringement of the decision of 8 December 2012. The second ground is based on breach of the duty of care and of the instruction of 7 March 2017 and distortion of the file. The third ground alleges infringement of the concepts of manifest error of assessment and misuse of power, distortion of the file and failure to comply with the rules on adducing evidence.

---

| 17.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/23

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 30 April 2020 — JG, represented for legal purposes by MI and LH, and Others v OP, acting as liquidator of Azurair GmbH

(Case C-188/20)

(2020/C 271/31)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: JG, LH, MI and NJ, all represented for legal purposes by MI and LH

Respondent: OP, acting as liquidator of Azurair GmbH

Intervener: alltours flugreisen gmbh

Questions referred

| 1. | Does a passenger have a ‘confirmed reservation’ within the meaning of Article 3(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) if he has received, from a tour operator with which he has a contract, ‘other proof’ within the meaning of Article 2(g) of Regulation No 261/2004, by which he is assured transport on a particular flight, individualised by points of departure and destination, times of departure and arrival and flight number, without the tour operator having made a seat reservation for that flight with the air carrier concerned and having received confirmation from the latter? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does a passenger have a ‘confirmed reservation’ within the meaning of Article 3(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) if he has received, from a tour operator with which he has a contract, ‘other proof’ within the meaning of Article 2(g) of Regulation No 261/2004, by which he is assured transport on a particular flight, individualised by points of departure and destination, times of departure and arrival and flight number, without the tour operator having made a seat reservation for that flight with the air carrier concerned and having received confirmation from the latter?

| 2. | Is an air carrier to be regarded as an operating air carrier within the meaning of Article 2(b) of Regulation No 261/2004 in relation to a passenger if, despite the fact that that passenger has a contract with a tour operator which has promised him carriage on a particular flight, individualised by points of departure and destination, times of departure and arrival and flight number, the tour operator has not, however, reserved a seat for the passenger and has therefore not established a contractual relationship with the air carrier in respect of that flight? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is an air carrier to be regarded as an operating air carrier within the meaning of Article 2(b) of Regulation No 261/2004 in relation to a passenger if, despite the fact that that passenger has a contract with a tour operator which has promised him carriage on a particular flight, individualised by points of departure and destination, times of departure and arrival and flight number, the tour operator has not, however, reserved a seat for the passenger and has therefore not established a contractual relationship with the air carrier in respect of that flight?

| 3. | Can the ‘scheduled time of arrival’ of a flight within the meaning of Article 2(h), Article 5(1)(c), the second sentence of Article 7(1) and Article 7(2) of Regulation No 261/2004 be determined, for the purposes of compensation for cancellation or long delay in arrival, from ‘other proof’ issued to a passenger by a tour operator, or must the ticket pursuant to Article 2(f) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 be taken into account for that purpose? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Can the ‘scheduled time of arrival’ of a flight within the meaning of Article 2(h), Article 5(1)(c), the second sentence of Article 7(1) and Article 7(2) of Regulation No 261/2004 be determined, for the purposes of compensation for cancellation or long delay in arrival, from ‘other proof’ issued to a passenger by a tour operator, or must the ticket pursuant to Article 2(f) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 be taken into account for that purpose?

| 4. | Has there been a cancellation of a flight within the meaning of Article 2(l) and Article 5(1) of Regulation No 261/2004 if the operating air carrier brings a flight booked as part of a package tour forward by at least two hours and ten minutes within the same day? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Has there been a cancellation of a flight within the meaning of Article 2(l) and Article 5(1) of Regulation No 261/2004 if the operating air carrier brings a flight booked as part of a package tour forward by at least two hours and ten minutes within the same day?

| 5. | Can the operating air carrier reduce the compensation under Article 7(1) of Regulation No 261/2004 in accordance with Article 7(2) of that regulation if the amount of time by which a flight has been brought forward is within the periods specified in that provision? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Can the operating air carrier reduce the compensation under Article 7(1) of Regulation No 261/2004 in accordance with Article 7(2) of that regulation if the amount of time by which a flight has been brought forward is within the periods specified in that provision?

| 6. | Does it constitute an offer of re-routing within the meaning of Article 5(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 261/2004 if a passenger is informed, before the beginning of his journey, that his flight has been brought forward? |
| --- | --- |

6.

Does it constitute an offer of re-routing within the meaning of Article 5(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 261/2004 if a passenger is informed, before the beginning of his journey, that his flight has been brought forward?

| 7. | Does Article 14(2) of Regulation No 261/2004 oblige the operating air carrier to inform the passenger of the exact company name and address from which he can request a sum on a sliding scale based on distance, the amount of that sum, and, if applicable, the documents that he should attach to his request? |
| --- | --- |

7.

Does Article 14(2) of Regulation No 261/2004 oblige the operating air carrier to inform the passenger of the exact company name and address from which he can request a sum on a sliding scale based on distance, the amount of that sum, and, if applicable, the documents that he should attach to his request?

---

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

---

| 17.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/24

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 6 May 2020 — Eurowings GmbH v Flightright GmbH

(Case C-196/20)

(2020/C 271/32)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Eurowings GmbH

Respondent: Flightright GmbH

Questions referred

| 1. | Does a passenger have a ‘confirmed reservation’ within the meaning of Article 3(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) if he has received, from a tour operator with which he has a contract, ‘other proof’ within the meaning of Article 2(g) of this regulation, by which he is assured transport on a particular flight, individualised by points of departure and destination, times of departure and arrival and flight number, without the tour operator having made a seat reservation for that flight with the air carrier concerned and having received confirmation from the latter? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does a passenger have a ‘confirmed reservation’ within the meaning of Article 3(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) if he has received, from a tour operator with which he has a contract, ‘other proof’ within the meaning of Article 2(g) of this regulation, by which he is assured transport on a particular flight, individualised by points of departure and destination, times of departure and arrival and flight number, without the tour operator having made a seat reservation for that flight with the air carrier concerned and having received confirmation from the latter?

| 2. | Is an air carrier to be regarded as an operating air carrier within the meaning of Article 2(b) of Regulation No 261/2004 in relation to a passenger if, despite the fact that that passenger has a contract with a tour operator which has promised him carriage on a particular flight, individualised by points of departure and destination, times of departure and arrival and flight number, the tour operator has not, however, reserved a seat for the passenger and has therefore not established a contractual relationship with the air carrier in respect of that flight? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is an air carrier to be regarded as an operating air carrier within the meaning of Article 2(b) of Regulation No 261/2004 in relation to a passenger if, despite the fact that that passenger has a contract with a tour operator which has promised him carriage on a particular flight, individualised by points of departure and destination, times of departure and arrival and flight number, the tour operator has not, however, reserved a seat for the passenger and has therefore not established a contractual relationship with the air carrier in respect of that flight?

| 3. | Can the ‘scheduled time of arrival’ of a flight within the meaning of Article 2(h), Article 5(1)(c), the second sentence of Article 7(1) and Article 7(2) of Regulation No 261/2004 be determined, for the purposes of compensation for cancellation or long delay in arrival, from ‘other proof’ issued to a passenger by a tour operator, or must the ticket pursuant to Article 2(f) of this regulation be taken into account for that purpose? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Can the ‘scheduled time of arrival’ of a flight within the meaning of Article 2(h), Article 5(1)(c), the second sentence of Article 7(1) and Article 7(2) of Regulation No 261/2004 be determined, for the purposes of compensation for cancellation or long delay in arrival, from ‘other proof’ issued to a passenger by a tour operator, or must the ticket pursuant to Article 2(f) of this regulation be taken into account for that purpose?

---

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

---

| 17.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/25

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 13 May 2020 — Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH v kohlpharma GmbH

(Case C-204/20)

(2020/C 271/33)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH

Defendant: kohlpharma GmbH

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 47a of Directive 2001/83/EC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of parallel imported products, the measures for the removal and reaffixing of the safety features pursuant to point (o) of Article 54 of Directive 2001/83/EC, which are carried out by the parallel importer either by means of relabelling (use of adhesive labels on the original secondary packaging) or by means of reboxing (production of new secondary packaging for the medicinal product), can be considered equivalent if both measures otherwise comply with all the requirements set out in Directive 2011/62/EU (‘Falsified Medicines Directive’) (2) and Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/161 (‘Delegated Regulation’) (3) and are equally effective in enabling the verification of authenticity and identification of medicinal products and in providing evidence of tampering with medicinal products? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 47a of Directive 2001/83/EC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of parallel imported products, the measures for the removal and reaffixing of the safety features pursuant to point (o) of Article 54 of Directive 2001/83/EC, which are carried out by the parallel importer either by means of relabelling (use of adhesive labels on the original secondary packaging) or by means of reboxing (production of new secondary packaging for the medicinal product), can be considered equivalent if both measures otherwise comply with all the requirements set out in Directive 2011/62/EU (‘Falsified Medicines Directive’) (2) and Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/161 (‘Delegated Regulation’) (3) and are equally effective in enabling the verification of authenticity and identification of medicinal products and in providing evidence of tampering with medicinal products?

| 2. | If the first question is to be answered in the affirmative: In the light of the new anti-falsification rules, can a trade mark owner oppose the repackaging of the product in new external packaging (‘reboxing’) by a parallel importer where the parallel importer is also able to achieve packaging which may be marketed in the Member State of importation by merely affixing new adhesive labels to the original secondary packaging (‘relabelling’)? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the first question is to be answered in the affirmative: In the light of the new anti-falsification rules, can a trade mark owner oppose the repackaging of the product in new external packaging (‘reboxing’) by a parallel importer where the parallel importer is also able to achieve packaging which may be marketed in the Member State of importation by merely affixing new adhesive labels to the original secondary packaging (‘relabelling’)?

| 3. | If the second question is to be answered in the affirmative, is it the case that no harm is done if, in the case of relabelling, it is apparent to the relevant public that a safety feature of the original supplier has been damaged, as long as it is ensured that the parallel importer is responsible for this and has affixed a new safety feature to the original secondary packaging? Does it make any difference whether the signs of opening become visible only when the secondary packaging of a medicinal product is opened? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the second question is to be answered in the affirmative, is it the case that no harm is done if, in the case of relabelling, it is apparent to the relevant public that a safety feature of the original supplier has been damaged, as long as it is ensured that the parallel importer is responsible for this and has affixed a new safety feature to the original secondary packaging? Does it make any difference whether the signs of opening become visible only when the secondary packaging of a medicinal product is opened?

| 4. | If Question 2 and/or 3 is to be answered in the affirmative, must repackaging by means of ‘reboxing’ nevertheless be deemed to be objectively necessary within the meaning of the five conditions for exhaustion in respect of the repackaging (see judgments of 11 July 1996, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Others, C-427/93, C-429/93 and C-436/93, EU:C:1996:282, paragraph 79, and of 26 April 2007, Boehringer Ingelheim and Others, C-348/04, EU:C:2007:249, paragraph 21) if the national authorities state, in their current guidelines for implementing the requirements of the Falsified Medicines Directive or other such announcements of the authorities, that the resealing of opened packaging is not normally accepted or, at least, is accepted only on an exceptional basis and under strict conditions? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If Question 2 and/or 3 is to be answered in the affirmative, must repackaging by means of ‘reboxing’ nevertheless be deemed to be objectively necessary within the meaning of the five conditions for exhaustion in respect of the repackaging (see judgments of 11 July 1996, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Others, C-427/93, C-429/93 and C-436/93, EU:C:1996:282, paragraph 79, and of 26 April 2007, Boehringer Ingelheim and Others, C-348/04, EU:C:2007:249, paragraph 21) if the national authorities state, in their current guidelines for implementing the requirements of the Falsified Medicines Directive or other such announcements of the authorities, that the resealing of opened packaging is not normally accepted or, at least, is accepted only on an exceptional basis and under strict conditions?

---

(1)  Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67).

(2)  Directive 2011/62/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011 amending Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as regards the prevention of the entry into the legal supply chain of falsified medicinal products (OJ 2011 L 174, p. 74).

(3)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/161 of 2 October 2015 supplementing Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council by laying down detailed rules for the safety features appearing on the packaging of medicinal products for human use (OJ 2016 L 32, p. 1).

---

| 17.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/26

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Niedersächsisches Finanzgericht (Germany) lodged on 2 June 2020 — I GmbH v Finanzamt H

(Case C-228/20)

(2020/C 271/34)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Niedersächsisches Finanzgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: I GmbH

Defendant: Finanzamt H

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Paragraph 4, point 14(b), of the Umsatzsteuergesetz (Law on Turnover Tax) (UStG) compatible with Article 132(1)(b) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (‘the VAT Directive’), (1) in so far as hospitals which are not bodies governed by public law qualify for exemption from tax on condition that they are approved within the meaning of Paragraph 108 of the Sozialgesetzbuch (SGB) V (Social Security Code, Book V)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Paragraph 4, point 14(b), of the Umsatzsteuergesetz (Law on Turnover Tax) (UStG) compatible with Article 132(1)(b) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (‘the VAT Directive’), (1) in so far as hospitals which are not bodies governed by public law qualify for exemption from tax on condition that they are approved within the meaning of Paragraph 108 of the Sozialgesetzbuch (SGB) V (Social Security Code, Book V)?

| 2. | If Question 1 is to be answered in the negative: When do hospitals governed by private law provide hospital care under social conditions comparable with those applicable to bodies governed by public law within the meaning of Article 132(1)(b) of the VAT Directive? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If Question 1 is to be answered in the negative: When do hospitals governed by private law provide hospital care under social conditions comparable with those applicable to bodies governed by public law within the meaning of Article 132(1)(b) of the VAT Directive?

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

---

| 17.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/27

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 29 May 2020 — P v ‘K’ EOOD

(Case C-229/20)

(2020/C 271/35)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski rayonen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: P

Defendant:‘K’ EOOD

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 3(g) of Directive 2008/48/EC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the fees for ancillary services agreed in connection with a consumer credit agreement, such as fees for the possibility of deferring and reducing instalments, constitute part of the annual percentage rate of charge for the credit? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 3(g) of Directive 2008/48/EC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the fees for ancillary services agreed in connection with a consumer credit agreement, such as fees for the possibility of deferring and reducing instalments, constitute part of the annual percentage rate of charge for the credit?

| 2. | Is Article 10(2)(g) of Directive 2008/48/EC to be interpreted as meaning that an incorrect indication of the annual percentage rate of charge in a credit agreement between a trader and a consumer borrower must be regarded as a failure to indicate the annual percentage rate of charge in the credit agreement and that the national court must apply the legal consequences provided for under national law for failure to indicate the annual percentage rate of charge in a consumer credit agreement? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is Article 10(2)(g) of Directive 2008/48/EC to be interpreted as meaning that an incorrect indication of the annual percentage rate of charge in a credit agreement between a trader and a consumer borrower must be regarded as a failure to indicate the annual percentage rate of charge in the credit agreement and that the national court must apply the legal consequences provided for under national law for failure to indicate the annual percentage rate of charge in a consumer credit agreement?

| 3. | Is Article 22(4) of Directive 2008/48/EC to be interpreted as meaning that a penalty provided for under national law, in the form of nullity of the consumer credit agreement, whereby only the principal amount granted is to be repaid, is proportionate if the annual percentage rate of charge is not accurately indicated in the consumer credit agreement? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is Article 22(4) of Directive 2008/48/EC to be interpreted as meaning that a penalty provided for under national law, in the form of nullity of the consumer credit agreement, whereby only the principal amount granted is to be repaid, is proportionate if the annual percentage rate of charge is not accurately indicated in the consumer credit agreement?

| 4. | Is Article 4(1) and (2) of Directive 93/13/EEC (2) to be interpreted as meaning that the fees for a package of ancillary services provided for in a separate supplementary agreement to a consumer credit agreement as the main agreement must be regarded as part of the main subject matter of the latter agreement and cannot therefore be the subject of the assessment of unfairness? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is Article 4(1) and (2) of Directive 93/13/EEC (2) to be interpreted as meaning that the fees for a package of ancillary services provided for in a separate supplementary agreement to a consumer credit agreement as the main agreement must be regarded as part of the main subject matter of the latter agreement and cannot therefore be the subject of the assessment of unfairness?

| 5. | Irrespective of the answer to the third question, is Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC in conjunction with point 1(o) of the annex to that directive to be interpreted as meaning that a term in an agreement for ancillary services relating to consumer credit is unfair if it grants the consumer the abstract possibility of deferring and rescheduling his payments and he owes fees for that possibility even if he does not make use of it? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Irrespective of the answer to the third question, is Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC in conjunction with point 1(o) of the annex to that directive to be interpreted as meaning that a term in an agreement for ancillary services relating to consumer credit is unfair if it grants the consumer the abstract possibility of deferring and rescheduling his payments and he owes fees for that possibility even if he does not make use of it?

---

(1)  Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC (OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66).

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

---

| 17.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/28

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Emilia Romagna (Italy) lodged on 4 June 2020 — PG v Ministero della Giustizia, CSM — Consiglio Superiore della Magistratura, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri

(Case C-236/20)

(2020/C 271/36)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Emilia Romagna

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: PG

Defendants: Ministero della Giustizia, CSM — Consiglio Superiore della Magistratura, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri

Questions referred

| 1. | Do Articles 20, 21, 31, 33 and 34 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Directive No 1999/70/EC (1) on fixed-term work (Clauses 2 and 4 of the Framework Agreement), Directive No 1997/81/EC (2) on part-time work (Clause 4 of the Framework Agreement), Directive No 2003/88/EC on the organisation of working time (Article 7) and Directive No 2000/78/EC (3) on equal treatment in employment and occupation (Articles 1 and 2(2)(a)) preclude the application of national legislation, such as the Italian legislation set out in Law 374/91, as subsequently amended, and Legislative Decree 92/2016, as consistently interpreted in the case-law, under which giudici di pace (magistrates), as lay judges, in addition to not being treated in the same way as giudici togati (career judges engaged on a permanent basis and salaried) as regards emoluments and pension and social security entitlements, are completely excluded from all forms of pension and social security protection afforded to employees in the public sector? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do Articles 20, 21, 31, 33 and 34 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Directive No 1999/70/EC (1) on fixed-term work (Clauses 2 and 4 of the Framework Agreement), Directive No 1997/81/EC (2) on part-time work (Clause 4 of the Framework Agreement), Directive No 2003/88/EC on the organisation of working time (Article 7) and Directive No 2000/78/EC (3) on equal treatment in employment and occupation (Articles 1 and 2(2)(a)) preclude the application of national legislation, such as the Italian legislation set out in Law 374/91, as subsequently amended, and Legislative Decree 92/2016, as consistently interpreted in the case-law, under which giudici di pace (magistrates), as lay judges, in addition to not being treated in the same way as giudici togati (career judges engaged on a permanent basis and salaried) as regards emoluments and pension and social security entitlements, are completely excluded from all forms of pension and social security protection afforded to employees in the public sector?

| 2. | Do EU principles relating to the autonomy and independence of the judiciary, in particular Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, preclude the application of national legislation, such as the Italian legislation under which giudici di pace, as lay judges, in addition to not being treated in the same way as giudici togati as regards emoluments and pension and social security entitlements, are completely excluded from all forms of pension and social security protection afforded to employees in the public sector? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Do EU principles relating to the autonomy and independence of the judiciary, in particular Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, preclude the application of national legislation, such as the Italian legislation under which giudici di pace, as lay judges, in addition to not being treated in the same way as giudici togati as regards emoluments and pension and social security entitlements, are completely excluded from all forms of pension and social security protection afforded to employees in the public sector?

| 3. | Does Clause 5 of the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC on 18 March 1999, annexed to Directive 1999/70/EC, preclude the application of national legislation, such as the Italian legislation under which the fixed period of service of giudici di pace, as lay judges, originally set at eight years (four plus four years), may be systematically renewed for a further four years without any provision for effective and dissuasive penalties, instead of the employment relationship being converted into one of indefinite duration? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does Clause 5 of the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC on 18 March 1999, annexed to Directive 1999/70/EC, preclude the application of national legislation, such as the Italian legislation under which the fixed period of service of giudici di pace, as lay judges, originally set at eight years (four plus four years), may be systematically renewed for a further four years without any provision for effective and dissuasive penalties, instead of the employment relationship being converted into one of indefinite duration?

---

(1)  Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43).

(2)  Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC — Annex: Framework agreement on part-time work (OJ 1998 L 14, p. 9).

(3)  Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16).

---

| 17.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/29

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Polymeles Protodikeio Αthinon (Greece) lodged on 5 June 2020 — DP, SG v Trapeza Peiraios AE

(Case C-243/20)

(2020/C 271/37)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Polymeles Protodikeio Αthinon

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: DP

SG

Defendant: Trapeza Peiraios AE

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 8 of Directive 93/13/ΕEC, (1) which provides that the Member States may adopt more stringent provisions to ensure a greater degree of protection for the consumer, to be interpreted as meaning that a Member State need not transpose Article 1(2) of Directive 93/13/ΕEC into national law and may allow judicial review also of terms which reflect statutory or regulatory provisions of mandatory or non-mandatory law? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 8 of Directive 93/13/ΕEC, (1) which provides that the Member States may adopt more stringent provisions to ensure a greater degree of protection for the consumer, to be interpreted as meaning that a Member State need not transpose Article 1(2) of Directive 93/13/ΕEC into national law and may allow judicial review also of terms which reflect statutory or regulatory provisions of mandatory or non-mandatory law?

| 2. | Can the first and second subparagraphs of Article 1(2) of Directive 93/13/EEC, even though not expressly transposed into Greek law, be regarded as having been transposed indirectly together with the content of Article 3(1) and Article 4(1) of that directive, as transposed in Article [2(6)] of Law 225[1]/1994? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Can the first and second subparagraphs of Article 1(2) of Directive 93/13/EEC, even though not expressly transposed into Greek law, be regarded as having been transposed indirectly together with the content of Article 3(1) and Article 4(1) of that directive, as transposed in Article [2(6)] of Law 225[1]/1994?

| 3. | Is the exclusion in the first and second subparagraphs of Article 1(2) of Directive 93/13/EEC contained in the concept and the scope of unfair terms as defined in Article 3(1) and Article 4(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is the exclusion in the first and second subparagraphs of Article 1(2) of Directive 93/13/EEC contained in the concept and the scope of unfair terms as defined in Article 3(1) and Article 4(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC?

| 4. | Does review of the unfairness of a general term of business in accordance with the provisions of Directive 93/13/EEC extend to a term — contained in a credit agreement entered into by a consumer with a credit institution — which reflects the content of a rule of non-mandatory law of the Member State, where the term was not individually negotiated? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Does review of the unfairness of a general term of business in accordance with the provisions of Directive 93/13/EEC extend to a term — contained in a credit agreement entered into by a consumer with a credit institution — which reflects the content of a rule of non-mandatory law of the Member State, where the term was not individually negotiated?

---

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

---

| 17.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/29

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 10 June 2020 — Toplofikatsia Sofia EAD

(Case C-256/20)

(2020/C 271/38)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski rayonen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Toplofikatsia Sofia EAD

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 5(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (1) of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, in conjunction with the principle that the national court must guarantee procedural rights for the effective protection of rights arising from EU law, be interpreted as meaning that, when determining the habitual residence of a debtor as a condition required under national law for the conduct of unilateral formal proceedings in which evidence is not taken, such as order for payment procedures, the national court is obliged to interpret any reasonable suspicion that the debtor is habitually resident in another State of the European Union as a lack of a legal basis for issuing an order for payment or as a basis for the order for payment not acquiring the force of res judicata? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 5(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (1) of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, in conjunction with the principle that the national court must guarantee procedural rights for the effective protection of rights arising from EU law, be interpreted as meaning that, when determining the habitual residence of a debtor as a condition required under national law for the conduct of unilateral formal proceedings in which evidence is not taken, such as order for payment procedures, the national court is obliged to interpret any reasonable suspicion that the debtor is habitually resident in another State of the European Union as a lack of a legal basis for issuing an order for payment or as a basis for the order for payment not acquiring the force of res judicata?

| 2. | Must Article 5(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, in conjunction with the principle that the national court must guarantee procedural rights for the effective protection of rights deriving from EU law, be interpreted as meaning that a national court, which, after having issued an order for payment against a particular debtor, has established that that debtor is unlikely to be habitually resident in the State of the court and, provided that this constitutes an obstacle to the issuing of an order for payment against such a debtor under national law, is obliged to annul, of its own motion, the order for payment issued, despite the absence of an express statutory provision to that effect? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must Article 5(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, in conjunction with the principle that the national court must guarantee procedural rights for the effective protection of rights deriving from EU law, be interpreted as meaning that a national court, which, after having issued an order for payment against a particular debtor, has established that that debtor is unlikely to be habitually resident in the State of the court and, provided that this constitutes an obstacle to the issuing of an order for payment against such a debtor under national law, is obliged to annul, of its own motion, the order for payment issued, despite the absence of an express statutory provision to that effect?

| 3. | If the [second] question is answered in the negative, are the provisions referred to in that question to be interpreted as obliging the national court to annul the order for payment issued where it has carried out a check and established with certainty that the debtor is not habitually resident in the State of the court seised? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the [second] question is answered in the negative, are the provisions referred to in that question to be interpreted as obliging the national court to annul the order for payment issued where it has carried out a check and established with certainty that the debtor is not habitually resident in the State of the court seised?

---

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

---

| 17.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/30

---

Appeal brought on 11 June 2020 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 2 April 2020 in Case T-383/17, Hansol Paper v Commission

(Case C-260/20 P)

(2020/C 271/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland, and A. Demeneix, agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Hansol Paper Co. Ltd, European Thermal Paper Association (ETPA)

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment under appeal, reject the application at first instance and order Hansol Paper Co. Ltd to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment under appeal, reject the application at first instance and order Hansol Paper Co. Ltd to pay the costs;

or, alternatively,

| — | refer back the case to the General Court for reconsideration and reserve the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

refer back the case to the General Court for reconsideration and reserve the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the judgment under appeal the General Court annulled, to the extent that it concerns Hansol Paper Co. Ltd, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/763 of 2 May 2017 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain lightweight thermal paper originating in the Republic of Korea (1).

The Commission relies, in support of its appeal, on three grounds of appeal.

The Commission considers the General Court:

| — | distorted the evidence and misinterpreted the legal framework applicable to the data on which the Commission is entitled to rely in order to construct the export price under Article 2(9) of the basic regulation (2); |
| --- | --- |

—

distorted the evidence and misinterpreted the legal framework applicable to the data on which the Commission is entitled to rely in order to construct the export price under Article 2(9) of the basic regulation (2);

| — | misinterpreted the rules of article 2(1) and (3) of the basic regulation for the determination of the normal value in case of absence of domestic sales; and |
| --- | --- |

—

misinterpreted the rules of article 2(1) and (3) of the basic regulation for the determination of the normal value in case of absence of domestic sales; and

| — | misinterpreted the rules of article 3 of the basic regulation when defining the undercutting margin in case of exports to the Union through related entities. |
| --- | --- |

—

misinterpreted the rules of article 3 of the basic regulation when defining the undercutting margin in case of exports to the Union through related entities.

---

(1)  OJ 2017, L 114, p. 3.

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

---

| 17.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/31

---

Action brought on 24 June 2020 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-278/20)

(2020/C 271/40)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: I. Martínez del Peral, J. Baquero Cruz and P.J.O. Van Nuffel, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

Form of order sought

| — | A declaration that, by adopting and maintaining in force Article 32(3) to (6) and the second subparagraph of Article 34(1) of Law 40/2015, and the third subparagraph of Article 67(1) of Law 39/2015, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under the principles of effectiveness and equivalence as limitations on the autonomy enjoyed by Member States when laying down the substantive and procedural conditions governing their liability for harm caused to individuals in breach of EU law; |
| --- | --- |

—

A declaration that, by adopting and maintaining in force Article 32(3) to (6) and the second subparagraph of Article 34(1) of Law 40/2015, and the third subparagraph of Article 67(1) of Law 39/2015, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under the principles of effectiveness and equivalence as limitations on the autonomy enjoyed by Member States when laying down the substantive and procedural conditions governing their liability for harm caused to individuals in breach of EU law;

| — | an order that the Kingdom of Spain pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

an order that the Kingdom of Spain pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

This application for failure to fulfil obligations, submitted in accordance with Article 258 TFEU, relates to Article 32(3) to (6) and the second subparagraph of Article 34(1) of Law 40/2015 of 1 October 2015 on the legal rules governing the public sector, and the third subparagraph of Article 67(1) of Law 39/2015 of 1 October 2015 on the common administrative procedure for public bodies.

The provisions at issue have aligned the rules on the liability of the State as legislature for breaches of EU law with the provisions laid down for infringements of the Spanish Constitution by acts of the legislature, by adding certain substantive conditions.

The alignment of the rules and the associated procedural requirements have the effect of making it impossible or extremely difficult to seek redress for infringements of EU law by the Spanish legislature, in breach of the principle of effectiveness.

Furthermore, the substantive conditions added for infringements of EU law are incompatible with the principle of equivalence, by making redress for harm caused by the Spanish legislature in breach of EU law subject to conditions that are less favourable than those applicable to harm arising from an infringement of the Spanish Constitution.

---

General Court

| 17.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2020 — MU v Parliament

(Case T-40/16) (1)

(Action for annulment - Article 263 TFEU - Internal Rules governing Traineeships and Study Visits in the Secretariat of the Parliament - Trainee with disabilities - Additional disability allowance - Refusal - Conditions for grant of additional amount prescribed for trainees with disabilities - Error in law)

(2020/C 271/41)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: MU (represented by: A. Bruno, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: J. Van Pottelberge, J. Steele and E. Paladini, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of the decision of the Parliament of 11 December 2015 refusing the additional payment prescribed for trainees with disabilities by Article 24(9) of the Internal Rules governing Traineeships and Study Visits in the Secretariat of the Parliament.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the European Parliament of 11 December 2015 refusing the additional payment for trainees with disabilities provided for by Article 24(9) of the Internal Rules governing Traineeships and Study Visits in the Secretariat of the Parliament to MU. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the European Parliament of 11 December 2015 refusing the additional payment for trainees with disabilities provided for by Article 24(9) of the Internal Rules governing Traineeships and Study Visits in the Secretariat of the Parliament to MU.

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder.

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

3.

Orders the Parliament to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 312 of 16.9.2019.

---

| 17.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2020 — XH v Commission

(Case T-511/18) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Promotion - 2017 promotion exercise - Decision not to promote - Clarity and precision of a plea in law in the application - Rule requiring correspondence - Challenge of definitive acts - Admissibility - Article 45 of the Staff Regulations - Interim probation report - End-of-probation report - Appraisal report - Factors taken into account for the consideration of the comparative merits - Regularity of the procedure - Liability - Non-material damage)

(2020/C 271/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: XH (represented by: E. Auleytner, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Radu Bouyon and L. Vernier, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU, seeking (i) annulment of the decision, published in Administrative Notices No 25-2017 of 13 November 2017, not to include the applicant’s name in the list of officials promoted in the 2017 promotion exercise and annulment of Decision R/96/18 of 7 June 2018 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 10 February 2018 and (ii) compensation for the damage allegedly suffered as a result of those decisions.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision not to promote XH to grade AD 6 in the 2017 promotion exercise, which is apparent from the publication, in Administrative Notices No 25-2017 of 13 November 2017, of the list of officials promoted to that grade; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision not to promote XH to grade AD 6 in the 2017 promotion exercise, which is apparent from the publication, in Administrative Notices No 25-2017 of 13 November 2017, of the list of officials promoted to that grade;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to pay to XH the sum of EUR 2 000 as compensation for the non-material damage that she has suffered; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay to XH the sum of EUR 2 000 as compensation for the non-material damage that she has suffered;

| 3. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 4. | Orders the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 131, 8.4.2019.

---

| 17.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2020 — Siberia Oriental v CPVO (Siberia)

(Case T-737/18) (1)

(Plant variety rights - Application for amendment of the date of expiry of the Community protection of plant variety rights in respect of the Siberia variety of the species Lilium L. - Appeal before the Board of Appeal of the CPVO - Inadmissibility - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 - Effective judicial protection - Article 67(1) and Article 87 of Regulation No 2100/94 - Correction of patent mistakes - Article 53(4) of Regulation (EC) No 874/2009)

(2020/C 271/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Siberia Oriental BV (’t Zand, Netherlands) (represented by: T. Overdijk, lawyer)

Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (represented by: M. Ekvad, F. Mattina and O. Lamberti, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Board of Appeal of the CPVO of 15 October 2018 (Case A 009/2017), concerning an application for amendment of the date of expiry of Community protection of plant variety rights in respect of the Siberia variety of the species Lilium L.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Siberia Oriental BV to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Siberia Oriental BV to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO).

---

(1)  OJ C 54, 11.2.2019.

---

| 17.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/35

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2020 –Pavel v EUIPO — bugatti (B)

(Case T-114/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark B - Earlier international figurative mark b - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Misuse of power - Partial annulment)

(2020/C 271/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Dan-Gabriel Pavel (Oradea, Romania) (represented by: E.-D. Nedelcu, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: bugatti GmbH (Herford, Germany) (represented by: U. Ulrich, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 December 2018 (Joined Cases R 49/2018-1 and R 85/2018-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between bugatti and Mr Pavel.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 14 December 2018 (Joined Cases R 49/2018-1 and R 85/2018-1) in so far as it concerns the goods ‘leather and imitations of leather; animal skins, hides’ in Class 18 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 14 December 2018 (Joined Cases R 49/2018-1 and R 85/2018-1) in so far as it concerns the goods ‘leather and imitations of leather; animal skins, hides’ in Class 18 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 213, 24.6.2019.

---

| 17.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/36

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2020 — Klymenko v Council

(Case T-295/19) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in respect of the situation in Ukraine - Freezing of funds - List of persons, entities and bodies to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources applies - Retention of the applicant’s name on the list - Obligation of the Council to verify that the decision of an authority of a third State has been taken in compliance with the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial protection)

(2020/C 271/45)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

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

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/354 of 4 March 2019 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2019 L 64, p. 7) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/352 of 4 March 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2019, L 64, p. 1), in so far as those acts maintain the applicant’s name on the list of persons, entities and bodies to which those restrictive measures apply.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/354 of 4 March 2019 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/352, of 4 March 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies with regard to the situation in Ukraine, in so far as the name of Mr Oleksandr Viktorovych Klymenko was maintained on the list of persons, entities and bodies to which those restrictive measures apply. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/354 of 4 March 2019 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/352, of 4 March 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies with regard to the situation in Ukraine, in so far as the name of Mr Oleksandr Viktorovych Klymenko was maintained on the list of persons, entities and bodies to which those restrictive measures apply.

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

2.

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

---

(1)  OJ C 213, 24.6.2019.

---

| 17.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/36

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2020 — Nitto Pharmaceutical Industries v EUIPO — Chiesi Farmaceutici (NOSTER)

(Case T-550/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark NOSTER - Earlier EU word mark FOSTER - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2020/C 271/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Nitto Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd (Kyoto, Japan) (represented by: P. Voutilainen, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Chiesi Farmaceutici SpA (Parma, Italy) (represented by: C. de Callataÿ and T. de Haan, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 May 2019 (Case R 2279/2018-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Chiesi Farmaceutici and Nitto Pharmaceutical Industries.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Nitto Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Chiesi Farmaceutici SpA. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Nitto Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Chiesi Farmaceutici SpA.

---

(1)  OJ C 337, 7.10.2019.

---

| 17.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/37

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2020 — Brands Up v EUIPO (Credit24)

(Case T-651/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark Credit24 - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2020/C 271/47)

Language of the case: Finnish

Parties

Applicant: Brands UP OÜ (Tallinn, Estonia) (represented by: M. Welin, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 July 2019 (Case R 465/2019-2), concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign Credit24 as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Brands UP OÜ to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Brands UP OÜ to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 399, 25.11.2019.

---

| 17.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/38

---

Order of the General Court of 16 June 2020 — Walker and Others v Parliament and Council

(Case T-383/19) (1)

(Action for annulment - Area of freedom, security and justice - Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the Union - Regulation (EU) 2019/592 amending Regulation (EU) 2018/1806 - Short-stay visa waiver on the basis of reciprocity - Alleged loss of EU citizenship - Not individually concerned - Inadmissibility)

(2020/C 271/48)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Hilary Elizabeth Walker (Cadiz, Spain), Jennifer Ann Cording (Valdagno, Italy), Douglas Edward Watson (Beaumont, France), Christopher David Randolph (Ballinlassa Belcarra Castlebar, Ireland), Michael Charles Strawson (Serralongue, France) (represented by J. Fouchet, lawyer)

Defendants: European Parliament (represented by D. Warin and R. van de Westelaken, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by S. Cholakova and R. Meyer, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Regulation (EU) 2019/592 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 April 2019 amending Regulation (EU) 2018/1806 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement, as regards the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the Union (OJ 2019 L 103 I, p. 1).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene made by the Kingdom of Spain and the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene made by the Kingdom of Spain and the European Commission.

| 3. | Ms Hilary Elizabeth Walker, Ms Jennifer Ann Cording, Mr Douglas Edward Watson, Mr Christopher David Randolph and Mr Michael Charles Strawson shall bear their own costs, and pay those incurred by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, including those relating to the application for interim measures before the General Court, except those relating to the applications for leave to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Ms Hilary Elizabeth Walker, Ms Jennifer Ann Cording, Mr Douglas Edward Watson, Mr Christopher David Randolph and Mr Michael Charles Strawson shall bear their own costs, and pay those incurred by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, including those relating to the application for interim measures before the General Court, except those relating to the applications for leave to intervene.

| 4. | Ms Walker, Ms Cording, Mr Watson, Mr Randolph and Mr Strawson, the Parliament, the Council, the Kingdom of Spain and the Commission shall each bear their own costs relating to the applications for leave to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Ms Walker, Ms Cording, Mr Watson, Mr Randolph and Mr Strawson, the Parliament, the Council, the Kingdom of Spain and the Commission shall each bear their own costs relating to the applications for leave to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 270, 12.8.2019.

---

| 17.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/38

---

Order of the General Court of 16 June 2020 — Luz Saúde v EUIPO — Clínica La Luz (HOSPITAL DA LUZ LEARNING HEALTH)

(Case T-558/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for registration of the EU figurative mark HOSPITAL DA LUZ LEARNING HEALTH - Earlier national figurative mark clínica LALUZ - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

(2020/C 271/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Luz Saúde, SA (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: G. Moreira Rato, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: Clínica La Luz, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: I. Temiño Ceniceros, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 July 2019 (Case R 2239/2018-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Clínica La Luz and Luz Saúde.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Luz Saúde, SA is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Luz Saúde, SA is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 319, 23.9.2019.

---

| 17.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/39

---

Action brought on 4 June 2020 — HS v Commission

(Case T-848/19)

(2020/C 271/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: HS (represented by: L. Levi and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of 12 March 2019 to dismiss the applicant at the end of the probationary period, |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 12 March 2019 to dismiss the applicant at the end of the probationary period,

| — | so far as necessary, annul the decision of 10 October 2019 rejecting the applicant’s complaint, |
| --- | --- |

—

so far as necessary, annul the decision of 10 October 2019 rejecting the applicant’s complaint,

| — | compensate for the moral prejudice suffered by the applicant which can be evaluated, ex aequo et bono, to 15 000 Euros, |
| --- | --- |

—

compensate for the moral prejudice suffered by the applicant which can be evaluated, ex aequo et bono, to 15 000 Euros,

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

—

order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging violation of the principle of non-discrimination on ground of disability and of the duty to provide reasonable accommodation, violation of Article 21 of the Charter, of the United Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities and of Article 1(d) of the Staff Regulations and, violation of the duty of care. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging violation of the principle of non-discrimination on ground of disability and of the duty to provide reasonable accommodation, violation of Article 21 of the Charter, of the United Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities and of Article 1(d) of the Staff Regulations and, violation of the duty of care.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging violation of Article 34 of the Staff Regulations: breach of the probationary period proper conditions, lack of guidance and lack and uncertainty of objectives, breach of the right to be heard and, manifest errors of assessment. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging violation of Article 34 of the Staff Regulations: breach of the probationary period proper conditions, lack of guidance and lack and uncertainty of objectives, breach of the right to be heard and, manifest errors of assessment.

| 3. | On the request for compensation, the applicant exposes the fault committed by the defendant, the damage suffered and the link between the fault and the damage. |
| --- | --- |

3.

On the request for compensation, the applicant exposes the fault committed by the defendant, the damage suffered and the link between the fault and the damage.

---

| 17.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/40

---

Action brought on 29 May 2020 — Sogia Ellas v Commission

(Case T-347/20)

(2020/C 271/51)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Sogia Ellas AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: P. Bernitsas, M. Androulakaki, A. Patsalia and E. Kalogiannis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the action admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the action admissible;

| — | annul the decision in its entirety or, in the alternative, in so far as it concerns the applicant; (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision in its entirety or, in the alternative, in so far as it concerns the applicant; (1)

| — | in the alternative, annul Article 2 of the decision in so far as it requires the recovery of the amounts of aid at issue in total or, in the alternative, in so far as it concerns the applicant; and |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Article 2 of the decision in so far as it requires the recovery of the amounts of aid at issue in total or, in the alternative, in so far as it concerns the applicant; and

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging misinterpretation and lack of reasoning on the part of the Commission concerning the existence of State aid: the criteria of economic advantage, selectivity and distortion of competition are not met. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging misinterpretation and lack of reasoning on the part of the Commission concerning the existence of State aid: the criteria of economic advantage, selectivity and distortion of competition are not met.

| 2. | Second plea in law, claiming that the contested measures constitute compatible aid within the meaning of Article 107(2)(b) TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, claiming that the contested measures constitute compatible aid within the meaning of Article 107(2)(b) TFEU.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of sound administration, of the right to be heard and of the obligation to state reasons for the decision, and infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of sound administration, of the right to be heard and of the obligation to state reasons for the decision, and infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (2) and Article 16(1) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589, (3) and that the decision was adopted in breach of the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (2) and Article 16(1) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589, (3) and that the decision was adopted in breach of the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the decision was adopted in breach of the principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the decision was adopted in breach of the principle of proportionality.

---

(1)  Commission Decision (EU) 2020/394 of 7 October 2019 concerning the measures SA.39119 (2016/C) (ex 2015/NN) (ex 2014/CP) implemented by the Hellenic Republic in the form of interest subsidies and guarantees linked to the fires of 2007 (notified under document C(2019) 7094) (OJ 2020 L 76, p. 4)

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).

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

---

| 17.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/41

---

Action brought on 9 June 2020 — Wagenknecht v Commission

(Case T-350/20)

(2020/C 271/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Lukáš Wagenknecht (Pardubice, Czech Republic) (represented by: A. Dolejská, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that the European Commission failed, according to Article 325(1) and Article 319(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and Article 61(1) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council, (1) to take a binding and deterrent measure aimed at preventing or addressing the conflict of interest of the Prime Minister of the Czech Republic, Mr. Andrej Babiš, by not having adopted a binding measure:






  — | preventing the members of the College of Commissioners, in particular its President, from meeting and from discussing issues with the Prime Minister of the Czech Republic, Mr. Andrej Babiš, related to the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) of the EU for 2021 — 2027 and the EU budget in general; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

declare that the European Commission failed, according to Article 325(1) and Article 319(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and Article 61(1) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council, (1) to take a binding and deterrent measure aimed at preventing or addressing the conflict of interest of the Prime Minister of the Czech Republic, Mr. Andrej Babiš, by not having adopted a binding measure:

—

preventing the members of the College of Commissioners, in particular its President, from meeting and from discussing issues with the Prime Minister of the Czech Republic, Mr. Andrej Babiš, related to the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) of the EU for 2021 — 2027 and the EU budget in general;

| — | stopping disbursements of direct agricultural payments from the EU budget to certain companies of which the Prime Minister of the Czech Republic, Mr. Andrej Babiš, is a controlling person and beneficial owner. |
| --- | --- |

—

stopping disbursements of direct agricultural payments from the EU budget to certain companies of which the Prime Minister of the Czech Republic, Mr. Andrej Babiš, is a controlling person and beneficial owner.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the applicant sent to the European Commission, by a letter of 30 January 2020, a call to act under Article 265 TFEU, but the European Commission, in its reply, did not address the contents of the applicant’s call and provided him with an answer on a completely different subject.






  — | The Commission received the invitation to act from the applicant and, although it replied to this invitation, it did not adopt in its reply any position as to the applicant’s invitation to avoid meetings and discussions with the Czech Prime Minister concerning the 2021-2027 MFF and the failure of the Commission to stop disbursements of direct agricultural payments to companies of certain groups, of which the Czech Prime Minister is a controlling person and a beneficial owner. Instead of giving the answer relating to the illegal disbursement of direct agricultural subsidies to those groups, the Commission provided information on the stopping of investment structural and investment agricultural funds to one of those groups, which is a different subject that was not the subject of the applicant’s call to act. On the second part of the applicant’s call, to the effect that the European Commission officers should not meet and discuss the 2021-2027 MFF with Mr Andrej Babiš, the Commission stayed entirely silent. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the applicant sent to the European Commission, by a letter of 30 January 2020, a call to act under Article 265 TFEU, but the European Commission, in its reply, did not address the contents of the applicant’s call and provided him with an answer on a completely different subject.

—

The Commission received the invitation to act from the applicant and, although it replied to this invitation, it did not adopt in its reply any position as to the applicant’s invitation to avoid meetings and discussions with the Czech Prime Minister concerning the 2021-2027 MFF and the failure of the Commission to stop disbursements of direct agricultural payments to companies of certain groups, of which the Czech Prime Minister is a controlling person and a beneficial owner. Instead of giving the answer relating to the illegal disbursement of direct agricultural subsidies to those groups, the Commission provided information on the stopping of investment structural and investment agricultural funds to one of those groups, which is a different subject that was not the subject of the applicant’s call to act. On the second part of the applicant’s call, to the effect that the European Commission officers should not meet and discuss the 2021-2027 MFF with Mr Andrej Babiš, the Commission stayed entirely silent.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the applicant is directly concerned by the failure of the European Commission to act since: (i) no other intermediary act is necessary in order to prevent a member of the College of Commissioners, in particular its President, from meeting and discussing with the Czech Prime Minister the 2021-2027 MFF; and (ii) the legal situation of the applicant is affected due to his being an elected representative of the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic charged with investigation of the conflict of interest of the Czech Prime Minister, as a member of a special Senate Committee established for this purpose, from which the Commission was illegally withholding documents to inhibit its investigative mission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the applicant is directly concerned by the failure of the European Commission to act since: (i) no other intermediary act is necessary in order to prevent a member of the College of Commissioners, in particular its President, from meeting and discussing with the Czech Prime Minister the 2021-2027 MFF; and (ii) the legal situation of the applicant is affected due to his being an elected representative of the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic charged with investigation of the conflict of interest of the Czech Prime Minister, as a member of a special Senate Committee established for this purpose, from which the Commission was illegally withholding documents to inhibit its investigative mission.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging individual concern of the applicant by the omission of the European Commission to act against the conflict of interest of the Czech Prime Minister, Mr. Andrej Babiš, and his interest to act arises out of: (i) the applicant’s constitutional duty to control the correct adoption of EU legal acts, including the EU budget (MFF 2021-2027); (ii) the applicant’s constitutional duty entailing the right to control the Czech Prime Minister when meeting the members of the College of Commissioners, including the duty to exercise responsibly the function of the member of the aforementioned special Committee of the Senate; (iii) election of the applicant in the 2018 elections to the Senate of the Czech Republic and his being in competition with candidates of the ‘ANO’ party controlled by the Czech Prime Minister; (iv) the fact that the applicant received the same death threats as received by the MEPs of the Budgetary Control Committee (CONT) of the European Parliament in February 2020 due to both of them trying to act against the conflict of interest of Andrej Babiš. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging individual concern of the applicant by the omission of the European Commission to act against the conflict of interest of the Czech Prime Minister, Mr. Andrej Babiš, and his interest to act arises out of: (i) the applicant’s constitutional duty to control the correct adoption of EU legal acts, including the EU budget (MFF 2021-2027); (ii) the applicant’s constitutional duty entailing the right to control the Czech Prime Minister when meeting the members of the College of Commissioners, including the duty to exercise responsibly the function of the member of the aforementioned special Committee of the Senate; (iii) election of the applicant in the 2018 elections to the Senate of the Czech Republic and his being in competition with candidates of the ‘ANO’ party controlled by the Czech Prime Minister; (iv) the fact that the applicant received the same death threats as received by the MEPs of the Budgetary Control Committee (CONT) of the European Parliament in February 2020 due to both of them trying to act against the conflict of interest of Andrej Babiš.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that a denial of justice would be committed if a member of the national parliament of an EU Member State would be denied standing in this case, as he would be prevented from exercising even an indirect control via the Court of Justice of the European Union over the European Commission, the executive branch of the EU institutional system. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that a denial of justice would be committed if a member of the national parliament of an EU Member State would be denied standing in this case, as he would be prevented from exercising even an indirect control via the Court of Justice of the European Union over the European Commission, the executive branch of the EU institutional system.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that there is a violation by the Commission of its obligation to act against the conflict of interest of the Czech Prime Minister, Mr. Andrej Babiš, under Article 325(1) TFEU and Article 319(3) TFEU, in conjunction with the Resolution of the European Parliament of 13 December 2018 (2) and Article 61(1) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council. All conditions for the Commission to act have been fulfilled, namely: (i) the existence of a conflict of interest of Mr. Andrej Babiš; (ii) the participation of Mr. Andrej Babiš in the acts preparatory to EU budget implementation; and (iii) the fact that the conflict of interest of Mr. Andrej Babiš constitutes an ‘other illegal activity affecting the financial interests of the Union’ within the meaning of Article 325 (1) TFEU. The Commission has therefore been obliged to act, yet it failed to act, as it did not adopt deterrent measures to neutralise the conflict of interest of the Czech Prime Minister under its obligation set out in Article 319(3) and Article 325(1) TFEU and the second sentence of Article 61(1) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council. Instead, since 2 August 2018, members of the College of Commissioners, in particular its President, continued to meet and discuss with the Czech Prime Minister the 2021-2027 MFF, and the Commission continued to disburse direct agricultural payments, in violation of the conflict of interest prohibition, to companies of certain groups of which Andrej Babiš is a controlling person and beneficial owner. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that there is a violation by the Commission of its obligation to act against the conflict of interest of the Czech Prime Minister, Mr. Andrej Babiš, under Article 325(1) TFEU and Article 319(3) TFEU, in conjunction with the Resolution of the European Parliament of 13 December 2018 (2) and Article 61(1) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council. All conditions for the Commission to act have been fulfilled, namely: (i) the existence of a conflict of interest of Mr. Andrej Babiš; (ii) the participation of Mr. Andrej Babiš in the acts preparatory to EU budget implementation; and (iii) the fact that the conflict of interest of Mr. Andrej Babiš constitutes an ‘other illegal activity affecting the financial interests of the Union’ within the meaning of Article 325 (1) TFEU. The Commission has therefore been obliged to act, yet it failed to act, as it did not adopt deterrent measures to neutralise the conflict of interest of the Czech Prime Minister under its obligation set out in Article 319(3) and Article 325(1) TFEU and the second sentence of Article 61(1) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council. Instead, since 2 August 2018, members of the College of Commissioners, in particular its President, continued to meet and discuss with the Czech Prime Minister the 2021-2027 MFF, and the Commission continued to disburse direct agricultural payments, in violation of the conflict of interest prohibition, to companies of certain groups of which Andrej Babiš is a controlling person and beneficial owner.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, amending Regulations (EU No 1296/2013, (EU) No 1301/2013, (EU) No 1303/2013, (EU) No 1304/2013, (EU) No 1309/2013, (EU) No 1316/2013, (EU) No 223/2014, (EU) No 283/2014, and Decision No 541/2014/EU and repealing Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 (OJ 2018 L 193, p. 1).

(2)  ‘Conflict of interest and the protection of the EU budget in the Czech Republic’, European Parliament resolution P8_TA (2018) 0530 of 13 December 2018 (2018/2975(RSP))

---

| 17.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/42

---

Action brought on 7 June 2020 — Kozhuvchanka uvoz-izvoz Kavadarci v EUIPO (NASHE MAKEDONSKO PILSNER BEER MACEDONIAN PREMIUM BEER)

(Case T-357/20)

(2020/C 271/53)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Applicant: Drushtvo za proizvodvsto, trgovija i uslugi Kozhuvchanka d.o.o. uvoz-izvoz Kavadarci (Kavadarci, Republic of North Macedonia) (represented by: A. Ivanova, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for registration of European Union figurative mark containing the word element ‘NASHE MAKEDONSKO PILSNER BEER MACEDONIAN PREMIUM BEER’ — Application for registration No 17 967 530

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 April 2020 in Case R 1729/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | allow the action and declare that the trade mark application may proceed to registration. |
| --- | --- |

—

allow the action and declare that the trade mark application may proceed to registration.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 17.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/43

---

Action brought on 15 June 2020 — Framery v EUIPO — Smartblock (Transportable building)

(Case T-373/20)

(2020/C 271/54)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Framery Oy (Tampere, Finland) (represented by: P. Voutilainen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Smartblock Oy (Helsinki, Finland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Design at issue: European Union design 3 303 994-00001

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 April 2020 in Case R 616/2019-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and reject the application for declaration of invalidity in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and reject the application for declaration of invalidity in its entirety;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 in conjunction with Article 25(1)(b) of that regulation, on the ground that the contested design has individual character and the Board of Appeal erred in the assessment of the individual character of the contested design; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 in conjunction with Article 25(1)(b) of that regulation, on the ground that the contested design has individual character and the Board of Appeal erred in the assessment of the individual character of the contested design;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 on the ground that the Board of Appeal erroneously accepted a disclosure of an earlier design; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 on the ground that the Board of Appeal erroneously accepted a disclosure of an earlier design;

| — | Infringement of Article 62 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 on the ground that the Board of Appeal failed to state their reasons concerning the acceptance of the disclosure of the earlier design; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 62 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 on the ground that the Board of Appeal failed to state their reasons concerning the acceptance of the disclosure of the earlier design;

| — | Infringement of Article 63(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 on the ground that the Board of Appeal has based their decision to facts, evidence and argumentation especially concerning alleged features and disclosure of the earlier design, that were not provided by either of the parties. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 63(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 on the ground that the Board of Appeal has based their decision to facts, evidence and argumentation especially concerning alleged features and disclosure of the earlier design, that were not provided by either of the parties.

---

| 17.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/44

---

Action brought on 17 June 2020 — Tubes Radiatori v EUIPO — Antrax It (Radiator for heating)

(Case T-380/20)

(2020/C 271/55)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Tubes Radiatori Srl (Resana, Italy) (represented by: S. Verea, K. Muraro, M. Balestriero and P. Menapace, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Antrax It Srl (Resana, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Design at issue: Community design No 169 370 - 0002 (Radiator for heating)

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 March 2020 in Case R 1275/2017-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | find and declare that Community design No 169 370 - 0002, owned by TUBES RADIATORI Srl, is valid in so far as it is new and has individual character; |
| --- | --- |

—

find and declare that Community design No 169 370 - 0002, owned by TUBES RADIATORI Srl, is valid in so far as it is new and has individual character;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002.

---

| 17.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/44

---

Action brought on 17 June 2020 — Lee v EUIPO (Table knives, forks and spoons)

(Case T-382/20)

(2020/C 271/56)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Keun Jig Lee (Paju-si, Republic of Korea) (represented by: F. Jacobacci and B. La Tella, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Design: European Union design No 5 866 514-0001

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 April 2020 in Case R 2559/2019-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision in its entirely; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in its entirely;

| — | declare admissible the application for restitutio in integrum and grant it;; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare admissible the application for restitutio in integrum and grant it;;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs of the procedure.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 67(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 67(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;

| — | Infringement of Article 67(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 67(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002.

---

| 17.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/45

---

Action brought on 16 June 2020 — Micron Technology v EUIPO (INTELLIGENCE, ACCELERATED)

(Case T-386/20)

(2020/C 271/57)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Micron Technology, Inc. (Boise, Idaho, United States) (represented by: M. Edenborough, QC)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark INTELLIGENCE, ACCELERATED — Application for registration No 17 959 758

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 April 2020 in Case R 2873/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | alternatively, alter the contested decision such that it is now held that European Union trade mark application does not offend against Articles 7(1)(b) or (c) or both; |
| --- | --- |

—

alternatively, alter the contested decision such that it is now held that European Union trade mark application does not offend against Articles 7(1)(b) or (c) or both;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs to the applicant, the applicant’s costs of and occasioned by this application. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs to the applicant, the applicant’s costs of and occasioned by this application.

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 Articles 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

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

| — | Infringement of Article 72(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 72(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 17.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/46

---

Action brought on 29 June 2020 — Hypo Vorarlberg Bank v SRB

(Case T-394/20)

(2020/C 271/58)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Hypo Vorarlberg Bank AG (Bregenz, Austria) (represented by: G. Eisenberger und A. Brenneis, 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 15 April 2020 on the calculation of the 2020 ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2020/24), including the annexes thereto, in any event in so far as the contested decision, including the annexes thereto, concerns the contribution to be paid by the applicant; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 15 April 2020 on the calculation of the 2020 ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2020/24), including the annexes thereto, in any event in so far as the contested decision, including the annexes thereto, concerns the contribution to be paid by the applicant; and

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

—

order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law, which are essentially identical or similar to the pleas in law put forward in Case T-479/19, Hypo Vorarlberg Bank v SRB. (1).

---

(1)  OJ 2019 C 305, p. 58

---

| 17.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/46

---

Action brought on 26 June 2020 — Riviera-Airport v EUIPO — Aéroports de la Côte d’Azur (RIVIERA AIRPORTS)

(Case T-396/20)

(2020/C 271/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Aeroporto di Villanova d’Albenga SpA (Riviera-Airport) (Villanova d’Albenga, Italy) (represented by: G. Casucci, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Aéroports de la Côte d’Azur (Nice, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark RIVIERA AIRPORTS in colour — European Union trade mark No 16 397 309

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 April 2020 in Case R 2172/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | alter the contested decision to:






  — | allow the applicant’s appeal, |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

alter the contested decision to:

—

allow the applicant’s appeal,

| — | grant in its entirety the applicant’s cancellation application No. 20 825 C to declare the trade mark at issue invalid, |
| --- | --- |

—

grant in its entirety the applicant’s cancellation application No. 20 825 C to declare the trade mark at issue invalid,

| — | order the European Union trade mark proprietor to pay the applicant’s costs before of the Board of Appeal and the Cancellation Division, |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Union trade mark proprietor to pay the applicant’s costs before of the Board of Appeal and the Cancellation Division,

| — | alternatively remit the case to the Cancellation Division to address Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

alternatively remit the case to the Cancellation Division to address Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | order the payment of the applicant’s fees and costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the payment of the applicant’s fees and costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Failure to interpret the correct ruling of bad faith application; |
| --- | --- |

—

Failure to interpret the correct ruling of bad faith application;

| — | Wrong and partial analysis and evaluation of the relevant indicia required in the overall and case-by-case assessment of the bad faith application; |
| --- | --- |

—

Wrong and partial analysis and evaluation of the relevant indicia required in the overall and case-by-case assessment of the bad faith application;

| — | Failure to consider all the other relevant indicia and the available evidence of the bad faith according to the required overall and case-by-case assessment of the bad faith application; |
| --- | --- |

—

Failure to consider all the other relevant indicia and the available evidence of the bad faith according to the required overall and case-by-case assessment of the bad faith application;

| — | Wrong interpretation and enforcement of Article 12(2) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 to the case at issue; |
| --- | --- |

—

Wrong interpretation and enforcement of Article 12(2) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 to the case at issue;

| — | Failure of the Board of Appeal to carry out a correct analysis. |
| --- | --- |

—

Failure of the Board of Appeal to carry out a correct analysis.

---

| 17.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/47

---

Action brought on 26 June 2020 — Riviera-Airport v EUIPO — Aéroports de la Côte d’Azur (RIVIERA AIRPORT)

(Case T-398/20)

(2020/C 271/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Aeroporto di Villanova d’Albenga SpA (Riviera-Airport) (Villanova d’Albenga, Italy) (represented by: G. Casucci, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Aéroports de la Côte d’Azur (Nice, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark RIVIERA AIRPORT in colour — European Union trade mark No 16 392 731

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 April 2020 in Case R 2174/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | alter the contested decision to: |
| --- | --- |

—

alter the contested decision to:

| — | allow the applicant’s appeal,






  — | grant in its entirety the applicant’s cancellation application No. 20 824 C to declare the trade mark at issue invalid, |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

allow the applicant’s appeal,

—

grant in its entirety the applicant’s cancellation application No. 20 824 C to declare the trade mark at issue invalid,

| — | order the European Union trade mark proprietor to pay the applicant’s costs before of the Board of Appeal and the Cancellation Division, |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Union trade mark proprietor to pay the applicant’s costs before of the Board of Appeal and the Cancellation Division,

| — | alternatively remit the case to the Cancellation Division to address Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

alternatively remit the case to the Cancellation Division to address Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | order the payment of the applicant’s fees and costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the payment of the applicant’s fees and costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Failure to interpret the correct ruling of bad faith application; |
| --- | --- |

—

Failure to interpret the correct ruling of bad faith application;

| — | Wrong and partial analysis and evaluation of the relevant indicia required in the overall and case-by-case assessment of the bad faith application; |
| --- | --- |

—

Wrong and partial analysis and evaluation of the relevant indicia required in the overall and case-by-case assessment of the bad faith application;

| — | Failure to consider all the other relevant indicia and the available evidence of the bad faith according to the required overall and case-by-case assessment of the bad faith application; |
| --- | --- |

—

Failure to consider all the other relevant indicia and the available evidence of the bad faith according to the required overall and case-by-case assessment of the bad faith application;

| — | Wrong interpretation and enforcement of Article 12(2) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 to the case at issue; |
| --- | --- |

—

Wrong interpretation and enforcement of Article 12(2) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 to the case at issue;

| — | Failure of the Board of Appeal to carry out a correct analysis. |
| --- | --- |

—

Failure of the Board of Appeal to carry out a correct analysis.

---

| 17.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/48

---

Action brought on 26 June 2020 — Cole Haan v EUIPO — Samsøe & Samsøe (Ø)

(Case T-399/20)

(2020/C 271/61)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Samsøe & Samsøe Holding A/S (Copenhagen, Denmark)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark Ø — Application for registration No 17 429 044

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 April 2020 in Case R 1375/2019-4

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 this application; |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs of this application;

| — | order the intervener to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the intervener to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

| — | Failure to correctly determine the visual, phonetic or conceptual similarity; |
| --- | --- |

—

Failure to correctly determine the visual, phonetic or conceptual similarity;

| — | Failure to correctly make an overall assessment of the likelihood of confusion. |
| --- | --- |

—

Failure to correctly make an overall assessment of the likelihood of confusion.

---

| 17.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/49

---

Action brought on 30 June 2020 — Zippo Manufacturing and Others v Commission

(Case T-402/20)

(2020/C 271/62)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Zippo Manufacturing Co. (Bradford, Pennsylvania, United States), Zippo GmbH (Emmerich am Rhein, Germany), Zippo SAS (Paris, France) (represented by: R. MacLean, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/502 of 6 April 2020 on certain commercial policy measures concerning certain products originating in the United States of America to the extent that these measures apply to the applicants; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/502 of 6 April 2020 on certain commercial policy measures concerning certain products originating in the United States of America to the extent that these measures apply to the applicants;

| — | order the defendant and any interveners to pay the applicant’s costs and expenses of this procedure. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant and any interveners to pay the applicant’s costs and expenses of this procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging the infringement of the principle of proportionality in selecting the applicants’ products for the application of the additional duties applied by the Contested Regulation on the grounds that those measures: (a) are not appropriate for attaining the objectives pursued; (b) go beyond what is necessary to achieve its objectives; and (c) entail needless adverse effects upon applicants. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging the infringement of the principle of proportionality in selecting the applicants’ products for the application of the additional duties applied by the Contested Regulation on the grounds that those measures: (a) are not appropriate for attaining the objectives pursued; (b) go beyond what is necessary to achieve its objectives; and (c) entail needless adverse effects upon applicants.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging the infringement of the principle of non-discrimination and equal treatment in selecting the applicants’ products for additional duties applied by the Contested Regulation on the grounds that the additional duties create an unequal situation for them in the Union market without sufficient justification that the discrimination was objectively justified. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging the infringement of the principle of non-discrimination and equal treatment in selecting the applicants’ products for additional duties applied by the Contested Regulation on the grounds that the additional duties create an unequal situation for them in the Union market without sufficient justification that the discrimination was objectively justified.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in law and facts through failure to properly motivate the reasoning contained in the Contested Regulation and the Contested Measures in selecting the applicants’ products for additional duties on the grounds that the European Commission failed to provide sufficient and adequate reasoning for applying the measures to their products. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in law and facts through failure to properly motivate the reasoning contained in the Contested Regulation and the Contested Measures in selecting the applicants’ products for additional duties on the grounds that the European Commission failed to provide sufficient and adequate reasoning for applying the measures to their products.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in law by infringing the Union’s duties under the Agreements of the World Trade Organisation on the grounds that the European Commission was obligated under the WTO Safeguards Agreement and Article 22(3) of the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding to suspend concessions or other obligations with respect to the same sector as that in which the nullification or impairment occurred under the relevant US safeguard measures to the detriment of the applicants’ economic and commercial interests. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in law by infringing the Union’s duties under the Agreements of the World Trade Organisation on the grounds that the European Commission was obligated under the WTO Safeguards Agreement and Article 22(3) of the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding to suspend concessions or other obligations with respect to the same sector as that in which the nullification or impairment occurred under the relevant US safeguard measures to the detriment of the applicants’ economic and commercial interests.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging the infringement of the principle of sound administration in selecting the applicants’ products for the application of additional duties applied by the Contested Regulation on the grounds that the preceding consultation process carried out was non-transparent, ineffective in providing adequate notice of that process to the applicants, deprived them of their right to be heard and infringed their legitimate expectation not to be the subject of such measures derived. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging the infringement of the principle of sound administration in selecting the applicants’ products for the application of additional duties applied by the Contested Regulation on the grounds that the preceding consultation process carried out was non-transparent, ineffective in providing adequate notice of that process to the applicants, deprived them of their right to be heard and infringed their legitimate expectation not to be the subject of such measures derived.

---

| 17.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/50

---

Action brought on 2 July 2020 — DZ Hyp v SRB

(Case T-405/20)

(2020/C 271/63)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: DZ Hyp AG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: H. Berger and K. Helle, 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 15 April 2020 on the calculation of contributions to the Single Resolution Fund collected in advance for 2020 (SRB/ES/2020/24), including its annexes, in so far as the contested decision, including Annex I and Annex II, concerns the applicant’s contribution; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 15 April 2020 on the calculation of contributions to the Single Resolution Fund collected in advance for 2020 (SRB/ES/2020/24), including its annexes, in so far as the contested decision, including Annex I and Annex II, concerns the applicant’s contribution;

| — | 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 eleven pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging an infringement of the obligation to state reasons under Article 296(2) TFEU and Article 41(1) and (2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’)
  The applicant claims that the defendant should have given binding reasons for the decision in the German language. Furthermore, the defendant infringed the obligation to state reasons in several respects, since the decision, including its annexes, does not even in the English version declared binding give any indication of how and on what grounds the defendant calculated the applicant’s contribution. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging an infringement of the obligation to state reasons under Article 296(2) TFEU and Article 41(1) and (2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’)

The applicant claims that the defendant should have given binding reasons for the decision in the German language. Furthermore, the defendant infringed the obligation to state reasons in several respects, since the decision, including its annexes, does not even in the English version declared binding give any indication of how and on what grounds the defendant calculated the applicant’s contribution.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the right to a fair hearing under Article 41(1) and (2)(a) of the Charter due to a failure to hear the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the right to a fair hearing under Article 41(1) and (2)(a) of the Charter due to a failure to hear the applicant.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 81(1) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) in conjunction with Article 3 of Council Regulation No 1 (2) |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 81(1) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) in conjunction with Article 3 of Council Regulation No 1 (2)

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of effective judicial protection under Article 47(1) of the Charter, inasmuch as it is practically impossible to review the decision by the courts |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of effective judicial protection under Article 47(1) of the Charter, inasmuch as it is practically impossible to review the decision by the courts

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the second sentence of Article 7(4) of Delegate Regulation (EU) 2015/63 of the Commission (3) against higher-ranking law
  The fifth plea alleges that the second sentence of Article 7(4) of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 2015/63 is contrary to Article 113(7) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (4) and Article 103(7)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92. (h) of Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, (5) as well as the requirement of risk-appropriate premium assessment, since the regulation permits an objectively inappropriate and disproportionate differentiation between the members of an institution-related protection scheme and a relativisation of the IPS indicator through the double consideration of the risk indicator for ‘trading activities, off-balance-sheet risks, derivatives, complexity and run-off capacity’ to the detriment of the institutions liable to pay contributions.
  In addition, the provision infringes the principle of certainty, the requirement to take full account of the facts of the case and, in conjunction with other provisions of the Delegated Ordinance, provides for effective legal protection. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the second sentence of Article 7(4) of Delegate Regulation (EU) 2015/63 of the Commission (3) against higher-ranking law

The fifth plea alleges that the second sentence of Article 7(4) of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 2015/63 is contrary to Article 113(7) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (4) and Article 103(7)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92. (h) of Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, (5) as well as the requirement of risk-appropriate premium assessment, since the regulation permits an objectively inappropriate and disproportionate differentiation between the members of an institution-related protection scheme and a relativisation of the IPS indicator through the double consideration of the risk indicator for ‘trading activities, off-balance-sheet risks, derivatives, complexity and run-off capacity’ to the detriment of the institutions liable to pay contributions.

In addition, the provision infringes the principle of certainty, the requirement to take full account of the facts of the case and, in conjunction with other provisions of the Delegated Ordinance, provides for effective legal protection.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging an Infringement of higher-ranking law by the decision in applying the multiplier for the IPS (Institutional Protection Scheme) indicator
  The applicant claims that the defendant has implemented the requirements of the second sentence of Article 7(4) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 in breach of Article 103(7)(h) of Directive 2014/59/EU, Article 113(7) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 and Articles 16, 20, 41 and 52 of the Charter and has not fully applied the IPS indicator to the applicant. A differentiation between the institutions at the level of the IPS indicator is contrary to the system and arbitrary because of the comprehensive protective effect of an institution-related guarantee scheme. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging an Infringement of higher-ranking law by the decision in applying the multiplier for the IPS (Institutional Protection Scheme) indicator

The applicant claims that the defendant has implemented the requirements of the second sentence of Article 7(4) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 in breach of Article 103(7)(h) of Directive 2014/59/EU, Article 113(7) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 and Articles 16, 20, 41 and 52 of the Charter and has not fully applied the IPS indicator to the applicant. A differentiation between the institutions at the level of the IPS indicator is contrary to the system and arbitrary because of the comprehensive protective effect of an institution-related guarantee scheme.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging an infringement of Articles 6, 7 and 9 of Delegate Regulation (EU) 2015/63 and Annex I to that delegate regulation against higher-ranking law
  The seventh plea alleges that Articles 6, 7 and 9 of, and Annex I to, Delegate Regulation (EU) 2015/63 infringe the requirement of risk-appropriate premium assessment, Articles 16 and 20 of the Charter, the principle of proportionality and the requirement to take full account of the facts, in that the provisions lay down, on the basis of an idealistic picture, risk indicators and procedures and formulae for combining them which do not correspond to the actual situation of all institutions liable to pay contributions. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging an infringement of Articles 6, 7 and 9 of Delegate Regulation (EU) 2015/63 and Annex I to that delegate regulation against higher-ranking law

The seventh plea alleges that Articles 6, 7 and 9 of, and Annex I to, Delegate Regulation (EU) 2015/63 infringe the requirement of risk-appropriate premium assessment, Articles 16 and 20 of the Charter, the principle of proportionality and the requirement to take full account of the facts, in that the provisions lay down, on the basis of an idealistic picture, risk indicators and procedures and formulae for combining them which do not correspond to the actual situation of all institutions liable to pay contributions.

| 8. | Eighth plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 16 of the Charter and of the principle of proportionality, in that the defendant calculated risk adjustment multiples which do not take full and proper account of the applicant’s significantly lower probability of liquidation |
| --- | --- |

8.

Eighth plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 16 of the Charter and of the principle of proportionality, in that the defendant calculated risk adjustment multiples which do not take full and proper account of the applicant’s significantly lower probability of liquidation

| 9. | Ninth plea in law, alleging an infringement of Articles 16, 20, 41 and 52 of the Charter, in that the defendant calculated the risk adjustment multiples in accordance with the provisions of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63, without exercising its discretion to adjust the application of the risk indicators in the applicant’s case |
| --- | --- |

9.

Ninth plea in law, alleging an infringement of Articles 16, 20, 41 and 52 of the Charter, in that the defendant calculated the risk adjustment multiples in accordance with the provisions of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63, without exercising its discretion to adjust the application of the risk indicators in the applicant’s case

| 10. | Tenth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the first and second sentences of Article 20(1) of Delegate Regulation (EU) 2015/63 against Article 103(7) of Directive 2014/59/EU and the requirement of risk-appropriate premium assessment |
| --- | --- |

10.

Tenth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the first and second sentences of Article 20(1) of Delegate Regulation (EU) 2015/63 against Article 103(7) of Directive 2014/59/EU and the requirement of risk-appropriate premium assessment

| 11. | Eleventh plea in law, alleging an infringement of Articles 4 to 9 of Delegate Regulation (EU) 2015/63 and Annex I to that delegate regulation against the principle of effective legal protection and the principle of legal certainty |
| --- | --- |

11.

Eleventh plea in law, alleging an infringement of Articles 4 to 9 of Delegate Regulation (EU) 2015/63 and Annex I to that delegate regulation against the principle of effective legal protection and the principle of legal certainty

---

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

(2)  Council Regulation No 1 of 15 April 1958 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community (OJ 1958 L 17, p. 385).

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

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

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

---

| 17.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/52

---

Action brought on 2 July 2020 — Landesbank Baden-Württemberg v SRB

(Case T-406/20)

(2020/C 271/64)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Landesbank Baden-Württemberg (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: H. Berger and K. Helle, 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 15 April 2020 on the calculation of contributions to the Single Resolution Fund collected in advance for 2020 (SRB/ES/2020/24), including its annexes, in so far as the contested decision, including Annex I and Annex II, concerns the applicant’s contribution; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 15 April 2020 on the calculation of contributions to the Single Resolution Fund collected in advance for 2020 (SRB/ES/2020/24), including its annexes, in so far as the contested decision, including Annex I and Annex II, concerns the applicant’s contribution;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The action is based on eleven pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those put forward in Case T-405/20, DZ Hyp v SRB.

---

| 17.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/52

---

Action brought on 2 July 2020 — DVB Bank v SRB

(Case T-407/20)

(2020/C 271/65)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: DVB Bank SE (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: H. Berger and K. Helle, Germany)

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 15 April 2020 on the calculation of contributions to the Single Resolution Fund collected in advance for 2020 (SRB/ES/2020/24), including its annexes, in so far as the contested decision, including Annex I and Annex II, concerns the applicant’s contribution; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 15 April 2020 on the calculation of contributions to the Single Resolution Fund collected in advance for 2020 (SRB/ES/2020/24), including its annexes, in so far as the contested decision, including Annex I and Annex II, concerns the applicant’s contribution;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The action is based on ten pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those put forward in Case T-405/20, DZ Hyp v CRU.

---

| 17.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/53

---

Action brought on 3 July 2020 — DZ Bank v SRB

(Case T-410/20)

(2020/C 271/66)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: DZ Bank AG Deutsche Zentral-Genossenschaftsbank, Frankfurt am Main (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: H. Berger and K. Helle, 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 15 April 2020 on the calculation of contributions to the Single Resolution Fund collected in advance for 2020 (SRB/ES/2020/24), including its annexes, in so far as the contested decision, including Annex I and Annex II, concerns the applicant’s contribution; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 15 April 2020 on the calculation of contributions to the Single Resolution Fund collected in advance for 2020 (SRB/ES/2020/24), including its annexes, in so far as the contested decision, including Annex I and Annex II, concerns the applicant’s contribution;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The action is based on eleven pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those put forward in Case T-405/20, DZ Hyp v SRB.

---

| 17.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/53

---

Action brought on 3 July 2020 — Bayerische Landesbank v SRB

(Case T-411/20)

(2020/C 271/67)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Bayerische Landesbank (Munich, Germany) (represented by: H. Berger and K. Helle, 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 15 April 2020 on the calculation of contributions to the Single Resolution Fund collected in advance for 2020 (SRB/ES/2020/24), including its annexes, in so far as the contested decision, including Annex I and Annex II, concerns the applicant’s contribution; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 15 April 2020 on the calculation of contributions to the Single Resolution Fund collected in advance for 2020 (SRB/ES/2020/24), including its annexes, in so far as the contested decision, including Annex I and Annex II, concerns the applicant’s contribution;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The action is based on eleven pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those put forward in Case T-405/20, DZ Hyp v SRB.

---

| 17.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/54

---

Action brought on 3 July 2020 — Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen Girozentrale v SRB

(Case T-412/20)

(2020/C 271/68)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen Girozentrale (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: H. Berger and K. Helle, 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 15 April 2020 on the calculation of contributions to the Single Resolution Fund collected in advance for 2020 (SRB/ES/2020/24), including its annexes, in so far as the contested decision, including Annex I and Annex II, concerns the applicant’s contribution; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 15 April 2020 on the calculation of contributions to the Single Resolution Fund collected in advance for 2020 (SRB/ES/2020/24), including its annexes, in so far as the contested decision, including Annex I and Annex II, concerns the applicant’s contribution;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The action is based on eleven pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those put forward in Case T-405/20, DZ Hyp v SRB.

---

| 17.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/54

---

Action brought on 3 July 2020 — Norddeutsche Landesbank — Girozentrale v SRB

(Case T-413/20)

(2020/C 271/69)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Norddeutsche Landesbank — Girozentrale (represented by: D. Flore and J. Seitz, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the defendant’s decision of 15 April 2020 (SRB/ES/2020/24), including the annex thereto, concerning the calculation of the contributions levied in advance to the Single Resolution Fund for 2020 and the details of the calculation in so far as they are relevant to the applicant, and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the defendant’s decision of 15 April 2020 (SRB/ES/2020/24), including the annex thereto, concerning the calculation of the contributions levied in advance to the Single Resolution Fund for 2020 and the details of the calculation in so far as they are relevant to the applicant, and

| — | 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 seven pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging an infringement of the right to be heard






  — | The defendant failed to hear the applicant before adopting the contested decision, thereby infringing Article 41(1) and (2)(a) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’). |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging an infringement of the right to be heard

—

The defendant failed to hear the applicant before adopting the contested decision, thereby infringing Article 41(1) and (2)(a) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’).

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of procedural rules






  — | The contested decision was adopted in breach of general procedural requirements deriving from Article 41 of the Charter, Article 298 TFEU, general principles of law and the defendant’s Rules of Procedure. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of procedural rules

—

The contested decision was adopted in breach of general procedural requirements deriving from Article 41 of the Charter, Article 298 TFEU, general principles of law and the defendant’s Rules of Procedure.

| — | It is, inter alia, not verifiable for the applicant that the contested decision complied with the minimum duration of written procedures. |
| --- | --- |

—

It is, inter alia, not verifiable for the applicant that the contested decision complied with the minimum duration of written procedures.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a failure to state reasons for the contested decision






  — | The contested decision does not contain a sufficient statement of reasons; in particular, it lacks a statement of reasons relating to the individual case and a description of the fundamental considerations in the context of proportionality/discretion. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a failure to state reasons for the contested decision

—

The contested decision does not contain a sufficient statement of reasons; in particular, it lacks a statement of reasons relating to the individual case and a description of the fundamental considerations in the context of proportionality/discretion.

| — | Moreover, the calculation of the annual contribution is not comprehensible. |
| --- | --- |

—

Moreover, the calculation of the annual contribution is not comprehensible.

| — | A remedy for the lack of reasoning by means of the decision of the Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht (Federal Financial Supervisory Authority) is excluded on legal and factual grounds. |
| --- | --- |

—

A remedy for the lack of reasoning by means of the decision of the Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht (Federal Financial Supervisory Authority) is excluded on legal and factual grounds.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the fundamental right to effective judicial protection (Article 47(1) of the Charter) for lack of verifiability of the contested order






  — | The lack of a statement of reasons for the contested decision makes judicial review considerably more difficult. In that regard, the applicant submits that it is practically impossible for it to set out in detail the pleas in law and to challenge the grounds on which the contested decision was adopted. |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the fundamental right to effective judicial protection (Article 47(1) of the Charter) for lack of verifiability of the contested order

—

The lack of a statement of reasons for the contested decision makes judicial review considerably more difficult. In that regard, the applicant submits that it is practically impossible for it to set out in detail the pleas in law and to challenge the grounds on which the contested decision was adopted.

| — | In particular, the defendant infringed the principle of audi alteram partem, according to which the parties must be able to exchange arguments on both the factual and legal circumstances which are decisive for the outcome of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

In particular, the defendant infringed the principle of audi alteram partem, according to which the parties must be able to exchange arguments on both the factual and legal circumstances which are decisive for the outcome of the proceedings.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the application of the IPS (Institutional Protection Scheme) indicator of Commission Delegate Regulation (EU) 2015/63 (1) infringes higher-ranking law






  — | The Commission had no discretion when adopting Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 as a delegated act within the meaning of Article 290 TFEU, which would result in limited judicial review. The same applies to the application of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 by the defendant. |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the application of the IPS (Institutional Protection Scheme) indicator of Commission Delegate Regulation (EU) 2015/63 (1) infringes higher-ranking law

—

The Commission had no discretion when adopting Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 as a delegated act within the meaning of Article 290 TFEU, which would result in limited judicial review. The same applies to the application of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 by the defendant.

| — | In the application of the IPS indicator, the importance of the applicant’s membership of an institution-related guarantee scheme as an important criterion for the determination of contributions was well known, in particular the classification into three classes and the placing of the applicant in the class for the highest risk profile was erroneous in law. |
| --- | --- |

—

In the application of the IPS indicator, the importance of the applicant’s membership of an institution-related guarantee scheme as an important criterion for the determination of contributions was well known, in particular the classification into three classes and the placing of the applicant in the class for the highest risk profile was erroneous in law.

| — | Pursuant to the second sentence of Article 6(5) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63, the defendant should also have taken into account the probability of the relevant institution being wound up and thus of the Single Settlement Fund being used when setting the contributions. |
| --- | --- |

—

Pursuant to the second sentence of Article 6(5) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63, the defendant should also have taken into account the probability of the relevant institution being wound up and thus of the Single Settlement Fund being used when setting the contributions.

| — | The defendant also disregarded the principle of proportionality when classifying the classes and allocating the adjustment factor for the IPS indicator. |
| --- | --- |

—

The defendant also disregarded the principle of proportionality when classifying the classes and allocating the adjustment factor for the IPS indicator.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging that the application of the risk adjustment multiplier of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 infringes higher-ranking law






  — | The application by the defendant of the risk adjustment multiplier to be determined in accordance with step 6 in Annex I and Article 9(3) of Delegate Regulation (EU) 2015/63 infringes the principle of orientation towards the risk profile. |
| --- | --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the application of the risk adjustment multiplier of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 infringes higher-ranking law

—

The application by the defendant of the risk adjustment multiplier to be determined in accordance with step 6 in Annex I and Article 9(3) of Delegate Regulation (EU) 2015/63 infringes the principle of orientation towards the risk profile.

| — | The setting of the risk adjustment multiplier at a value of 1,388146345995 and 1,384564814222 respectively also constitutes an infringement of the applicant’s entrepreneurial freedom enshrined in Article 16 of the Charter. |
| --- | --- |

—

The setting of the risk adjustment multiplier at a value of 1,388146345995 and 1,384564814222 respectively also constitutes an infringement of the applicant’s entrepreneurial freedom enshrined in Article 16 of the Charter.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law (in the alternative), alleging that the second sentence of Article 7(4) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 infringes higher-ranking law






  — | The second sentence of Article 7(4) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 is unlawful because the adjustment of the IPS indicator by the risk indicator ‘trading activities, off-balance-sheet risks, derivatives, complexity and run-off’ pursuant to the second sentence of Article 7(4) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 does not comply with the requirements laid down in Article 113(7) of Regulation (EU) No. 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) and thus leads to unjustified unequal treatment between different institutions which are members of an institutional protection scheme. |
| --- | --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law (in the alternative), alleging that the second sentence of Article 7(4) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 infringes higher-ranking law

—

The second sentence of Article 7(4) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 is unlawful because the adjustment of the IPS indicator by the risk indicator ‘trading activities, off-balance-sheet risks, derivatives, complexity and run-off’ pursuant to the second sentence of Article 7(4) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 does not comply with the requirements laid down in Article 113(7) of Regulation (EU) No. 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) and thus leads to unjustified unequal treatment between different institutions which are members of an institutional protection scheme.

| — | The second sentence of Article 7(4) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 also infringes the principle of proportionality because of the multiple consideration of the sub-risk indicators referred to in the first sentence of Article 7(4)(a) of that delegated regulation. |
| --- | --- |

—

The second sentence of Article 7(4) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 also infringes the principle of proportionality because of the multiple consideration of the sub-risk indicators referred to in the first sentence of Article 7(4)(a) of that delegated regulation.

---

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

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

---

| 17.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/56

---

Order of the General Court 17 June 2020 — Sánchez Cano v EUIPO — Grupo Osborne (EL TORO BALLS Fini)

(Case T-527/19) (1)

(2020/C 271/70)

Language of the case: Spanish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 312, 16.9.2019.

---