# Official Journal C 158/11 A

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 158 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6511 April 2022 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 158

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6511 April 2022

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2022/C 158/01 | 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

2022/C 158/01

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 |
| 2022/C 158/02 | Case C-526/21 P: Appeal brought on 24 August 2021 by Antonius Maria Vervloet and Cornelia Wilhelmina Vervloet-Mulder against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 25 June 2021 in Case T-211/21 Vervloet and Vervloet-Mulder v AREB | 2 |
| 2022/C 158/03 | Case C-721/21: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) made on 26 November 2021 — Eco Advocacy CLG v An Bord Pleanála | 2 |
| 2022/C 158/04 | Case C-825/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (Belgium) lodged on 23 December 2021 — UP v Centre public d’action sociale de Liège | 3 |
| 2022/C 158/05 | Case C-6/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Woli w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 4 January 2022 — M.B., U.B., M.B. v X S.A. | 4 |
| 2022/C 158/06 | Case C-9/22: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) made on 5 January 2022 — NJ, OZ v An Bord Pleanála, Ireland, Attorney General | 5 |
| 2022/C 158/07 | Case C-24/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Holland, sitting in Haarlem (Netherlands) lodged on 11 January 2022 — PR Pet BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane, kantoor Eindhoven | 6 |
| 2022/C 158/08 | Case C-52/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Austria) lodged on 26 January 2022 — BF v Versicherungsanstalt öffentlich Bediensteter, Eisenbahnen und Bergbau | 6 |
| 2022/C 158/09 | Case C-80/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Bologna (Italy) lodged on 7 February 2022 — BU v Ministero dell’Interno, Dipartimento per le Libertà civili e l’Immigrazione — Unità Dublino | 7 |
| | General Court |
| 2022/C 158/10 | Case T-31/22: Action brought on 11 January 2022 — Perez Lopes Pargana Calado v Court of Justice | 9 |
| 2022/C 158/11 | Case T-53/22: Action brought on 28 January 2022 — Collard v Parliament and ID | 10 |
| 2022/C 158/12 | Case T-54/22: Action brought on 28 January 2022 — Rivière v Parliament and ID | 10 |
| 2022/C 158/13 | Case T-56/22: Action brought on 26 January 2022 — United Kingdom v Commission | 11 |
| 2022/C 158/14 | Case T-85/22: Action brought on 16 February 2022 — Korporaciya Masternet/EUIPO — Stayer Ibérica (STAYER) | 11 |
| 2022/C 158/15 | Case T-104/22: Action brought on 25 February 2022 — Hungary v Commission | 12 |
| 2022/C 158/16 | Case T-109/22: Action brought on 28 February 2022 — Schneider v EUIPO — Frutaria Comercial de Frutas y Hortalizas (frutania) | 13 |
| 2022/C 158/17 | Case T-110/22: Action brought on 28 February 2022 — Kremer v Commission | 14 |
| 2022/C 158/18 | Case T-111/22: Action brought on 28 February 2022 — Baert v Commission | 15 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2022/C 158/02

Case C-526/21 P: Appeal brought on 24 August 2021 by Antonius Maria Vervloet and Cornelia Wilhelmina Vervloet-Mulder against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 25 June 2021 in Case T-211/21 Vervloet and Vervloet-Mulder v AREB

Vervloet and Vervloet-Mulder

AREB

2

2022/C 158/03

Case C-721/21: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) made on 26 November 2021 — Eco Advocacy CLG v An Bord Pleanála

2

2022/C 158/04

Case C-825/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (Belgium) lodged on 23 December 2021 — UP v Centre public d’action sociale de Liège

3

2022/C 158/05

Case C-6/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Woli w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 4 January 2022 — M.B., U.B., M.B. v X S.A.

4

2022/C 158/06

Case C-9/22: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) made on 5 January 2022 — NJ, OZ v An Bord Pleanála, Ireland, Attorney General

5

2022/C 158/07

Case C-24/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Holland, sitting in Haarlem (Netherlands) lodged on 11 January 2022 — PR Pet BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane, kantoor Eindhoven

6

2022/C 158/08

Case C-52/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Austria) lodged on 26 January 2022 — BF v Versicherungsanstalt öffentlich Bediensteter, Eisenbahnen und Bergbau

6

2022/C 158/09

Case C-80/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Bologna (Italy) lodged on 7 February 2022 — BU v Ministero dell’Interno, Dipartimento per le Libertà civili e l’Immigrazione — Unità Dublino

7

General Court

2022/C 158/10

Case T-31/22: Action brought on 11 January 2022 — Perez Lopes Pargana Calado v Court of Justice

9

2022/C 158/11

Case T-53/22: Action brought on 28 January 2022 — Collard v Parliament and ID

10

2022/C 158/12

Case T-54/22: Action brought on 28 January 2022 — Rivière v Parliament and ID

10

2022/C 158/13

Case T-56/22: Action brought on 26 January 2022 — United Kingdom v Commission

11

2022/C 158/14

Case T-85/22: Action brought on 16 February 2022 — Korporaciya Masternet/EUIPO — Stayer Ibérica (STAYER)

11

2022/C 158/15

Case T-104/22: Action brought on 25 February 2022 — Hungary v Commission

12

2022/C 158/16

Case T-109/22: Action brought on 28 February 2022 — Schneider v EUIPO — Frutaria Comercial de Frutas y Hortalizas (frutania)

13

2022/C 158/17

Case T-110/22: Action brought on 28 February 2022 — Kremer v Commission

14

2022/C 158/18

Case T-111/22: Action brought on 28 February 2022 — Baert v Commission

15

---

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 11.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 158/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 158/1

---

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

(2022/C 158/01)

Last publication

OJ C 148, 4.4.2022

Past publications

OJ C 138, 28.3.2022

OJ C 128, 21.3.2022

OJ C 119, 14.3.2022

OJ C 109, 7.3.2022

OJ C 95, 28.2.2022

OJ C 84, 21.2.2022

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 11.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 158/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 158/2

---

Appeal brought on 24 August 2021 by Antonius Maria Vervloet and Cornelia Wilhelmina Vervloet-Mulder against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 25 June 2021 in Case T-211/21 Vervloet and Vervloet-Mulder v AREB

(Case C-526/21 P)

(2022/C 158/02)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Appellants: Antonius Maria Vervloet, Cornelia Wilhelmina Vervloet-Mulder (represented by: P. Van der Veld, advocaat)

Other party to the proceedings: Agència Estatal de Resolució d’Entitats Bancàries (AREB)

By order of 1 March 2021, the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) declares the appeal manifestly inadmissible and Antonius Maria Vervloet and Cornelia Wilhelmina Vervloet-Mulder are ordered to bear their own costs.

---

| 11.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 158/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 158/2

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) made on 26 November 2021 — Eco Advocacy CLG v An Bord Pleanála

(Case C-721/21)

(2022/C 158/03)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court (Irlande)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Eco Advocacy CLG

Respondent: An Bord Pleanála

Notice party: Keegan Land Holdings

Other parties: An Taisce — The National Trust for Ireland, ClientEarth AISBL

Questions referred

| i. | Does the general principle of the primacy of EU law and/or of cooperation in good faith have the effect that, either generally or in the specific context of environmental law, where a party brings proceedings challenging the validity of an administrative measure by reference, expressly or impliedly, to a particular instrument of EU law, but does not specify which provisions of the instrument have been infringed, or by reference to which precise interpretation, the domestic court before which proceedings are brought must, or may, examine the complaint, notwithstanding any rule of domestic procedure requiring the specific breaches concerned to be set out in the party's written pleadings. |
| --- | --- |

i.

Does the general principle of the primacy of EU law and/or of cooperation in good faith have the effect that, either generally or in the specific context of environmental law, where a party brings proceedings challenging the validity of an administrative measure by reference, expressly or impliedly, to a particular instrument of EU law, but does not specify which provisions of the instrument have been infringed, or by reference to which precise interpretation, the domestic court before which proceedings are brought must, or may, examine the complaint, notwithstanding any rule of domestic procedure requiring the specific breaches concerned to be set out in the party's written pleadings.

| ii. | If the answer to the first question is ‘Yes’, whether art. 4(2), (3), (4) and/or (5) and/or Annex III of the EIA directive 2011/92 (1) and/or the directive read in the light of the principle of legal certainty and good administration under art. 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union have the consequence that, where a competent authority decides not to subject a proposal for development consent to the process of environmental impact assessment, there should be an express, discrete and/or specific statement as to what documents exactly set out the reasons of the competent authority. |
| --- | --- |

ii.

If the answer to the first question is ‘Yes’, whether art. 4(2), (3), (4) and/or (5) and/or Annex III of the EIA directive 2011/92 (1) and/or the directive read in the light of the principle of legal certainty and good administration under art. 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union have the consequence that, where a competent authority decides not to subject a proposal for development consent to the process of environmental impact assessment, there should be an express, discrete and/or specific statement as to what documents exactly set out the reasons of the competent authority.

| iii. | If the answer to the first question is ‘Yes’, whether art. 4(2), (3), (4) and/or (5) and/or Annex III of the EIA directive 2011/92 and/or the directive read in the light of the principle of legal certainty and good administration under art. 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union have the consequence that, where a competent authority decides not to subject a proposal for development consent to the process of environmental impact assessment, there is an obligation to expressly set out consideration of all specific headings and sub-headings in annex III of the EIA directive, insofar as those headings and sub-headings are potentially relevant to the development. |
| --- | --- |

iii.

If the answer to the first question is ‘Yes’, whether art. 4(2), (3), (4) and/or (5) and/or Annex III of the EIA directive 2011/92 and/or the directive read in the light of the principle of legal certainty and good administration under art. 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union have the consequence that, where a competent authority decides not to subject a proposal for development consent to the process of environmental impact assessment, there is an obligation to expressly set out consideration of all specific headings and sub-headings in annex III of the EIA directive, insofar as those headings and sub-headings are potentially relevant to the development.

| iv. | Whether art. 6(3) of directive 92/43/EEC (2) is to be interpreted as meaning that, in the application of the principle that in order to determine whether it is necessary to carry out, subsequently, an appropriate assessment of the implications, for a site concerned, of a plan or project, it is not appropriate, at the screening stage, to take account of the measures intended to avoid or reduce the harmful effects of the plan or project on that site, the competent authority of a member state is entitled to take account of features of the plan or project involving the removal of contaminants that may have the effect of reducing harmful effects on the European site solely on the grounds that those features are not intended as mitigation measures even if they have that effect, and that they would have been incorporated in the design as standard features irrespective of any effect on the European site concerned. |
| --- | --- |

iv.

Whether art. 6(3) of directive 92/43/EEC (2) is to be interpreted as meaning that, in the application of the principle that in order to determine whether it is necessary to carry out, subsequently, an appropriate assessment of the implications, for a site concerned, of a plan or project, it is not appropriate, at the screening stage, to take account of the measures intended to avoid or reduce the harmful effects of the plan or project on that site, the competent authority of a member state is entitled to take account of features of the plan or project involving the removal of contaminants that may have the effect of reducing harmful effects on the European site solely on the grounds that those features are not intended as mitigation measures even if they have that effect, and that they would have been incorporated in the design as standard features irrespective of any effect on the European site concerned.

| v. | Whether art. 6(3) of directive 92/43/EEC is to be interpreted as meaning that, where the competent authority of a member state is satisfied notwithstanding the questions or concerns expressed by expert bodies in holding at the screening stage that no appropriate assessment is required, the authority must give an explicit and detailed statement of reasons capable of dispelling all reasonable scientific doubt concerning the effects of the works envisaged on the European site concerned, and that expressly and individually removes each of the doubts raised in that regard during the public participation process. |
| --- | --- |

v.

Whether art. 6(3) of directive 92/43/EEC is to be interpreted as meaning that, where the competent authority of a member state is satisfied notwithstanding the questions or concerns expressed by expert bodies in holding at the screening stage that no appropriate assessment is required, the authority must give an explicit and detailed statement of reasons capable of dispelling all reasonable scientific doubt concerning the effects of the works envisaged on the European site concerned, and that expressly and individually removes each of the doubts raised in that regard during the public participation process.

| vi. | If the answer to the first question is ‘Yes’, whether art. 6 (3) of the habitats directive 92/43 and/or the directive read in the light of the principle of legal certainty and good administration under art. 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union has the consequence that, where a competent authority decides not to subject a proposal for development consent to the process of appropriate assessment, there should be an express, discrete and/or specific statement as to what documents exactly set out the reason of the competent authority. |
| --- | --- |

vi.

If the answer to the first question is ‘Yes’, whether art. 6 (3) of the habitats directive 92/43 and/or the directive read in the light of the principle of legal certainty and good administration under art. 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union has the consequence that, where a competent authority decides not to subject a proposal for development consent to the process of appropriate assessment, there should be an express, discrete and/or specific statement as to what documents exactly set out the reason of the competent authority.

---

(1)  Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 2012, L 26, p. 1).

(2)  Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992, L 206, p. 7).

---

| 11.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 158/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 158/3

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (Belgium) lodged on 23 December 2021 — UP v Centre public d’action sociale de Liège

(Case C-825/21)

(2022/C 158/04)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: UP

Defendant: Centre public d’action sociale de Liège

Question referred

Do Articles 6 and 8 of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (1) preclude a rule of national law under which the consequence of granting authorisation conferring a right to stay in the context of the examination of an application for leave to remain for the purpose of medical treatment, considered to be admissible in the light of the criteria set out above, is that the third-country national is entitled to stay, even temporarily and irregularly, during the examination of that application and that the return decision previously adopted in an asylum procedure, with which the grant of such authorisation is incompatible, is impliedly withdrawn?

---

(1)  Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98).

---

| 11.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 158/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 158/4

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Woli w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 4 January 2022 — M.B., U.B., M.B. v X S.A.

(Case C-6/22)

(2022/C 158/05)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Woli w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: M.B., U.B., M.B.

Defendant: X S.A.

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, (1) in the light of its objective of protecting consumers against unfair terms in contracts with sellers or suppliers, be interpreted as meaning that, once a contract is declared invalid by a court under the rules of that directive, that directive, along with the protection of the consumer, ceases to apply and the rules governing settlement for the consumer and the seller or supplier must be sought under the national contract law governing the settlement of an invalid contract? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, (1) in the light of its objective of protecting consumers against unfair terms in contracts with sellers or suppliers, be interpreted as meaning that, once a contract is declared invalid by a court under the rules of that directive, that directive, along with the protection of the consumer, ceases to apply and the rules governing settlement for the consumer and the seller or supplier must be sought under the national contract law governing the settlement of an invalid contract?

| 2. | In the light of Articles 6 and 7 of Directive 93/13/EEC, where a court finds that the contractual term in question is unlawful and that the contract is not capable of continuing in existence after that term has been removed, in the absence of an agreement by the parties to fill the gap with clauses in accordance with their wishes and in the absence of supplementary provisions (directly applicable to the contract in the absence of an agreement by the parties), must that court declare the contract invalid on the basis of the wishes of the consumer who sought that declaration, or must the court examine, of its own motion, going beyond the form of order sought by the parties, the financial situation of the consumer in order to determine whether declaring the contract invalid would expose the consumer to particularly unfavourable consequences? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the light of Articles 6 and 7 of Directive 93/13/EEC, where a court finds that the contractual term in question is unlawful and that the contract is not capable of continuing in existence after that term has been removed, in the absence of an agreement by the parties to fill the gap with clauses in accordance with their wishes and in the absence of supplementary provisions (directly applicable to the contract in the absence of an agreement by the parties), must that court declare the contract invalid on the basis of the wishes of the consumer who sought that declaration, or must the court examine, of its own motion, going beyond the form of order sought by the parties, the financial situation of the consumer in order to determine whether declaring the contract invalid would expose the consumer to particularly unfavourable consequences?

| 3. | Must Article 6 of Directive 93/13/EEC be interpreted as meaning that, if the court comes to the conclusion that declaring the contract invalid would be particularly unfavourable to the consumer and, despite having been encouraged to do so, the parties fail to reach an agreement on the fulfilment of the contract, the court may, taking into account the objective interest of the consumer, fill the gap in the contract, created after the unfair terms have been ‘removed’ from it, not with rules of national law which are supplementary within the meaning of the judgment in Case C-260/18, that is to say, rules which are directly applicable to the gap in the contract, but with specific provisions of national law which can be applied to the contract in question mutatis mutandis or by analogy and which reflect a rule of national contract law? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Must Article 6 of Directive 93/13/EEC be interpreted as meaning that, if the court comes to the conclusion that declaring the contract invalid would be particularly unfavourable to the consumer and, despite having been encouraged to do so, the parties fail to reach an agreement on the fulfilment of the contract, the court may, taking into account the objective interest of the consumer, fill the gap in the contract, created after the unfair terms have been ‘removed’ from it, not with rules of national law which are supplementary within the meaning of the judgment in Case C-260/18, that is to say, rules which are directly applicable to the gap in the contract, but with specific provisions of national law which can be applied to the contract in question mutatis mutandis or by analogy and which reflect a rule of national contract law?

---

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

---

| 11.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 158/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 158/5

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) made on 5 January 2022 — NJ, OZ v An Bord Pleanála, Ireland, Attorney General

(Case C-9/22)

(2022/C 158/06)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court (Irlande)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: NJ, OZ

Respondents: An Bord Pleanála, Ireland, Attorney General

Notice party: DBTR-SCR1 Fund a Sub Fund of TWTC Multi-Family ICAV

Questions referred

| 1. | does article 2(a) of directive 2001/42/EC (1) have the effect that the concept of ‘plans and programmes ... as well as any modifications to them ... which are subject to preparation and/or adoption by an authority at national, regional or local level...’ include a plan or programme that is jointly prepared and/or adopted by an authority at local level and a private sector developer as owner of adjacent lands to those owned by a local authority. |
| --- | --- |

1.

does article 2(a) of directive 2001/42/EC (1) have the effect that the concept of ‘plans and programmes ... as well as any modifications to them ... which are subject to preparation and/or adoption by an authority at national, regional or local level...’ include a plan or programme that is jointly prepared and/or adopted by an authority at local level and a private sector developer as owner of adjacent lands to those owned by a local authority.

| 2. | does article 2(a) of directive 2001/42/EC have the effect that the concept of ‘plans and programmes ... as well as any modifications to them ... which are required by legislative, regulatory or administrative provisions’ includes a plan or programme that is expressly envisaged by a local authority’s statutory development plan (that development plan having been made under a legislative provision) either in general or where the development plan states that the local authority ‘will prepare area-specific guidance for the strategic development and regeneration areas ... using the appropriate mechanisms of local area plans ... schematic masterplans and local environmental improvement plans’. |
| --- | --- |

2.

does article 2(a) of directive 2001/42/EC have the effect that the concept of ‘plans and programmes ... as well as any modifications to them ... which are required by legislative, regulatory or administrative provisions’ includes a plan or programme that is expressly envisaged by a local authority’s statutory development plan (that development plan having been made under a legislative provision) either in general or where the development plan states that the local authority ‘will prepare area-specific guidance for the strategic development and regeneration areas ... using the appropriate mechanisms of local area plans ... schematic masterplans and local environmental improvement plans’.

| 3. | does article 3(2)(a) of directive 2001/42/EC have the effect that the concept of ‘plans and programmes ... which are prepared for agriculture, forestry, fisheries, energy, industry, transport, waste management, water management, telecommunications, tourism, town and country planning or land use and which set the framework for future development consent of projects listed in annexes I and II to directive 85/337/EEC (2) ...’ includes a plan or programme that is not in itself binding but which is expressly envisaged in a statutory development plan which is binding, or which proposes or envisages in effect a modification of a plan that was itself subject to strategic environmental assessment. |
| --- | --- |

3.

does article 3(2)(a) of directive 2001/42/EC have the effect that the concept of ‘plans and programmes ... which are prepared for agriculture, forestry, fisheries, energy, industry, transport, waste management, water management, telecommunications, tourism, town and country planning or land use and which set the framework for future development consent of projects listed in annexes I and II to directive 85/337/EEC (2) ...’ includes a plan or programme that is not in itself binding but which is expressly envisaged in a statutory development plan which is binding, or which proposes or envisages in effect a modification of a plan that was itself subject to strategic environmental assessment.

| 4. | whether article 2(1) of directive 2011/92/EU (3) has the effect of precluding regard being had by the competent authority in the process of environmental impact assessment to mandatory government policies, in particular those which are not based exclusively on environmental criteria, being policies that define in certain circumstances situations where a grant of permission is not to be ruled out. |
| --- | --- |

4.

whether article 2(1) of directive 2011/92/EU (3) has the effect of precluding regard being had by the competent authority in the process of environmental impact assessment to mandatory government policies, in particular those which are not based exclusively on environmental criteria, being policies that define in certain circumstances situations where a grant of permission is not to be ruled out.

---

(1)  Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (OJ 2001, L 197, p. 30).

(2)  Council Directive of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1985, L 175, p. 40).

(3)  Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 2012, L 26, p. 1).

---

| 11.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 158/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 158/6

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Holland, sitting in Haarlem (Netherlands) lodged on 11 January 2022 — PR Pet BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane, kantoor Eindhoven

(Case C-24/22)

(2022/C 158/07)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Noord-Holland, sitting in Haarlem

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: PR Pet BV

Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane, kantoor Eindhoven

Questions referred

| 1. | Must CN heading 9403 be interpreted as meaning that cat scratching posts, made up of a variety of materials, intended to be placed on the floor in (living) areas and to remain there so that cats can climb into them, sit on them, lie on them and scratch them, are not covered by this CN heading because they are of a different nature as referred to in Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1229/2013 (1) of 28 November 2013 and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 350/2014 (2) of 3 April 2014? If there is a different nature that precludes classification under CN heading 9403, what constitutes that different nature? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must CN heading 9403 be interpreted as meaning that cat scratching posts, made up of a variety of materials, intended to be placed on the floor in (living) areas and to remain there so that cats can climb into them, sit on them, lie on them and scratch them, are not covered by this CN heading because they are of a different nature as referred to in Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1229/2013 (1) of 28 November 2013 and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 350/2014 (2) of 3 April 2014? If there is a different nature that precludes classification under CN heading 9403, what constitutes that different nature?

| 2. | Does the answer to question 1 have any implications for the validity of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1229/2013 of 28 November 2013 and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 350/2014 of 3 April 2014? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the answer to question 1 have any implications for the validity of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1229/2013 of 28 November 2013 and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 350/2014 of 3 April 2014?

---

(1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1229/2013 of 28 November 2013 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (OJ 2013 L 322, p. 8).

(2)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 350/2014 of 3 April 2014 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (OJ 2014 L 104, p. 4).

---

| 11.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 158/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 158/6

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Austria) lodged on 26 January 2022 — BF v Versicherungsanstalt öffentlich Bediensteter, Eisenbahnen und Bergbau

(Case C-52/22)

(2022/C 158/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: BF

Respondent authority: Versicherungsanstalt öffentlich Bediensteter, Eisenbahnen und Bergbau

Question referred

Are Article 2(1) and 2(2)(a) and Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78/EC (1) and the principles of legal certainty, maintenance of established rights and effectiveness of EU law to be interpreted as precluding national legislation — such as that at issue in the main proceedings — under which the first adjustment of the retirement pension of the group of civil servants who became entitled to a retirement pension (‘total pension’ under the Pensionsgesetz 1965 (‘the 1965 Law on pensions’)) as from 1 December 2021 at the latest is to be made with effect only from 1 January of the second calendar year following the commencement of entitlement to the retirement pension, whereas the first adjustment of the retirement pension of the group of civil servants who became or will become entitled to a retirement pension (‘total pension’ under the 1965 Law on pensions) as from 1 January 2022 is to be made with effect already from 1 January of the first calendar year following the commencement of entitlement to the retirement pension?

---

(1)  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).

---

| 11.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 158/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 158/7

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Bologna (Italy) lodged on 7 February 2022 — BU v Ministero dell’Interno, Dipartimento per le Libertà civili e l’Immigrazione — Unità Dublino

(Case C-80/22)

(2022/C 158/09)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale ordinario di Bologna

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: BU

Defendant: Ministero dell’Interno, Dipartimento per le Libertà civili e l’Immigrazione — Unità Dublino

Questions referred

| 1. | What legal consequences does EU law provide for in the event of infringement, by the requesting Member State in the context of a take back procedure under Article 18(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013, (1) of the obligation to provide information laid down in Article 4 or the obligation to conduct a personal interview with the applicant under Article 5 thereof, and in particular, must Articles 4 and 5 of Regulation (EU) 604/2013 be interpreted:






  — | as meaning that failure to provide the information leaflet required under Article 4(2) to a person who meets the conditions described in Article 23 or failure to conduct a personal interview with the applicant under Article 5 of the regulation in itself renders the transfer decision irremediably unlawful and thus places on the requesting Member State responsibility to take a decision on the application for international protection; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

What legal consequences does EU law provide for in the event of infringement, by the requesting Member State in the context of a take back procedure under Article 18(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013, (1) of the obligation to provide information laid down in Article 4 or the obligation to conduct a personal interview with the applicant under Article 5 thereof, and in particular, must Articles 4 and 5 of Regulation (EU) 604/2013 be interpreted:

—

as meaning that failure to provide the information leaflet required under Article 4(2) to a person who meets the conditions described in Article 23 or failure to conduct a personal interview with the applicant under Article 5 of the regulation in itself renders the transfer decision irremediably unlawful and thus places on the requesting Member State responsibility to take a decision on the application for international protection;

| — | or as meaning that the unlawfulness of the transfer decision is subject to it being alleged and proven that the procedure would have had a different outcome if the authority of the requesting Member State had fulfilled the obligations laid down in Articles 4 and 5 of Regulation (EU) 604/2013; |
| --- | --- |

—

or as meaning that the unlawfulness of the transfer decision is subject to it being alleged and proven that the procedure would have had a different outcome if the authority of the requesting Member State had fulfilled the obligations laid down in Articles 4 and 5 of Regulation (EU) 604/2013;

| — | or as meaning that in no event is the authority of the requesting Member State obliged to afford a foreign national subject to a procedure for transfer to the requested Member State the safeguards relating to information and participation laid down in Articles 4 and 5 of Regulation (EU) 604/2013? |
| --- | --- |

—

or as meaning that in no event is the authority of the requesting Member State obliged to afford a foreign national subject to a procedure for transfer to the requested Member State the safeguards relating to information and participation laid down in Articles 4 and 5 of Regulation (EU) 604/2013?

| 2. | Must Article 27(1) of Regulation (EU) 604/2013, alone or in conjunction with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), be interpreted:






  — | as imposing an obligation to afford a foreign national subject to a procedure for transfer to the requested Member State the safeguards laid down in Articles 4 and 5 of the regulation as instrumental in protecting the right to an effective remedy against a transfer decision; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Must Article 27(1) of Regulation (EU) 604/2013, alone or in conjunction with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), be interpreted:

—

as imposing an obligation to afford a foreign national subject to a procedure for transfer to the requested Member State the safeguards laid down in Articles 4 and 5 of the regulation as instrumental in protecting the right to an effective remedy against a transfer decision;

| — | and, if so, as meaning that the court seised with the application for annulment of the transfer decision under Article 27 of Regulation (EU) 604/2013 is entitled to re-examine the substance of the decision by which the administrative authority of the requested Member State has, pursuant to the criteria for determining responsibility set out in Chapter III of the regulation, established its responsibility for taking a decision on the application for international protection submitted by the applicant? |
| --- | --- |

—

and, if so, as meaning that the court seised with the application for annulment of the transfer decision under Article 27 of Regulation (EU) 604/2013 is entitled to re-examine the substance of the decision by which the administrative authority of the requested Member State has, pursuant to the criteria for determining responsibility set out in Chapter III of the regulation, established its responsibility for taking a decision on the application for international protection submitted by the applicant?

---

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

---

General Court

| 11.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 158/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 158/9

---

Action brought on 11 January 2022 — Perez Lopes Pargana Calado v Court of Justice

(Case T-31/22)

(2022/C 158/10)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Ana Teresa Perez Lopes Pargana Calado (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: M. Marques Matias, lawyer)

Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | find that the decision relating to the applicant in the present proceedings is invalid for lack of any basis; |
| --- | --- |

—

find that the decision relating to the applicant in the present proceedings is invalid for lack of any basis;

| — | replace that decision with another stating whether the applicant is allowed to participate in the procurement procedure and, should she not be allowed, the reasons for the rejection, by reference to the other candidates and the contract notice; |
| --- | --- |

—

replace that decision with another stating whether the applicant is allowed to participate in the procurement procedure and, should she not be allowed, the reasons for the rejection, by reference to the other candidates and the contract notice;

| — | revise the decision and replace it with another decision allowing the tenderer to participate in the procurement procedure, under the same conditions as the other tenderers. |
| --- | --- |

—

revise the decision and replace it with another decision allowing the tenderer to participate in the procurement procedure, under the same conditions as the other tenderers.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment: the decision was not fair compared with the other candidates. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment: the decision was not fair compared with the other candidates.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the infringement cannot be imputed, on grounds of unlawfulness. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the infringement cannot be imputed, on grounds of unlawfulness.

| 3. | Third plea in law, based on the instructions received from the Court of Justice to complete an ongoing translation. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, based on the instructions received from the Court of Justice to complete an ongoing translation.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that all of the documentation submitted satisfies the requirements and that the grounds for exclusion are not set out in the decision not to accept that documentation. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that all of the documentation submitted satisfies the requirements and that the grounds for exclusion are not set out in the decision not to accept that documentation.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the declaration issued should have been removed and not have adversely affected the candidate, since it was not part of the documentation requested. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the declaration issued should have been removed and not have adversely affected the candidate, since it was not part of the documentation requested.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to be heard prior to the adoption of measures excluding the applicant from the procurement procedure on the basis of a presumed infringement (Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union). |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to be heard prior to the adoption of measures excluding the applicant from the procurement procedure on the basis of a presumed infringement (Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union).

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging breach of the obligation of the administration to state reasons for its decisions (Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union). |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging breach of the obligation of the administration to state reasons for its decisions (Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union).

---

| 11.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 158/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 158/10

---

Action brought on 28 January 2022 — Collard v Parliament and ID

(Case T-53/22)

(2022/C 158/11)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Gilbert Collard (Vauvert, France) (represented by: B. Kuchukian, lawyer)

Defendants: European Parliament and the political group Identity and Democracy (ID)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul, first, the provisional suspensory decision of 22 January 2022 and, second, the expulsion decision of 25 January 2022; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, first, the provisional suspensory decision of 22 January 2022 and, second, the expulsion decision of 25 January 2022;

| — | order the immediate suspension of both decisions. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the immediate suspension of both decisions.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action seeking the annulment, first, of the decision of 22 January 2022 of the bureau of the political group Identity and Democracy (ID) suspending him from the group for a period of two months and, second, of the decision of 25 January 2022 of the political group Identity and Democracy (ID) expelling him from that group, the applicant complains that, as to form, those decisions do not comply with the basic disciplinary process and, as to substance, they have no valid basis.

---

| 11.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 158/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 158/10

---

Action brought on 28 January 2022 — Rivière v Parliament and ID

(Case T-54/22)

(2022/C 158/12)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Jérôme Rivière (Paris, France) (represented by: B. Kuchukian, lawyer)

Defendants: European Parliament and the political group Identity and Democracy (ID)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul first, the provisional suspensory decision of 21 January 2022 and, second, the expulsion decision of 25 January 2022; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul first, the provisional suspensory decision of 21 January 2022 and, second, the expulsion decision of 25 January 2022;

| — | order the immediate suspension of both decisions. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the immediate suspension of both decisions.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action seeking the annulment, first, of the decision of 21 January 2022 of the bureau of the political group Identity and Democracy (ID) suspending him from the group for a period of two months and, second, of the decision of 25 January 2022 of the political group Identity and Democracy (ID) expelling him from that group, the applicant complains that, as to form, those decisions fail to comply with the basic disciplinary process and, as to substance, they have no valid basis.

---

| 11.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 158/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 158/11

---

Action brought on 26 January 2022 — United Kingdom v Commission

(Case T-56/22)

(2022/C 158/13)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: L. Baxter, Agent, and T. Buley, Barrister)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul the defendant’s Implementing Decision (EU) No 2021/2019 (1) in so far as it excludes from European Union’s financing certain expenditure incurred by the applicant’s accredited paying agencies under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) for the stated reason of weakness in the definition of ‘active farmer — connected companies’; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the defendant’s Implementing Decision (EU) No 2021/2019 (1) in so far as it excludes from European Union’s financing certain expenditure incurred by the applicant’s accredited paying agencies under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) for the stated reason of weakness in the definition of ‘active farmer — connected companies’; and

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Plea in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging that the defendant’s interpretation of Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 (2) is wrong. In the applicant’s view, Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 is concerned only with direct payments to farmers (as defined in Article 4 of the aforementioned Regulation) who themselves operate the relevant infrastructure or services. The applicant maintains that the defendant held wrongly because:

| — | i. The language and the meaning of Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 does not have the effect of prohibiting payments to a farmer merely because some connected entity undertakes an activity on the negative list in this article. |
| --- | --- |

—

i. The language and the meaning of Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 does not have the effect of prohibiting payments to a farmer merely because some connected entity undertakes an activity on the negative list in this article.

| — | ii. There is no purposive or teleological basis for the Commission’s interpretation of Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013, which does not accord with the purposes of this article. |
| --- | --- |

—

ii. There is no purposive or teleological basis for the Commission’s interpretation of Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013, which does not accord with the purposes of this article.

---

(1)  OJ 2021, L 413, p. 3.

(2)  Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 637/2008 and Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 (OJ 2013, L 347, p. 608).

---

| 11.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 158/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 158/11

---

Action brought on 16 February 2022 — Korporaciya ‘Masternet’/EUIPO — Stayer Ibérica (STAYER)

(Case T-85/22)

(2022/C 158/14)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: ZAO Korporaciya ‘Masternet’ (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: N. Bürglen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Stayer Ibérica, SA (Pinto, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark STAYER — European Union trade mark No 9 498 395

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 December 2021 in Case R 932/2021-1

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. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009.

---

| 11.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 158/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 158/12

---

Action brought on 25 February 2022 — Hungary v Commission

(Case T-104/22)

(2022/C 158/15)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Commission’s decision of 14 December 2021 reviewing the objections raised by Hungary against disclosure, in relation to the confirmatory application GESTDEM 2021/2808, which is aimed at ensuring public access to documents originating from Hungary; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission’s decision of 14 December 2021 reviewing the objections raised by Hungary against disclosure, in relation to the confirmatory application GESTDEM 2021/2808, which is aimed at ensuring public access to documents originating from Hungary;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the contested decision, the Commission granted partial public access to the documents requested by the applicant, even though the Hungarian authorities had expressly invoked the exception relating to the protection of the decision-making process laid down in Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001, (1) and the Commission had accepted this in the present case until the confirmatory application was made.

The Hungarian government claims that the Commission’s interpretation in the contested decision is not only contrary to the Commission’s previous practice and the case-law of the Court of Justice, but is also seriously detrimental to cooperation between the Commission and the managing authorities of the Member States. The Hungarian government — in addition to arguing that there is decision-making of an EU institution in relation to the amendment of operational programmes, since the Commission approves those amendments, and that the exception in Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001 is therefore applicable — submits that the particularity of the present procedure is that, under the system of shared management, the decision taken by the Member State is in fact subject to the strict supervision of the Commission. Although, formally, it is a decision of a Member State authority, the Commission has a demonstrable influence over it, and it is therefore all the more unacceptable that the exception in question does not protect such a decision. The exception laid down in Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001 is also intended to protect the decision-making of Member State authorities.

---

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

---

| 11.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 158/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 158/13

---

Action brought on 28 February 2022 — Schneider v EUIPO — Frutaria Comercial de Frutas y Hortalizas (frutania)

(Case T-109/22)

(2022/C 158/16)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Markus Schneider (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: M. Bergermann and D. Graetsch, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Frutaria Comercial de Frutas y Hortalizas, SL (Zaragoza, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark frutania in blue — Application for registration No 11 987 419

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 December 2021 in Case R 1058/2017-1

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, including those incurred in the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred in the appeal proceedings.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 11.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 158/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 158/14

---

Action brought on 28 February 2022 — Kremer v Commission

(Case T-110/22)

(2022/C 158/17)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Christiane Kremer (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: D. Grisay and A. Ansay, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | accept the present application for annulment/non-contractual liability; |
| --- | --- |

—

accept the present application for annulment/non-contractual liability;

| — | declare the application admissible and consequently:






  — | principally,






  — | declare the action for annulment well founded and rule that the decision of the appointing authority of 24 February 2022 refusing admissibility is null and void on the grounds that:






  — | Article 77 of the Staff Regulations and Article 11 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations on which the notice of determination sent to the applicant is based are unlawful; |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |

—

declare the application admissible and consequently:

—

principally,

—

declare the action for annulment well founded and rule that the decision of the appointing authority of 24 February 2022 refusing admissibility is null and void on the grounds that:

—

Article 77 of the Staff Regulations and Article 11 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations on which the notice of determination sent to the applicant is based are unlawful;

| — | by not proposing to the applicant, in her notice of determination, any repayment of the pension rights unaccounted for by the competent European authority, the European Commission failed in its duty to have regard to the welfare of officials; |
| --- | --- |

—

by not proposing to the applicant, in her notice of determination, any repayment of the pension rights unaccounted for by the competent European authority, the European Commission failed in its duty to have regard to the welfare of officials;

| — | by not proposing to the applicant, in her notice of determination, any repayment of the pension rights unaccounted for by the competent European authority, the European Commission failed to comply with the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination; |
| --- | --- |

—

by not proposing to the applicant, in her notice of determination, any repayment of the pension rights unaccounted for by the competent European authority, the European Commission failed to comply with the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination;

| — | and refer the file back to the appointing authority so that it may determine the amount to be repaid to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

and refer the file back to the appointing authority so that it may determine the amount to be repaid to the applicant;

| — | in the alternative,






  — | declare the action for compensation based on unjust enrichment well founded on the ground that the applicant has been impoverished by the amount of her pension rights contributed in her national pension scheme not taken into account by the competent European authority and which have, by the same token, enriched the pension fund of the European Union; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

in the alternative,

—

declare the action for compensation based on unjust enrichment well founded on the ground that the applicant has been impoverished by the amount of her pension rights contributed in her national pension scheme not taken into account by the competent European authority and which have, by the same token, enriched the pension fund of the European Union;

| — | order the Commission to compensate the applicant for two financial losses suffered, assessed at the date of lodging this application at a principal amount of EUR 55 401,07; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to compensate the applicant for two financial losses suffered, assessed at the date of lodging this application at a principal amount of EUR 55 401,07;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging the unlawfulness of Article 77(1) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) and of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations. The applicant submits that the abovementioned provisions provide that the official is to take the decision to transfer his pension rights, accrued in the national pension scheme, to the pension fund of the European Union (‘the PFEU’) within the 10 years of the official’s start of employment in the service of the institutions of the European Union. However, it is only at the time of retirement that the official who has carried out a transfer can accurately assess the scope of his possible transfer, in particular owing to the rule which limits the amount of pensions to 70 %. The applicant therefore concludes that, in breach of the principle of non-discrimination, that rule creates a difference in treatment compared with an official who has spent his entire career within the European system. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging the unlawfulness of Article 77(1) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) and of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations. The applicant submits that the abovementioned provisions provide that the official is to take the decision to transfer his pension rights, accrued in the national pension scheme, to the pension fund of the European Union (‘the PFEU’) within the 10 years of the official’s start of employment in the service of the institutions of the European Union. However, it is only at the time of retirement that the official who has carried out a transfer can accurately assess the scope of his possible transfer, in particular owing to the rule which limits the amount of pensions to 70 %. The applicant therefore concludes that, in breach of the principle of non-discrimination, that rule creates a difference in treatment compared with an official who has spent his entire career within the European system.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging breach of the duty of assistance and the duty to have regard to the welfare of officials referred to in Article 24 of the Staff Regulations. The applicant claims that, upon transferring their pension rights from the national system to the PFEU, officials normally receive a table from the Commission clarifying whether they are entitled to a repayment of the non-supplemented actuarial equivalent of the contributed amounts in their original national scheme, not included in the EU pension scheme. In addition, repayment is generally made without restrictions or specific steps. According to the applicant, she has not received that table or any repayment. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging breach of the duty of assistance and the duty to have regard to the welfare of officials referred to in Article 24 of the Staff Regulations. The applicant claims that, upon transferring their pension rights from the national system to the PFEU, officials normally receive a table from the Commission clarifying whether they are entitled to a repayment of the non-supplemented actuarial equivalent of the contributed amounts in their original national scheme, not included in the EU pension scheme. In addition, repayment is generally made without restrictions or specific steps. According to the applicant, she has not received that table or any repayment.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging breach of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination. The applicant takes the view that there is discrimination not justified by any objective criterion between some officials who receive a repayment when their pension rights are transferred and others for whom this is not the case. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging breach of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination. The applicant takes the view that there is discrimination not justified by any objective criterion between some officials who receive a repayment when their pension rights are transferred and others for whom this is not the case.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that non-contractual liability has been incurred on account of unjust enrichment to the applicant’s detriment. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that non-contractual liability has been incurred on account of unjust enrichment to the applicant’s detriment.

---

| 11.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 158/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 158/15

---

Action brought on 28 February 2022 — Baert v Commission

(Case T-111/22)

(2022/C 158/18)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Rhonny Baert (Deinze, Belgium) (represented by: D. Grisay and A. Ansay, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | accept the present application for annulment/non-contractual liability; |
| --- | --- |

—

accept the present application for annulment/non-contractual liability;

| — | declare the application admissible and consequently:






  — | principally,






  — | declare the action for annulment well founded and rule that the implied refusal of the appointing authority of 28 February 2022 and the European Commission’s decision of 21 December 2016 (notice of determination) are null and void on the grounds that:






  — | Article 77 of the Staff Regulations and Article 11 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations on which the notice of determination of 21 December 2016 is based are unlawful; |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |

—

declare the application admissible and consequently:

—

principally,

—

declare the action for annulment well founded and rule that the implied refusal of the appointing authority of 28 February 2022 and the European Commission’s decision of 21 December 2016 (notice of determination) are null and void on the grounds that:

—

Article 77 of the Staff Regulations and Article 11 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations on which the notice of determination of 21 December 2016 is based are unlawful;

| — | by not proposing to the applicant, in his notice of determination of 21 December 2016, any repayment of the pension rights unaccounted for by the competent European authority, the European Commission failed in its duty to have regard to the welfare of officials; |
| --- | --- |

—

by not proposing to the applicant, in his notice of determination of 21 December 2016, any repayment of the pension rights unaccounted for by the competent European authority, the European Commission failed in its duty to have regard to the welfare of officials;

| — | by not proposing to the applicant, in his notice of determination of 21 December 2016, any repayment of the pension rights unaccounted for by the competent European authority, the European Commission failed to comply with the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination; |
| --- | --- |

—

by not proposing to the applicant, in his notice of determination of 21 December 2016, any repayment of the pension rights unaccounted for by the competent European authority, the European Commission failed to comply with the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination;

| — | and refer the file back to the appointing authority so that it may determine the amount to be repaid to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

and refer the file back to the appointing authority so that it may determine the amount to be repaid to the applicant;

| — | in the alternative,






  — | declare the action for compensation based on unjust enrichment well founded on the ground that the applicant has been impoverished by the amount of his pension rights contributed in his national pension scheme not taken into account by the competent European authority and which have, by the same token, enriched the pension fund of the European Union; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

in the alternative,

—

declare the action for compensation based on unjust enrichment well founded on the ground that the applicant has been impoverished by the amount of his pension rights contributed in his national pension scheme not taken into account by the competent European authority and which have, by the same token, enriched the pension fund of the European Union;

| — | order the Commission to compensate the applicant for the financial loss suffered, assessed at the date of lodging this application at a principal amount of EUR 31 066,80 or, at least at 39,18 % of the periodic annuity payments received by the Commission since 1 February 2017, to be increased by the same percentage for future annuity payments; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to compensate the applicant for the financial loss suffered, assessed at the date of lodging this application at a principal amount of EUR 31 066,80 or, at least at 39,18 % of the periodic annuity payments received by the Commission since 1 February 2017, to be increased by the same percentage for future annuity payments;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging the unlawfulness of Article 77(1) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) and of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations. The applicant submits that the abovementioned provisions provide that the official is to take the decision to transfer his pension rights, accrued in the national pension scheme, to the pension fund of the European Union (‘the PFEU’) within the 10 years of the official’s start of employment in the service of the institutions of the European Union. However, it is only at the time of retirement that the official who has carried out a transfer can accurately assess the scope of his possible transfer, in particular owing to the rule which limits the amount of pensions to 70 %. The applicant therefore concludes that, in breach of the principle of non-discrimination, that rule creates a difference in treatment compared with an official who has spent his entire career within the European system. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging the unlawfulness of Article 77(1) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) and of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations. The applicant submits that the abovementioned provisions provide that the official is to take the decision to transfer his pension rights, accrued in the national pension scheme, to the pension fund of the European Union (‘the PFEU’) within the 10 years of the official’s start of employment in the service of the institutions of the European Union. However, it is only at the time of retirement that the official who has carried out a transfer can accurately assess the scope of his possible transfer, in particular owing to the rule which limits the amount of pensions to 70 %. The applicant therefore concludes that, in breach of the principle of non-discrimination, that rule creates a difference in treatment compared with an official who has spent his entire career within the European system.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging breach of the duty of assistance and the duty to have regard to the welfare of officials referred to in Article 24 of the Staff Regulations. The applicant claims that, upon transferring their pension rights from the national system to the PFEU, officials normally receive a table from the Commission clarifying whether they are entitled to a repayment of the non-supplemented actuarial equivalent of the contributed amounts in their original national scheme, not included in the EU pension scheme. In addition, repayment is generally made without restrictions or specific steps. According to the applicant, he has not received that table or any repayment. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging breach of the duty of assistance and the duty to have regard to the welfare of officials referred to in Article 24 of the Staff Regulations. The applicant claims that, upon transferring their pension rights from the national system to the PFEU, officials normally receive a table from the Commission clarifying whether they are entitled to a repayment of the non-supplemented actuarial equivalent of the contributed amounts in their original national scheme, not included in the EU pension scheme. In addition, repayment is generally made without restrictions or specific steps. According to the applicant, he has not received that table or any repayment.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging breach of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination. The applicant takes the view that there is discrimination not justified by any objective criterion between some officials who receive a repayment when their pension rights are transferred and others for whom this is not the case. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging breach of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination. The applicant takes the view that there is discrimination not justified by any objective criterion between some officials who receive a repayment when their pension rights are transferred and others for whom this is not the case.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that non-contractual liability has been incurred on account of unjust enrichment to the applicant’s detriment. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that non-contractual liability has been incurred on account of unjust enrichment to the applicant’s detriment.

---