# Official Journal C 418/31 O

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 418 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6531 October 2022 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 418

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6531 October 2022

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2022/C 418/01 | 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 418/01

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 418/02 | Case C-420/20: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski Rayonen sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against HN (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Articles 47 and 48 — European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms — Article 6 — Directive (EU) 2016/343 — Strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings — Article 8 — Right to be present at the trial — Return decision accompanied by an entry ban of five years — Conditions for holding a trial in the absence of the person concerned — Obligation to be present at the trial provided for under national law) | 2 |
| 2022/C 418/03 | Case C-669/20: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — Veridos GmbH v Ministar na vatreshnite raboti na Republika Bulgaria, Mühlbauer ID Services GmbH — S&T (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2009/81/EC — Coordination of procedures for the award of certain works contracts, supply contracts and service contracts — Articles 38 and 49 — Obligation to verify whether an abnormally low tender exists — Criterion laid down by a piece of national legislation for assessing the abnormally low nature of a tender — Not applicable — Requirement that there be at least three tenders — Criterion based on the requirement that a tender be more than 20 % lower than the mean value of the tenders submitted by the other tenderers — Judicial review) | 3 |
| 2022/C 418/04 | Case C-675/20 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 September 2022 — Colin Brown v European Commission, Council of the European Union (Appeal — Civil service — Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union — Article 4(1)(a) and (b) — EU official who is a national of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and who during the 10 years before his entry into service habitually resided within the territory of the State in which he is employed — Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union — Acquisition by that EU official of the nationality of the State in which he is employed — Withdrawal of the entitlement to receive an expatriation allowance — Action for annulment) | 4 |
| 2022/C 418/05 | Case C-705/20: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Income Tax Tribunal of Gibraltar (United Kingdom) — United Kingdom) — Fossil (Gibraltar) Limited v Commissioner of Income Tax (Reference for a preliminary ruling — State aid — Aid schemes implemented by the Government of Gibraltar concerning corporate income tax — Decision (EU) 2019/700 — Non-taxation of passive interest and royalty income — Decision of the European Commission declaring the aid scheme unlawful and incompatible with the internal market — Recovery obligation — Scope — Domestic provision which was not the subject of the Commission’s investigation concerning the State aid at issue — Set-off of the tax paid abroad in order to prevent double taxation) | 4 |
| 2022/C 418/06 | Case C-4/21: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Fédération des entreprises de la beauté v Agence nationale de sécurité du médicament et des produits de santé (ANSM) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Cosmetic products — Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 — Article 27 — Safeguard clause — Article 27(1) — Scope — Provisional national safeguard measures — General measure — Application to a category of cosmetic products containing the same substance — Individual measure — Application to an identified cosmetic product — Provisional national measure imposing certain labelling requirements on a category of leave-on products containing phenoxyethanol) | 5 |
| 2022/C 418/07 | Case C-18/21: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Uniqa Versicherungen AG v VU (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — European order for payment procedure — Regulation No 1896/2006 — Article 16(2) — 30-day time limit for lodging a statement of opposition to the European order for payment — Article 20 — Review procedure — Article 26 — Application of national law for procedural issues not specifically dealt with in that regulation — COVID 19 pandemic — National legislation which interrupted the procedural periods in civil matters for several weeks) | 6 |
| 2022/C 418/08 | Case C-22/21: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — SRS, AA v Minister for Justice and Equality (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2004/38/EC — Right of Union citizens and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States — Article 3(2), first subparagraph, point (a) — Concept of other family members who are members of the household of the Union citizen having the primary right of residence — Assessment criteria) | 6 |
| 2022/C 418/09 | Case C-45/21: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Ustavno sodišče Republike Slovenije — Slovenia) — Banka Slovenije (Reference for a preliminary ruling — European System of Central Banks — National central bank — Directive 2001/24/EC — Reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions — Compensation for damage resulting from the adoption of reorganisation measures — Article 123 TFEU and Article 21.1 of Protocol (No 4) on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank — Prohibition of monetary financing of Member States in the euro area — Article 130 TFEU and Article 7 of that protocol — Independence — Disclosure of confidential information) | 7 |
| 2022/C 418/10 | Case C-58/21: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 15 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Wien — Austria) — FK (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Coordination of social security systems — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Article 13 — Determination of the legislation applicable — Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons — Annex II — Article 1(2) — Person pursuing the profession of lawyer the centre of interest of whose private and professional activities is situated in Switzerland and who also pursues that profession in two other Member States — Application for the award of an early retirement pension — National legislation requiring that the person concerned waive his right to practise the profession in question in the territory of the Member State concerned and abroad) | 8 |
| 2022/C 418/11 | Case C-227/21: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — UAB HA.EN. v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Right to deduct input VAT — Sale of an item of immovable property between taxable persons — Vendor subject to insolvency proceedings — National practice under which the purchaser is denied the right of deduction on the ground that he or she knew or should have known of the vendor’s difficulties in paying the output tax — Fraud and abuse of rights — Conditions) | 9 |
| 2022/C 418/12 | Case C-326/21 P: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 15 September 2022 — PNB Banka AS v European Central Bank (Appeal — Economic and monetary policy — Prudential supervision of credit institutions — Insolvency proceedings — Refusal by the European Central Bank (ECB) to grant the request of the board of directors of a credit institution seeking an order instructing the insolvency administrator of that institution to grant the lawyer authorised by that board access to the premises, information, staff and resources of that institution — Competence of the author of the measure — Article 263 TFEU — Measure open to an annulment action — Inadmissibility) | 10 |
| 2022/C 418/13 | Case C-347/21: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against DD (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Directive (EU) 2016/343 — Strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings — Article 8(1) — Right of an accused person to be present at the trial — Examination of an incriminating witness in the absence of the accused person — Possibility of remedying the infringement of a right at a later stage in the proceedings — Additional examination of the same witness — Directive 2013/48/EU — Right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings — Article 3(1) — Examination of an incriminating witness in the absence of the lawyer of the accused person) | 10 |
| 2022/C 418/14 | Case C-416/21: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerisches Oberstes Landesgericht — Germany) — Landkreis A.-F. v J. Sch. Omnibusunternehmen and K. Reisen GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement procedures — Directive 2014/24/EU — Point (d) of the first subparagraph of Article 57(4) — Optional grounds for exclusion — Agreements with other economic operators aimed at distorting competition — Directive 2014/25/EU — Article 36(1) — Principles of proportionality and equal treatment of tenderers — Article 80(1) — Use of exclusion grounds and selection criteria provided for under Directive 2014/24/EU — Tenderers which constitute an economic unit and have submitted separate tenders that were neither autonomous nor independent — Need for sufficiently plausible indications to establish an infringement of Article 101 TFEU) | 11 |
| 2022/C 418/15 | Case C-470/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrchní soud v Praze (Czech Republic) lodged on 14 July 2022 — Česká národní skupina Mezinárodní federace hudebního průmyslu, z. s. v I&Q GROUP, spol. s r.o., Hellspy SE | 12 |
| 2022/C 418/16 | Case C-576/22: Action brought on 30 August 2022 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain | 13 |
| | General Court |
| 2022/C 418/17 | Case T-631/19: Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — BNetzA v ACER (Energy — Internal market in electricity — Regulation (EU) 2019/942 — Decision of the Board of Appeal of ACER — Action for annulment — Act not open to challenge — Inadmissibility — ACER’s competence — Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 713/2009 — Article 6(10) of Regulation 2019/942 — Article 9(12) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1222 — Applicable law — Regulation (EU) 2019/943) | 15 |
| 2022/C 418/18 | Case T-793/19: Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — Tirreno Power v Commission (State aid — Italian electricity market — Capacity mechanism — Decision not to raise objections — Availability of the electricity production capacity — Modification of the capacity mechanism — Serious difficulties — Procedural rights of interested parties — Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020) | 15 |
| 2022/C 418/19 | Case T-794/19: Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — Set v Commission (State aid — Italian electricity market — Capacity mechanism — Decision not to raise objections — Availability of the electricity production capacity — Modification of the capacity mechanism — Serious difficulties — Procedural rights of interested parties — Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020) | 16 |
| 2022/C 418/20 | Case T-91/20: Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — WT v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Disciplinary proceedings — Disciplinary penalty in the form of a reprimand — Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials — Principle of good administration — Right to be heard — Obligation to state reasons — Reasonable time — Psychological harassment — Principle of legal certainty — Material and non-material damage) | 17 |
| 2022/C 418/21 | Case T-217/20: Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — Greece v Commission (EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Expenditure incurred by Greece — Rural Development — Key controls — Flat-rate financial corrections — Obligation to state reasons — Protection of legitimate expectations — Legal certainty — Proportionality — Principle of sound administration) | 18 |
| 2022/C 418/22 | Case T-470/20: Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — DD v FRA (Civil service — Temporary staff — Disciplinary regime — Removal from post — Opening of an administrative investigation — Initiation of disciplinary proceedings — Requirement for impartiality — Error of law — Manifest error of assessment — Articles 11, 12 and 21 of the Staff Regulations — Duty of loyalty — Legal certainty — Freedom of expression — Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Principle of sound administration — Duty of care — Presumption of innocence — Right to be heard — Reasonable period of time — Proportionality of the sanction) | 18 |
| 2022/C 418/23 | Case T-529/20: Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — LR v EIB (Civil service — EIB staff — Remuneration — Resettlement allowance — Establishment of a member of staff’s residence in his or her own home after leaving the service of the EIB — Second indent of the first paragraph of Article 13 of the EIB Staff Rules — Concept of home — Literal interpretation according to a prevailing language version — Unlimited jurisdiction — Dispute of a financial character — Admissibility) | 19 |
| 2022/C 418/24 | Case T-651/20: Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — KL v EIB (Civil service — Personnel of the EIB — Unjustified absences — Failure to report for medical examination — Action for annulment and for damages) | 20 |
| 2022/C 418/25 | Case T-713/20: Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — OQ v Commission (Civil service — Recruitment — Notice of open competition EPSO/AD/378/20 (AD 7) — Croatian-language lawyer-linguists at the Court of Justice of the European Union — Decision of the selection board not to admit the applicant to the next stage of the competition — Conditions for admission — Condition relating to a level of education corresponding to a full course of university studies leading to qualifications in Croatian law — Possession of French qualifications in law — Freedom of movement for workers — Action for annulment) | 20 |
| 2022/C 418/26 | Case T-751/20: Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — KL v EIB (Civil service — EIB staff — Sick leave — Rejection of medical certificates — Unjustified absences — Action for annulment and for damages) | 21 |
| 2022/C 418/27 | Case T-40/21: Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — Slovakia v Commission (EAGF — Expenditure excluded from financing — Absence of procedures for recovery of aid overpaid — Procedural safeguards — Article 52(4)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 — Article 34(2) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 908/2014) | 22 |
| 2022/C 418/28 | Case T-95/21: Judgment of the General Court of 21 September 2022 — Portugal v Commission (Madeira Free Zone) (State aid — Madeira Free Zone — Aid scheme implemented by Portugal — Decision finding that the scheme does not comply with Decisions C(2007) 3037 final and C(2013) 4043 final, declaring it to be incompatible with the internal market, and ordering the recovery of aid paid under that scheme — Concept of State aid — Existing aid within the meaning of Article 1(b)(i) and (ii) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 — Recovery — Legitimate expectations — Legal certainty — Principle of sound administration — Absolute impossibility of implementation — Limitation — Article 17 of Regulation 2015/1589) | 22 |
| 2022/C 418/29 | Case T-123/21: Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — Stowarzyszenie chłodnictwa klimatyzacji i pomp ciepła v Commission (Environment — Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 — Fluorinated greenhouse gases — Placement on the market — Release for fee circulation — Electronic registry for quotas for placing hydrofluorocarbons on the market — Decision to register — Authorisation to use a quota) | 23 |
| 2022/C 418/30 | Case T-155/21: Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — Völkl v EUIPO — Marker Dalbello Völkl (International) (Völkl) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark Völkl — Earlier EU word mark Völkl — Earlier EU word mark VÖLKL — Relative ground for invalidity — No likelihood of confusion — No similarity between the goods — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 24 |
| 2022/C 418/31 | Case T-156/21: Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — Völkl v EUIPO — Marker Dalbello Völkl (International) (Marker Völkl) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark Marker Völkl — Earlier EU word mark VÖLKL — Relative ground for invalidity — No likelihood of confusion — No similarity between the goods — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 24 |
| 2022/C 418/32 | Case T-217/21: Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — SB v eu-LISA (Civil service — Contract staff — Staff of eu-LISA — Dismissal decision at the end of the probationary period — Obligation to state reasons — Normal probationary conditions — Right to be heard — Procedural irregularities — Duty of care — Manifest error of assessment — Principle of sound administration) | 25 |
| 2022/C 418/33 | Case T-266/21: Judgment of the General Court of 21 September 2022 — Casanova v EIB (Civil service — EIB staff — Termination of the contract at the end of the trial period — Lack of competence of the author of the act — Liability — Material damage — Premature claim for damages — Non-material damage) | 26 |
| 2022/C 418/34 | Case T-341/21: Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — Rauff-Nisthar v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Open Competition EPSO/AD/371/19 — Non-inclusion on the reserve list — Irregularities in the conduct of the tests liable to distort the result — Equal treatment — Manifest error of assessment — New plea) | 26 |
| 2022/C 418/35 | Case T-353/21: Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — KTM Fahrrad v EUIPO — KTM (R2R) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark R2R — Declaration of revocation — Genuine use of the trade mark — Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Proof of genuine use — Proper reason for non-use) | 27 |
| 2022/C 418/36 | Case T-448/21: Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — Saure v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Commission correspondence concerning the quantity and delivery timings of BioNTech COVID-19 vaccines — Action for annulment — Express decision adopted after implied refusal of access — No lis pendens on account of the inadmissibility of another action — Partial refusal of access — Exceptions relating to the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual, the protection of legal advice, the protection of the decision-making process and the protection of the commercial interests of a third party) | 28 |
| 2022/C 418/37 | Case T-475/21: Judgment of the General Court of 21 September 2022 — France v Commission (EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Expenditure incurred by France — Voluntary coupled support — Eligibility conditions — Eligible sectors and production — Article 52(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013) | 28 |
| 2022/C 418/38 | Case T-486/21: Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — OE v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Teleworking — Claim for reimbursement of telephone and Internet connection expenses — Claim rejected — Plea of illegality — Partial admissibility — Article 71 of and Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials — Principle of equality and non-discrimination — Right to respect for private life) | 29 |
| 2022/C 418/39 | Case T-507/21: Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — Migadakis v ENISA (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Recruitment — Call for expressions of interest — Video examination — Minimum points threshold — Equality of treatment — Whether marking was objective) | 30 |
| 2022/C 418/40 | Case T-521/21: Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — 6Minutes Media v EUIPO — ad pepper media International (ad pepper the e-advertising network) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU figurative mark ad pepper the e-advertising network — Genuine use of the mark — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 [now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 30 |
| 2022/C 418/41 | Case T-627/21: Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — Segimerus v EUIPO — Karsten Manufacturing (MONSOON) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark MONSOON — Absolute ground for invalidity — Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001 — Article 34 of Regulation 2017/1001) | 31 |
| 2022/C 418/42 | Case T-651/21: Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — Saure v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Commission correspondence concerning the quantity and delivery timings of BioNTech COVID-19 vaccines — Action for annulment — Express decisions adopted after implied refusal of access — No lis pendens on account of the inadmissibility of another action — Total and partial refusal of access — Exceptions relating to the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual, the protection of legal advice, the protection of the decision-making process and the protection of the commercial interests of a third party) | 32 |
| 2022/C 418/43 | Case T-699/21: Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — Peace United v EUIPO — 1906 Collins (MY BOYFRIEND IS OUT OF TOWN) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark MY BOYFRIEND IS OUT OF TOWN — Declaration of revocation — Absence of genuine use of the mark — Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Proof of genuine use — Abuse of rights) | 32 |
| 2022/C 418/44 | Case T-700/21: Judgment of the General Court of 21 September 2022 — Voco v EUIPO (Shape of packaging) (EU trade mark — Application for a three-dimensional EU trade mark — Shape of packaging — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 33 |
| 2022/C 418/45 | Case T-730/21: Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — Łosowski v EUIPO — Skawiński (KOMBI) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark KOMBI — Earlier EU word mark kombii — Relative ground for invalidity — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Similarity of the goods and services — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Reliance on an individual right to use the name kombi under national law) | 33 |
| 2022/C 418/46 | Case T-754/21: Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — Peace United v EUIPO — 1906 Collins (bâoli) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark bâoli — Declaration of revocation — Absence of genuine use of the mark — Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Proof of genuine use — Abuse of rights) | 34 |
| 2022/C 418/47 | Case T-9/22: Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — Olimp Laboratories v EUIPO (VITA-MIN MULTIPLE SPORT) (European Union trade mark — Application for the European Union word mark VITA-MIN MULTIPLE SPORT — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Lack of distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001) | 35 |
| 2022/C 418/48 | Case T-373/21: Order of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — Etablissements Nicolas v EUIPO — St. Nicolaus (NICOLAS) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Withdrawal of the application for a declaration of invalidity — No need to adjudicate) | 35 |
| 2022/C 418/49 | Case T-75/22: Order of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — Prigozhin v Council (Action for annulment — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against serious human rights violations and abuses — Grounds of the decisions mentioning the applicant’s name as the financier of the Wagner Group — Assessments made in the grounds of the decisions — Acts not open to appeal — Inadmissibility) | 36 |
| 2022/C 418/50 | Case T-179/22: Order of the General Court of 6 September 2022 — Farco-Pharma v EUIPO — Infarco (FARCO) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate) | 36 |
| 2022/C 418/51 | Case T-340/22: Order of the General Court of 6 September 2022 — Etablissements Nicolas v EUIPO — St. Nicolaus (NICOLAS) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate) | 37 |
| 2022/C 418/52 | Case T-508/22: Action brought on 19 August 2022 — Spain v Commission | 38 |
| 2022/C 418/53 | Case T-530/22: Action brought on 28 August 2022 — Medel v Council | 40 |
| 2022/C 418/54 | Case T-531/22: Action brought on 28 August 2022 — International Association of Judges v Council | 41 |
| 2022/C 418/55 | Case T-532/22: Action brought on 28 August 2022 — Association of European Administrative Judges v Council | 42 |
| 2022/C 418/56 | Case T-533/22: Action brought on 28 August 2022 — Rechters voor Rechters v Council | 43 |
| 2022/C 418/57 | Case T-537/22: Action brought on 1 September 2022 — Delta Sport Handelskontor v EUIPO — Lego (Building blocks from a toy building set) | 45 |
| 2022/C 418/58 | Case T-538/22: Action brought on 1 September 2022 — Hästens Sängar v EUIPO — Mustang (Checked pattern in grey with black horses) | 45 |
| 2022/C 418/59 | Case T-539/22: Action brought on 1 September 2022 — Hästens Sängar v EUIPO — Mustang (Checked pattern in grey with darker horses) | 46 |
| 2022/C 418/60 | Case T-545/22: Action brought on 1 September 2022 — Hästens Sängar v EUIPO — Mustang (Checked pattern in beige with white horses) | 47 |
| 2022/C 418/61 | Case T-546/22: Action brought on 1 September 2022 — Hästens Sängar v EUIPO — Mustang (Checked pattern in blue and white with white horses) | 47 |
| 2022/C 418/62 | Case T-547/22: Action brought on 1 September 2022 — Hästens Sängar v EUIPO — Mustang (Checked pattern with horses) | 48 |
| 2022/C 418/63 | Case T-554/22: Action brought on 1 September 2022 — Carmeuse Holding v Commission | 49 |
| 2022/C 418/64 | Case T-557/22: Action brought on 9 September 2022 — Chmielarz v EUIPO — Granulat (granulat) | 50 |
| 2022/C 418/65 | Case T-561/22: Action brought on 9 September 2022 — CFA Institute v EUIPO — Global Chartered Controller Institute (CCA Chartered Controller Analyst CERTIFICATE) | 51 |
| 2022/C 418/66 | Case T-562/22: Action brought on 9 September 2022 — Noah Clothing v EUIPO — Noah (NOAH) | 51 |
| 2022/C 418/67 | Case T-567/22: Action brought on 14 September 2022 — ATPN v Commission | 52 |
| 2022/C 418/68 | Case T-568/22: Action brought on 15 September 2022 — XNT v EUIPO — Exane (EXANE) | 53 |
| 2022/C 418/69 | Case T-585/22: Action brought on 20 September 2022 — Trus v EUIPO — Unilab (ARTRESAN) | 54 |
| 2022/C 418/70 | Case T-567/21: Order of the General Court of 26 July 2022 — WG v EUIPO | 54 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2022/C 418/02

Case C-420/20: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski Rayonen sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against HN (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Articles 47 and 48 — European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms — Article 6 — Directive (EU) 2016/343 — Strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings — Article 8 — Right to be present at the trial — Return decision accompanied by an entry ban of five years — Conditions for holding a trial in the absence of the person concerned — Obligation to be present at the trial provided for under national law)

2

2022/C 418/03

Case C-669/20: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — Veridos GmbH v Ministar na vatreshnite raboti na Republika Bulgaria, Mühlbauer ID Services GmbH — S&T (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2009/81/EC — Coordination of procedures for the award of certain works contracts, supply contracts and service contracts — Articles 38 and 49 — Obligation to verify whether an abnormally low tender exists — Criterion laid down by a piece of national legislation for assessing the abnormally low nature of a tender — Not applicable — Requirement that there be at least three tenders — Criterion based on the requirement that a tender be more than 20 % lower than the mean value of the tenders submitted by the other tenderers — Judicial review)

3

2022/C 418/04

Case C-675/20 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 September 2022 — Colin Brown v European Commission, Council of the European Union (Appeal — Civil service — Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union — Article 4(1)(a) and (b) — EU official who is a national of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and who during the 10 years before his entry into service habitually resided within the territory of the State in which he is employed — Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union — Acquisition by that EU official of the nationality of the State in which he is employed — Withdrawal of the entitlement to receive an expatriation allowance — Action for annulment)

4

2022/C 418/05

Case C-705/20: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Income Tax Tribunal of Gibraltar (United Kingdom) — United Kingdom) — Fossil (Gibraltar) Limited v Commissioner of Income Tax (Reference for a preliminary ruling — State aid — Aid schemes implemented by the Government of Gibraltar concerning corporate income tax — Decision (EU) 2019/700 — Non-taxation of passive interest and royalty income — Decision of the European Commission declaring the aid scheme unlawful and incompatible with the internal market — Recovery obligation — Scope — Domestic provision which was not the subject of the Commission’s investigation concerning the State aid at issue — Set-off of the tax paid abroad in order to prevent double taxation)

4

2022/C 418/06

Case C-4/21: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Fédération des entreprises de la beauté v Agence nationale de sécurité du médicament et des produits de santé (ANSM) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Cosmetic products — Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 — Article 27 — Safeguard clause — Article 27(1) — Scope — Provisional national safeguard measures — General measure — Application to a category of cosmetic products containing the same substance — Individual measure — Application to an identified cosmetic product — Provisional national measure imposing certain labelling requirements on a category of leave-on products containing phenoxyethanol)

5

2022/C 418/07

Case C-18/21: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Uniqa Versicherungen AG v VU (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — European order for payment procedure — Regulation No 1896/2006 — Article 16(2) — 30-day time limit for lodging a statement of opposition to the European order for payment — Article 20 — Review procedure — Article 26 — Application of national law for procedural issues not specifically dealt with in that regulation — COVID 19 pandemic — National legislation which interrupted the procedural periods in civil matters for several weeks)

6

2022/C 418/08

Case C-22/21: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — SRS, AA v Minister for Justice and Equality (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2004/38/EC — Right of Union citizens and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States — Article 3(2), first subparagraph, point (a) — Concept of other family members who are members of the household of the Union citizen having the primary right of residence — Assessment criteria)

6

2022/C 418/09

Case C-45/21: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Ustavno sodišče Republike Slovenije — Slovenia) — Banka Slovenije (Reference for a preliminary ruling — European System of Central Banks — National central bank — Directive 2001/24/EC — Reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions — Compensation for damage resulting from the adoption of reorganisation measures — Article 123 TFEU and Article 21.1 of Protocol (No 4) on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank — Prohibition of monetary financing of Member States in the euro area — Article 130 TFEU and Article 7 of that protocol — Independence — Disclosure of confidential information)

7

2022/C 418/10

Case C-58/21: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 15 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Wien — Austria) — FK (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Coordination of social security systems — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Article 13 — Determination of the legislation applicable — Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons — Annex II — Article 1(2) — Person pursuing the profession of lawyer the centre of interest of whose private and professional activities is situated in Switzerland and who also pursues that profession in two other Member States — Application for the award of an early retirement pension — National legislation requiring that the person concerned waive his right to practise the profession in question in the territory of the Member State concerned and abroad)

8

2022/C 418/11

Case C-227/21: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — UAB HA.EN. v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Right to deduct input VAT — Sale of an item of immovable property between taxable persons — Vendor subject to insolvency proceedings — National practice under which the purchaser is denied the right of deduction on the ground that he or she knew or should have known of the vendor’s difficulties in paying the output tax — Fraud and abuse of rights — Conditions)

9

2022/C 418/12

Case C-326/21 P: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 15 September 2022 — PNB Banka AS v European Central Bank (Appeal — Economic and monetary policy — Prudential supervision of credit institutions — Insolvency proceedings — Refusal by the European Central Bank (ECB) to grant the request of the board of directors of a credit institution seeking an order instructing the insolvency administrator of that institution to grant the lawyer authorised by that board access to the premises, information, staff and resources of that institution — Competence of the author of the measure — Article 263 TFEU — Measure open to an annulment action — Inadmissibility)

10

2022/C 418/13

Case C-347/21: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against DD (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Directive (EU) 2016/343 — Strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings — Article 8(1) — Right of an accused person to be present at the trial — Examination of an incriminating witness in the absence of the accused person — Possibility of remedying the infringement of a right at a later stage in the proceedings — Additional examination of the same witness — Directive 2013/48/EU — Right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings — Article 3(1) — Examination of an incriminating witness in the absence of the lawyer of the accused person)

10

2022/C 418/14

Case C-416/21: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerisches Oberstes Landesgericht — Germany) — Landkreis A.-F. v J. Sch. Omnibusunternehmen and K. Reisen GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement procedures — Directive 2014/24/EU — Point (d) of the first subparagraph of Article 57(4) — Optional grounds for exclusion — Agreements with other economic operators aimed at distorting competition — Directive 2014/25/EU — Article 36(1) — Principles of proportionality and equal treatment of tenderers — Article 80(1) — Use of exclusion grounds and selection criteria provided for under Directive 2014/24/EU — Tenderers which constitute an economic unit and have submitted separate tenders that were neither autonomous nor independent — Need for sufficiently plausible indications to establish an infringement of Article 101 TFEU)

11

2022/C 418/15

Case C-470/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrchní soud v Praze (Czech Republic) lodged on 14 July 2022 — Česká národní skupina Mezinárodní federace hudebního průmyslu, z. s. v I&Q GROUP, spol. s r.o., Hellspy SE

12

2022/C 418/16

Case C-576/22: Action brought on 30 August 2022 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

13

General Court

2022/C 418/17

Case T-631/19: Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — BNetzA v ACER (Energy — Internal market in electricity — Regulation (EU) 2019/942 — Decision of the Board of Appeal of ACER — Action for annulment — Act not open to challenge — Inadmissibility — ACER’s competence — Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 713/2009 — Article 6(10) of Regulation 2019/942 — Article 9(12) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1222 — Applicable law — Regulation (EU) 2019/943)

15

2022/C 418/18

Case T-793/19: Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — Tirreno Power v Commission (State aid — Italian electricity market — Capacity mechanism — Decision not to raise objections — Availability of the electricity production capacity — Modification of the capacity mechanism — Serious difficulties — Procedural rights of interested parties — Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020)

15

2022/C 418/19

Case T-794/19: Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — Set v Commission (State aid — Italian electricity market — Capacity mechanism — Decision not to raise objections — Availability of the electricity production capacity — Modification of the capacity mechanism — Serious difficulties — Procedural rights of interested parties — Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020)

16

2022/C 418/20

Case T-91/20: Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — WT v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Disciplinary proceedings — Disciplinary penalty in the form of a reprimand — Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials — Principle of good administration — Right to be heard — Obligation to state reasons — Reasonable time — Psychological harassment — Principle of legal certainty — Material and non-material damage)

17

2022/C 418/21

Case T-217/20: Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — Greece v Commission (EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Expenditure incurred by Greece — Rural Development — Key controls — Flat-rate financial corrections — Obligation to state reasons — Protection of legitimate expectations — Legal certainty — Proportionality — Principle of sound administration)

18

2022/C 418/22

Case T-470/20: Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — DD v FRA (Civil service — Temporary staff — Disciplinary regime — Removal from post — Opening of an administrative investigation — Initiation of disciplinary proceedings — Requirement for impartiality — Error of law — Manifest error of assessment — Articles 11, 12 and 21 of the Staff Regulations — Duty of loyalty — Legal certainty — Freedom of expression — Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Principle of sound administration — Duty of care — Presumption of innocence — Right to be heard — Reasonable period of time — Proportionality of the sanction)

18

2022/C 418/23

Case T-529/20: Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — LR v EIB (Civil service — EIB staff — Remuneration — Resettlement allowance — Establishment of a member of staff’s residence in his or her own home after leaving the service of the EIB — Second indent of the first paragraph of Article 13 of the EIB Staff Rules — Concept of home — Literal interpretation according to a prevailing language version — Unlimited jurisdiction — Dispute of a financial character — Admissibility)

19

2022/C 418/24

Case T-651/20: Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — KL v EIB (Civil service — Personnel of the EIB — Unjustified absences — Failure to report for medical examination — Action for annulment and for damages)

20

2022/C 418/25

Case T-713/20: Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — OQ v Commission (Civil service — Recruitment — Notice of open competition EPSO/AD/378/20 (AD 7) — Croatian-language lawyer-linguists at the Court of Justice of the European Union — Decision of the selection board not to admit the applicant to the next stage of the competition — Conditions for admission — Condition relating to a level of education corresponding to a full course of university studies leading to qualifications in Croatian law — Possession of French qualifications in law — Freedom of movement for workers — Action for annulment)

20

2022/C 418/26

Case T-751/20: Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — KL v EIB (Civil service — EIB staff — Sick leave — Rejection of medical certificates — Unjustified absences — Action for annulment and for damages)

21

2022/C 418/27

Case T-40/21: Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — Slovakia v Commission (EAGF — Expenditure excluded from financing — Absence of procedures for recovery of aid overpaid — Procedural safeguards — Article 52(4)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 — Article 34(2) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 908/2014)

22

2022/C 418/28

Case T-95/21: Judgment of the General Court of 21 September 2022 — Portugal v Commission (Madeira Free Zone) (State aid — Madeira Free Zone — Aid scheme implemented by Portugal — Decision finding that the scheme does not comply with Decisions C(2007) 3037 final and C(2013) 4043 final, declaring it to be incompatible with the internal market, and ordering the recovery of aid paid under that scheme — Concept of State aid — Existing aid within the meaning of Article 1(b)(i) and (ii) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 — Recovery — Legitimate expectations — Legal certainty — Principle of sound administration — Absolute impossibility of implementation — Limitation — Article 17 of Regulation 2015/1589)

22

2022/C 418/29

Case T-123/21: Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — Stowarzyszenie chłodnictwa klimatyzacji i pomp ciepła v Commission (Environment — Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 — Fluorinated greenhouse gases — Placement on the market — Release for fee circulation — Electronic registry for quotas for placing hydrofluorocarbons on the market — Decision to register — Authorisation to use a quota)

23

2022/C 418/30

Case T-155/21: Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — Völkl v EUIPO — Marker Dalbello Völkl (International) (Völkl) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark Völkl — Earlier EU word mark Völkl — Earlier EU word mark VÖLKL — Relative ground for invalidity — No likelihood of confusion — No similarity between the goods — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

24

2022/C 418/31

Case T-156/21: Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — Völkl v EUIPO — Marker Dalbello Völkl (International) (Marker Völkl) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark Marker Völkl — Earlier EU word mark VÖLKL — Relative ground for invalidity — No likelihood of confusion — No similarity between the goods — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

24

2022/C 418/32

Case T-217/21: Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — SB v eu-LISA (Civil service — Contract staff — Staff of eu-LISA — Dismissal decision at the end of the probationary period — Obligation to state reasons — Normal probationary conditions — Right to be heard — Procedural irregularities — Duty of care — Manifest error of assessment — Principle of sound administration)

25

2022/C 418/33

Case T-266/21: Judgment of the General Court of 21 September 2022 — Casanova v EIB (Civil service — EIB staff — Termination of the contract at the end of the trial period — Lack of competence of the author of the act — Liability — Material damage — Premature claim for damages — Non-material damage)

26

2022/C 418/34

Case T-341/21: Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — Rauff-Nisthar v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Open Competition EPSO/AD/371/19 — Non-inclusion on the reserve list — Irregularities in the conduct of the tests liable to distort the result — Equal treatment — Manifest error of assessment — New plea)

26

2022/C 418/35

Case T-353/21: Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — KTM Fahrrad v EUIPO — KTM (R2R) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark R2R — Declaration of revocation — Genuine use of the trade mark — Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Proof of genuine use — Proper reason for non-use)

27

2022/C 418/36

Case T-448/21: Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — Saure v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Commission correspondence concerning the quantity and delivery timings of BioNTech COVID-19 vaccines — Action for annulment — Express decision adopted after implied refusal of access — No lis pendens on account of the inadmissibility of another action — Partial refusal of access — Exceptions relating to the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual, the protection of legal advice, the protection of the decision-making process and the protection of the commercial interests of a third party)

28

2022/C 418/37

Case T-475/21: Judgment of the General Court of 21 September 2022 — France v Commission (EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Expenditure incurred by France — Voluntary coupled support — Eligibility conditions — Eligible sectors and production — Article 52(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013)

28

2022/C 418/38

Case T-486/21: Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — OE v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Teleworking — Claim for reimbursement of telephone and Internet connection expenses — Claim rejected — Plea of illegality — Partial admissibility — Article 71 of and Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials — Principle of equality and non-discrimination — Right to respect for private life)

29

2022/C 418/39

Case T-507/21: Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — Migadakis v ENISA (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Recruitment — Call for expressions of interest — Video examination — Minimum points threshold — Equality of treatment — Whether marking was objective)

30

2022/C 418/40

Case T-521/21: Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — 6Minutes Media v EUIPO — ad pepper media International (ad pepper the e-advertising network) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU figurative mark ad pepper the e-advertising network — Genuine use of the mark — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 [now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

30

2022/C 418/41

Case T-627/21: Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — Segimerus v EUIPO — Karsten Manufacturing (MONSOON) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark MONSOON — Absolute ground for invalidity — Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001 — Article 34 of Regulation 2017/1001)

31

2022/C 418/42

Case T-651/21: Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — Saure v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Commission correspondence concerning the quantity and delivery timings of BioNTech COVID-19 vaccines — Action for annulment — Express decisions adopted after implied refusal of access — No lis pendens on account of the inadmissibility of another action — Total and partial refusal of access — Exceptions relating to the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual, the protection of legal advice, the protection of the decision-making process and the protection of the commercial interests of a third party)

32

2022/C 418/43

Case T-699/21: Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — Peace United v EUIPO — 1906 Collins (MY BOYFRIEND IS OUT OF TOWN) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark MY BOYFRIEND IS OUT OF TOWN — Declaration of revocation — Absence of genuine use of the mark — Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Proof of genuine use — Abuse of rights)

32

2022/C 418/44

Case T-700/21: Judgment of the General Court of 21 September 2022 — Voco v EUIPO (Shape of packaging) (EU trade mark — Application for a three-dimensional EU trade mark — Shape of packaging — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

33

2022/C 418/45

Case T-730/21: Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — Łosowski v EUIPO — Skawiński (KOMBI) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark KOMBI — Earlier EU word mark kombii — Relative ground for invalidity — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Similarity of the goods and services — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Reliance on an individual right to use the name kombi under national law)

33

2022/C 418/46

Case T-754/21: Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — Peace United v EUIPO — 1906 Collins (bâoli) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark bâoli — Declaration of revocation — Absence of genuine use of the mark — Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Proof of genuine use — Abuse of rights)

34

2022/C 418/47

Case T-9/22: Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — Olimp Laboratories v EUIPO (VITA-MIN MULTIPLE SPORT) (European Union trade mark — Application for the European Union word mark VITA-MIN MULTIPLE SPORT — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Lack of distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001)

35

2022/C 418/48

Case T-373/21: Order of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — Etablissements Nicolas v EUIPO — St. Nicolaus (NICOLAS) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Withdrawal of the application for a declaration of invalidity — No need to adjudicate)

35

2022/C 418/49

Case T-75/22: Order of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — Prigozhin v Council (Action for annulment — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against serious human rights violations and abuses — Grounds of the decisions mentioning the applicant’s name as the financier of the Wagner Group — Assessments made in the grounds of the decisions — Acts not open to appeal — Inadmissibility)

36

2022/C 418/50

Case T-179/22: Order of the General Court of 6 September 2022 — Farco-Pharma v EUIPO — Infarco (FARCO) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)

36

2022/C 418/51

Case T-340/22: Order of the General Court of 6 September 2022 — Etablissements Nicolas v EUIPO — St. Nicolaus (NICOLAS) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)

37

2022/C 418/52

Case T-508/22: Action brought on 19 August 2022 — Spain v Commission

38

2022/C 418/53

Case T-530/22: Action brought on 28 August 2022 — Medel v Council

40

2022/C 418/54

Case T-531/22: Action brought on 28 August 2022 — International Association of Judges v Council

41

2022/C 418/55

Case T-532/22: Action brought on 28 August 2022 — Association of European Administrative Judges v Council

42

2022/C 418/56

Case T-533/22: Action brought on 28 August 2022 — Rechters voor Rechters v Council

43

2022/C 418/57

Case T-537/22: Action brought on 1 September 2022 — Delta Sport Handelskontor v EUIPO — Lego (Building blocks from a toy building set)

45

2022/C 418/58

Case T-538/22: Action brought on 1 September 2022 — Hästens Sängar v EUIPO — Mustang (Checked pattern in grey with black horses)

45

2022/C 418/59

Case T-539/22: Action brought on 1 September 2022 — Hästens Sängar v EUIPO — Mustang (Checked pattern in grey with darker horses)

46

2022/C 418/60

Case T-545/22: Action brought on 1 September 2022 — Hästens Sängar v EUIPO — Mustang (Checked pattern in beige with white horses)

47

2022/C 418/61

Case T-546/22: Action brought on 1 September 2022 — Hästens Sängar v EUIPO — Mustang (Checked pattern in blue and white with white horses)

47

2022/C 418/62

Case T-547/22: Action brought on 1 September 2022 — Hästens Sängar v EUIPO — Mustang (Checked pattern with horses)

48

2022/C 418/63

Case T-554/22: Action brought on 1 September 2022 — Carmeuse Holding v Commission

49

2022/C 418/64

Case T-557/22: Action brought on 9 September 2022 — Chmielarz v EUIPO — Granulat (granulat)

50

2022/C 418/65

Case T-561/22: Action brought on 9 September 2022 — CFA Institute v EUIPO — Global Chartered Controller Institute (CCA Chartered Controller Analyst CERTIFICATE)

51

2022/C 418/66

Case T-562/22: Action brought on 9 September 2022 — Noah Clothing v EUIPO — Noah (NOAH)

51

2022/C 418/67

Case T-567/22: Action brought on 14 September 2022 — ATPN v Commission

52

2022/C 418/68

Case T-568/22: Action brought on 15 September 2022 — XNT v EUIPO — Exane (EXANE)

53

2022/C 418/69

Case T-585/22: Action brought on 20 September 2022 — Trus v EUIPO — Unilab (ARTRESAN)

54

2022/C 418/70

Case T-567/21: Order of the General Court of 26 July 2022 — WG v EUIPO

54

---

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 31.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/1

---

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

(2022/C 418/01)

Last publication

OJ C 408, 24.10.2022

Past publications

OJ C 398, 17.10.2022

OJ C 389, 10.10.2022

OJ C 380, 3.10.2022

OJ C 368, 26.9.2022

OJ C 359, 19.9.2022

OJ C 340, 5.9.2022

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 31.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/2

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski Rayonen sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against HN

(Case C-420/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Articles 47 and 48 - European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms - Article 6 - Directive (EU) 2016/343 - Strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings - Article 8 - Right to be present at the trial - Return decision accompanied by an entry ban of five years - Conditions for holding a trial in the absence of the person concerned - Obligation to be present at the trial provided for under national law)

(2022/C 418/02)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski Rayonen sad

Parties in the main proceedings

HN

Intervening party: Sofiyska rayonna prokuratura

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 8(1) of Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings
  must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which imposes an obligation on suspects and accused persons in criminal proceedings to be present at their trial. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 8(1) of Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings

must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which imposes an obligation on suspects and accused persons in criminal proceedings to be present at their trial.

| 2. | Article 8(2) of Directive 2016/343
  must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which permits a trial to be held in the absence of the suspect or accused person, where that person is outside that Member State and is unable to enter its territory because of an entry ban imposed on him or her by the competent authorities of that Member State. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 8(2) of Directive 2016/343

must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which permits a trial to be held in the absence of the suspect or accused person, where that person is outside that Member State and is unable to enter its territory because of an entry ban imposed on him or her by the competent authorities of that Member State.

---

(1)  OJ C 399, 23.11.2020.

---

| 31.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — Veridos GmbH v Ministar na vatreshnite raboti na Republika Bulgaria, Mühlbauer ID Services GmbH — S&T

(Case C-669/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2009/81/EC - Coordination of procedures for the award of certain works contracts, supply contracts and service contracts - Articles 38 and 49 - Obligation to verify whether an abnormally low tender exists - Criterion laid down by a piece of national legislation for assessing the abnormally low nature of a tender - Not applicable - Requirement that there be at least three tenders - Criterion based on the requirement that a tender be more than 20 % lower than the mean value of the tenders submitted by the other tenderers - Judicial review)

(2022/C 418/03)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven administrativen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant in the appeal in cassation: Veridos GmbH

Respondents in the appeal in cassation: Ministar na vatreshnite raboti na Republika Bulgaria, Mühlbauer ID Services GmbH — S&T

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Articles 38 and 49 of Directive 2009/81/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on the coordination of procedures for the award of certain works contracts, supply contracts and service contracts by contracting authorities or entities in the fields of defence and security, and amending Directives 2004/17/EC and 2004/18/EC,
  must be interpreted as meaning that a contracting authority, where there is suspicion that a tender is of an abnormally low nature, is required to verify whether this is actually the case by taking account of all the relevant components of the invitation to tender and the contract documents, without the impossibility of applying the criteria laid down for that purpose by a piece of national legislation or the number of tenders submitted being relevant in that regard. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Articles 38 and 49 of Directive 2009/81/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on the coordination of procedures for the award of certain works contracts, supply contracts and service contracts by contracting authorities or entities in the fields of defence and security, and amending Directives 2004/17/EC and 2004/18/EC,

must be interpreted as meaning that a contracting authority, where there is suspicion that a tender is of an abnormally low nature, is required to verify whether this is actually the case by taking account of all the relevant components of the invitation to tender and the contract documents, without the impossibility of applying the criteria laid down for that purpose by a piece of national legislation or the number of tenders submitted being relevant in that regard.

| 2. | Article 55(2) of Directive 2009/81, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,
  must be interpreted as meaning that, where a contracting authority has failed to initiate a procedure to verify whether a tender might be of an abnormally low nature, on the ground that it considered that none of the tenders submitted to it was of such a nature, its assessment may be subject to judicial review in the context of proceedings against the decision to award the contract at issue. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 55(2) of Directive 2009/81, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

must be interpreted as meaning that, where a contracting authority has failed to initiate a procedure to verify whether a tender might be of an abnormally low nature, on the ground that it considered that none of the tenders submitted to it was of such a nature, its assessment may be subject to judicial review in the context of proceedings against the decision to award the contract at issue.

---

(1)  OJ C 88, 15.3.2021.

---

| 31.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 September 2022 — Colin Brown v European Commission, Council of the European Union

(Case C-675/20 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union - Article 4(1)(a) and (b) - EU official who is a national of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and who during the 10 years before his entry into service habitually resided within the territory of the State in which he is employed - Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union - Acquisition by that EU official of the nationality of the State in which he is employed - Withdrawal of the entitlement to receive an expatriation allowance - Action for annulment)

(2022/C 418/04)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Colin Brown (represented by: I. Van Damme, advocaat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: T.S. Bohr and D. Milanowska, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Alver and M. Bauer, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Mr Colin Brown to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Colin Brown to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

| 3. | Decides that the Council of the European Union is to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Decides that the Council of the European Union is to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 98, 22.3.2021.

---

| 31.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Income Tax Tribunal of Gibraltar (United Kingdom) — United Kingdom) — Fossil (Gibraltar) Limited v Commissioner of Income Tax

(Case C-705/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - State aid - Aid schemes implemented by the Government of Gibraltar concerning corporate income tax - Decision (EU) 2019/700 - Non-taxation of passive interest and royalty income - Decision of the European Commission declaring the aid scheme unlawful and incompatible with the internal market - Recovery obligation - Scope - Domestic provision which was not the subject of the Commission’s investigation concerning the State aid at issue - Set-off of the tax paid abroad in order to prevent double taxation)

(2022/C 418/05)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Income Tax Tribunal of Gibraltar (United Kingdom)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Fossil (Gibraltar) Limited

Defendant: Commissioner of Income Tax

Operative part of the judgment

Commission Decision (EU) 2019/700 of 19 December 2018 on the State aid SA.34914 (2013/C) implemented by the United Kingdom as regards the Gibraltar Corporate Income Tax Regime

must be interpreted as meaning

that it does not preclude the national authorities responsible for the recovery from the beneficiary of aid which is unlawful and incompatible with the internal market from applying a domestic provision which prescribes a mechanism for the set-off of taxes paid by that beneficiary abroad against taxes for which it is liable in Gibraltar, where it appears that that provision was applicable on the date of the operations in question.

---

(1)  OJ C 257, 4.7.2022.

---

| 31.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Fédération des entreprises de la beauté v Agence nationale de sécurité du médicament et des produits de santé (ANSM)

(Case C-4/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Cosmetic products - Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 - Article 27 - Safeguard clause - Article 27(1) - Scope - Provisional national safeguard measures - General measure - Application to a category of cosmetic products containing the same substance - Individual measure - Application to an identified cosmetic product - Provisional national measure imposing certain labelling requirements on a category of leave-on products containing phenoxyethanol)

(2022/C 418/06)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Fédération des entreprises de la beauté

Defendant: Agence nationale de sécurité du médicament et des produits de santé (ANSM)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 27(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on cosmetic products must be interpreted as not allowing the competent authority of a Member State to adopt general provisional measures applying to a category of products containing the same substance.

---

(1)  OJ C 79, 8.3.2021.

---

| 31.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Uniqa Versicherungen AG v VU

(Case C-18/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - European order for payment procedure - Regulation No 1896/2006 - Article 16(2) - 30-day time limit for lodging a statement of opposition to the European order for payment - Article 20 - Review procedure - Article 26 - Application of national law for procedural issues not specifically dealt with in that regulation - COVID 19 pandemic - National legislation which interrupted the procedural periods in civil matters for several weeks)

(2022/C 418/07)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Uniqa Versicherungen AG

Defendant: VU

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 16, 20 and 26 of Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure, as amended by Regulation (EU) 2015/2421 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015,

must be interpreted as not precluding the application of national legislation, which was adopted when the COVID-19 pandemic arose and which interrupted the procedural periods in civil matters for approximately five weeks, to the 30-day time limit laid down by Article 16(2) of that regulation for the defendant to lodge a statement of opposition to a European order for payment.

---

(1)  OJ C 128, 12.4.2021.

---

| 31.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — SRS, AA v Minister for Justice and Equality

(Case C-22/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2004/38/EC - Right of Union citizens and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States - Article 3(2), first subparagraph, point (a) - Concept of ‘other family members who are members of the household of the Union citizen having the primary right of residence’ - Assessment criteria)

(2022/C 418/08)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: SRS, AA

Defendant: Minister for Justice and Equality

Operative part of the judgment

Point (a) of the first subparagraph of Article 3(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:

the concept of ‘any other family members who are members of the household of the Union citizen having the primary right of residence’, mentioned in that provision, refers to persons who have a relationship of dependence with that citizen, based on close and stable personal ties, forged within the same household, in the context of a shared domestic life going beyond a mere temporary cohabitation entered into for reasons of pure convenience.

---

(1)  OJ C 138, 19.4.2021.

---

| 31.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Ustavno sodišče Republike Slovenije — Slovenia) — Banka Slovenije

(Case C-45/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - European System of Central Banks - National central bank - Directive 2001/24/EC - Reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions - Compensation for damage resulting from the adoption of reorganisation measures - Article 123 TFEU and Article 21.1 of Protocol (No 4) on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank - Prohibition of monetary financing of Member States in the euro area - Article 130 TFEU and Article 7 of that protocol - Independence - Disclosure of confidential information)

(2022/C 418/09)

Language of the case: Slovenian

Referring court

Ustavno sodišče Republike Slovenije

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Banka Slovenije

Other party: Državni zbor Republike Slovenije

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 123(1) TFEU and Article 21.1 of Protocol (No 4) on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which provides that a national central bank belonging to the European System of Central Banks is liable, from its own funds, for damage suffered by former holders of financial instruments cancelled by it pursuant to reorganisation measures, within the meaning of Directive 2001/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 on the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions, ordered by that central bank, where it appears, during subsequent court proceedings, that either that cancellation was not necessary in order to ensure the stability of the financial system, or that those former holders of financial instruments suffered greater losses as a result of that cancellation than they would have suffered in the event of the insolvency of the financial institution concerned, to the extent that the central bank in question is held liable only where it or the persons whom it authorised to act on its behalf acted in serious breach of their duty to exercise due care; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 123(1) TFEU and Article 21.1 of Protocol (No 4) on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which provides that a national central bank belonging to the European System of Central Banks is liable, from its own funds, for damage suffered by former holders of financial instruments cancelled by it pursuant to reorganisation measures, within the meaning of Directive 2001/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 on the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions, ordered by that central bank, where it appears, during subsequent court proceedings, that either that cancellation was not necessary in order to ensure the stability of the financial system, or that those former holders of financial instruments suffered greater losses as a result of that cancellation than they would have suffered in the event of the insolvency of the financial institution concerned, to the extent that the central bank in question is held liable only where it or the persons whom it authorised to act on its behalf acted in serious breach of their duty to exercise due care;

| 2. | Article 123(1) TFEU and Article 21.1 of Protocol (No 4) on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which provides that a national central bank belonging to the European System of Central Banks is liable, from its own funds, within predetermined limits, for damage suffered by former holders of financial instruments cancelled by it pursuant to reorganisation measures, within the meaning of Directive 2001/24, ordered by that central bank, only on condition that:
  first, those former holders are natural persons whose annual income is below a threshold defined by that legislation and
  second, the former holders waive entitlement to compensation for that damage by means of another legal remedy. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 123(1) TFEU and Article 21.1 of Protocol (No 4) on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which provides that a national central bank belonging to the European System of Central Banks is liable, from its own funds, within predetermined limits, for damage suffered by former holders of financial instruments cancelled by it pursuant to reorganisation measures, within the meaning of Directive 2001/24, ordered by that central bank, only on condition that:

first, those former holders are natural persons whose annual income is below a threshold defined by that legislation and

second, the former holders waive entitlement to compensation for that damage by means of another legal remedy.

| 3. | Article 130 TFEU and Article 7 of Protocol (No 4) on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which provides that a national central bank belonging to the European System of Central Banks is liable for damage caused by the cancellation of financial instruments, pursuant to reorganisation measures, within the meaning of Directive 2001/24, ordered by that central bank, in such sums as might impair the bank’s ability to perform its tasks effectively and financed, in order of priority, by:
  the allocation to special reserves of all the profits made by that central bank as from a specified date;
  a levy on the general reserves of that central bank not exceeding 50 % of those reserves, and
  a loan, together with interest, from the Member State concerned. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 130 TFEU and Article 7 of Protocol (No 4) on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which provides that a national central bank belonging to the European System of Central Banks is liable for damage caused by the cancellation of financial instruments, pursuant to reorganisation measures, within the meaning of Directive 2001/24, ordered by that central bank, in such sums as might impair the bank’s ability to perform its tasks effectively and financed, in order of priority, by:

the allocation to special reserves of all the profits made by that central bank as from a specified date;

a levy on the general reserves of that central bank not exceeding 50 % of those reserves, and

a loan, together with interest, from the Member State concerned.

| 4. | Article 33 of Directive 2001/24, Articles 44 to 52 of Directive 2006/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 relating to the taking up and pursuit of the business of credit institutions, and Articles 53 to 62 of Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on access to the activity of credit institutions and the prudential supervision of credit institutions and investment firms, amending Directive 2002/87/EC and repealing Directives 2006/48/EC and 2006/49/EC,
  must be interpreted as meaning that:
  the rules set out in those articles do not apply to information obtained or generated during the implementation of reorganisation measures, within the meaning of Directive 2001/24, which was not the subject of information or consultation procedures laid down in Articles 4, 5, 8, 9, 11 and 19 of Directive 2001/24. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Article 33 of Directive 2001/24, Articles 44 to 52 of Directive 2006/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 relating to the taking up and pursuit of the business of credit institutions, and Articles 53 to 62 of Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on access to the activity of credit institutions and the prudential supervision of credit institutions and investment firms, amending Directive 2002/87/EC and repealing Directives 2006/48/EC and 2006/49/EC,

must be interpreted as meaning that:

the rules set out in those articles do not apply to information obtained or generated during the implementation of reorganisation measures, within the meaning of Directive 2001/24, which was not the subject of information or consultation procedures laid down in Articles 4, 5, 8, 9, 11 and 19 of Directive 2001/24.

---

(1)  OJ C 128, 12.4.2021.

---

| 31.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 15 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Wien — Austria) — FK

(Case C-58/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Coordination of social security systems - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Article 13 - Determination of the legislation applicable - Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons - Annex II - Article 1(2) - Person pursuing the profession of lawyer the centre of interest of whose private and professional activities is situated in Switzerland and who also pursues that profession in two other Member States - Application for the award of an early retirement pension - National legislation requiring that the person concerned waive his right to practise the profession in question in the territory of the Member State concerned and abroad)

(2022/C 418/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Wien

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: FK

Interested party: Rechtsanwaltskammer Wien

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The conflict rules laid down in Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems are not applicable to the situation of a person who resides in the Member State in which the centre of interests of his or her activities is also situated, whilst pursuing an activity — which is distributed unevenly — in two other Member States, where it is necessary to determine whether that person has direct rights vis-à-vis the institutions of one of those two other Member States by virtue of contributions paid during a given period. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The conflict rules laid down in Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems are not applicable to the situation of a person who resides in the Member State in which the centre of interests of his or her activities is also situated, whilst pursuing an activity — which is distributed unevenly — in two other Member States, where it is necessary to determine whether that person has direct rights vis-à-vis the institutions of one of those two other Member States by virtue of contributions paid during a given period.

| 2. | Articles 45 and 49 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which makes the award of an early retirement pension applied for conditional on the waiver by the person concerned of the right to practise as a lawyer, without taking into account, in particular, the Member State in which the activity concerned is pursued. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Articles 45 and 49 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which makes the award of an early retirement pension applied for conditional on the waiver by the person concerned of the right to practise as a lawyer, without taking into account, in particular, the Member State in which the activity concerned is pursued.

---

(1)  OJ C 163, 3.5.2021.

---

| 31.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — UAB ‘HA.EN.’ v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

(Case C-227/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Right to deduct input VAT - Sale of an item of immovable property between taxable persons - Vendor subject to insolvency proceedings - National practice under which the purchaser is denied the right of deduction on the ground that he or she knew or should have known of the vendor’s difficulties in paying the output tax - Fraud and abuse of rights - Conditions)

(2022/C 418/11)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: UAB ‘HA.EN.’

Defendant: Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

Operative part of the judgment

Article 168(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in conjunction with the principle of fiscal neutrality,

must be interpreted as precluding a national practice under which, in the context of the sale of an item of immovable property between taxable persons, the purchaser is denied the right to deduct input value added tax (VAT) merely because he or she knew or should have known that the vendor was in financial difficulty, or even insolvent, and that that circumstance could result in the vendor not paying or not being able to pay VAT into the public purse.

---

(1)  OJ C 242, 21.6.2021.

---

| 31.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 15 September 2022 — PNB Banka AS v European Central Bank

(Case C-326/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - Economic and monetary policy - Prudential supervision of credit institutions - Insolvency proceedings - Refusal by the European Central Bank (ECB) to grant the request of the board of directors of a credit institution seeking an order instructing the insolvency administrator of that institution to grant the lawyer authorised by that board access to the premises, information, staff and resources of that institution - Competence of the author of the measure - Article 263 TFEU - Measure open to an annulment action - Inadmissibility)

(2022/C 418/12)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: PNB Banka AS (represented by: O. Behrends, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Central Bank (represented by: F. Bonnard, V. Hümpfner and E. Koupepidou, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Republic of Latvia (represented by: J. Davidoviča, I. Hūna and K. Pommere)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders PNB Banka AS to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Central Bank (ECB). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders PNB Banka AS to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Central Bank (ECB).

---

(1)  OJ C 382, 20.9.2021.

---

| 31.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against DD

(Case C-347/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Directive (EU) 2016/343 - Strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings - Article 8(1) - Right of an accused person to be present at the trial - Examination of an incriminating witness in the absence of the accused person - Possibility of remedying the infringement of a right at a later stage in the proceedings - Additional examination of the same witness - Directive 2013/48/EU - Right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings - Article 3(1) - Examination of an incriminating witness in the absence of the lawyer of the accused person)

(2022/C 418/13)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

Party in the main proceedings

DD

Intervening party: Spetsializirana prokuratura

Operative part of the judgment

Article 8(1) of Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings and Article 3(1) of Directive 2013/48/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 on the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and in European arrest warrant proceedings, and on the right to have a third party informed upon deprivation of liberty and to communicate with third persons and with consular authorities while deprived of liberty,

must be interpreted as meaning that where, in order to ensure that the right of the accused person to be present at his or her trial and his or her right of access to a lawyer are safeguarded, the national court carries out an additional examination of an incriminating witness since, for reasons beyond their control, the accused person and his or her lawyer could not be present at the previous examination of that witness, it is sufficient that the accused person and his or her lawyer be able freely to question that witness, providing, prior to that additional examination, the accused person and his or her lawyer were sent a copy of the minutes of the previous examination of that witness. In those circumstances, it is not necessary to repeat in its entirety, thereby invalidating the procedural steps taken during that examination, the examination which took place in the absence of the accused person and his or her lawyer.

---

(1)  OJ C 338, 23.8.2021.

---

| 31.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerisches Oberstes Landesgericht — Germany) — Landkreis A.-F. v J. Sch. Omnibusunternehmen and K. Reisen GmbH

(Case C-416/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement procedures - Directive 2014/24/EU - Point (d) of the first subparagraph of Article 57(4) - Optional grounds for exclusion - Agreements with other economic operators aimed at distorting competition - Directive 2014/25/EU - Article 36(1) - Principles of proportionality and equal treatment of tenderers - Article 80(1) - Use of exclusion grounds and selection criteria provided for under Directive 2014/24/EU - Tenderers which constitute an economic unit and have submitted separate tenders that were neither autonomous nor independent - Need for sufficiently plausible indications to establish an infringement of Article 101 TFEU)

(2022/C 418/14)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bayerisches Oberstes Landesgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Landkreis A.-F.

Respondents: J. Sch. Omnibusunternehmen and K. Reisen GmbH

Intervener: E. GmbH & Co. KG

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Point (d) of the first subparagraph of Article 57(4) 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, as amended by Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/2365 of 18 December 2017, read in conjunction with the third subparagraph of Article 80(1) of Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on procurement by entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors and repealing Directive 2004/17/EC, as amended by Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/2364 of 18 December 2017,
  must be interpreted as meaning that the optional ground for exclusion provided for in point (d) of the first subparagraph of Article 57(4) covers cases where there are sufficiently plausible indications to conclude that economic operators have entered into an agreement prohibited by Article 101 TFEU, but is not limited solely to the agreements provided for in that article. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Point (d) of the first subparagraph of Article 57(4) 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, as amended by Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/2365 of 18 December 2017, read in conjunction with the third subparagraph of Article 80(1) of Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on procurement by entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors and repealing Directive 2004/17/EC, as amended by Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/2364 of 18 December 2017,

must be interpreted as meaning that the optional ground for exclusion provided for in point (d) of the first subparagraph of Article 57(4) covers cases where there are sufficiently plausible indications to conclude that economic operators have entered into an agreement prohibited by Article 101 TFEU, but is not limited solely to the agreements provided for in that article.

| 2. | Article 57(4) of Directive 2014/24, as amended by Delegated Regulation 2017/2365, read in conjunction with the third subparagraph of Article 80(1) of Directive 2014/25, as amended by Delegated Regulation 2017/2364,
  must be interpreted as meaning that Article 57(4) exhaustively regulates the optional grounds for exclusion capable of justifying the exclusion of an economic operator from participation in a procurement procedure for reasons based on objective factors relating to its professional qualities, to a conflict of interest or to a distortion of competition that would arise from its involvement in that procedure. However, Article 57(4) does not prevent the principle of equal treatment, provided for in Article 36(1) of Directive 2014/25, as amended by Delegated Regulation 2017/2364, from precluding the award of the contract in question to economic operators which constitute an economic unit and whose tenders, although submitted separately, are neither autonomous nor independent. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 57(4) of Directive 2014/24, as amended by Delegated Regulation 2017/2365, read in conjunction with the third subparagraph of Article 80(1) of Directive 2014/25, as amended by Delegated Regulation 2017/2364,

must be interpreted as meaning that Article 57(4) exhaustively regulates the optional grounds for exclusion capable of justifying the exclusion of an economic operator from participation in a procurement procedure for reasons based on objective factors relating to its professional qualities, to a conflict of interest or to a distortion of competition that would arise from its involvement in that procedure. However, Article 57(4) does not prevent the principle of equal treatment, provided for in Article 36(1) of Directive 2014/25, as amended by Delegated Regulation 2017/2364, from precluding the award of the contract in question to economic operators which constitute an economic unit and whose tenders, although submitted separately, are neither autonomous nor independent.

---

(1)  OJ C 431, 25.10.2021.

---

| 31.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/12

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrchní soud v Praze (Czech Republic) lodged on 14 July 2022 — Česká národní skupina Mezinárodní federace hudebního průmyslu, z. s. v I&Q GROUP, spol. s r.o., Hellspy SE

(Case C-470/22)

(2022/C 418/15)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Vrchní soud v Praze

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Česká národní skupina Mezinárodní federace hudebního průmyslu, z. s.

Defendants: I&Q GROUP, spol. s r.o., Hellspy SE

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the spirit and purpose of Directive 2000/31/EC (1) preclude Article 14(1) thereof from being interpreted as meaning that the liability of a provider of an information gathering (hosting) service for the contents of such service includes liability for the manner in which such service is provided? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the spirit and purpose of Directive 2000/31/EC (1) preclude Article 14(1) thereof from being interpreted as meaning that the liability of a provider of an information gathering (hosting) service for the contents of such service includes liability for the manner in which such service is provided?

| 2. | Does the spirit and purpose of Directive 2000/31/EC allow for Article 14(1) thereof to be interpreted as meaning that the rules for limiting the liability of a provider of an information gathering (hosting) service set out therein cannot exclude the private-law liability of such a provider for the choice of a particular business model for the provision of the service, even if that model has the potential to benefit from copyright infringement? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the spirit and purpose of Directive 2000/31/EC allow for Article 14(1) thereof to be interpreted as meaning that the rules for limiting the liability of a provider of an information gathering (hosting) service set out therein cannot exclude the private-law liability of such a provider for the choice of a particular business model for the provision of the service, even if that model has the potential to benefit from copyright infringement?

| 3. | Does the liability waiver set out in Article 14(1) of Directive 2000/31/EC apply to the provider of an information gathering service, and selection from it by means of a search engine, in terms of liability for the manner of its provision, if that manner encourages the service recipient to store the information on it without the consent of the copyright holders, but without the active participation of the service provider in the copyright infringement? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the liability waiver set out in Article 14(1) of Directive 2000/31/EC apply to the provider of an information gathering service, and selection from it by means of a search engine, in terms of liability for the manner of its provision, if that manner encourages the service recipient to store the information on it without the consent of the copyright holders, but without the active participation of the service provider in the copyright infringement?

---

(1)  Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’) (OJ 2000 L 178, p. 1).

---

| 31.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/13

---

Action brought on 30 August 2022 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-576/22)

(2022/C 418/16)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: C. Hermes y E. Sanfrutos Cano, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court should:

| — | Declare that, in so far as it has not designated as nitrate vulnerable zones, in Castilla y León, Extremadura, Galicia, the Balearic Islands, the Canary Islands, Madrid and the Autonomous Community of Valencia, the relevant catchment areas for run-off (surface water) or infiltration (groundwater) for each of the contaminated measurement points identified in the application; by failing to provide for all the necessary mandatory measures in the action programmes of Aragon, Castile-La Mancha, Castilla y León, Extremadura and Madrid, and by failing to adopt the additional measures or reinforced actions in relation to eutrophication, in relation to the whole country, and as regards nitrate pollution, in relation to the Autonomous Communities showing upward trends in pollution at the NVZ measuring points, in particular Aragon, Castile-La Mancha, Castilla y León and Murcia, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(4) and Article 5(4) (read in conjunction with Annexes II and III) and (5) of Council Directive 91/676/EEC (1) of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources. |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, in so far as it has not designated as nitrate vulnerable zones, in Castilla y León, Extremadura, Galicia, the Balearic Islands, the Canary Islands, Madrid and the Autonomous Community of Valencia, the relevant catchment areas for run-off (surface water) or infiltration (groundwater) for each of the contaminated measurement points identified in the application; by failing to provide for all the necessary mandatory measures in the action programmes of Aragon, Castile-La Mancha, Castilla y León, Extremadura and Madrid, and by failing to adopt the additional measures or reinforced actions in relation to eutrophication, in relation to the whole country, and as regards nitrate pollution, in relation to the Autonomous Communities showing upward trends in pollution at the NVZ measuring points, in particular Aragon, Castile-La Mancha, Castilla y León and Murcia, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(4) and Article 5(4) (read in conjunction with Annexes II and III) and (5) of Council Directive 91/676/EEC (1) of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources.

| — | Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In its application, the Commission puts forward three pleas in law alleging failure to fulfil obligations.

By its first plea in law, the Commission alleges that the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(4) of Directive 91/676/EEC. The Commission argues that the Kingdom of Spain has failed to comply with this provision in Castilla y León, Extremadura, Galicia, the Balearic Islands, the Canary Islands, Madrid and the Autonomous Community of Valencia, in so far as there are still areas that have not been designated as a nitrate vulnerable zone, nor included in existing nitrate vulnerable zones, despite the fact that the data obtained through the monitoring network for pollution caused by nitrates of agricultural origin justify its designation/inclusion.

By its second plea in law, the Commission claims, in essence, that the action programmes of the Autonomous Communities of Aragon, Castilla-La Mancha, Castilla y León, Extremadura and Madrid do not provide for all the compulsory measures required by Directive 91/676/EEC and are therefore in breach of Article 5(4) thereof. In particular, the Commission argues that the action programmes of those Autonomous Communities do not contain sufficient measures concerning the land application of fertiliser to steeply sloping ground, as required by point A.2 of Annex II to Directive 91/676/EEC, to which Article 5(4) of that directive refers; that measures are still lacking in the Extremadura action programme on temporary storage of solid manure in the field, on the fertilisation register and in relation to the maximum amount of authorised manure per hectare to be applied to land, and that the Madrid action programme does not contain the necessary measures regarding the temporary storage of solid fertilisers on land covered by Annexes II and III to Directive 91/676/EEC.

By its third plea in law, the Commission considers that the Kingdom of Spain has not adopted the additional measures or reinforced actions required by Article 5(5) of Directive 91/676/EEC. Under that provision, Member States must, in the context of action programmes, take any additional measures or reinforced actions which they consider necessary if the measures referred to in paragraph 4 of that article are not sufficient to reduce pollution and to take preventive action against further pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources. The Commission submits that the Kingdom of Spain has not taken the necessary additional measures or reinforced actions to address the upward trend in pollution of the nitrate vulnerable zones in Aragon, Castile-La Mancha, Castilla y León and Murcia. The Commission also criticises the Kingdom of Spain for failing to take additional measures or reinforced actions necessary in order to remedy eutrophication throughout Spain, even though the available data show that the measures provided for in the action programmes are not sufficient to reduce and prevent pollution.

---

(1)  OJ 1991 L 375, p. 1

---

General Court

| 31.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/15

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — BNetzA v ACER

(Case T-631/19) (1)

(Energy - Internal market in electricity - Regulation (EU) 2019/942 - Decision of the Board of Appeal of ACER - Action for annulment - Act not open to challenge - Inadmissibility - ACER’s competence - Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 713/2009 - Article 6(10) of Regulation 2019/942 - Article 9(12) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1222 - Applicable law - Regulation (EU) 2019/943)

(2022/C 418/17)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Bundesnetzagentur für Elektrizität, Gas, Telekommunikation, Post und Eisenbahnen (BNetzA) (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: H. Haller, N. Gremminger, L. Reiser, V. Vacha and C. Dietz-Polte, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (represented by: P. Martinet and E. Tremmel, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks, first, annulment in part of Decision No 02/2019 of the European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) of 21 February 2019 on the Core CCR TSOs’ proposals for the regional design of the day-ahead and intraday common capacity calculation methodologies, and, secondly, annulment of Decision A-003-2019 of the Board of Appeal of ACER of 11 July 2019 dismissing its appeal against the initial decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Decision A-003-2019 of the Board of Appeal of the European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) of 11 July 2019; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Decision A-003-2019 of the Board of Appeal of the European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) of 11 July 2019;

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the action as inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the action as inadmissible;

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

3.

Orders ACER to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 383, 11.11.2019.

---

| 31.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/15

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — Tirreno Power v Commission

(Case T-793/19) (1)

(State aid - Italian electricity market - Capacity mechanism - Decision not to raise objections - Availability of the electricity production capacity - Modification of the capacity mechanism - Serious difficulties - Procedural rights of interested parties - Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020)

(2022/C 418/18)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Tirreno Power SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: A. Clarizia, T. Ferrario, M. Vasari, P. Ziotti and M. Pagliarulo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouchagiar and D. Recchia, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and by G. Aiello, P. Garofoli and A. Giordano, avvocati dello Stato), EP Produzione SpA (Rome) (represented by: D. Gullo and M. Bozzo, lawyers), A2A SpA (Brescia, Italy) (represented by: D. Gullo and M. Bozzo, lawyers), Edison SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: M. Luciani, G. Roberti, A. Travi, R. Villata and I. Perego, lawyers), Enel Produzione SpA (Rome) (represented by: V. Cannizzaro, S. Ventura and L. Caroli, lawyers), Elettricità Futura — Unione delle imprese elettriche italiane (Rome) and Utilitalia (Rome) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer), Terna — Rete elettrica nazionale SpA (Rome) (represented by: A. Catricalà, D. Lipani, F. Sbrana, C. Cazzato, F. Baglivo and M. Pirozzi, lawyers), Alperia Trading Srl (Bolzano, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, L. Perfetti and A. Rosi, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of Commission Decision C(2019) 4509 final of 14 June 2019 concerning State Aid SA.53821 (2019/N) — Italy Modification of the Italian capacity mechanism, by which the Commission decided not to raise objections to the aid scheme relating to that modified capacity market, on the ground that it is compatible with the internal market pursuant to Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, and to authorise it until 31 December 2028.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Tirreno Power SpA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Tirreno Power SpA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

| 3. | Declares that the Italian Republic is to bear its own costs; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Declares that the Italian Republic is to bear its own costs;

| 4. | Declares that EP Produzione SpA, A2A SpA, Edison SpA, Alperia Trading Srl, Elettricità Futura — Unione delle imprese elettriche italiane, Terna — Rete elettrica nazionale SpA and Enel Produzione SpA are to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Declares that EP Produzione SpA, A2A SpA, Edison SpA, Alperia Trading Srl, Elettricità Futura — Unione delle imprese elettriche italiane, Terna — Rete elettrica nazionale SpA and Enel Produzione SpA are to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 10, 13.1.2020.

---

| 31.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/16

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — Set v Commission

(Case T-794/19) (1)

(State aid - Italian electricity market - Capacity mechanism - Decision not to raise objections - Availability of the electricity production capacity - Modification of the capacity mechanism - Serious difficulties - Procedural rights of interested parties - Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020)

(2022/C 418/19)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Set SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: N. Aicardi, T. Ferrario and M. Vasari, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouchagiar and D. Recchia, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and by G. Aiello, P. Garofoli and A. Giordano, avvocati dello Stato), EP Produzione SpA (Rome) (represented by: D. Gullo and M. Bozzo, lawyers), A2A SpA (Brescia, Italy) (represented by: D. Gullo and M. Bozzo, lawyers), Edison SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: M. Luciani, G. Roberti, A. Travi, R. Villata and I. Perego, lawyers), Enel Produzione SpA (Rome) (represented by: V. Cannizzaro, S. Ventura and L. Caroli, lawyers), Elettricità Futura — Unione delle imprese elettriche italiane (Rome) and Utilitalia (Rome) (represented by: M. Merola and L. Perfetti, lawyers), Terna — Rete elettrica nazionale SpA (Rome) (represented by: A. Catricalà, D. Lipani, F. Sbrana, C. Cazzato, F. Baglivo and M. Pirozzi, lawyers), Alperia Trading Srl (Bolzano, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, L. Perfetti and A. Rosi, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of Commission Decision C(2019) 4509 final of 14 June 2019 concerning State Aid SA.53821 (2019/N) — Italy Modification of the Italian capacity mechanism, by which the Commission decided not to raise objections to the aid scheme relating to that modified capacity market, on the ground that it is compatible with the internal market pursuant to Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, and to authorise it until 31 December 2028.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Set SpA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Set SpA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

| 3. | Declares that the Italian Republic is to bear its own costs; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Declares that the Italian Republic is to bear its own costs;

| 4. | Declares that EP Produzione SpA, A2A SpA, Edison SpA, Alperia Trading Srl, Elettricità Futura — Unione delle imprese elettriche italiane, Terna — Rete elettrica nazionale SpA and Enel Produzione SpA are to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Declares that EP Produzione SpA, A2A SpA, Edison SpA, Alperia Trading Srl, Elettricità Futura — Unione delle imprese elettriche italiane, Terna — Rete elettrica nazionale SpA and Enel Produzione SpA are to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 10, 13.1.2020.

---

| 31.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/17

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — WT v Commission

(Case T-91/20) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Disciplinary proceedings - Disciplinary penalty in the form of a reprimand - Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials - Principle of good administration - Right to be heard - Obligation to state reasons - Reasonable time - Psychological harassment - Principle of legal certainty - Material and non-material damage)

(2022/C 418/20)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: WT (represented by: V. Villante, D. Rovetta and D. Birkenmaier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A.-C. Simon and L. Vernier, acting as Agents)

Re:

By her action based on Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks, first, annulment of the decision of the European Commission of 17 April 2019 by which the Commission imposed on her a disciplinary penalty in the form of a reprimand and, second, compensation for the non-material and material damage which she claims to have suffered as a result of that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

Orders WT to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 262, 10.8.2020.

---

| 31.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/18

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — Greece v Commission

(Case T-217/20) (1)

(EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Expenditure incurred by Greece - Rural Development - Key controls - Flat-rate financial corrections - Obligation to state reasons - Protection of legitimate expectations - Legal certainty - Proportionality - Principle of sound administration)

(2022/C 418/21)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: E. Tsaousi, A.-E. Vasilopoulou and E.-E. Krompa, Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Konstantinidis, J. Aquilina and M. Kaduczak, Agents)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the Hellenic Republic seeks the partial annulment of the Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/201 of 12 February 2020 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2020 L 42, p. 17).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 222, 6.7.2020.

---

| 31.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/18

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — DD v FRA

(Case T-470/20) (1)

(Civil service - Temporary staff - Disciplinary regime - Removal from post - Opening of an administrative investigation - Initiation of disciplinary proceedings - Requirement for impartiality - Error of law - Manifest error of assessment - Articles 11, 12 and 21 of the Staff Regulations - Duty of loyalty - Legal certainty - Freedom of expression - Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Principle of sound administration - Duty of care - Presumption of innocence - Right to be heard - Reasonable period of time - Proportionality of the sanction)

(2022/C 418/22)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: DD (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (represented by: M. O’Flaherty, acting as Agent, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

By his action under Article 270 TFEU, the applicant, DD, seeks, first, annulment of the decision of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) of 12 November 2019 by which it imposed on him the disciplinary sanction of removal from post (‘the decision to remove from post’) and of the decision of 15 April 2020 rejecting the complaint against the decision to remove from post (‘the decision rejecting the complaint’) and, secondly, compensation for the material and non-material damage which he has suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders DD to pay, in addition to his own costs, those incurred by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders DD to pay, in addition to his own costs, those incurred by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA).

---

(1)  OJ C 339, 12.10.2020.

---

| 31.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — LR v EIB

(Case T-529/20) (1)

(Civil service - EIB staff - Remuneration - Resettlement allowance - Establishment of a member of staff’s residence in his or her own home after leaving the service of the EIB - Second indent of the first paragraph of Article 13 of the EIB Staff Rules - Concept of ‘home’ - Literal interpretation according to a prevailing language version - Unlimited jurisdiction - Dispute of a financial character - Admissibility)

(2022/C 418/23)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: LR (represented by: J.L. Gómez de la Cruz Coll and M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyers)

Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented by: A.V. García Sánchez and I. Zanin, acting as Agents, and by A. Manzaneque Valverde and J. Rivas de Andrés, lawyers)

Re:

By his action based on Article 270 TFEU and Article 50a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the applicant seeks, first, annulment of the decision of the European Investment Bank (EIB) of 9 January 2020 refusing him the benefit of the resettlement allowance and, secondly, an order that the EIB pay the resettlement allowance, together with default interest calculated at the European Central Bank (ECB) rate, increased by two percentage points.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the European Investment Bank (EIB) of 9 January 2020 refusing to grant LR the benefit of the resettlement allowance; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the European Investment Bank (EIB) of 9 January 2020 refusing to grant LR the benefit of the resettlement allowance;

| 2. | Orders the EIB to pay to LR the allowance referred to in point 1 of the operative part, plus default interest, from 4 September 2019 until the date of actual payment, at the rate set by the European Central Bank (ECB) for its main refinancing operations and applicable during the period concerned, increased by two percentage points; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the EIB to pay to LR the allowance referred to in point 1 of the operative part, plus default interest, from 4 September 2019 until the date of actual payment, at the rate set by the European Central Bank (ECB) for its main refinancing operations and applicable during the period concerned, increased by two percentage points;

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

3.

Orders the EIB to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 339, 12.10.2020.

---

| 31.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/20

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — KL v EIB

(Case T-651/20) (1)

(Civil service - Personnel of the EIB - Unjustified absences - Failure to report for medical examination - Action for annulment and for damages)

(2022/C 418/24)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented by: G. Faedo and I. Zanin, acting as Agents, and A. Duron, lawyer)

Re:

By his action, based on Article 270 TFEU read in conjunction with Article 50a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the applicant seeks, first, annulment of the decision of the European Investment Bank (EIB) of 28 February 2020 to the effect that his absences from the medical examinations of 23 December 2019, 3 and 28 February 2020 were unjustified absences under Article 3.6 of the Annex X to the EIB Staff Rules, adopted in implementation of the EIB's Staff Regulations, and, secondly, compensation for the damage he suffered as a result of those decisions.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the European Investment Bank (EIB) of 28 February 2020 that KL's absences from medical examinations on 23 December 2019, 3 and 28 February 2020 were unjustified absences under Article 3.6 of Annex X to EIB Staff Rules, adopted in implementation of the EIB Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the European Investment Bank (EIB) of 28 February 2020 that KL's absences from medical examinations on 23 December 2019, 3 and 28 February 2020 were unjustified absences under Article 3.6 of Annex X to EIB Staff Rules, adopted in implementation of the EIB Staff Regulations;

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the action; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the action;

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

3.

Orders the EIB to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 443, 21.12.2020.

---

| 31.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/20

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — OQ v Commission

(Case T-713/20) (1)

(Civil service - Recruitment - Notice of open competition EPSO/AD/378/20 (AD 7) - Croatian-language lawyer-linguists at the Court of Justice of the European Union - Decision of the selection board not to admit the applicant to the next stage of the competition - Conditions for admission - Condition relating to a level of education corresponding to a full course of university studies leading to qualifications in Croatian law - Possession of French qualifications in law - Freedom of movement for workers - Action for annulment)

(2022/C 418/25)

Language of the case: Croatian

Parties

Applicant: OQ (represented by: R. Štaba, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Milanowska, R. Mrljić and L. Vernier, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his action under Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the competition selection board of 3 September 2020 not to admit him to the next stage of open competition EPSO/AD/378/20 for the purpose of drawing up a reserve list of Croatian-language lawyer-linguists for the Court of Justice of the European Union. The applicant also seeks annulment of the rejection of his request for review of that decision, adopted by decision of the selection board of 12 October 2020.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the competition selection board of 12 October 2020 rejecting OQ’s request for review and refusing to admit him to the next stage of open competition EPSO/AD/378/20 for the purpose of drawing up a reserve list of ‘Croatian-language (HR) lawyer-linguists (AD 7)’ for the Court of Justice of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the competition selection board of 12 October 2020 rejecting OQ’s request for review and refusing to admit him to the next stage of open competition EPSO/AD/378/20 for the purpose of drawing up a reserve list of ‘Croatian-language (HR) lawyer-linguists (AD 7)’ for the Court of Justice of the European Union;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by OQ. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by OQ.

---

(1)  OJ C 182, 10.5.2021.

---

| 31.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/21

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — KL v EIB

(Case T-751/20) (1)

(Civil service - EIB staff - Sick leave - Rejection of medical certificates - Unjustified absences - Action for annulment and for damages)

(2022/C 418/26)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented by: G. Faedo and I. Zanin, acting as Agents, and by A. Duron, lawyer)

Re:

By his action based on Article 270 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 50a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the applicant seeks, first, annulment of the decision of 18 May 2020 by which the European Investment Bank (EIB) rejected the medical certificates which he had produced to justify his absences from 18 March to 18 April and from 20 April to 20 May 2020 under Article 3.3 of Annex X to the EIB Staff Rules, adopted in implementation of the EIB Staff Regulations, and, secondly, compensation for the damage he claims to have suffered as a result of those decisions.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of 18 May 2020 by which the European Investment Bank (EIB) rejected the medical certificates produced by KL to justify his absences from 18 March to 18 April and from 20 April to 20 May 2020 under Article 3.3 of Annex X to the EIB Staff Rules, adopted in implementation of the EIB Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of 18 May 2020 by which the European Investment Bank (EIB) rejected the medical certificates produced by KL to justify his absences from 18 March to 18 April and from 20 April to 20 May 2020 under Article 3.3 of Annex X to the EIB Staff Rules, adopted in implementation of the EIB Staff Regulations;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

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

3.

Orders the EIB to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 53, 15.2.2021.

---

| 31.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/22

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — Slovakia v Commission

(Case T-40/21) (1)

(EAGF - Expenditure excluded from financing - Absence of procedures for recovery of aid overpaid - Procedural safeguards - Article 52(4)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 - Article 34(2) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 908/2014)

(2022/C 418/27)

Language of the case: Slovak

Parties

Applicant: Slovak Republic (represented by: E. Drugda, Agent)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Kaduczak, R. Lindenthal and A. Sauka, Agents)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the Slovak Republic seeks annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/1734 of 18 November 2020 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2020 L 390, p. 10), in so far as a financial correction of EUR 19 656 905,11 applies to the Slovak Republic concerning decoupled direct aid for the financial year 2016.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Slovak Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Slovak Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 98, 22.3.2021.

---

| 31.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/22

---

Judgment of the General Court of 21 September 2022 — Portugal v Commission (Madeira Free Zone)

(Case T-95/21) (1)

(State aid - Madeira Free Zone - Aid scheme implemented by Portugal - Decision finding that the scheme does not comply with Decisions C(2007) 3037 final and C(2013) 4043 final, declaring it to be incompatible with the internal market, and ordering the recovery of aid paid under that scheme - Concept of State aid - Existing aid within the meaning of Article 1(b)(i) and (ii) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 - Recovery - Legitimate expectations - Legal certainty - Principle of sound administration - Absolute impossibility of implementation - Limitation - Article 17 of Regulation 2015/1589)

(2022/C 418/28)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: P. Barros da Costa, A. Soares de Freitas and L. Borrego, acting as Agents, and by M. Gorjão-Henriques and A. Saavedra, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: I. Barcew and G. Braga da Cruz, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the Portuguese Republic seeks the annulment of Articles 1, 4, 5 and 6 of Decision C(2020) 8550 final of the European Commission of 4 December 2020 on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex 2018/NN) implemented by Portugal in favour of the Madeira Free Zone (MFZ) — Regime III.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs, including those relating to the proceedings for interim relief. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs, including those relating to the proceedings for interim relief.

---

(1)  OJ C 138, 19.4.2021.

---

| 31.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — Stowarzyszenie chłodnictwa klimatyzacji i pomp ciepła v Commission

(Case T-123/21) (1)

(Environment - Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 - Fluorinated greenhouse gases - Placement on the market - Release for fee circulation - Electronic registry for quotas for placing hydrofluorocarbons on the market - Decision to register - Authorisation to use a quota)

(2022/C 418/29)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Stowarzyszenie chłodnictwa klimatyzacji i pomp ciepła (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: A. Galos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: E. Sanfrutos Cano and M. Rynkowski, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the European Commission of 15 December 2020 to enter the reduction of its quotas pursuant to Article 25(2) of Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on fluorinated greenhouse gases and repealing Regulation (EC) No 842/2006 (OJ 2014 L 150, p. 195) in the electronic registry for quotas for placing hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) on the market.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Stowarzyszenie chłodnictwa klimatyzacji i pomp ciepła to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Stowarzyszenie chłodnictwa klimatyzacji i pomp ciepła to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 148, 26.4.2021.

---

| 31.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — Völkl v EUIPO — Marker Dalbello Völkl (International) (Völkl)

(Case T-155/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark Völkl - Earlier EU word mark Völkl - Earlier EU word mark VÖLKL - Relative ground for invalidity - No likelihood of confusion - No similarity between the goods - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2022/C 418/30)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Völkl GmbH & Co. KG (Erding, Germany) (represented by: C. Raßmann, M. Suether and F. Adinolfi, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Marker Dalbello Völkl (International) GmbH (Baar, Switzerland) (represented by: J. Bauer, lawyer)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 11 January 2021 (Case R 568/2020-4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

Orders Völkl GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 182, 10.5.2021.

---

| 31.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — Völkl v EUIPO — Marker Dalbello Völkl (International) (Marker Völkl)

(Case T-156/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark Marker Völkl - Earlier EU word mark VÖLKL - Relative ground for invalidity - No likelihood of confusion - No similarity between the goods - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2022/C 418/31)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Völkl GmbH & Co. KG (Erding, Germany) (represented by: C. Raßmann, M. Suether and F. Adinolfi, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Marker Dalbello Völkl (International) GmbH (Baar, Switzerland) (represented by: J. Bauer, lawyer)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 11 January 2021 (Case R 0055/2020-4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

Orders Völkl GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 182, 10.5.2021.

---

| 31.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — SB v eu-LISA

(Case T-217/21) (1)

(Civil service - Contract staff - Staff of eu-LISA - Dismissal decision at the end of the probationary period - Obligation to state reasons - Normal probationary conditions - Right to be heard - Procedural irregularities - Duty of care - Manifest error of assessment - Principle of sound administration)

(2022/C 418/32)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: SB (represented by: H. Tagaras, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Agency for the Operational Management of Large-Scale IT Systems in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (represented by: M. Chiodi, acting as Agent, and A. Duron and D. Waelbroeck, lawyers)

Re:

By his action under Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the European Union Agency for the Operational Management of Large-scale IT Systems in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (eu-LISA) of 3 August 2020 by which his contract as a member of the contract staff was terminated at the end of the probationary period.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

Orders SB to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 228, 14.6.2021.

---

| 31.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 21 September 2022 — Casanova v EIB

(Case T-266/21) (1)

(Civil service - EIB staff - Termination of the contract at the end of the trial period - Lack of competence of the author of the act - Liability - Material damage - Premature claim for damages - Non-material damage)

(2022/C 418/33)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Philippe Casanova (Fort-de-France, France) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented by: G. Faedo and K. Carr, acting as Agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

By his action based on Article 270 TFEU and Article 50a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the applicant seeks, first, annulment of the decision of the European Investment Bank (EIB) of 12 June 2020 to terminate his contract at the end of the trial period, as well as the decision of 8 February 2021 by which the EIB rejected his request for conciliation and his request for review, and, second, compensation for the material and non-material damage which he claims to have suffered as a result of those decisions.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the European Investment Bank (EIB) of 12 June 2020 to terminate Mr Philippe Casanova’s contract at the end of the trial period; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the European Investment Bank (EIB) of 12 June 2020 to terminate Mr Philippe Casanova’s contract at the end of the trial period;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders the EIB to pay, in addition to its own costs, half of Mr Casanova’s costs; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the EIB to pay, in addition to its own costs, half of Mr Casanova’s costs;

| 4. | Orders Mr Casanova to bear half of his own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Mr Casanova to bear half of his own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 263, 5.7.2021.

---

| 31.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — Rauff-Nisthar v Commission

(Case T-341/21) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Open Competition EPSO/AD/371/19 - Non-inclusion on the reserve list - Irregularities in the conduct of the tests liable to distort the result - Equal treatment - Manifest error of assessment - New plea)

(2022/C 418/34)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Nadya Rauff-Nisthar (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: I. Melo Sampaio and T Lilamand, agents)

Re:

By her action pursuant to Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks, in essence, annulment of the decision of the selection board of Open Competition EPSO/AD/371/19 for recruitment of adminstrators (AD 7) specialised in scientific research not to include the applicant’s name on the reserve list of that competition, in particular in area No 6, entitled ‘Nuclear research and decommissioning of nuclear installations’.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Ms Nadya Rauff-Nisthar to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ms Nadya Rauff-Nisthar to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 320, 9.8.2021.

---

| 31.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — KTM Fahrrad v EUIPO — KTM (R2R)

(Case T-353/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark R2R - Declaration of revocation - Genuine use of the trade mark - Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Proof of genuine use - Proper reason for non-use)

(2022/C 418/35)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: KTM Fahrrad GmbH (Mattighofen, Austria) (represented by: V. Hoene, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: KTM AG (Mattighofen) (represented by: R. Erfurt, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 20 April 2021 (Case R 261/2020-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders KTM Fahrrad GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders KTM Fahrrad GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 320, 9.8.2021.

---

| 31.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — Saure v Commission

(Case T-448/21) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Commission correspondence concerning the quantity and delivery timings of BioNTech COVID-19 vaccines - Action for annulment - Express decision adopted after implied refusal of access - No lis pendens on account of the inadmissibility of another action - Partial refusal of access - Exceptions relating to the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual, the protection of legal advice, the protection of the decision-making process and the protection of the commercial interests of a third party)

(2022/C 418/36)

Language of the case: German

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Herrmann, G. Gattinara and A. Spina, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the express decision of the European Commission of 2 June 2021, granting him full access to certain documents and partial access to other documents.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Hans-Wilhelm Saure to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Hans-Wilhelm Saure to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 412, 11.10.2021.

---

| 31.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 21 September 2022 — France v Commission

(Case T-475/21) (1)

(EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Expenditure incurred by France - Voluntary coupled support - Eligibility conditions - Eligible sectors and production - Article 52(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013)

(2022/C 418/37)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: French Republic (represented by: A.-L. Desjonquères, F. Alabrune, T. Stéhelin, G. Bain and J.-L. Carré, acting as Agents)

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

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the French Republic seeks annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/988 of 16 June 2021 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2021 L 218, p. 9), in so far as it excluded from EAGF financing the sum of EUR 45 869 990,19, corresponding to expenditure incurred under a voluntary coupled support measure for the production of fodder legumes, relating to the claim year 2017.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the French Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 391, 27.9.2021.

---

| 31.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — OE v Commission

(Case T-486/21) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Teleworking - Claim for reimbursement of telephone and Internet connection expenses - Claim rejected - Plea of illegality - Partial admissibility - Article 71 of and Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials - Principle of equality and non-discrimination - Right to respect for private life)

(2022/C 418/38)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: OE (represented by: G. Hervet, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: I. Melo Sampaio and L. Vernier, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Parliament (represented by: M. Windisch, S. Bukšek Tomac and J. Van Pottelberge, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer, acting as Agent)

Re:

By her action under Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks, in essence, first, annulment of the decision of the Office for Infrastructure and Logistics in Brussels (OIB) of the European Commission of 18 December 2020 rejecting her claim for reimbursement of the professional expenses resulting from the teleworking arrangements imposed on her and for a 4G USB dongle, and, secondly, an order that the Commission, first of all, reimburse her for those expenses, next, provide her with that Internet access and, lastly, pay her compensation of EUR 10 000 for the damage she has allegedly suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders OE to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OE to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

| 3. | Decides that the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union are to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Decides that the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union are to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 422, 18.10.2021.

---

| 31.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — Migadakis v ENISA

(Case T-507/21) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Recruitment - Call for expressions of interest - Video examination - Minimum points threshold - Equality of treatment - Whether marking was objective)

(2022/C 418/39)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Ioannis Migadakis (represented by: K. Bicard, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Agency for Cybersecurity (represented by: I. Taurina, G. Pappa and C. Chalanouli, acting as Agents, and by B. Wägenbauer, lawyer)

Re:

By his action pursuant to Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks to have set aside the decision of the European Union Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA) of 30 October 2020 not to accept his application.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr. Ioannis Migadakis is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr. Ioannis Migadakis is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 422, 18.10.2021.

---

| 31.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — 6Minutes Media v EUIPO — ad pepper media International (ad pepper the e-advertising network)

(Case T-521/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU figurative mark ad pepper the e-advertising network - Genuine use of the mark - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 [now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 418/40)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: 6Minutes Media GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: N. Marquard and P. Koch, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: ad pepper media International NV (Nuremberg, Germany) (represented by: S. Lux, lawyer)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 18 June 2021 (Case R 1621/2020-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders 6Minutes Media GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders 6Minutes Media GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 422, 18.10.2021.

---

| 31.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — Segimerus v EUIPO — Karsten Manufacturing (MONSOON)

(Case T-627/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark MONSOON - Absolute ground for invalidity - Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001 - Article 34 of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2022/C 418/41)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Segimerus Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: G. Donath, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Karsten Manufacturing Corp. (Phoenix, Arizona, United States) (represented by: M. Körner, lawyer)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 16 July 2021 (Case R 1125/2020-4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Segimerus Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and Karsten Manufacturing Corp. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Segimerus Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and Karsten Manufacturing Corp.

---

(1)  OJ C 471, 22.11.2021.

---

| 31.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — Saure v Commission

(Case T-651/21) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Commission correspondence concerning the quantity and delivery timings of BioNTech COVID-19 vaccines - Action for annulment - Express decisions adopted after implied refusal of access - No lis pendens on account of the inadmissibility of another action - Total and partial refusal of access - Exceptions relating to the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual, the protection of legal advice, the protection of the decision-making process and the protection of the commercial interests of a third party)

(2022/C 418/42)

Language of the case: German

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Herrmann, G. Gattinara and A. Spina, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the express decision of the European Commission of 11 August 2021, granting him partial access to certain documents and refusing access to other documents.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Hans-Wilhelm Saure to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Hans-Wilhelm Saure to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 481, 29.11.2021.

---

| 31.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — Peace United v EUIPO — 1906 Collins (MY BOYFRIEND IS OUT OF TOWN)

(Case T-699/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark MY BOYFRIEND IS OUT OF TOWN - Declaration of revocation - Absence of genuine use of the mark - Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Proof of genuine use - Abuse of rights)

(2022/C 418/43)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Peace United Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Artzimovitch, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: 1906 Collins LLC (Miami, Florida, United States) (represented by: C. Mateu, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 30 July 2021 (Case R 276/2020-2).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Peace United Ltd to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Peace United Ltd to bear the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 37, 24.1.2022.

---

| 31.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 21 September 2022 — Voco v EUIPO (Shape of packaging)

(Case T-700/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for a three-dimensional EU trade mark - Shape of packaging - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 418/44)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Voco GmbH (Cuxhaven, Germany) (represented by: C. Spintig and S. Pietzcker, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Nicolás Gómez and E. Markakis, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 23 August 2021 (Case R 117/2021-4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Voco GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Voco GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 2, 3.1.2022.

---

| 31.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — Łosowski v EUIPO — Skawiński (KOMBI)

(Case T-730/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark KOMBI - Earlier EU word mark kombii - Relative ground for invalidity - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Similarity of the goods and services - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Reliance on an individual right to use the name ‘kombi’ under national law)

(2022/C 418/45)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Sławomir Łosowski (Gdańsk, Poland) (represented by: K. Czub, 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, intervener before the General Court: Grzegorz Skawiński (Sopot, Poland) (represented by: J. Aftyka, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 8 September 2021 (Case R 381/2017-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Sławomir Łowoski to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Sławomir Łowoski to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 24, 17.1.2022.

---

| 31.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — Peace United v EUIPO — 1906 Collins (bâoli)

(Case T-754/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark bâoli - Declaration of revocation - Absence of genuine use of the mark - Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Proof of genuine use - Abuse of rights)

(2022/C 418/46)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Peace United Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Artzimovitch, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: 1906 Collins LLC (Miami, Florida, United States) (represented by: C. Mateu, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 14 September 2021 (Case R 275/2020-2).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Peace United Ltd to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Peace United Ltd to bear the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 51, 31.1.2022.

---

| 31.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/35

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — Olimp Laboratories v EUIPO (VITA-MIN MULTIPLE SPORT)

(Case T-9/22) (1)

(European Union trade mark - Application for the European Union word mark VITA-MIN MULTIPLE SPORT - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Lack of distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2022/C 418/47)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Olimp Laboratories sp. z o.o. (Dębica, Poland) (represented by: M. Kondrat, lawyer)

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

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment and reversal of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 8 November 2021 (Case R 771/2020-1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Olimp Laboratories sp. z o.o. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Olimp Laboratories sp. z o.o. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 84, 21.2.2022.

---

| 31.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/35

---

Order of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — Etablissements Nicolas v EUIPO — St. Nicolaus (NICOLAS)

(Case T-373/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Withdrawal of the application for a declaration of invalidity - No need to adjudicate)

(2022/C 418/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Etablissements Nicolas (Thiais, France) (represented by: T. de Haan, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: St. Nicolaus a.s. (Liptovský Mikuláš, Slovakia) (represented by: V. Jakubička, lawyer)

Objet

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 21 April 2021 (Case R 1195/2020-4).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

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

| 2. | Etablissements Nicolas and St. Nicolaus a.s. shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Etablissements Nicolas and St. Nicolaus a.s. shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 338, 23.8.2021.

---

| 31.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/36

---

Order of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — Prigozhin v Council

(Case T-75/22) (1)

(Action for annulment - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against serious human rights violations and abuses - Grounds of the decisions mentioning the applicant’s name as the financier of the Wagner Group - Assessments made in the grounds of the decisions - Acts not open to appeal - Inadmissibility)

(2022/C 418/49)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Yevgeniy Viktorovich Prigozhin (Saint Petersburg, Russia) (represented by: Mr Cessieux, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M.-C. Cadilhac and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/2197 of 13 December 2021 amending Decision (CFSP) 2020/1999 concerning restrictive measures against serious human rights violations and abuses (OJ 2021 L 445 I, p. 17), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2195 of 13 December 2021 implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1998 concerning restrictive measures against serious human rights violations and abuses (OJ 2021 L 445 I, p. 10), in so far as those two decisions name him as the financier of the Wagner Group.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Yevgeniy Viktorovich Prigozhin shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Yevgeniy Viktorovich Prigozhin shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 148, 4.4.2022.

---

| 31.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/36

---

Order of the General Court of 6 September 2022 — Farco-Pharma v EUIPO — Infarco (FARCO)

(Case T-179/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate)

(2022/C 418/50)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Farco-Pharma GmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: V. Schoene, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Schäfer and M. Eberl, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Infarco, SA (Madrid, Spain)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 17 January 2022 (Case R 172/2021-4).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

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

| 2. | Farco-Pharma GmbH shall bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Farco-Pharma GmbH shall bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 207, 23.5.2022.

---

| 31.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/37

---

Order of the General Court of 6 September 2022 — Etablissements Nicolas v EUIPO — St. Nicolaus (NICOLAS)

(Case T-340/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate)

(2022/C 418/51)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Etablissements Nicolas (Thiais, France) (represented by: T. de Haan, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: St. Nicolaus a.s. (Liptovský Mikuláš, Slovakia)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 28 March 2022 (Case R 1780/2020-4).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

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

| 2. | Etablissements Nicolas shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Etablissements Nicolas shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 284, 25.7.2022.

---

| 31.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/38

---

Action brought on 19 August 2022 — Spain v Commission

(Case T-508/22)

(2022/C 418/52)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: I. Herranz Elizalde, acting as Agent)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| (i) | annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/908 of 8 June 2022 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), (1) in so far as it concerns the Kingdom of Spain; |
| --- | --- |

(i)

annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/908 of 8 June 2022 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), (1) in so far as it concerns the Kingdom of Spain;

| (ii) | in the alternative, annul the contested decision in part, reducing the estimated risk for the 2016 and 2017 financial years to EUR 3 241 314,99; |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

in the alternative, annul the contested decision in part, reducing the estimated risk for the 2016 and 2017 financial years to EUR 3 241 314,99;

| (iii) | in the further alternative, in accordance with the second plea in law, annul the contested decision in part, reducing the flat-rate correction for the 2016 and 2017 financial years from 5 % to 2 %; |
| --- | --- |

(iii)

in the further alternative, in accordance with the second plea in law, annul the contested decision in part, reducing the flat-rate correction for the 2016 and 2017 financial years from 5 % to 2 %;

| (iv) | order the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

(iv)

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging improper application of the flat-rate correction.






  — | In that regard, the applicant claims that the contested decision breaches the principle of proportionality as regards financial corrections, by improperly applying a flat-rate correction, in breach of Article 52(2) of Regulation No 1306/2013, (2) and the right to good administration, in failing to examine with the requisite care the risk assessments submitted by the Spanish authorities. The first plea in law is in turn divided into the following parts, which, in the applicant’s submission, demonstrate, taken both in isolation and together, that the financial correction applied is disproportionate. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging improper application of the flat-rate correction.

—

In that regard, the applicant claims that the contested decision breaches the principle of proportionality as regards financial corrections, by improperly applying a flat-rate correction, in breach of Article 52(2) of Regulation No 1306/2013, (2) and the right to good administration, in failing to examine with the requisite care the risk assessments submitted by the Spanish authorities. The first plea in law is in turn divided into the following parts, which, in the applicant’s submission, demonstrate, taken both in isolation and together, that the financial correction applied is disproportionate.

| — | III.1. | Error of assessment in concluding that there is a serious and reasonable doubt as to the extent of the checks in respect of statutory management requirement 1 (‘SMR 1’). |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

III.1.

Error of assessment in concluding that there is a serious and reasonable doubt as to the extent of the checks in respect of statutory management requirement 1 (‘SMR 1’).

| — | The Commission erred (i) because it failed to take into account that, in the field checks, the inspectors checked the requirement relating to the measurement of the storage facilities for livestock manure and the review of the records; (ii) because, in the audit, there was no on-the-spot measurement or check such as to demonstrate any irregularities on the part of the beneficiaries or any errors that the inspectors may have committed in carrying out the checks; (iii) in regarding as a deficiency in the extent and quality of the checks in respect of SMR 1 what could only have been classified, where appropriate, as a deficiency in the key control ‘Communication of the results’, which the Commission already specifically evaluated in the composite report. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Commission erred (i) because it failed to take into account that, in the field checks, the inspectors checked the requirement relating to the measurement of the storage facilities for livestock manure and the review of the records; (ii) because, in the audit, there was no on-the-spot measurement or check such as to demonstrate any irregularities on the part of the beneficiaries or any errors that the inspectors may have committed in carrying out the checks; (iii) in regarding as a deficiency in the extent and quality of the checks in respect of SMR 1 what could only have been classified, where appropriate, as a deficiency in the key control ‘Communication of the results’, which the Commission already specifically evaluated in the composite report.

| — | III. 2. | Error of assessment in considering that there is a serious and reasonable doubt as to the extent of the checks in respect of statutory management requirement 3 (‘SMR 3’). |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

III. 2.

Error of assessment in considering that there is a serious and reasonable doubt as to the extent of the checks in respect of statutory management requirement 3 (‘SMR 3’).

| — | The Commission committed a two-fold error in its assessment in respect of SMR 3: (i) It assumed, without the on-the-spot checks carried out in the audit providing any factual basis to that effect, that, in the farm parcels included in the check sample, there were wild plant species in respect of which it would have been necessary to adopt conservation plans; (ii) It required that the farmers comply directly with Annex II to the directive, without there being any plans determining in advance the conservation measures that, as the case may be, would be necessary; (iii) It considered that it would have been possible to impose sanctions on the farmers for the presumed direct failure to comply with the directive, and that the absence of sanctions would have caused financial damage to the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Commission committed a two-fold error in its assessment in respect of SMR 3: (i) It assumed, without the on-the-spot checks carried out in the audit providing any factual basis to that effect, that, in the farm parcels included in the check sample, there were wild plant species in respect of which it would have been necessary to adopt conservation plans; (ii) It required that the farmers comply directly with Annex II to the directive, without there being any plans determining in advance the conservation measures that, as the case may be, would be necessary; (iii) It considered that it would have been possible to impose sanctions on the farmers for the presumed direct failure to comply with the directive, and that the absence of sanctions would have caused financial damage to the European Union.

| — | III. 3. | Error of assessment and lack of proportionality in concluding that the checks as regards identification in respect of statutory management requirements 7 and 8 (‘SMR 7’ and ‘SMR 8’) suffer from systemic deficiencies. |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

III. 3.

Error of assessment and lack of proportionality in concluding that the checks as regards identification in respect of statutory management requirements 7 and 8 (‘SMR 7’ and ‘SMR 8’) suffer from systemic deficiencies.

| — | As regards the identification (SMR 7 and SMR 8), the Commission erred: (i) in failing to take account of the principle of proportionality of sanctions by considering that the authorities of Castilla y León (Castile and Leon) should have imposed sanctions on the farmers where animals had only a single ear tag (as opposed to the two required by the rules), regardless of the number of ear tags missing; (ii) in considering that the application of a fundamental principle of EU law such as the principle of the proportionality of sanctions depends on implementation on the part of the national authorities; (iii) in failing to take into account that the Spanish authorities, in the inspections, carried out checks the result of which was at least equivalent to that from applying a tolerance margin of 20 % of ear tags — a margin which the Commission accepts for other Member States. |
| --- | --- |

—

As regards the identification (SMR 7 and SMR 8), the Commission erred: (i) in failing to take account of the principle of proportionality of sanctions by considering that the authorities of Castilla y León (Castile and Leon) should have imposed sanctions on the farmers where animals had only a single ear tag (as opposed to the two required by the rules), regardless of the number of ear tags missing; (ii) in considering that the application of a fundamental principle of EU law such as the principle of the proportionality of sanctions depends on implementation on the part of the national authorities; (iii) in failing to take into account that the Spanish authorities, in the inspections, carried out checks the result of which was at least equivalent to that from applying a tolerance margin of 20 % of ear tags — a margin which the Commission accepts for other Member States.

| — | As regards the registration (SMR 7 and SMR 8), the Commission erred: (i) in according disproportionate importance to the deficiency, even though it was able to repeat the checks and ascertain the number of animas present in the farms by consulting the Base de Datos de Ganado Nacional (Spanish national livestock database, or BDGN); (ii) in failing to take into account that, despite the presumed deficiencies in the check, the audit did not reveal cases in which the farmer had committed infringements liable to be subject to sanctions, with the result that there could be no damage to the financial interests of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

—

As regards the registration (SMR 7 and SMR 8), the Commission erred: (i) in according disproportionate importance to the deficiency, even though it was able to repeat the checks and ascertain the number of animas present in the farms by consulting the Base de Datos de Ganado Nacional (Spanish national livestock database, or BDGN); (ii) in failing to take into account that, despite the presumed deficiencies in the check, the audit did not reveal cases in which the farmer had committed infringements liable to be subject to sanctions, with the result that there could be no damage to the financial interests of the European Union.

| — | III. 4. | Error of assessment as well as according disproportionate importance to a possible element of the general requirement laid down in Article 72[(1)](b)(ii) of Regulation (EU) No 809/2014. (3) |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

III. 4.

Error of assessment as well as according disproportionate importance to a possible element of the general requirement laid down in Article 72[(1)](b)(ii) of Regulation (EU) No 809/2014. (3)

| — | The Commission erred for the following reasons: (i) The signature of the beneficiary is not a condition under Article 72(1)(a) of Commission Implementing Regulation 809/2014; (ii) The list of parcels was already included in the documents concerning the check as regards admissibility; that check was carried out simultaneously, with the result that there was no financial risk to the budget of the European Union. Moreover, that aspect is not a requirement that is expressly laid down in the abovementioned Commission implementing regulation. (iii) The absence of details about the landscape features was already uploaded to the tablet PC prior to the checks, and the Commission does not show that the omission of features which were not subject to any changes entails a higher risk of infringements being committed, or of infringements not being detected. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Commission erred for the following reasons: (i) The signature of the beneficiary is not a condition under Article 72(1)(a) of Commission Implementing Regulation 809/2014; (ii) The list of parcels was already included in the documents concerning the check as regards admissibility; that check was carried out simultaneously, with the result that there was no financial risk to the budget of the European Union. Moreover, that aspect is not a requirement that is expressly laid down in the abovementioned Commission implementing regulation. (iii) The absence of details about the landscape features was already uploaded to the tablet PC prior to the checks, and the Commission does not show that the omission of features which were not subject to any changes entails a higher risk of infringements being committed, or of infringements not being detected.

| — | III.5. | Unjustified rejection of the risk assessment based on an extrapolation of the results of the 2018 checks. |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

III.5.

Unjustified rejection of the risk assessment based on an extrapolation of the results of the 2018 checks.

| — | The Commission erred in rejecting ab initio the calculation of the risk based on an extrapolation of the checks carried out in 2018, in (i) denying the reliability of the risk calculation method; (ii) stating that the risk calculation was not based on a representative sample of the population at risk, and (iii) stating that it is not possible to repeat the checks. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Commission erred in rejecting ab initio the calculation of the risk based on an extrapolation of the checks carried out in 2018, in (i) denying the reliability of the risk calculation method; (ii) stating that the risk calculation was not based on a representative sample of the population at risk, and (iii) stating that it is not possible to repeat the checks.

| — | III.6. | Claims concerning the lack of proportionality of the assessment of the risk to the budget of the European Union by means of a flat-rate estimate, instead of making extrapolations that were more in line with the actual nature of the identified risks. |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

III.6.

Claims concerning the lack of proportionality of the assessment of the risk to the budget of the European Union by means of a flat-rate estimate, instead of making extrapolations that were more in line with the actual nature of the identified risks.

| — | The Commission erred: (i) in failing to take account of the exceptional nature of flat-rate corrections; (ii) in stating that the flat-rate correction is a (precise and exhaustive) calculation of the risk to the Funds, not comparable to the extrapolation proposed in the present case; (iii) in having exaggerated the financial consequences of the deficiencies in the control systems; (iv) in having generalised the results of isolated checks and presented them as deficiencies allegedly affecting the entire population of beneficiaries, thus imposing a flat-rate financial correction. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Commission erred: (i) in failing to take account of the exceptional nature of flat-rate corrections; (ii) in stating that the flat-rate correction is a (precise and exhaustive) calculation of the risk to the Funds, not comparable to the extrapolation proposed in the present case; (iii) in having exaggerated the financial consequences of the deficiencies in the control systems; (iv) in having generalised the results of isolated checks and presented them as deficiencies allegedly affecting the entire population of beneficiaries, thus imposing a flat-rate financial correction.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, a breach of the principle of proportionality set out in Article 12(8) of Delegated Regulation 907/2014, (4) inasmuch as the flat-rate correction was not reduced.






  — | In that regard, the applicant claims that the Commission failed to take into account that the three risk extrapolations presented by the Spanish authorities and the fact that all of the deficiencies corresponded to certain population groups demonstrated that the flat-rate correction was disproportionate. Moreover, the Commission erred in failing to apply the reduction provided for in Article 12(8) of Delegated Regulation 907/2014. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, a breach of the principle of proportionality set out in Article 12(8) of Delegated Regulation 907/2014, (4) inasmuch as the flat-rate correction was not reduced.

—

In that regard, the applicant claims that the Commission failed to take into account that the three risk extrapolations presented by the Spanish authorities and the fact that all of the deficiencies corresponded to certain population groups demonstrated that the flat-rate correction was disproportionate. Moreover, the Commission erred in failing to apply the reduction provided for in Article 12(8) of Delegated Regulation 907/2014.

---

(1)  OJ 2022 L 157, p. 15.

(2)  OJ 2013 L 347, p. 549.

(3)  OJ 2014 L 227, p. 69.

(4)  OJ 2014 L 255, p. 18.

---

| 31.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/40

---

Action brought on 28 August 2022 — Medel v Council

(Case T-530/22)

(2022/C 418/53)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Magistrats européens pour la démocratie et les libertés (Medel) (Strasbourg, France) (represented by: C. Zatschler, Senior Counsel, E. Egan McGrath, Barrister-at-law, A. Bateman and M. Delargy, Solicitors)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the Council Implementing Decision of 17 June 2022 on the approval of the assessment of the recovery and resilience plan for Poland; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Council Implementing Decision of 17 June 2022 on the approval of the assessment of the recovery and resilience plan for Poland; and

| — | Order the Council to bear its own costs and pay those of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Council to bear its own costs and pay those of the applicant.

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 Council disregarded the case law of the Court of Justice held in judgment of 19 November 2019, A. K. and Others (Independence of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court of Poland) (C-585/18, C-624/18 and C-625/18, EU:C:2019:982), judgment of 15 July 2021, Commission v Poland (Disciplinary regime applicable to judges) (C-791/19, EU:C:2021:596), order of 8 April 2020, Commission v Poland (C-791/19 R, EU:C:2020:277) and order of the Vice-President of the Court of 14 July 2021, Commission v Poland (C-204/21 R, EU:C:2021:593), and infringed Articles 2 and 13(2) TEU.
  The applicant further submits under this plea that the Council exceeded its competence to the extent that it purported to determine how Poland should comply with the case law of the Court of Justice concerning the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court of Poland (hereafter the ‘Disciplinary Chamber’). |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging the Council disregarded the case law of the Court of Justice held in judgment of 19 November 2019, A. K. and Others (Independence of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court of Poland) (C-585/18, C-624/18 and C-625/18, EU:C:2019:982), judgment of 15 July 2021, Commission v Poland (Disciplinary regime applicable to judges) (C-791/19, EU:C:2021:596), order of 8 April 2020, Commission v Poland (C-791/19 R, EU:C:2020:277) and order of the Vice-President of the Court of 14 July 2021, Commission v Poland (C-204/21 R, EU:C:2021:593), and infringed Articles 2 and 13(2) TEU.

The applicant further submits under this plea that the Council exceeded its competence to the extent that it purported to determine how Poland should comply with the case law of the Court of Justice concerning the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court of Poland (hereafter the ‘Disciplinary Chamber’).

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Council infringed Articles 2 and 19(1) TEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (hereafter the ‘Charter’), as authoritatively interpreted by the Court of Justice.
  In support of this plea, the applicant argues that the milestones, on which the Contested Decision is founded, infringe Articles 2 and 19(1) TEU and Article 47 of the Charter, in that they:






  — | accord legal effects to the decisions of the Disciplinary Chamber rather than considering them null and void, |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Council infringed Articles 2 and 19(1) TEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (hereafter the ‘Charter’), as authoritatively interpreted by the Court of Justice.

In support of this plea, the applicant argues that the milestones, on which the Contested Decision is founded, infringe Articles 2 and 19(1) TEU and Article 47 of the Charter, in that they:

—

accord legal effects to the decisions of the Disciplinary Chamber rather than considering them null and void,

| — | impose additional procedural burdens, uncertainty and delays on judges affected by unlawful decisions of the Disciplinary Chamber by requiring the judges in question to commence a new set of proceedings before a newly constituted chamber in the Supreme Court to clear their name; and |
| --- | --- |

—

impose additional procedural burdens, uncertainty and delays on judges affected by unlawful decisions of the Disciplinary Chamber by requiring the judges in question to commence a new set of proceedings before a newly constituted chamber in the Supreme Court to clear their name; and

| — | do not even foresee the judges in question being at least temporarily reinstated pending the outcome of any review proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

do not even foresee the judges in question being at least temporarily reinstated pending the outcome of any review proceedings.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that milestones F1G, F2G and F3G provided for in the Contested Decision are insufficient to re-establish effective judicial protection in Poland, which is a prerequisite for the functioning of an internal control system. The applicant contends that the Contested Decision accordingly infringes Articles 20(5)(e) and 22 of Regulation (EU) 2021/241 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 February 2021 establishing the Recovery and Resilience Facility (OJ 2021 L 57, p. 17) and Article 325 TFEU, which require effective and efficient internal controls. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that milestones F1G, F2G and F3G provided for in the Contested Decision are insufficient to re-establish effective judicial protection in Poland, which is a prerequisite for the functioning of an internal control system. The applicant contends that the Contested Decision accordingly infringes Articles 20(5)(e) and 22 of Regulation (EU) 2021/241 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 February 2021 establishing the Recovery and Resilience Facility (OJ 2021 L 57, p. 17) and Article 325 TFEU, which require effective and efficient internal controls.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council erred in law and/or committed manifest errors of assessment in applying Article 19(3) of Regulation 2021/241 in approving the milestones to be ‘adequate arrangements’ for the prevention, detection and correction of corruption in Poland. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council erred in law and/or committed manifest errors of assessment in applying Article 19(3) of Regulation 2021/241 in approving the milestones to be ‘adequate arrangements’ for the prevention, detection and correction of corruption in Poland.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to adequately state reasons for the Contested Decision, thereby infringing Article 296 TFEU, Article 41 of the Charter, and the principles of EU law. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to adequately state reasons for the Contested Decision, thereby infringing Article 296 TFEU, Article 41 of the Charter, and the principles of EU law.

---

| 31.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/41

---

Action brought on 28 August 2022 — International Association of Judges v Council

(Case T-531/22)

(2022/C 418/54)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: International Association of Judges (Rome, Italy) (represented by: C. Zatschler, Senior Counsel, E. Egan McGrath, Barrister-at-law, A. Bateman and M. Delargy, Solicitors)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the Council Implementing Decision of 17 June 2022 on the approval of the assessment of the recovery and resilience plan for Poland; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Council Implementing Decision of 17 June 2022 on the approval of the assessment of the recovery and resilience plan for Poland; and

| — | Order the Council to bear its own costs and pay those of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Council to bear its own costs and pay those of the applicant.

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 Council disregarded the case law of the Court of Justice held in judgment of 19 November 2019, A. K. and Others (Independence of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court of Poland) (C-585/18, C-624/18 and C-625/18, EU:C:2019:982), judgment of 15 July 2021, Commission v Poland (Disciplinary regime applicable to judges) (C-791/19, EU:C:2021:596), order of 8 April 2020, Commission v Poland (C-791/19 R, EU:C:2020:277) and order of the Vice-President of the Court of 14 July 2021, Commission v Poland (C-204/21 R, EU:C:2021:593), and infringed Articles 2 and 13(2) TEU.
  The applicant further submits under this plea that the Council exceeded its competence to the extent that it purported to determine how Poland should comply with the case law of the Court of Justice concerning the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court of Poland (hereafter the ‘Disciplinary Chamber’). |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging the Council disregarded the case law of the Court of Justice held in judgment of 19 November 2019, A. K. and Others (Independence of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court of Poland) (C-585/18, C-624/18 and C-625/18, EU:C:2019:982), judgment of 15 July 2021, Commission v Poland (Disciplinary regime applicable to judges) (C-791/19, EU:C:2021:596), order of 8 April 2020, Commission v Poland (C-791/19 R, EU:C:2020:277) and order of the Vice-President of the Court of 14 July 2021, Commission v Poland (C-204/21 R, EU:C:2021:593), and infringed Articles 2 and 13(2) TEU.

The applicant further submits under this plea that the Council exceeded its competence to the extent that it purported to determine how Poland should comply with the case law of the Court of Justice concerning the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court of Poland (hereafter the ‘Disciplinary Chamber’).

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Council infringed Articles 2 and 19(1) TEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (hereafter the ‘Charter’), as authoritatively interpreted by the Court of Justice.
  In support of this plea, the applicant argues that the milestones, on which the Contested Decision is founded, infringe Articles 2 and 19(1) TEU and Article 47 of the Charter, in that they:






  — | accord legal effects to the decisions of the Disciplinary Chamber rather than considering them null and void, |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Council infringed Articles 2 and 19(1) TEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (hereafter the ‘Charter’), as authoritatively interpreted by the Court of Justice.

In support of this plea, the applicant argues that the milestones, on which the Contested Decision is founded, infringe Articles 2 and 19(1) TEU and Article 47 of the Charter, in that they:

—

accord legal effects to the decisions of the Disciplinary Chamber rather than considering them null and void,

| — | impose additional procedural burdens, uncertainty and delays on judges affected by unlawful decisions of the Disciplinary Chamber by requiring the judges in question to commence a new set of proceedings before a newly constituted chamber in the Supreme Court to clear their name; and |
| --- | --- |

—

impose additional procedural burdens, uncertainty and delays on judges affected by unlawful decisions of the Disciplinary Chamber by requiring the judges in question to commence a new set of proceedings before a newly constituted chamber in the Supreme Court to clear their name; and

| — | do not even foresee the judges in question being at least temporarily reinstated pending the outcome of any review proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

do not even foresee the judges in question being at least temporarily reinstated pending the outcome of any review proceedings.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that milestones F1G, F2G and F3G provided for in the Contested Decision are insufficient to re-establish effective judicial protection in Poland, which is a prerequisite for the functioning of an internal control system. The applicant contends that the Contested Decision accordingly infringes Articles 20(5)(e) and 22 of Regulation (EU) 2021/241 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 February 2021 establishing the Recovery and Resilience Facility (OJ 2021 L 57, p. 17) and Article 325 TFEU, which require effective and efficient internal controls. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that milestones F1G, F2G and F3G provided for in the Contested Decision are insufficient to re-establish effective judicial protection in Poland, which is a prerequisite for the functioning of an internal control system. The applicant contends that the Contested Decision accordingly infringes Articles 20(5)(e) and 22 of Regulation (EU) 2021/241 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 February 2021 establishing the Recovery and Resilience Facility (OJ 2021 L 57, p. 17) and Article 325 TFEU, which require effective and efficient internal controls.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council erred in law and/or committed manifest errors of assessment in applying Article 19(3) of Regulation 2021/241 in approving the milestones to be ‘adequate arrangements’ for the prevention, detection and correction of corruption in Poland. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council erred in law and/or committed manifest errors of assessment in applying Article 19(3) of Regulation 2021/241 in approving the milestones to be ‘adequate arrangements’ for the prevention, detection and correction of corruption in Poland.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to adequately state reasons for the Contested Decision, thereby infringing Article 296 TFEU, Article 41 of the Charter, and the principles of EU law. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to adequately state reasons for the Contested Decision, thereby infringing Article 296 TFEU, Article 41 of the Charter, and the principles of EU law.

---

| 31.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/42

---

Action brought on 28 August 2022 — Association of European Administrative Judges v Council

(Case T-532/22)

(2022/C 418/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Association of European Administrative Judges (Trier, Germany) (represented by: C. Zatschler, Senior Counsel, E. Egan McGrath, Barrister-at-law, A. Bateman and M. Delargy, Solicitors)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the Council Implementing Decision of 17 June 2022 on the approval of the assessment of the recovery and resilience plan for Poland; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Council Implementing Decision of 17 June 2022 on the approval of the assessment of the recovery and resilience plan for Poland; and

| — | Order the Council to bear its own costs and pay those of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Council to bear its own costs and pay those of the applicant.

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 Council disregarded the case law of the Court of Justice held in judgment of 19 November 2019, A. K. and Others (Independence of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court of Poland) (C-585/18, C-624/18 and C-625/18, EU:C:2019:982), judgment of 15 July 2021, Commission v Poland (Disciplinary regime applicable to judges) (C-791/19, EU:C:2021:596), order of 8 April 2020, Commission v Poland (C-791/19 R, EU:C:2020:277) and order of the Vice-President of the Court of 14 July 2021, Commission v Poland (C-204/21 R, EU:C:2021:593), and infringed Articles 2 and 13(2) TEU.
  The applicant further submits under this plea that the Council exceeded its competence to the extent that it purported to determine how Poland should comply with the case law of the Court of Justice concerning the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court of Poland (hereafter the ‘Disciplinary Chamber’). |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging the Council disregarded the case law of the Court of Justice held in judgment of 19 November 2019, A. K. and Others (Independence of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court of Poland) (C-585/18, C-624/18 and C-625/18, EU:C:2019:982), judgment of 15 July 2021, Commission v Poland (Disciplinary regime applicable to judges) (C-791/19, EU:C:2021:596), order of 8 April 2020, Commission v Poland (C-791/19 R, EU:C:2020:277) and order of the Vice-President of the Court of 14 July 2021, Commission v Poland (C-204/21 R, EU:C:2021:593), and infringed Articles 2 and 13(2) TEU.

The applicant further submits under this plea that the Council exceeded its competence to the extent that it purported to determine how Poland should comply with the case law of the Court of Justice concerning the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court of Poland (hereafter the ‘Disciplinary Chamber’).

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Council infringed Articles 2 and 19(1) TEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (hereafter the ‘Charter’), as authoritatively interpreted by the Court of Justice.
  In support of this plea, the applicant argues that the milestones, on which the Contested Decision is founded, infringe Articles 2 and 19(1) TEU and Article 47 of the Charter, in that they:






  — | accord legal effects to the decisions of the Disciplinary Chamber rather than considering them null and void, |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Council infringed Articles 2 and 19(1) TEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (hereafter the ‘Charter’), as authoritatively interpreted by the Court of Justice.

In support of this plea, the applicant argues that the milestones, on which the Contested Decision is founded, infringe Articles 2 and 19(1) TEU and Article 47 of the Charter, in that they:

—

accord legal effects to the decisions of the Disciplinary Chamber rather than considering them null and void,

| — | impose additional procedural burdens, uncertainty and delays on judges affected by unlawful decisions of the Disciplinary Chamber by requiring the judges in question to commence a new set of proceedings before a newly constituted chamber in the Supreme Court to clear their name; and |
| --- | --- |

—

impose additional procedural burdens, uncertainty and delays on judges affected by unlawful decisions of the Disciplinary Chamber by requiring the judges in question to commence a new set of proceedings before a newly constituted chamber in the Supreme Court to clear their name; and

| — | do not even foresee the judges in question being at least temporarily reinstated pending the outcome of any review proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

do not even foresee the judges in question being at least temporarily reinstated pending the outcome of any review proceedings.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that milestones F1G, F2G and F3G provided for in the Contested Decision are insufficient to re-establish effective judicial protection in Poland, which is a prerequisite for the functioning of an internal control system. The applicant contends that the Contested Decision accordingly infringes Articles 20(5)(e) and 22 of Regulation (EU) 2021/241 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 February 2021 establishing the Recovery and Resilience Facility (OJ 2021 L 57, p. 17) and Article 325 TFEU, which require effective and efficient internal controls. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that milestones F1G, F2G and F3G provided for in the Contested Decision are insufficient to re-establish effective judicial protection in Poland, which is a prerequisite for the functioning of an internal control system. The applicant contends that the Contested Decision accordingly infringes Articles 20(5)(e) and 22 of Regulation (EU) 2021/241 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 February 2021 establishing the Recovery and Resilience Facility (OJ 2021 L 57, p. 17) and Article 325 TFEU, which require effective and efficient internal controls.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council erred in law and/or committed manifest errors of assessment in applying Article 19(3) of Regulation 2021/241 in approving the milestones to be ‘adequate arrangements’ for the prevention, detection and correction of corruption in Poland. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council erred in law and/or committed manifest errors of assessment in applying Article 19(3) of Regulation 2021/241 in approving the milestones to be ‘adequate arrangements’ for the prevention, detection and correction of corruption in Poland.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to adequately state reasons for the Contested Decision, thereby infringing Article 296 TFEU, Article 41 of the Charter, and the principles of EU law. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to adequately state reasons for the Contested Decision, thereby infringing Article 296 TFEU, Article 41 of the Charter, and the principles of EU law.

---

| 31.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/43

---

Action brought on 28 August 2022 — Rechters voor Rechters v Council

(Case T-533/22)

(2022/C 418/56)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Stichting Rechters voor Rechters (‘s-Gravenhage, Netherlands) (represented by: C. Zatschler, Senior Counsel, E. Egan McGrath, Barrister-at-law, A. Bateman and M. Delargy, Solicitors)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the Council Implementing Decision of 17 June 2022 on the approval of the assessment of the recovery and resilience plan for Poland; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Council Implementing Decision of 17 June 2022 on the approval of the assessment of the recovery and resilience plan for Poland; and

| — | Order the Council to bear its own costs and pay those of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Council to bear its own costs and pay those of the applicant.

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 Council disregarded the case law of the Court of Justice held in judgment of 19 November 2019, A. K. and Others (Independence of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court of Poland) (C-585/18, C-624/18 and C-625/18, EU:C:2019:982), judgment of 15 July 2021, Commission v Poland (Disciplinary regime applicable to judges) (C-791/19, EU:C:2021:596), order of 8 April 2020, Commission v Poland (C-791/19 R, EU:C:2020:277) and order of the Vice-President of the Court of 14 July 2021, Commission v Poland (C-204/21 R, EU:C:2021:593), and infringed Articles 2 and 13(2) TEU.
  The applicant further submits under this plea that the Council exceeded its competence to the extent that it purported to determine how Poland should comply with the case law of the Court of Justice concerning the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court of Poland (hereafter the ‘Disciplinary Chamber’). |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging the Council disregarded the case law of the Court of Justice held in judgment of 19 November 2019, A. K. and Others (Independence of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court of Poland) (C-585/18, C-624/18 and C-625/18, EU:C:2019:982), judgment of 15 July 2021, Commission v Poland (Disciplinary regime applicable to judges) (C-791/19, EU:C:2021:596), order of 8 April 2020, Commission v Poland (C-791/19 R, EU:C:2020:277) and order of the Vice-President of the Court of 14 July 2021, Commission v Poland (C-204/21 R, EU:C:2021:593), and infringed Articles 2 and 13(2) TEU.

The applicant further submits under this plea that the Council exceeded its competence to the extent that it purported to determine how Poland should comply with the case law of the Court of Justice concerning the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court of Poland (hereafter the ‘Disciplinary Chamber’).

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Council infringed Articles 2 and 19(1) TEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (hereafter the ‘Charter’), as authoritatively interpreted by the Court of Justice.
  In support of this plea, the applicant argues that the milestones, on which the Contested Decision is founded, infringe Articles 2 and 19(1) TEU and Article 47 of the Charter, in that they:






  — | accord legal effects to the decisions of the Disciplinary Chamber rather than considering them null and void, |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Council infringed Articles 2 and 19(1) TEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (hereafter the ‘Charter’), as authoritatively interpreted by the Court of Justice.

In support of this plea, the applicant argues that the milestones, on which the Contested Decision is founded, infringe Articles 2 and 19(1) TEU and Article 47 of the Charter, in that they:

—

accord legal effects to the decisions of the Disciplinary Chamber rather than considering them null and void,

| — | impose additional procedural burdens, uncertainty and delays on judges affected by unlawful decisions of the Disciplinary Chamber by requiring the judges in question to commence a new set of proceedings before a newly constituted chamber in the Supreme Court to clear their name; and |
| --- | --- |

—

impose additional procedural burdens, uncertainty and delays on judges affected by unlawful decisions of the Disciplinary Chamber by requiring the judges in question to commence a new set of proceedings before a newly constituted chamber in the Supreme Court to clear their name; and

| — | do not even foresee the judges in question being at least temporarily reinstated pending the outcome of any review proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

do not even foresee the judges in question being at least temporarily reinstated pending the outcome of any review proceedings.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that milestones F1G, F2G and F3G provided for in the Contested Decision are insufficient to re-establish effective judicial protection in Poland, which is a prerequisite for the functioning of an internal control system. The applicant contends that the Contested Decision accordingly infringes Articles 20(5)(e) and 22 of Regulation (EU) 2021/241 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 February 2021 establishing the Recovery and Resilience Facility (OJ 2021 L 57, p. 17) and Article 325 TFEU, which require effective and efficient internal controls. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that milestones F1G, F2G and F3G provided for in the Contested Decision are insufficient to re-establish effective judicial protection in Poland, which is a prerequisite for the functioning of an internal control system. The applicant contends that the Contested Decision accordingly infringes Articles 20(5)(e) and 22 of Regulation (EU) 2021/241 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 February 2021 establishing the Recovery and Resilience Facility (OJ 2021 L 57, p. 17) and Article 325 TFEU, which require effective and efficient internal controls.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council erred in law and/or committed manifest errors of assessment in applying Article 19(3) of Regulation 2021/241 in approving the milestones to be ‘adequate arrangements’ for the prevention, detection and correction of corruption in Poland. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council erred in law and/or committed manifest errors of assessment in applying Article 19(3) of Regulation 2021/241 in approving the milestones to be ‘adequate arrangements’ for the prevention, detection and correction of corruption in Poland.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to adequately state reasons for the Contested Decision, thereby infringing Article 296 TFEU, Article 41 of the Charter, and the principles of EU law. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to adequately state reasons for the Contested Decision, thereby infringing Article 296 TFEU, Article 41 of the Charter, and the principles of EU law.

---

| 31.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/45

---

Action brought on 1 September 2022 — Delta Sport Handelskontor v EUIPO — Lego (Building blocks from a toy building set)

(Case T-537/22)

(2022/C 418/57)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Delta Sport Handelskontor GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: C. Klawitter and L-E. Appel, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lego A/S (Billund, Denmark)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Design at issue: European Union design No 1 664 368-0006

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 May 2022 in Case R 1524/2021-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and, if the other party to the proceedings before EUIPO intervenes, the intervener to bear the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and, if the other party to the proceedings before EUIPO intervenes, the intervener to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;

| — | Infringement of Article 63(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 63(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002.

---

| 31.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/45

---

Action brought on 1 September 2022 — Hästens Sängar v EUIPO — Mustang (Checked pattern in grey with black horses)

(Case T-538/22)

(2022/C 418/58)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Hästens Sängar AB (Köping, Sweden) (represented by: M. Johansson, R. Wessman and S. Ljungblad, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mustang — Bekleidungswerke GmbH & Co. KG (Schwäbisch Hall, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union pattern mark representing a checked pattern in grey with black horses — European Union trade mark No 18 180 228

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 June 2022 in Case R 1730/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision in so far as it annuls the decision of the Cancellation Division based on the conclusion in paragraph 39 of the contested decision that ‘[o]verall the signs [of the proprietor and the cancellation applicant] are similar’; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in so far as it annuls the decision of the Cancellation Division based on the conclusion in paragraph 39 of the contested decision that ‘[o]verall the signs [of the proprietor and the cancellation applicant] are similar’;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the proprietor. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the proprietor.

Plea in law

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

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union.

---

| 31.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/46

---

Action brought on 1 September 2022 — Hästens Sängar v EUIPO — Mustang (Checked pattern in grey with darker horses)

(Case T-539/22)

(2022/C 418/59)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Hästens Sängar AB (Köping, Sweden) (represented by: M. Johansson, R. Wessman and S. Ljungblad, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mustang — Bekleidungswerke GmbH & Co. KG (Schwäbisch Hall, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union pattern mark representing a checked pattern in grey with darker horses — European Union trade mark No 18 180 227

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 June 2022 in Case R 1731/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision in so far as it annuls the decision of the Cancellation Division based on the conclusion in paragraph 39 of the contested decision that ‘[o]verall the signs [of the proprietor and the cancellation applicant] are similar’; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in so far as it annuls the decision of the Cancellation Division based on the conclusion in paragraph 39 of the contested decision that ‘[o]verall the signs [of the proprietor and the cancellation applicant] are similar’;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the proprietor. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the proprietor.

Plea in law

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

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union.

---

| 31.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/47

---

Action brought on 1 September 2022 — Hästens Sängar v EUIPO — Mustang (Checked pattern in beige with white horses)

(Case T-545/22)

(2022/C 418/60)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Hästens Sängar AB (Köping, Sweden) (represented by: M. Johansson, R. Wessman and S. Ljungblad, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mustang — Bekleidungswerke GmbH & Co. KG (Schwäbisch Hall, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union pattern mark representing a checked pattern in beige with white horses — European Union trade mark No 18 180 223

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 June 2022 in Case R 1732/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision in so far as it annuls the decision of the Cancellation Division based on the conclusion in paragraph 39 of the contested decision that ‘[o]verall the signs [of the proprietor and the cancellation applicant] are similar’; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in so far as it annuls the decision of the Cancellation Division based on the conclusion in paragraph 39 of the contested decision that ‘[o]verall the signs [of the proprietor and the cancellation applicant] are similar’;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the proprietor. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the proprietor.

Plea in law

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

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union.

---

| 31.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/47

---

Action brought on 1 September 2022 — Hästens Sängar v EUIPO — Mustang (Checked pattern in blue and white with white horses)

(Case T-546/22)

(2022/C 418/61)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Hästens Sängar AB (Köping, Sweden) (represented by: M. Johansson, R. Wessman and S. Ljungblad, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mustang — Bekleidungswerke GmbH & Co. KG (Schwäbisch Hall, Germany)

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 pattern mark representing a checked pattern in blue and white with white horses — Application for registration No 18 161 231

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 June 2022 in Case R 1733/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision in so far as it annuls the decision of the Opposition Division based on the conclusion in paragraph 39 of the contested decision that ‘[o]verall the signs [of the applicant and the opponent] are similar’; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in so far as it annuls the decision of the Opposition Division based on the conclusion in paragraph 39 of the contested decision that ‘[o]verall the signs [of the applicant and the opponent] are similar’;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

Plea in law

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

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union.

---

| 31.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/48

---

Action brought on 1 September 2022 — Hästens Sängar v EUIPO — Mustang (Checked pattern with horses)

(Case T-547/22)

(2022/C 418/62)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Hästens Sängar AB (Köping, Sweden) (represented by: M. Johansson, R. Wessman and S. Ljungblad, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mustang — Bekleidungswerke GmbH & Co. KG (Schwäbisch Hall, Germany)

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 pattern mark representing a checked pattern with horses — Application for registration No 18 161 210

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 June 2022 in Case R 1734/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision in so far as it annuls the decision of the Opposition Division based on the conclusion in paragraph 39 of the contested decision that ‘[o]verall the signs [of the applicant and the opponent] are similar’; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in so far as it annuls the decision of the Opposition Division based on the conclusion in paragraph 39 of the contested decision that ‘[o]verall the signs [of the applicant and the opponent] are similar’;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

Plea in law

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

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union.

---

| 31.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/49

---

Action brought on 1 September 2022 — Carmeuse Holding v Commission

(Case T-554/22)

(2022/C 418/63)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Carmeuse Holding SRL (Brașov, Romania) (represented by: S. Olaru, R. Ionescu and R. Savin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | join the present application for annulment to the application filed by Carmeuse against Commission Decision 2022/C 160/09 of 14 February 2022, which is the subject matter of case no. T-385/22; |
| --- | --- |

—

join the present application for annulment to the application filed by Carmeuse against Commission Decision 2022/C 160/09 of 14 February 2022, which is the subject matter of case no. T-385/22;

| — | declare the application admissible and well-founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the application admissible and well-founded;

| — | annul Commission Decision of 21 April 2022 instructing the central administrator of the European Union Transaction Log to enter changes to the national allocation tables of Bulgaria, Czechia, Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Ireland, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Cyprus, Latvia, Luxembourg, Hungary, the Netherlands, Austria, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Finland and Sweden into the European Union Transaction Log (1) to the extent that it sets a wrong number of free allowances to be allocated to the applicant’s installations Valea Mare Pravat, Fieni and Chiscadaga for years 2021-2025 and reduces:






  — | a number of 5 444 free allowances for Carmeuse Holding SRL — Valea Mare Pravat installation, located in Valea Mare Pravat, Romania, ID 55 in the Union Registry, for each of the years 2021-2025; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Decision of 21 April 2022 instructing the central administrator of the European Union Transaction Log to enter changes to the national allocation tables of Bulgaria, Czechia, Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Ireland, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Cyprus, Latvia, Luxembourg, Hungary, the Netherlands, Austria, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Finland and Sweden into the European Union Transaction Log (1) to the extent that it sets a wrong number of free allowances to be allocated to the applicant’s installations Valea Mare Pravat, Fieni and Chiscadaga for years 2021-2025 and reduces:

—

a number of 5 444 free allowances for Carmeuse Holding SRL — Valea Mare Pravat installation, located in Valea Mare Pravat, Romania, ID 55 in the Union Registry, for each of the years 2021-2025;

| — | a number of 4 667 free allowances for the Carmeuse Holding SRL — Fieni installation, located in Fieni, Romania, ID 56 in the Union Registry, for each of the years 2021-2025; |
| --- | --- |

—

a number of 4 667 free allowances for the Carmeuse Holding SRL — Fieni installation, located in Fieni, Romania, ID 56 in the Union Registry, for each of the years 2021-2025;

| — | a number of 3 473 free allowances for the Carmeuse Holding SRL — Chiscadaga installation, located in Chiscadaga, Romania, ID 57 in the Union Registry, for each of the years 2021-2025; |
| --- | --- |

—

a number of 3 473 free allowances for the Carmeuse Holding SRL — Chiscadaga installation, located in Chiscadaga, Romania, ID 57 in the Union Registry, for each of the years 2021-2025;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in these proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in these proceedings;

| — | take such other or further measures as justice may require. |
| --- | --- |

—

take such other or further measures as justice may require.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision errs on the calculation of the number of free emission allowances to be allocated to Carmeuse’s installations. Indeed, the Commission committed a manifest error of law and a manifest error of assessment, as the contested Decision is based on the Commission’s request to Carmeuse to use a calculation method that contradicts the regulatory acts issued for Carmeuse installations. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision errs on the calculation of the number of free emission allowances to be allocated to Carmeuse’s installations. Indeed, the Commission committed a manifest error of law and a manifest error of assessment, as the contested Decision is based on the Commission’s request to Carmeuse to use a calculation method that contradicts the regulatory acts issued for Carmeuse installations.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached several fundamental principles of EU law when issuing the contested decision, namely the principle of equality, the principle of certainty and legitimate expectations and Carmeuse’s right to good administration and right of defence. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached several fundamental principles of EU law when issuing the contested decision, namely the principle of equality, the principle of certainty and legitimate expectations and Carmeuse’s right to good administration and right of defence.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging the contested decision is insufficiently reasoned as regards the number of free emission allowances allocated to Carmeuse’s installations, in that it does not detail the decision-making process, nor the reasons for rejecting Carmeuse’s arguments, despite them being raised in various instances, and it does not address the essential reasons for which the formula applied by the Commission supersedes the binding legislation. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging the contested decision is insufficiently reasoned as regards the number of free emission allowances allocated to Carmeuse’s installations, in that it does not detail the decision-making process, nor the reasons for rejecting Carmeuse’s arguments, despite them being raised in various instances, and it does not address the essential reasons for which the formula applied by the Commission supersedes the binding legislation.

---

(1)  Commission Decision of 21 April 2022 instructing the Central Administrator of the European Union Transaction Log to enter changes to the national allocation tables of Bulgaria, Czechia, Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Ireland, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Cyprus, Latvia, Luxembourg, Hungary, the Netherlands, Austria, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Finland and Sweden into the European Union Transaction Log 2022/C 236/04 — C/2022/2590 (OJ 2022 C 236, p. 5).

---

| 31.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/50

---

Action brought on 9 September 2022 — Chmielarz v EUIPO — Granulat (granulat)

(Case T-557/22)

(2022/C 418/64)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Arkadiusz Chmielarz (Olsztyn, Poland) (represented by: D. Sęczkowski, Advocate)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Granulat GmbH (Troisdorf, Germany)

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 granulat — Application for registration No 18 066 758

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 June 2022 in Case R 1197/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | annul the decision of the Opposition Division to the extent the opposition was upheld; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Opposition Division to the extent the opposition was upheld;

| — | order EUIPO to register the contested trade mark application; |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to register the contested trade mark application;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 31.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/51

---

Action brought on 9 September 2022 — CFA Institute v EUIPO — Global Chartered Controller Institute (CCA Chartered Controller Analyst CERTIFICATE)

(Case T-561/22)

(2022/C 418/65)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: CFA Institute (Charlottesville, Virginia, United States) (represented by: W. May and G. Engels, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Global Chartered Controller Institute SL (Alicante, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark CCA Chartered Controller Analyst CERTIFICATE — Application for registration No 15 508 161

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 June 2022 in Case R 1660/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | uphold the appeal action against the contested decision in its entirety, annul the contested decision and reject the application for registration entirely; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the appeal action against the contested decision in its entirety, annul the contested decision and reject the application for registration entirely;

| — | order the intervener to bear the fees and costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the intervener to bear the fees and costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings.

Pleas in law

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

—

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

| — | Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 31.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/51

---

Action brought on 9 September 2022 — Noah Clothing v EUIPO — Noah (NOAH)

(Case T-562/22)

(2022/C 418/66)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Noah Clothing LLC (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: W. Leppink, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Yannick Noah (Feucherolles, 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 NOAH — European Union trade mark No 5 620 968

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 July 2022 in Case R 504/2021-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision in so far as it rejects the application for a declaration of revocation with regard to the goods ‘polo shirts’ and ‘sweaters’ in Class 25; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in so far as it rejects the application for a declaration of revocation with regard to the goods ‘polo shirts’ and ‘sweaters’ in Class 25;

| — | annul the contested decision in so far as it dismisses the cross-appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in so far as it dismisses the cross-appeal;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in conjunction with Article 19(1), 3rd sentence, and Article 10(7) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 and with Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in conjunction with Article 19(1), 3rd sentence, and Article 10(7) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 and with Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

| — | Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) and of Article 18(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) and of Article 18(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in relation to the cross-appeal filed by the applicant before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in relation to the cross-appeal filed by the applicant before the Board of Appeal.

---

| 31.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/52

---

Action brought on 14 September 2022 — ATPN v Commission

(Case T-567/22)

(2022/C 418/67)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Association Trinationale de Protection Nucléaire (ATPN) (Basel, Switzerland) (represented by: C. Lepage, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the present application admissible and well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the present application admissible and well founded;

| — | annul Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/1214 of 9 March 2022 amending Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2139 as regards economic activities in certain energy sectors and Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2178 as regards specific public disclosures for those economic activities (1); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/1214 of 9 March 2022 amending Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2139 as regards economic activities in certain energy sectors and Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2178 as regards specific public disclosures for those economic activities (1);

| — | order the Commission to pay the amount of EUR 3 000 to the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the amount of EUR 3 000 to the applicant.

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 irregularity of the procedure in that it infringed the provisions of Regulation No 2020/852 of 18 June 2020. (2) |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging irregularity of the procedure in that it infringed the provisions of Regulation No 2020/852 of 18 June 2020. (2)

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the rules of taxonomy. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the rules of taxonomy.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the provisions of Article 19 of Regulation No 2020/852 of 18 June 2020 were infringed and that the objectives were insufficiently ambitious. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the provisions of Article 19 of Regulation No 2020/852 of 18 June 2020 were infringed and that the objectives were insufficiently ambitious.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the general criteria of Community law. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the general criteria of Community law.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging incompatibility between investments in nuclear energy and green investments with regard to financial information. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging incompatibility between investments in nuclear energy and green investments with regard to financial information.

---

(1)  OJ 2022 L 188, p. 1.

(2)  Regulation (EU) 2020/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2020 on the establishment of a framework to facilitate sustainable investment, and amending Regulation (EU) 2019/2088 (OJ 2020 L 198, p. 13).

---

| 31.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/53

---

Action brought on 15 September 2022 — XNT v EUIPO — Exane (EXANE)

(Case T-568/22)

(2022/C 418/68)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: XNT ltd. (St. Julian’s, Malta) (represented by: A. Renck, C. Stöber and M.-A. de Dampierre, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Exane (Paris, 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 word mark EXANE — European Union trade mark No 14 289 433

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 June 2022 in Case R 2093/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant, and in the event that the other party before the Board of Appeal joins the proceedings, the intervener. |
| --- | --- |

—

order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant, and in the event that the other party before the Board of Appeal joins the proceedings, the intervener.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 60(1)(c) in conjunction with Article 8(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 60(1)(c) in conjunction with Article 8(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009.

---

| 31.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/54

---

Action brought on 20 September 2022 — Trus v EUIPO — Unilab (ARTRESAN)

(Case T-585/22)

(2022/C 418/69)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Mariusz Trus (Lublin, Poland) (represented by: W. Włodarczyk, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Unilab LP (Rockville, Maryland, United States)

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 ARTRESAN — European Union trade mark No 4 304 937

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 July 2022 in joined Cases R 1428/2020-1 and R 1481/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision to the extent that the trade mark at issue was maintained for the goods in Class 5 ‘therapeutic creams for joints; food supplements for medical purposes’; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision to the extent that the trade mark at issue was maintained for the goods in Class 5 ‘therapeutic creams for joints; food supplements for medical purposes’;

| — | declare the mark revoked also for the above mentioned goods in Class 5; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the mark revoked also for the above mentioned goods in Class 5;

| — | order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs incurred in the present proceedings and in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs incurred in the present proceedings and in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

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

—

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

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

—

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

---

| 31.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/54

---

Order of the General Court of 26 July 2022 — WG v EUIPO

(Case T-567/21) (1)

(2022/C 418/70)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 502, 13.12.2021.

---