# Official Journal C 443/21 D

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 443 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6321 December 2020 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 443

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6321 December 2020

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2020/C 443/01 | Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union | 1 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

2020/C 443/01

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

Official Journal of the European Union

1

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2020/C 443/02 | Case C-759/18: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Rădăuţi — Romania) — OF v PG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Jurisdiction to hear and determine an application for divorce — Jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility and maintenance obligations with regard to the couple’s minor child — Bringing of proceedings before a court of the State of the nationality of the parties — Article 3(1)(b) — Minor child and parents resident in another Member State — Article 12(1)(b) — Prorogation of jurisdiction — Article 17 — Ascertaining jurisdiction — Concept of parental responsibility) | 2 |
| 2020/C 443/03 | Case C-251/19 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 2 October 2019 — Comprojecto-Projectos e Construções Lda, Paulo Eduardo Matos Gomes de Azevedo, Julião Maria Gomes de Azevedo, Isabel Maria Matos Gomes de Azevedo v European Central Bank (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Article 169 of the Rules of Procedure — Absence of form of order sought — Lack of clarity of the application — Manifest inadmissibility) | 3 |
| 2020/C 443/04 | Case C-378/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich (Austria) lodged on 11 August 2020 — Stadtapotheke E | 3 |
| 2020/C 443/05 | Case C-407/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 31 August 2020 — Österreichische Apothekerkammer v HA | 4 |
| 2020/C 443/06 | Case C-422/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 8 September 2020 — RK v CR | 4 |
| 2020/C 443/07 | Case C-425/20 P: Appeal brought on 8 September 2020 by Welmax + sp. z o. o. sp.k. against the judgment delivered on 8 July 2020 in Case T-305/19 Welmax + v EUIPO — Valmex Medical Imaging (welmax) | 5 |
| 2020/C 443/08 | Case C-440/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Stuttgart (Germany) lodged on 18 September 2020 — S. v AD GmbH | 6 |
| 2020/C 443/09 | Case C-447/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 22 September 2020 — Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas IP (IFAP) v LM | 8 |
| 2020/C 443/10 | Case C-448/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 22 September 2020 — Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas IP (IFAP) v BD, Autoridade Tributaria e Aduaneira | 9 |
| 2020/C 443/11 | Case C-459/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Utrecht (Netherlands) lodged on 15 September 2020 — X v Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid | 10 |
| 2020/C 443/12 | Case C-460/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 24 September 2020 — TU, RE v Google LLC | 11 |
| 2020/C 443/13 | Case C-466/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 25 September 2020 — HEITEC AG v HEITECH Promotion GmbH and RW | 12 |
| 2020/C 443/14 | Case C-498/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Midden-Nederland (Netherlands) lodged on 29 September 2020 — ZK, in his capacity as successor to JM, liquidator in the bankruptcy of BMA Nederland BV v BMA Braunschweigische Maschinenbauanstalt AG and Stichting Belangbehartiging Crediteuren BMA Nederland | 13 |
| 2020/C 443/15 | Case C-512/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Holland (Netherlands) lodged on 13 October 2020 — P v Swiss International Air Lines AG | 14 |
| 2020/C 443/16 | Case C-524/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Městský soud v Praze (Czech Republic) lodged on 20 October 2020 — VÍTKOVICE STEEL, a.s. v Ministerstvo životního prostředí | 15 |
| 2020/C 443/17 | Case C-530/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Satversmes tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 20 October 2020 — SIA EUROAPTIEKA v Ministru kabinets | 16 |
| 2020/C 443/18 | Case C-621/20 P: Appeal brought on 20 November 2020 by the Single Resolution Board against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 23 September 2020 in Case T-411/17, Landesbank Baden-Württemberg v Single Resolution Board | 17 |
| 2020/C 443/19 | Case T-190/19: Order of the President of the Court of Justice of 4 October 2019 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg — Germany) — MG, NH v Germanwings GmbH | 18 |
| 2020/C 443/20 | Case T-413/19: Order of the President of the Court of Justice of 2 October 2019 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia | 18 |
| 2020/C 443/21 | Case C-671/19: Order of the President of the Court of 24 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil du Contentieux des Étrangers — Belgium) — X v État belge | 18 |
| | General Court |
| 2020/C 443/22 | Case T-151/18: Judgment of the General Court of 28 October 2020 — Ben Ali v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken having regard to the situation in Tunisia — Measures taken against persons responsible for misappropriation of public funds and associated persons and entities — List of persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds — Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list — Rights of defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Obligation to adjudicate within a reasonable — Sufficient factual basis — Time limits for bringing proceedings — Legal aid — Suspensive effect — Admissibility — Conditions) | 19 |
| 2020/C 443/23 | Case T-307/18: Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2020 — Zhejiang Jiuli Hi-Tech Metals v Commission (Dumping — Imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of stainless steel originating in China — Imposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty — Rights of the defence — Calculation of the dumping margin — Analogue country — Injury — Causal link) | 20 |
| 2020/C 443/24 | Joined Cases T-389/19 to T-394/19, T-397/19, T-398/19, T-403/19, T-404/19, T-406/19, T-407/19, T-409/19 to T-414/19, T-416/19 to T-418/19, T-420/19 to T-422/19, T-425/19 to T-427/19, T-429/19 to T-432/19, T-435/19, T-436/19, T-438/19 to T-442/19, T-444/19 to T-446/19, T-448/19, T-450/19 to T-454/19, T-463/19 and T-465/19: Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2020 — Coppo Gavazzi and Others v Parliament (Institutional law — Single statute for Members of the European Parliament — Members of the European Parliament elected in Italian constituencies — Adoption by the Ufficio di Presidenza della Camera dei deputati (Office of the President of the Italian Chamber of Deputies, Italy) of Decision No 14/2018, on pensions — Change in the amount of the pensions of members of the Italian national parliament — Consequential change by the European Parliament in the amount of the pensions of certain former Members of the European Parliament elected in Italy — Competence of the authority which adopted the measure — Obligation to state reasons — Acquired rights — Legal certainty — Legitimate expectations — Right to property — Proportionality — Equal treatment) | 20 |
| 2020/C 443/25 | Case T-621/20: Action brought on 3 October 2020 — EMCS v EASO | 21 |
| 2020/C 443/26 | Case T-624/20: Action brought on 9 October 2020 — MV v Commission | 22 |
| 2020/C 443/27 | Case T-627/20: Action brought on 12 October 2020 — LAICO/Council | 23 |
| 2020/C 443/28 | Case T-634/20: Action brought on 21 October 2020 — UPTR v Parliament and Council | 24 |
| 2020/C 443/29 | Case T-635/20: Action brought on 21 October 2020 — Dermavita Company v EUIPO — Allergan Holdings France (JUVÉDERM VYBRANCE) | 25 |
| 2020/C 443/30 | Case T-636/20: Action brought on 21 October 2020 — Dermavita Company v EUIPO — Allergan Holdings France (JUVÉDERM VOLUMA) | 26 |
| 2020/C 443/31 | Case T-637/20: Action brought on 21 October 2020 — Dermavita Company v EUIPO — Allergan Holdings France (JUVÉDERM VOLITE) | 26 |
| 2020/C 443/32 | Case T-648/20: Action brought on 26 October 2020 — NB v Court of Justice of the European Union | 27 |
| 2020/C 443/33 | Case T-651/20: Action brought on 23 October 2020 — KL v EIB | 28 |
| 2020/C 443/34 | Case T-660/20: Action brought on 4 November 2020 — Zhejiang Beyondsun Green Energy Technology v Commission | 29 |
| 2020/C 443/35 | Case T-665/20: Action brought on 6 November 2020 — Ryanair v Commission | 30 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2020/C 443/02

Case C-759/18: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Rădăuţi — Romania) — OF v PG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Jurisdiction to hear and determine an application for divorce — Jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility and maintenance obligations with regard to the couple’s minor child — Bringing of proceedings before a court of the State of the nationality of the parties — Article 3(1)(b) — Minor child and parents resident in another Member State — Article 12(1)(b) — Prorogation of jurisdiction — Article 17 — Ascertaining jurisdiction — Concept of parental responsibility)

2

2020/C 443/03

Case C-251/19 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 2 October 2019 — Comprojecto-Projectos e Construções Lda, Paulo Eduardo Matos Gomes de Azevedo, Julião Maria Gomes de Azevedo, Isabel Maria Matos Gomes de Azevedo v European Central Bank (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Article 169 of the Rules of Procedure — Absence of form of order sought — Lack of clarity of the application — Manifest inadmissibility)

3

2020/C 443/04

Case C-378/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich (Austria) lodged on 11 August 2020 — Stadtapotheke E

3

2020/C 443/05

Case C-407/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 31 August 2020 — Österreichische Apothekerkammer v HA

4

2020/C 443/06

Case C-422/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 8 September 2020 — RK v CR

4

2020/C 443/07

Case C-425/20 P: Appeal brought on 8 September 2020 by Welmax + sp. z o. o. sp.k. against the judgment delivered on 8 July 2020 in Case T-305/19 Welmax + v EUIPO — Valmex Medical Imaging (welmax)

5

2020/C 443/08

Case C-440/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Stuttgart (Germany) lodged on 18 September 2020 — S. v AD GmbH

6

2020/C 443/09

Case C-447/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 22 September 2020 — Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas IP (IFAP) v LM

8

2020/C 443/10

Case C-448/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 22 September 2020 — Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas IP (IFAP) v BD, Autoridade Tributaria e Aduaneira

9

2020/C 443/11

Case C-459/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Utrecht (Netherlands) lodged on 15 September 2020 — X v Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

10

2020/C 443/12

Case C-460/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 24 September 2020 — TU, RE v Google LLC

11

2020/C 443/13

Case C-466/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 25 September 2020 — HEITEC AG v HEITECH Promotion GmbH and RW

12

2020/C 443/14

Case C-498/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Midden-Nederland (Netherlands) lodged on 29 September 2020 — ZK, in his capacity as successor to JM, liquidator in the bankruptcy of BMA Nederland BV v BMA Braunschweigische Maschinenbauanstalt AG and Stichting Belangbehartiging Crediteuren BMA Nederland

13

2020/C 443/15

Case C-512/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Holland (Netherlands) lodged on 13 October 2020 — P v Swiss International Air Lines AG

14

2020/C 443/16

Case C-524/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Městský soud v Praze (Czech Republic) lodged on 20 October 2020 — VÍTKOVICE STEEL, a.s. v Ministerstvo životního prostředí

15

2020/C 443/17

Case C-530/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Satversmes tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 20 October 2020 — SIA EUROAPTIEKA v Ministru kabinets

16

2020/C 443/18

Case C-621/20 P: Appeal brought on 20 November 2020 by the Single Resolution Board against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 23 September 2020 in Case T-411/17, Landesbank Baden-Württemberg v Single Resolution Board

Landesbank Baden-Württemberg

Single Resolution Board

17

2020/C 443/19

Case T-190/19: Order of the President of the Court of Justice of 4 October 2019 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg — Germany) — MG, NH v Germanwings GmbH

18

2020/C 443/20

Case T-413/19: Order of the President of the Court of Justice of 2 October 2019 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia

18

2020/C 443/21

Case C-671/19: Order of the President of the Court of 24 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil du Contentieux des Étrangers — Belgium) — X v État belge

18

General Court

2020/C 443/22

Case T-151/18: Judgment of the General Court of 28 October 2020 — Ben Ali v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken having regard to the situation in Tunisia — Measures taken against persons responsible for misappropriation of public funds and associated persons and entities — List of persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds — Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list — Rights of defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Obligation to adjudicate within a reasonable — Sufficient factual basis — Time limits for bringing proceedings — Legal aid — Suspensive effect — Admissibility — Conditions)

19

2020/C 443/23

Case T-307/18: Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2020 — Zhejiang Jiuli Hi-Tech Metals v Commission (Dumping — Imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of stainless steel originating in China — Imposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty — Rights of the defence — Calculation of the dumping margin — Analogue country — Injury — Causal link)

20

2020/C 443/24

Joined Cases T-389/19 to T-394/19, T-397/19, T-398/19, T-403/19, T-404/19, T-406/19, T-407/19, T-409/19 to T-414/19, T-416/19 to T-418/19, T-420/19 to T-422/19, T-425/19 to T-427/19, T-429/19 to T-432/19, T-435/19, T-436/19, T-438/19 to T-442/19, T-444/19 to T-446/19, T-448/19, T-450/19 to T-454/19, T-463/19 and T-465/19: Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2020 — Coppo Gavazzi and Others v Parliament (Institutional law — Single statute for Members of the European Parliament — Members of the European Parliament elected in Italian constituencies — Adoption by the Ufficio di Presidenza della Camera dei deputati (Office of the President of the Italian Chamber of Deputies, Italy) of Decision No 14/2018, on pensions — Change in the amount of the pensions of members of the Italian national parliament — Consequential change by the European Parliament in the amount of the pensions of certain former Members of the European Parliament elected in Italy — Competence of the authority which adopted the measure — Obligation to state reasons — Acquired rights — Legal certainty — Legitimate expectations — Right to property — Proportionality — Equal treatment)

20

2020/C 443/25

Case T-621/20: Action brought on 3 October 2020 — EMCS v EASO

21

2020/C 443/26

Case T-624/20: Action brought on 9 October 2020 — MV v Commission

22

2020/C 443/27

Case T-627/20: Action brought on 12 October 2020 — LAICO/Council

23

2020/C 443/28

Case T-634/20: Action brought on 21 October 2020 — UPTR v Parliament and Council

24

2020/C 443/29

Case T-635/20: Action brought on 21 October 2020 — Dermavita Company v EUIPO — Allergan Holdings France (JUVÉDERM VYBRANCE)

25

2020/C 443/30

Case T-636/20: Action brought on 21 October 2020 — Dermavita Company v EUIPO — Allergan Holdings France (JUVÉDERM VOLUMA)

26

2020/C 443/31

Case T-637/20: Action brought on 21 October 2020 — Dermavita Company v EUIPO — Allergan Holdings France (JUVÉDERM VOLITE)

26

2020/C 443/32

Case T-648/20: Action brought on 26 October 2020 — NB v Court of Justice of the European Union

27

2020/C 443/33

Case T-651/20: Action brought on 23 October 2020 — KL v EIB

28

2020/C 443/34

Case T-660/20: Action brought on 4 November 2020 — Zhejiang Beyondsun Green Energy Technology v Commission

29

2020/C 443/35

Case T-665/20: Action brought on 6 November 2020 — Ryanair v Commission

30

---

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 21.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 443/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 443/1

---

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

(2020/C 443/01)

Last publication

OJ C 433, 14.12.2020

Past publications

OJ C 423, 7.12.2020

OJ C 414, 30.11.2020

OJ C 399, 23.11.2020

OJ C 390, 16.11.2020

OJ C 378, 9.11.2020

OJ C 371, 3.11.2020

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 21.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 443/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 443/2

---

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Rădăuţi — Romania) — OF v PG

(Case C-759/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Jurisdiction to hear and determine an application for divorce - Jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility and maintenance obligations with regard to the couple’s minor child - Bringing of proceedings before a court of the State of the nationality of the parties - Article 3(1)(b) - Minor child and parents resident in another Member State - Article 12(1)(b) - Prorogation of jurisdiction - Article 17 - Ascertaining jurisdiction - Concept of ‘parental responsibility’)

(2020/C 443/02)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Judecătoria Rădăuţi

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: OF

Defendant: PG

Operative part of the order

| 1. | Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of an application for divorce, where the applicant brings proceedings before a court of the Member State of the spouses’ common nationality, although their habitual residence is in another Member State, that court has jurisdiction to rule on that application pursuant to point (b) of that provision. As the defendant is not required to give consent, it is not necessary to examine whether a failure on the part of the defendant to raise an objection that that court lacks jurisdiction constitutes tacit consent to the court seised having jurisdiction. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of an application for divorce, where the applicant brings proceedings before a court of the Member State of the spouses’ common nationality, although their habitual residence is in another Member State, that court has jurisdiction to rule on that application pursuant to point (b) of that provision. As the defendant is not required to give consent, it is not necessary to examine whether a failure on the part of the defendant to raise an objection that that court lacks jurisdiction constitutes tacit consent to the court seised having jurisdiction.

| 2. | Article 3(1) and Article 17 of Regulation No 2201/2003 must be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, the fact that the couple seeking dissolution of their marriage have a minor child is irrelevant for the purposes of determining the court having jurisdiction to rule on the application for divorce. Since the court of the Member State of the spouses’ common nationality, seised by the applicant, has jurisdiction to rule on that application under Article 3(1)(b) of that regulation, that court cannot, even where there is no agreement between the parties on the matter, raise an objection that it lacks international jurisdiction. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 3(1) and Article 17 of Regulation No 2201/2003 must be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, the fact that the couple seeking dissolution of their marriage have a minor child is irrelevant for the purposes of determining the court having jurisdiction to rule on the application for divorce. Since the court of the Member State of the spouses’ common nationality, seised by the applicant, has jurisdiction to rule on that application under Article 3(1)(b) of that regulation, that court cannot, even where there is no agreement between the parties on the matter, raise an objection that it lacks international jurisdiction.

| 3. | Article 12(1)(b) of Regulation No 2201/2003 must be interpreted as meaning that, where a court of the Member State of the spouses’ common nationality, seised by the applicant, has jurisdiction to rule on divorce proceedings pursuant to Article 3(1)(b) of Regulation No 2201/2003, the condition relating to the acceptance of jurisdiction laid down in Article 12(1)(b) of that regulation cannot be regarded as satisfied where parental responsibility is not the subject of the proceedings and the defendant has not entered an appearance. In that situation, the court seised, which has jurisdiction to rule on the divorce of the spouses, does not have jurisdiction under Article 12(1)(b) of Regulation No 2201/2003 and Article 3(d) of Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations to rule on issues relating to parental responsibility and maintenance obligations, respectively, in respect of the child concerned. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 12(1)(b) of Regulation No 2201/2003 must be interpreted as meaning that, where a court of the Member State of the spouses’ common nationality, seised by the applicant, has jurisdiction to rule on divorce proceedings pursuant to Article 3(1)(b) of Regulation No 2201/2003, the condition relating to the acceptance of jurisdiction laid down in Article 12(1)(b) of that regulation cannot be regarded as satisfied where parental responsibility is not the subject of the proceedings and the defendant has not entered an appearance. In that situation, the court seised, which has jurisdiction to rule on the divorce of the spouses, does not have jurisdiction under Article 12(1)(b) of Regulation No 2201/2003 and Article 3(d) of Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations to rule on issues relating to parental responsibility and maintenance obligations, respectively, in respect of the child concerned.

| 4. | The concept of ‘parental responsibility’, as defined in Regulation No 2201/2003, must be interpreted as covering decisions relating to, in particular, custody of the child and the child’s place of habitual residence, but it does not include parental contributions towards the costs of the child’s care and upbringing, which is covered by the concept of ‘maintenance obligations’ and comes within the scope of Regulation No 4/2009. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The concept of ‘parental responsibility’, as defined in Regulation No 2201/2003, must be interpreted as covering decisions relating to, in particular, custody of the child and the child’s place of habitual residence, but it does not include parental contributions towards the costs of the child’s care and upbringing, which is covered by the concept of ‘maintenance obligations’ and comes within the scope of Regulation No 4/2009.

---

(1)  OJ C 65, 18.2.2019.

---

| 21.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 443/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 443/3

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 2 October 2019 — Comprojecto-Projectos e Construções Lda, Paulo Eduardo Matos Gomes de Azevedo, Julião Maria Gomes de Azevedo, Isabel Maria Matos Gomes de Azevedo v European Central Bank

(Case C-251/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Article 169 of the Rules of Procedure - Absence of form of order sought - Lack of clarity of the application - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2020/C 443/03)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Appellants: Comprojecto-Projectos e Construções Lda, Paulo Eduardo Matos Gomes de Azevedo, Julião Maria Gomes de Azevedo, Isabel Maria Matos Gomes de Azevedo (represented by: M. Ribeiro, advogado)

Other party to the proceedings: European Central Bank (represented by: C. Hernández Saseta and P. Ferreira Jorge, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

| 2. | Comprojecto-Projectos e Construções Lda, Paulo Eduardo Matos Gomes de Azevedo, Julião Maria Gomes de Azevedo and Isabel Maria Matos Gomes de Azevedo are ordered to bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Central Bank (ECB). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Comprojecto-Projectos e Construções Lda, Paulo Eduardo Matos Gomes de Azevedo, Julião Maria Gomes de Azevedo and Isabel Maria Matos Gomes de Azevedo are ordered to bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Central Bank (ECB).

---

(1)  OJ C 182, 27.5.2019.

---

| 21.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 443/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 443/3

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich (Austria) lodged on 11 August 2020 — Stadtapotheke E

(Case C-378/20)

(2020/C 443/04)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Stadtapotheke E

Respondent authority: Bezirkshauptmannschaft Linz-Land

Other party to the proceedings: AW

Questions referred

| 1. | Are rules of national law that oblige a court, when taking expert evidence as required in a procedure for the award of a licence, to obtain an expert’s report from an occupational self-governing organisation whose decision-making bodies are in fact dominated mostly by members of an occupational group whose interests tend to conflict with those of the occupational group to which the applicant for the licence belongs, or — in the event that such rules are contrary to EU law — from an official expert employed by a public authority, compatible with the appearance of impartiality of that court required by Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are rules of national law that oblige a court, when taking expert evidence as required in a procedure for the award of a licence, to obtain an expert’s report from an occupational self-governing organisation whose decision-making bodies are in fact dominated mostly by members of an occupational group whose interests tend to conflict with those of the occupational group to which the applicant for the licence belongs, or — in the event that such rules are contrary to EU law — from an official expert employed by a public authority, compatible with the appearance of impartiality of that court required by Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?

| 2. | Does a rule of national law that sets a projected guaranteed potential customer base — specifically at 5 500 people — which de facto cannot be verified by the courts, comply with the requirements of Articles 15 to 17 of the Charter in so far as, pursuant to those provisions, interference with such a guarantee is permissible only if the principle of proportionality is complied with? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does a rule of national law that sets a projected guaranteed potential customer base — specifically at 5 500 people — which de facto cannot be verified by the courts, comply with the requirements of Articles 15 to 17 of the Charter in so far as, pursuant to those provisions, interference with such a guarantee is permissible only if the principle of proportionality is complied with?

---

| 21.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 443/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 443/4

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 31 August 2020 — Österreichische Apothekerkammer v HA

(Case C-407/20)

(2020/C 443/05)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Wien

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Österreichische Apothekerkammer

Defendant: HA

Question referred

Is Article 36 TFEU to be interpreted as meaning that a national prohibition on mail-order sales of in vitro diagnostic medical devices for determining HIV status intended by the manufacturer to be able to be used by lay persons in their home environment, that is a measure having equivalent effect within the meaning of Article 34 TFEU, is justified in order to protect the health and life of humans?

---

| 21.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 443/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 443/4

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 8 September 2020 — RK v CR

(Case C-422/20)

(2020/C 443/06)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: RK

Defendant: CR

Questions referred

| 1. | Is it necessary, for a declaration of lack of jurisdiction by the court previously seised, as provided for in Article 7(a) of Regulation No 650/2012 (1), that that court should expressly decline jurisdiction, or may even a non-express declaration suffice if it supports the inference, through interpretation, that that court has declined jurisdiction? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is it necessary, for a declaration of lack of jurisdiction by the court previously seised, as provided for in Article 7(a) of Regulation No 650/2012 (1), that that court should expressly decline jurisdiction, or may even a non-express declaration suffice if it supports the inference, through interpretation, that that court has declined jurisdiction?

| 2. | Is the court of the Member State whose jurisdiction is intended to follow from a declaration of lack of jurisdiction by the court previously seised in the other Member State competent to examine whether the conditions governing a decision by the court previously seised, as provided for in Articles 6(a) and 7(a) of Regulation No 650/2012, were met? To what extent is the decision of the court previously seised binding? In particular:






  (a) | Is the court of the Member State whose jurisdiction is intended to follow from a declaration of lack of jurisdiction by the court previously seised in the other Member State competent to examine whether the deceased validly chose the law of the Member State in accordance with Article 22 of Regulation No 650/2012? |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Is the court of the Member State whose jurisdiction is intended to follow from a declaration of lack of jurisdiction by the court previously seised in the other Member State competent to examine whether the conditions governing a decision by the court previously seised, as provided for in Articles 6(a) and 7(a) of Regulation No 650/2012, were met? To what extent is the decision of the court previously seised binding? In particular:

(a)

Is the court of the Member State whose jurisdiction is intended to follow from a declaration of lack of jurisdiction by the court previously seised in the other Member State competent to examine whether the deceased validly chose the law of the Member State in accordance with Article 22 of Regulation No 650/2012?

| (b) | Is the court of the Member State whose jurisdiction is intended to follow from a declaration of lack of jurisdiction by the court first seised in the other Member State competent to examine whether a request for a declaration of lack of jurisdiction, as provided for in Article 6(a) of Regulation No 650/2012, has been brought by one of the parties to the proceedings before the court previously seised? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Is the court of the Member State whose jurisdiction is intended to follow from a declaration of lack of jurisdiction by the court first seised in the other Member State competent to examine whether a request for a declaration of lack of jurisdiction, as provided for in Article 6(a) of Regulation No 650/2012, has been brought by one of the parties to the proceedings before the court previously seised?

| (c) | Is the court of the Member State whose jurisdiction is intended to follow from a declaration of lack of jurisdiction by the court first seised in the other Member State competent to examine whether the court previously seised rightly assumed that the courts of the Member State of the chosen law are better placed to rule on the succession? |
| --- | --- |

(c)

Is the court of the Member State whose jurisdiction is intended to follow from a declaration of lack of jurisdiction by the court first seised in the other Member State competent to examine whether the court previously seised rightly assumed that the courts of the Member State of the chosen law are better placed to rule on the succession?

| 3. | Are Articles 6(a) and 7(a) of Regulation No 650/2012, which presuppose a choice of law ‘pursuant to Article 22’, applicable even where the deceased has made no express or implied choice of law in a testamentary disposition made before 17 August 2015, but the law applicable to the succession is capable of being inferred only from Article 83(4) of Regulation No 650/2012? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Are Articles 6(a) and 7(a) of Regulation No 650/2012, which presuppose a choice of law ‘pursuant to Article 22’, applicable even where the deceased has made no express or implied choice of law in a testamentary disposition made before 17 August 2015, but the law applicable to the succession is capable of being inferred only from Article 83(4) of Regulation No 650/2012?

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession and on the creation of a European Certificate of Succession (OJ 2012 L 201, p. 107).

---

| 21.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 443/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 443/5

---

Appeal brought on 8 September 2020 by Welmax + sp. z o. o. sp.k. against the judgment delivered on 8 July 2020 in Case T-305/19 Welmax + v EUIPO — Valmex Medical Imaging (welmax)

(Case C-425/20 P)

(2020/C 443/07)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Appellant: Welmax + sp. z o. o. sp.k. (represented by: M. Machyński, radca prawny)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of the Vice-President of the General Court of 30 October 2020, the appeal was dismissed as inadmissible.

---

| 21.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 443/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 443/6

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Stuttgart (Germany) lodged on 18 September 2020 — S. v AD GmbH

(Case C-440/20)

(2020/C 443/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Stuttgart

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: S.

Defendant: AD GmbH

Questions referred

1.   Interpretation of the concept of ‘defeat device’

| 1-1: | Is Article 3 No 10 of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 (1) to be interpreted and applied as meaning that the concept of ‘element of design’ only covers mechanical elements of a physical structure?
  In the event that Question 1-1 is answered in the negative: |
| --- | --- |

1-1:

Is Article 3 No 10 of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 (1) to be interpreted and applied as meaning that the concept of ‘element of design’ only covers mechanical elements of a physical structure?

In the event that Question 1-1 is answered in the negative:

| 1-2: | Is Article 3 No 10 of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 to be interpreted and applied as meaning that only the exhaust gas purification system downstream in the engine train (e.g. in the form of diesel oxidation catalytic converters, diesel particulate filters, NOX reduction catalytic converters) is covered by the emission control system? |
| --- | --- |

1-2:

Is Article 3 No 10 of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 to be interpreted and applied as meaning that only the exhaust gas purification system downstream in the engine train (e.g. in the form of diesel oxidation catalytic converters, diesel particulate filters, NOX reduction catalytic converters) is covered by the emission control system?

| 1-3: | Is Article 3 No 10 of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 to be interpreted and applied as meaning that the emission control system covers both in-engine and non-engine measures to reduce emissions? |
| --- | --- |

1-3:

Is Article 3 No 10 of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 to be interpreted and applied as meaning that the emission control system covers both in-engine and non-engine measures to reduce emissions?

2.   Interpretation of the concept of ‘normal use’

| 2-1: | Is Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 to be interpreted and applied as meaning that the concept of ‘normal use’ only describes driving conditions in the NEDC?
  If Question 2-1 is answered in the negative: |
| --- | --- |

2-1:

Is Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 to be interpreted and applied as meaning that the concept of ‘normal use’ only describes driving conditions in the NEDC?

If Question 2-1 is answered in the negative:

| 2-2: | Is the second subparagraph of Article 4(1) in conjunction with Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 to be interpreted and applied as meaning that manufacturers must ensure that the limits laid down in Annex I to the Regulation are also complied with in everyday use?
  If Question 2-2 is answered in the affirmative: |
| --- | --- |

2-2:

Is the second subparagraph of Article 4(1) in conjunction with Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 to be interpreted and applied as meaning that manufacturers must ensure that the limits laid down in Annex I to the Regulation are also complied with in everyday use?

If Question 2-2 is answered in the affirmative:

| 2-3: | Is Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 to be interpreted and applied as meaning that the concept of ‘normal use’ describes the actual driving conditions in everyday use?
  If Question 2-3 is answered in the negative: |
| --- | --- |

2-3:

Is Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 to be interpreted and applied as meaning that the concept of ‘normal use’ describes the actual driving conditions in everyday use?

If Question 2-3 is answered in the negative:

| 2-4: | Is Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) to be interpreted and applied as meaning that the concept of ‘normal use’ describes the actual driving conditions in everyday use on the basis of an average speed of 33,6 km/h and a maximum speed of 120,00 km/h? |
| --- | --- |

2-4:

Is Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) to be interpreted and applied as meaning that the concept of ‘normal use’ describes the actual driving conditions in everyday use on the basis of an average speed of 33,6 km/h and a maximum speed of 120,00 km/h?

3.   Permissibility of temperature-dependent emission reduction strategies

| 3-1: | Is Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 to be interpreted and applied as meaning that it is not permissible to equip a vehicle in which a component likely to affect emissions is designed in such a way that the exhaust gas recirculation rate is regulated in such a way that a low-emission mode is ensured only between 20 oC and 30 oC and is gradually reduced outside that temperature window?
  If Question 3-1 is answered in the negative: |
| --- | --- |

3-1:

Is Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 to be interpreted and applied as meaning that it is not permissible to equip a vehicle in which a component likely to affect emissions is designed in such a way that the exhaust gas recirculation rate is regulated in such a way that a low-emission mode is ensured only between 20 oC and 30 oC and is gradually reduced outside that temperature window?

If Question 3-1 is answered in the negative:

| 3-2: | Is Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 to be interpreted and applied as meaning that a defeat device is prohibited if it continually operates outside of the temperature window between 20 oC and 30 oC to protect the engine and the exhaust gas recirculation is thereby significantly reduced? |
| --- | --- |

3-2:

Is Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 to be interpreted and applied as meaning that a defeat device is prohibited if it continually operates outside of the temperature window between 20 oC and 30 oC to protect the engine and the exhaust gas recirculation is thereby significantly reduced?

4.   Interpretation of the concept of ‘justified’ within the meaning of the exception

| 4-1: | Is point (a) of the second sentence of Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 to be interpreted and applied as meaning that the use of defeat devices within the meaning of that provision is only justified if, even using the state-of-the-art technology available when type approval was obtained for the vehicle model in question, a protection of the engine against damage or accident and for safe operation of the vehicle could not be guaranteed?
  If Question 4-1 is answered in the negative: |
| --- | --- |

4-1:

Is point (a) of the second sentence of Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 to be interpreted and applied as meaning that the use of defeat devices within the meaning of that provision is only justified if, even using the state-of-the-art technology available when type approval was obtained for the vehicle model in question, a protection of the engine against damage or accident and for safe operation of the vehicle could not be guaranteed?

If Question 4-1 is answered in the negative:

| 4-2: | Is point (a) of the second sentence of Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 to be interpreted and applied as meaning that there is no justification for the use of defeat devices within the meaning of the provision where the parameters recorded in the engine control device are chosen in such a way that, owing to its pre-defined temperatures, exhaust gas purification is not activated or is activated only to a limited extent for the majority of the year in light of the usual expected temperatures? |
| --- | --- |

4-2:

Is point (a) of the second sentence of Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 to be interpreted and applied as meaning that there is no justification for the use of defeat devices within the meaning of the provision where the parameters recorded in the engine control device are chosen in such a way that, owing to its pre-defined temperatures, exhaust gas purification is not activated or is activated only to a limited extent for the majority of the year in light of the usual expected temperatures?

5.   Interpretation of the concept of ‘damage’ within the meaning of the exception

| 5-1: | Is point (a) of the second sentence of Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 to be interpreted and applied as meaning that only the engine is to be protected against damage? |
| --- | --- |

5-1:

Is point (a) of the second sentence of Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 to be interpreted and applied as meaning that only the engine is to be protected against damage?

| 5-2: | Is point (a) of the second sentence of Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 to be interpreted and applied as meaning that there has been no damage suffered where wearing parts (such as the EGR valve) are affected? |
| --- | --- |

5-2:

Is point (a) of the second sentence of Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 to be interpreted and applied as meaning that there has been no damage suffered where wearing parts (such as the EGR valve) are affected?

| 5-3: | Is point (a) of the second sentence of Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 to be interpreted and applied as meaning that other components of the vehicle, in particular the components downstream in the exhaust gas system, are also intended to be protected against damage or accident? |
| --- | --- |

5-3:

Is point (a) of the second sentence of Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 to be interpreted and applied as meaning that other components of the vehicle, in particular the components downstream in the exhaust gas system, are also intended to be protected against damage or accident?

6.   Legal and punitive effects of infringements of EU law

| 6-1: | Is the second subparagraph of Article 4(1), the second subparagraph of Article 4(2), Article 5(1) and (2) as well as Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 to be interpreted and applied as meaning that they at least also protect the right of the purchaser of a vehicle to economic self-determination which does not meet the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007?
  If Question 6-1 is answered in the negative: |
| --- | --- |

6-1:

Is the second subparagraph of Article 4(1), the second subparagraph of Article 4(2), Article 5(1) and (2) as well as Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 to be interpreted and applied as meaning that they at least also protect the right of the purchaser of a vehicle to economic self-determination which does not meet the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007?

If Question 6-1 is answered in the negative:

| 6-2: | Is the second subparagraph of Article 4(1), the second subparagraph of Article 4(2), Article 5(1) and (2) as well as Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 to be interpreted and applied as meaning that the Member States must, for reasons of effet utile, provide for a system of penalties conferring on the purchasers of vehicles the right to bring an action to enforce compliance with market requirements laid down by EU law? |
| --- | --- |

6-2:

Is the second subparagraph of Article 4(1), the second subparagraph of Article 4(2), Article 5(1) and (2) as well as Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 to be interpreted and applied as meaning that the Member States must, for reasons of effet utile, provide for a system of penalties conferring on the purchasers of vehicles the right to bring an action to enforce compliance with market requirements laid down by EU law?

| 6-3: | (a) | Is the concept of an ‘effective, proportionate and dissuasive’ measure within the meaning of the second sentence of Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 to be interpreted as meaning that damage suffered by the purchaser of the vehicle in accordance with the legislation cannot be offset or reduced by the actual possibility of using a vehicle which does not comply with Regulation (EC) No 715/2007? |
| --- | --- | --- |

6-3:

(a)

Is the concept of an ‘effective, proportionate and dissuasive’ measure within the meaning of the second sentence of Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 to be interpreted as meaning that damage suffered by the purchaser of the vehicle in accordance with the legislation cannot be offset or reduced by the actual possibility of using a vehicle which does not comply with Regulation (EC) No 715/2007?

| (b) | Does the concept of effet utile inherent in EU law require that the concept of an ‘effective, proportionate and dissuasive’ measure within the meaning of the second sentence of Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 be differentiated according to whether the infringement within the meaning of Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 was committed intentionally or merely negligently, and only in the latter case justifies offsetting the actual possibility of using the purchased vehicle? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Does the concept of effet utile inherent in EU law require that the concept of an ‘effective, proportionate and dissuasive’ measure within the meaning of the second sentence of Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 be differentiated according to whether the infringement within the meaning of Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 was committed intentionally or merely negligently, and only in the latter case justifies offsetting the actual possibility of using the purchased vehicle?

| (c) | Is the concept of an ‘effective, proportionate and dissuasive’ measure within the meaning of the second sentence of Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 to be interpreted as meaning that, even if a benefit is offset, the manufacturer of the vehicle must pay financial compensation for the use of the capital derived, namely the consideration, and thus pay interest on it? |
| --- | --- |

(c)

Is the concept of an ‘effective, proportionate and dissuasive’ measure within the meaning of the second sentence of Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 to be interpreted as meaning that, even if a benefit is offset, the manufacturer of the vehicle must pay financial compensation for the use of the capital derived, namely the consideration, and thus pay interest on it?

| (d) | Is the concept of an ‘effective, proportionate and dissuasive’ measure within the meaning of the second sentence of Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 to be interpreted as meaning that the manufacturer of a vehicle which does not comply with Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 must be precluded, at least from the time at which the first serious request for return is made by the purchaser, from offsetting the actual possibility of using the vehicle against the consideration paid? |
| --- | --- |

(d)

Is the concept of an ‘effective, proportionate and dissuasive’ measure within the meaning of the second sentence of Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 to be interpreted as meaning that the manufacturer of a vehicle which does not comply with Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 must be precluded, at least from the time at which the first serious request for return is made by the purchaser, from offsetting the actual possibility of using the vehicle against the consideration paid?

| 6-4: | Is Articles 18(1) and 26(1) of Directive 2007/46/EC (2) to be interpreted and applied as meaning that the manufacturer is in breach of his obligation to issue a valid certificate of conformity pursuant to Article 18(1) of Directive 2007/46/EC if he has installed in the vehicle an unauthorised defeat device within the meaning of Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 and the placing on the market of such a vehicle is contrary to the prohibition on sale without a valid certificate of conformity under Article 26(1) of Directive 2007/46/EC? |
| --- | --- |

6-4:

Is Articles 18(1) and 26(1) of Directive 2007/46/EC (2) to be interpreted and applied as meaning that the manufacturer is in breach of his obligation to issue a valid certificate of conformity pursuant to Article 18(1) of Directive 2007/46/EC if he has installed in the vehicle an unauthorised defeat device within the meaning of Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 and the placing on the market of such a vehicle is contrary to the prohibition on sale without a valid certificate of conformity under Article 26(1) of Directive 2007/46/EC?

| 6-5: | Is it the purpose and intention of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 and of Directive 2007/46/EC to ensure that the limits laid down in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 or the certificate of conformity as defined in Article 18(1) of Directive 2007/46/EC together with Regulation (EC) No 385/2009 (3) establish rights protecting purchasers in such a way that, under EU law, the infringement of the quality-defining limits laid down by the Regulation or the infringement of the right to registration prohibits the offsetting of usage benefits upon reversal of the vehicle purchase transaction vis-à-vis the manufacturer? |
| --- | --- |

6-5:

Is it the purpose and intention of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 and of Directive 2007/46/EC to ensure that the limits laid down in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 or the certificate of conformity as defined in Article 18(1) of Directive 2007/46/EC together with Regulation (EC) No 385/2009 (3) establish rights protecting purchasers in such a way that, under EU law, the infringement of the quality-defining limits laid down by the Regulation or the infringement of the right to registration prohibits the offsetting of usage benefits upon reversal of the vehicle purchase transaction vis-à-vis the manufacturer?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2007 on type approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information (OJ 2007 L 171, p. 1).

(2)  Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles (Framework Directive) (OJ 2007 L 263, p. 1).

(3)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 385/2009 of 7 May 2009 replacing Annex IX to Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles (Framework Directive) (OJ 2009 L 118, p. 13).

---

| 21.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 443/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 443/8

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 22 September 2020 — Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas IP (IFAP) v LM

(Case C-447/20)

(2020/C 443/09)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas IP (IFAP)

Respondent: LM

Questions referred

| I. | Does Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95 (1) preclude national legislation which imposes on the beneficiary of a subsidy the burden of bringing before the competent court an administrative action against a measure ordering the repayment of amounts received unduly by reason of the occurrence of an irregularity, failing which that measure will become final [...] if it not appealed in time (that is to say, if the beneficiary does not avail himself in time of the means of defence available to him under national law) and, in consequence, the amount unduly received will be recoverable in accordance with the rules and time limits laid down by national law? |
| --- | --- |

I.

Does Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95 (1) preclude national legislation which imposes on the beneficiary of a subsidy the burden of bringing before the competent court an administrative action against a measure ordering the repayment of amounts received unduly by reason of the occurrence of an irregularity, failing which that measure will become final [...] if it not appealed in time (that is to say, if the beneficiary does not avail himself in time of the means of defence available to him under national law) and, in consequence, the amount unduly received will be recoverable in accordance with the rules and time limits laid down by national law?

| II. | Does Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95 preclude national legislation according to which the beneficiary of a subsidy may not rely on the expiry of the four- or eight-year time limit in the course of judicial proceedings for enforcement which have been brought against him, since that issue can be assessed only in the context of an administrative-law action brought against the measure ordering repayment of the amounts received unduly by reason of the establishment of an irregularity?
  In the event that the aforementioned questions are answered in the negative: |
| --- | --- |

II.

Does Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95 preclude national legislation according to which the beneficiary of a subsidy may not rely on the expiry of the four- or eight-year time limit in the course of judicial proceedings for enforcement which have been brought against him, since that issue can be assessed only in the context of an administrative-law action brought against the measure ordering repayment of the amounts received unduly by reason of the establishment of an irregularity?

In the event that the aforementioned questions are answered in the negative:

| III. | Must the three-year limitation period provided for in Article 3(2) of Regulation No 2988/95 be regarded as a limitation period for the debt that is created by the measure requiring repayment of amounts unduly received by reason of the occurrence of irregularities in the financing? Does that period start to run from the date on which that measure was adopted?
  Lastly, clarification is required as to the following: |
| --- | --- |

III.

Must the three-year limitation period provided for in Article 3(2) of Regulation No 2988/95 be regarded as a limitation period for the debt that is created by the measure requiring repayment of amounts unduly received by reason of the occurrence of irregularities in the financing? Does that period start to run from the date on which that measure was adopted?

Lastly, clarification is required as to the following:

| IV. | Does Article 3 of Regulation No 2988/95 [preclude] national legislation according to which the three-year limitation period for the debt that is created by the measure requiring repayment of amounts unduly received by reason of the occurrence of irregularities in the financing must start to run from the date on which that measure was adopted and must be interrupted by a notification of the institution of proceedings for the enforced recovery of those amounts, remaining suspended until such time as those proceedings culminate in a definitive or final decision in cases involving a complaint, a challenge, an appeal or an opposition, where these suspend recovery of the debt? |
| --- | --- |

IV.

Does Article 3 of Regulation No 2988/95 [preclude] national legislation according to which the three-year limitation period for the debt that is created by the measure requiring repayment of amounts unduly received by reason of the occurrence of irregularities in the financing must start to run from the date on which that measure was adopted and must be interrupted by a notification of the institution of proceedings for the enforced recovery of those amounts, remaining suspended until such time as those proceedings culminate in a definitive or final decision in cases involving a complaint, a challenge, an appeal or an opposition, where these suspend recovery of the debt?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests (OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1).

---

| 21.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 443/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 443/9

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 22 September 2020 — Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas IP (IFAP) v BD, Autoridade Tributaria e Aduaneira

(Case C-448/20)

(2020/C 443/10)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas IP (IFAP)

Respondents: BD, Autoridade Tributaria e Aduaneira

Questions referred

| I. | Does Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95 (1) preclude national legislation which imposes on the beneficiary of a subsidy the burden of bringing before the competent court an administrative action against a measure ordering the repayment of amounts received unduly by reason of the occurrence of an irregularity, failing which that measure will become final if not appealed in time (that is to say, if the beneficiary does not avail himself in time of the means of defence available to him under national law) and, in consequence, the amount unduly received will be recoverable in accordance with the rules and time limits laid down by national law? |
| --- | --- |

I.

Does Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95 (1) preclude national legislation which imposes on the beneficiary of a subsidy the burden of bringing before the competent court an administrative action against a measure ordering the repayment of amounts received unduly by reason of the occurrence of an irregularity, failing which that measure will become final if not appealed in time (that is to say, if the beneficiary does not avail himself in time of the means of defence available to him under national law) and, in consequence, the amount unduly received will be recoverable in accordance with the rules and time limits laid down by national law?

| II. | Does Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95 preclude national legislation according to which the beneficiary of a subsidy may not rely on the expiry of the four- or eight-year time limit in the course of judicial proceedings for enforcement which have been brought against him, since that issue can be assessed only in the context of an administrative action brought against the measure ordering repayment of the amounts received unduly by reason of the establishment of an irregularity?
  In the event that the aforementioned questions are answered in the negative: |
| --- | --- |

II.

Does Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95 preclude national legislation according to which the beneficiary of a subsidy may not rely on the expiry of the four- or eight-year time limit in the course of judicial proceedings for enforcement which have been brought against him, since that issue can be assessed only in the context of an administrative action brought against the measure ordering repayment of the amounts received unduly by reason of the establishment of an irregularity?

In the event that the aforementioned questions are answered in the negative:

| III. | Must the three-year limitation period provided for in Article 3(2) of Regulation No 2988/95 be regarded as a limitation period for the debt that is created by the measure requiring repayment of amounts unduly received by reason of the occurrence of irregularities in the financing? Does that period start to run from the date on which that measure was adopted?
  Lastly, clarification is required as to the following: |
| --- | --- |

III.

Must the three-year limitation period provided for in Article 3(2) of Regulation No 2988/95 be regarded as a limitation period for the debt that is created by the measure requiring repayment of amounts unduly received by reason of the occurrence of irregularities in the financing? Does that period start to run from the date on which that measure was adopted?

Lastly, clarification is required as to the following:

| IV. | Does Article 3 of Regulation No 2988/95 [preclude] national legislation according to which the three-year limitation period for the debt that is created by the measure requiring repayment of amounts unduly received by reason of the occurrence of irregularities in the financing must start to run from the date on which that measure was adopted and must be interrupted by a notification of the institution of proceedings for the enforced recovery of those amounts, remaining suspended until such time as those proceedings culminate in a definitive or final decision in cases involving a complaint, a challenge, an appeal or an opposition, where these suspend recovery of the debt? |
| --- | --- |

IV.

Does Article 3 of Regulation No 2988/95 [preclude] national legislation according to which the three-year limitation period for the debt that is created by the measure requiring repayment of amounts unduly received by reason of the occurrence of irregularities in the financing must start to run from the date on which that measure was adopted and must be interrupted by a notification of the institution of proceedings for the enforced recovery of those amounts, remaining suspended until such time as those proceedings culminate in a definitive or final decision in cases involving a complaint, a challenge, an appeal or an opposition, where these suspend recovery of the debt?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests (OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1).

---

| 21.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 443/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 443/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Utrecht (Netherlands) lodged on 15 September 2020 — X v Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

(Case C-459/20)

(2020/C 443/11)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Utrecht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: X

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 20 TFEU to be interpreted as precluding a Member State from denying a third-country national, who has a dependent minor child, a Union citizen, where that minor is in an actual relationship of dependency in respect of that third-country national, a right of residence in the Member State of which the minor Union citizen is a national, where the minor Union citizen is located outside the territory of that Member State or of the Union and/or has never been in the territory of the Union, with the result that the minor Union citizen is effectively denied access to the territory of the Union? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 20 TFEU to be interpreted as precluding a Member State from denying a third-country national, who has a dependent minor child, a Union citizen, where that minor is in an actual relationship of dependency in respect of that third-country national, a right of residence in the Member State of which the minor Union citizen is a national, where the minor Union citizen is located outside the territory of that Member State or of the Union and/or has never been in the territory of the Union, with the result that the minor Union citizen is effectively denied access to the territory of the Union?

| 2. | (a) | Should (minor) Union citizens declare or demonstrate an interest in exercising the rights conferred on them by citizenship of the Union? |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

(a)

Should (minor) Union citizens declare or demonstrate an interest in exercising the rights conferred on them by citizenship of the Union?

| (b) | In that regard, could a relevant factor be that, as a rule, minor Union citizens cannot independently assert their rights and have no say over their place of residence, but are dependent on their parent(s) in that respect, and that this could involve a claim being made on behalf of a minor Union citizen for the right to exercise his rights as a Union citizen, whereas that might possibly be contrary to their other interests as referred to, for example, in the Chavez-Vilchez judgment (1)? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

In that regard, could a relevant factor be that, as a rule, minor Union citizens cannot independently assert their rights and have no say over their place of residence, but are dependent on their parent(s) in that respect, and that this could involve a claim being made on behalf of a minor Union citizen for the right to exercise his rights as a Union citizen, whereas that might possibly be contrary to their other interests as referred to, for example, in the Chavez-Vilchez judgment (1)?

| (c) | Are those rights absolute, in the sense that no obstacles may be placed in their way or that the Member State of which the (minor) Union citizen is a national might even have a positive obligation to enable that citizen to exercise those rights? |
| --- | --- |

(c)

Are those rights absolute, in the sense that no obstacles may be placed in their way or that the Member State of which the (minor) Union citizen is a national might even have a positive obligation to enable that citizen to exercise those rights?

| 3. | (a) | In assessing whether there is a relationship of dependency as referred to in I. above, is the decisive factor whether or not the third-country national parent, prior to the application or prior to the decision refusing a right of residence, or prior to the time when a (national) court has to make a decision in legal proceedings brought because of that refusal, was responsible for the day-to-day care of the minor Union citizen, and whether there are others who were responsible for such care in the past and/or can (continue to) be responsible for it? |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

(a)

In assessing whether there is a relationship of dependency as referred to in I. above, is the decisive factor whether or not the third-country national parent, prior to the application or prior to the decision refusing a right of residence, or prior to the time when a (national) court has to make a decision in legal proceedings brought because of that refusal, was responsible for the day-to-day care of the minor Union citizen, and whether there are others who were responsible for such care in the past and/or can (continue to) be responsible for it?

| (b) | In that connection, can the minor Union citizen, in order to be able to exercise his Union rights effectively, be required to settle on Union territory with his other parent, who is a citizen of the Union, who may no longer have parental responsibility for the minor? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

In that connection, can the minor Union citizen, in order to be able to exercise his Union rights effectively, be required to settle on Union territory with his other parent, who is a citizen of the Union, who may no longer have parental responsibility for the minor?

| (c) | If so, does it make a difference whether or not that parent has or had parental responsibility and/or whether the minor is or was legally, financially or emotionally dependent on that parent and whether or not that parent is willing to take on those responsibilities and/or the care of the minor? |
| --- | --- |

(c)

If so, does it make a difference whether or not that parent has or had parental responsibility and/or whether the minor is or was legally, financially or emotionally dependent on that parent and whether or not that parent is willing to take on those responsibilities and/or the care of the minor?

| (d) | If it were to be established that the third-country national parent has sole parental responsibility for the minor Union citizen, does that then mean that less weight should be attached to the question of the legal, financial and/or emotional dependence? |
| --- | --- |

(d)

If it were to be established that the third-country national parent has sole parental responsibility for the minor Union citizen, does that then mean that less weight should be attached to the question of the legal, financial and/or emotional dependence?

---

(1)  C-133/15, EU:C:2017:354.

---

| 21.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 443/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 443/11

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 24 September 2020 — TU, RE v Google LLC

(Case C-460/20)

(2020/C 443/12)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants on a point of law: TU, RE

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Google LLC

Questions referred

| 1. | Is it compatible with the data subject’s right to respect for private life (Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, OJ C 202 of 7 June 2016, p. 389) and to protection of personal data (Article 8 of the Charter), if, within the context of the weighing-up of conflicting rights and interests arising from Articles 7, 8, 11 and 16 of the Charter, within the scope of the examination of his request for de-referencing brought against the data controller of an internet search engine, pursuant to Article 17(3)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation, GDPR, OJ L 119 of 4 May 2016, p. 1), when the link, the de-referencing of which the applicant is requesting, leads to content that includes factual claims and value judgements based on factual claims the truth of which is denied by the data subject, and the lawfulness of which depends on the question of the extent to which the factual claims contained in that content are true, the national court also concentrates conclusively on the issue of whether the data subject could reasonably seek legal protection against the content provider, for instance by means of interim relief, and thus at least provisional clarification on the question of the truth of the content displayed by the search engine data controller could be provided? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is it compatible with the data subject’s right to respect for private life (Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, OJ C 202 of 7 June 2016, p. 389) and to protection of personal data (Article 8 of the Charter), if, within the context of the weighing-up of conflicting rights and interests arising from Articles 7, 8, 11 and 16 of the Charter, within the scope of the examination of his request for de-referencing brought against the data controller of an internet search engine, pursuant to Article 17(3)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation, GDPR, OJ L 119 of 4 May 2016, p. 1), when the link, the de-referencing of which the applicant is requesting, leads to content that includes factual claims and value judgements based on factual claims the truth of which is denied by the data subject, and the lawfulness of which depends on the question of the extent to which the factual claims contained in that content are true, the national court also concentrates conclusively on the issue of whether the data subject could reasonably seek legal protection against the content provider, for instance by means of interim relief, and thus at least provisional clarification on the question of the truth of the content displayed by the search engine data controller could be provided?

| 2. | In the case of a request for de-referencing made against the data controller of an internet search engine, which in a name search searches for photos of natural persons which third parties have introduced into the internet in connection with the person’s name, and which displays the photos which it has found in its search results as preview images (thumbnails), within the context of the weighing-up of the conflicting rights and interests arising from Articles 7, 8, 11 and 16 of the Charter pursuant to Article 12(b) and Article 14, first paragraph, (a) of Directive 95/46/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (Data Protection Directive, OJ L 281 of 23 November 1995, p. 31)/Article 17(3)(a) of the GDPR, should the context of the original third-party publication be conclusively taken into account, even if the third-party website is linked by the search engine when the preview image is displayed but is not specifically named, and the resulting context is not shown with it by the internet search engine? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the case of a request for de-referencing made against the data controller of an internet search engine, which in a name search searches for photos of natural persons which third parties have introduced into the internet in connection with the person’s name, and which displays the photos which it has found in its search results as preview images (thumbnails), within the context of the weighing-up of the conflicting rights and interests arising from Articles 7, 8, 11 and 16 of the Charter pursuant to Article 12(b) and Article 14, first paragraph, (a) of Directive 95/46/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (Data Protection Directive, OJ L 281 of 23 November 1995, p. 31)/Article 17(3)(a) of the GDPR, should the context of the original third-party publication be conclusively taken into account, even if the third-party website is linked by the search engine when the preview image is displayed but is not specifically named, and the resulting context is not shown with it by the internet search engine?

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ 2016 L 119, p. 1).

(2)  Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31).

---

| 21.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 443/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 443/12

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 25 September 2020 — HEITEC AG v HEITECH Promotion GmbH and RW

(Case C-466/20)

(2020/C 443/13)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: HEITEC AG

Respondents: HEITECH Promotion GmbH, RW

Questions referred

| 1. | Can acquiescence within the meaning of Article 9(1) and (2) of Directive 2008/95/EC (1) and Article 54(1) and (2) and Article 111(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (2) be excluded not only by means of an administrative or court action, but also through conduct not involving a court or administrative authority? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can acquiescence within the meaning of Article 9(1) and (2) of Directive 2008/95/EC (1) and Article 54(1) and (2) and Article 111(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (2) be excluded not only by means of an administrative or court action, but also through conduct not involving a court or administrative authority?

| 2. | If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: Does the sending of a warning letter, in which the proprietor of the earlier sign, before initiating legal proceedings, requires the proprietor of the later sign to agree to refrain from using the sign, and to enter into an obligation to pay a contractual penalty in the event of an infringement, constitute conduct precluding acquiescence within the meaning of Article 9(1) and (2) of Directive 2008/95/EC and Article 54(1) and (2) and Article 111(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: Does the sending of a warning letter, in which the proprietor of the earlier sign, before initiating legal proceedings, requires the proprietor of the later sign to agree to refrain from using the sign, and to enter into an obligation to pay a contractual penalty in the event of an infringement, constitute conduct precluding acquiescence within the meaning of Article 9(1) and (2) of Directive 2008/95/EC and Article 54(1) and (2) and Article 111(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009?

| 3. | When seeking judicial redress, is the bringing of the action before the court or the receipt of the action by the defendant decisive for calculating the five-year acquiescence period for the purposes of Article 9(1) and (2) of Directive 2008/95/EC and Article 54(1) and (2) and Article 111(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009? Is it significant in this regard that receipt of the action by the defendant is delayed beyond the expiry of the five-year period through the fault of the proprietor of the earlier trade mark? |
| --- | --- |

3.

When seeking judicial redress, is the bringing of the action before the court or the receipt of the action by the defendant decisive for calculating the five-year acquiescence period for the purposes of Article 9(1) and (2) of Directive 2008/95/EC and Article 54(1) and (2) and Article 111(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009? Is it significant in this regard that receipt of the action by the defendant is delayed beyond the expiry of the five-year period through the fault of the proprietor of the earlier trade mark?

| 4. | Does the limitation of rights in accordance with Article 9(1) and (2) of Directive 2008/95/EC and Article 54(1) and (2) and Article 111(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 encompass consequential claims under trade mark law, for example, claims for compensation, provision of information or destruction, as well as prohibitory injunctions? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Does the limitation of rights in accordance with Article 9(1) and (2) of Directive 2008/95/EC and Article 54(1) and (2) and Article 111(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 encompass consequential claims under trade mark law, for example, claims for compensation, provision of information or destruction, as well as prohibitory injunctions?

---

(1)  Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 2008 L 299, p. 25).

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the European Union trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).

---

| 21.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 443/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 443/13

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Midden-Nederland (Netherlands) lodged on 29 September 2020 — ZK, in his capacity as successor to JM, liquidator in the bankruptcy of BMA Nederland BV v BMA Braunschweigische Maschinenbauanstalt AG and Stichting Belangbehartiging Crediteuren BMA Nederland

(Case C-498/20)

(2020/C 443/14)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Midden-Nederland

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ZK, in his capacity as successor to JM, liquidator in the bankruptcy of BMA Nederland BV

Defendant: BMA Braunschweigische Maschinenbauanstalt AG

Intervener: Stichting Belangbehartiging Crediteuren BMA Nederland

Questions referred

| 1. | (a) | Must the term ‘place where the harmful event occurred’ in Article 7, point 2, of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast) (OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1; ‘Brussels Ia Regulation’) be interpreted as meaning that ‘the place of the event giving rise to the damage’ (Handlungsort) is the place of establishment of the company which offers no redress for the claims of its creditors, if that lack of redress is the result of a breach by that company’s grandparent company of its duty of care towards those creditors? |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

(a)

Must the term ‘place where the harmful event occurred’ in Article 7, point 2, of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast) (OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1; ‘Brussels Ia Regulation’) be interpreted as meaning that ‘the place of the event giving rise to the damage’ (Handlungsort) is the place of establishment of the company which offers no redress for the claims of its creditors, if that lack of redress is the result of a breach by that company’s grandparent company of its duty of care towards those creditors?

| (b) | Must the term ‘place where the harmful event occurred’ in Article 7, point 2, of the Brussels Ia Regulation be interpreted as meaning that ‘the place where the damage occurred’ (Erfolgsort) is the place of establishment of the company which offers no redress for claims of its creditors, if that lack of redress is the result of a breach by that company’s grandparent company of its duty of care towards those creditors? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Must the term ‘place where the harmful event occurred’ in Article 7, point 2, of the Brussels Ia Regulation be interpreted as meaning that ‘the place where the damage occurred’ (Erfolgsort) is the place of establishment of the company which offers no redress for claims of its creditors, if that lack of redress is the result of a breach by that company’s grandparent company of its duty of care towards those creditors?

| (c) | Are additional circumstances required which justify the jurisdiction of the courts of the place of establishment of the company which offers no redress and, if so, what are those circumstances? |
| --- | --- |

(c)

Are additional circumstances required which justify the jurisdiction of the courts of the place of establishment of the company which offers no redress and, if so, what are those circumstances?

| (d) | Does the fact that the Netherlands liquidator of the company which offers no redress for the claims of its creditors has, by virtue of his statutory duty to wind up the estate, made a claim for damages arising from tort/delict for the benefit of (but not on behalf of) the general body of creditors affect the determination of the competent court on the basis of Article 7, point 2, of the Brussels Ia Regulation? Such a claim implies that there is no room for an examination of the individual positions of the individual creditors and that the third party concerned cannot avail itself of all the defences against the liquidator which it might have been able to use in respect of certain individual creditors. |
| --- | --- |

(d)

Does the fact that the Netherlands liquidator of the company which offers no redress for the claims of its creditors has, by virtue of his statutory duty to wind up the estate, made a claim for damages arising from tort/delict for the benefit of (but not on behalf of) the general body of creditors affect the determination of the competent court on the basis of Article 7, point 2, of the Brussels Ia Regulation? Such a claim implies that there is no room for an examination of the individual positions of the individual creditors and that the third party concerned cannot avail itself of all the defences against the liquidator which it might have been able to use in respect of certain individual creditors.

| (e) | Does the fact that a portion of the creditors for whose benefit the liquidator makes the claim have their domicile outside the territory of the European Union affect the determination of the competent court on the basis of Article 7, point 2, of the Brussels Ia Regulation? |
| --- | --- |

(e)

Does the fact that a portion of the creditors for whose benefit the liquidator makes the claim have their domicile outside the territory of the European Union affect the determination of the competent court on the basis of Article 7, point 2, of the Brussels Ia Regulation?

| 2. | Would the answer to Question 1 be different in the case of a claim made by a foundation which has as its purpose the protection of the collective interests of creditors who have suffered damage as referred to in Question 1? Such a collective claim implies that the proceedings would not determine (a) the domiciles of the creditors in question, (b) the particular circumstances giving rise to the claims of the individual creditors against the company and (c) whether a duty of care as referred to above exists in respect of the individual creditors and whether it has been breached. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Would the answer to Question 1 be different in the case of a claim made by a foundation which has as its purpose the protection of the collective interests of creditors who have suffered damage as referred to in Question 1? Such a collective claim implies that the proceedings would not determine (a) the domiciles of the creditors in question, (b) the particular circumstances giving rise to the claims of the individual creditors against the company and (c) whether a duty of care as referred to above exists in respect of the individual creditors and whether it has been breached.

| 3. | Must Article 8, point 2, of Brussels Regulation Ia be interpreted as meaning that, if the court seised of the original proceedings reverses its decision that it has jurisdiction in respect of those proceedings, such a reversal also automatically excludes its jurisdiction in respect of the claims made by the intervening third party? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Must Article 8, point 2, of Brussels Regulation Ia be interpreted as meaning that, if the court seised of the original proceedings reverses its decision that it has jurisdiction in respect of those proceedings, such a reversal also automatically excludes its jurisdiction in respect of the claims made by the intervening third party?

| 4. | (a) | Must Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (OJ 2007 L 199, p. 40) (‘Rome II Regulation’) be interpreted as meaning that ‘the place where the damage occurs’ is the place where the company which offers no redress for the damage suffered by its creditors as a result of the breach of the duty of care referred to above has its registered office? |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

(a)

Must Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (OJ 2007 L 199, p. 40) (‘Rome II Regulation’) be interpreted as meaning that ‘the place where the damage occurs’ is the place where the company which offers no redress for the damage suffered by its creditors as a result of the breach of the duty of care referred to above has its registered office?

| (b) | Does the fact that the claims have been made by a liquidator by virtue of his statutory duty to wind up the estate and by a representative of collective interests for the benefit of (but not on behalf of) the general body of creditors affect the determination of that place? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Does the fact that the claims have been made by a liquidator by virtue of his statutory duty to wind up the estate and by a representative of collective interests for the benefit of (but not on behalf of) the general body of creditors affect the determination of that place?

| (c) | Does the fact that some of the creditors are domiciled outside the territory of the European Union affect the determination of that place? |
| --- | --- |

(c)

Does the fact that some of the creditors are domiciled outside the territory of the European Union affect the determination of that place?

| (d) | Is the fact that there were financing agreements between the Netherlands bankrupt company and its grandparent company which nominated the German courts as the forum of choice and declared German law to be applicable a circumstance which makes the alleged tort/delict of BMA AG manifestly more closely connected with a country other than the Netherlands within the meaning of Article 4(3) of the Rome II Regulation? |
| --- | --- |

(d)

Is the fact that there were financing agreements between the Netherlands bankrupt company and its grandparent company which nominated the German courts as the forum of choice and declared German law to be applicable a circumstance which makes the alleged tort/delict of BMA AG manifestly more closely connected with a country other than the Netherlands within the meaning of Article 4(3) of the Rome II Regulation?

---

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

(2)  OJ 2007 L 199, p. 40.

---

| 21.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 443/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 443/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Holland (Netherlands) lodged on 13 October 2020 — P v Swiss International Air Lines AG

(Case C-512/20)

(2020/C 443/15)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Noord-Holland

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: P

Defendant: Swiss International Air Lines AG

Question referred

Does Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, having regard to Article 15 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport of 21 June 1999 (2) and Decisions No 1/2006 (3) and No 1/2017 (4) of the Committee, in the case of directly connecting flights, where, between the departure from an airport situated in the territory of a Member State and the arrival at an airport situated in the territory of a third State there is a planned stopover in Switzerland and a change of aircraft, also apply to the directly connecting flight departing from Switzerland and bound for a third country?

---

(1)  OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.

(2)  OJ 2002 L 114, p. 73.

(3)  2006/727/EC: Decision No 1/2006 of the Community/Switzerland Air Transport Committee of 18 October 2006 amending the Annex to the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (OJ 2006 L 298, p. 23).

(4)  Decision No 1/2017 of the Joint European Union/Switzerland Air Transport Committee set up under the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport of 29 November 2017 replacing the Annex to the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (OJ 2017 L 348, p. 46).

---

| 21.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 443/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 443/15

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Městský soud v Praze (Czech Republic) lodged on 20 October 2020 — VÍTKOVICE STEEL, a.s. v Ministerstvo životního prostředí

(Case C-524/20)

(2020/C 443/16)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Městský soud v Praze

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: VÍTKOVICE STEEL, a.s.

Defendant: Ministerstvo životního prostředí

Questions referred

| 1. | Does Article 10(8) of European Commission Decision 2011/278/EU (1) of 27 April 2011, read in conjunction with Annex I thereto, require emission allowances to be allocated free of charge for the period 2013 to 2020 to an installation operating a basic oxygen furnace process, where the input to that process is carbon-saturated liquid iron imported from another installation belonging to another operator, if at the same time it is ensured that there will be no double counting or double allocation of allowances in respect of the hot metal product? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does Article 10(8) of European Commission Decision 2011/278/EU (1) of 27 April 2011, read in conjunction with Annex I thereto, require emission allowances to be allocated free of charge for the period 2013 to 2020 to an installation operating a basic oxygen furnace process, where the input to that process is carbon-saturated liquid iron imported from another installation belonging to another operator, if at the same time it is ensured that there will be no double counting or double allocation of allowances in respect of the hot metal product?

| 2. | If the first question is answered in the negative, is Article 10(8) of European Commission Decision 2011/278/EU of 27 April 2011, read in conjunction with Annex I thereto, invalid with respect to the hot metal product on the grounds that it is incompatible with Article 2(1) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, read in conjunction with Annex I thereto, or alternatively on the grounds that it is incomprehensible? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the first question is answered in the negative, is Article 10(8) of European Commission Decision 2011/278/EU of 27 April 2011, read in conjunction with Annex I thereto, invalid with respect to the hot metal product on the grounds that it is incompatible with Article 2(1) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, read in conjunction with Annex I thereto, or alternatively on the grounds that it is incomprehensible?

| 3. | If the second question is answered in the affirmative, is Article 1(1) of European Commission Decision 2013/448/EU (2) of 5 September 2013 also invalid in respect of the installation bearing the identifier CZ-existing-CZ-52-CZ-0102-05 given that it no longer has a legal basis? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the second question is answered in the affirmative, is Article 1(1) of European Commission Decision 2013/448/EU (2) of 5 September 2013 also invalid in respect of the installation bearing the identifier CZ-existing-CZ-52-CZ-0102-05 given that it no longer has a legal basis?

| 4. | If the first question is answered in the affirmative, must Article 1(1) and the third subparagraph of Article 1(2) of European Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 be interpreted in respect of the installation bearing the identifier CZ-existing-CZ-52-CZ-0102-05 as permitting the allocation of allowances for the hot metal product to that installation on the basis of a new application from the Czech Republic if double counting and double allocation of allowances are excluded? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If the first question is answered in the affirmative, must Article 1(1) and the third subparagraph of Article 1(2) of European Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 be interpreted in respect of the installation bearing the identifier CZ-existing-CZ-52-CZ-0102-05 as permitting the allocation of allowances for the hot metal product to that installation on the basis of a new application from the Czech Republic if double counting and double allocation of allowances are excluded?

| 5. | If the fourth question is answered in the negative, is Article 1(1) of European Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 invalid in respect of the installation bearing the identifier CZ-existing-CZ-52-CZ-0102-05 on the grounds that it is incompatible with Article 10(8) of European Commission Decision 2011/278/EU of 27 April 2011, read in conjunction with Annex I thereto? |
| --- | --- |

5.

If the fourth question is answered in the negative, is Article 1(1) of European Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 invalid in respect of the installation bearing the identifier CZ-existing-CZ-52-CZ-0102-05 on the grounds that it is incompatible with Article 10(8) of European Commission Decision 2011/278/EU of 27 April 2011, read in conjunction with Annex I thereto?

| 6. | If the third, fourth or fifth question is answered in the affirmative, how should an authority of a Member State proceed under EU law where that authority has failed, contrary to EU law, to allocate free emission allowances to the operator of an installation which operates a basic oxygen furnace process if the installation concerned is no longer in operation and the period for which the allowances were allocated has already ended? |
| --- | --- |

6.

If the third, fourth or fifth question is answered in the affirmative, how should an authority of a Member State proceed under EU law where that authority has failed, contrary to EU law, to allocate free emission allowances to the operator of an installation which operates a basic oxygen furnace process if the installation concerned is no longer in operation and the period for which the allowances were allocated has already ended?

---

(1)  Commission Decision of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (notified under document C(2011) 2772), OJ 2011 L 130, p. 1.

(2)  Commission Decision of 5 September 2013 concerning national implementation measures for the transitional free allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances in accordance with Article 11(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (notified under document C(2013) 5666), OJ 2013 L 240, p. 27.

---

| 21.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 443/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 443/16

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Satversmes tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 20 October 2020 — SIA EUROAPTIEKA v Ministru kabinets

(Case C-530/20)

(2020/C 443/17)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Satversmes tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SIA EUROAPTIEKA

Institution which adopted the contested act: Ministru kabinets

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the activities to which the contested provision refers be regarded as advertising of medicinal products within the meaning of Title VIII of Directive 2001/83/EC (1) (‘Advertising’)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must the activities to which the contested provision refers be regarded as advertising of medicinal products within the meaning of Title VIII of Directive 2001/83/EC (1) (‘Advertising’)?

| 2. | Must Article 90 of Directive 2001/83/EC be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which extends the list of prohibited methods of advertising and imposes stricter restrictions than those expressly provided for in Article 90 of that directive? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must Article 90 of Directive 2001/83/EC be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which extends the list of prohibited methods of advertising and imposes stricter restrictions than those expressly provided for in Article 90 of that directive?

| 3. | Must the legislation at issue in the main proceedings be considered to restrict advertising of medicinal products in order to encourage the rational use of such products, within the meaning of Article 87(3) of Directive 2001/83/EC? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Must the legislation at issue in the main proceedings be considered to restrict advertising of medicinal products in order to encourage the rational use of such products, within the meaning of Article 87(3) of Directive 2001/83/EC?

---

(1)  Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67, Special edition in Latvian: Chapter 13 Volume 027 P. 69).

---

| 21.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 443/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 443/17

---

Appeal brought on 20 November 2020 by the Single Resolution Board against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 23 September 2020 in Case T-411/17, Landesbank Baden-Württemberg v Single Resolution Board

(Case C-621/20 P)

(2020/C 443/18)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Single Resolution Board (represented by: K.-Ph. Wojcik, H. Ehlers, P.A. Messina and J. Kerlin, acting as Agents, and by H.-G. Kamann, F. Louis, P. Gey, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: Landesbank Baden-Württemberg, European Commission

Form of order sought

The Single Resolution Board claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2020 in Case T-411/17, Landesbank Baden-Württemberg v Single Resolution Board (SRB), EU:T:2020:435; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2020 in Case T-411/17, Landesbank Baden-Württemberg v Single Resolution Board (SRB), EU:T:2020:435;

| — | dismiss the action for annulment; |
| --- | --- |

—

dismiss the action for annulment;

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

—

order the respondent to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

First ground of appeal, alleging infringement of Article 85(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, distortion of the evidence, and infringement of the SRB’s right to a fair hearing.

In the first place, the SRB submits that the General Court interpreted and applied Article 85(3) of its Rules of Procedure incorrectly by deciding that the SRB failed to properly authenticate its decision concerning the 2017 ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2017/05), because the evidence submitted by the SRB at the hearing regarding the proper authentication of that decision was regarded as inadmissible. The SRB submits in this context, first, that it was justified in producing evidence at the hearing regarding the proper authentication of that decision, because the question of the lack of authentication had not previously been the subject of the written procedure nor had it been considered in the General Court’s measures of organisation or inquiry. Second, the SRB submits that, by disregarding that evidence and declaring that that evidence — assuming it to have been admissible — was unsubstantiated, the General Court had distorted the evidence before it. Furthermore, the SRB contends that, by finding that, in any event, the evidence showed no inextricable link between the routing slip, signed by the president of the SRB, and the annex to the decision at issue, the General Court disregarded the reference number on the routing slip, which inextricably linked the routing slip to the electronic file, which itself contains the decision at issue and its annex. Third, the SRB claims that the General Court infringed its rights to a fair hearing by failing to address the issue of the lack of authentication before the hearing, by refusing the SRB’s offer of further evidence and by not informing the SRB at any time that it regarded the evidence as unsatisfactory.

Second ground of appeal, alleging infringement of Article 296 TFEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights

In the second place, the SRB further submits that the General Court exaggerated the requirements under Article 296 TFEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union by finding that the method of calculation pursuant to Articles 4 to 7 and 9 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 (1) and Annex I thereto is opaque and that, therefore, the decision at issue necessarily could not be properly reasoned, because the Landesbank Baden-Württemberg could not fully verify the accuracy of the calculation. In the appellant’s view, the General Court failed to render those requirements compatible with the obligation of secrecy pursuant to Article 339 TFEU — which, furthermore, was not referred to in the judgment under appeal — as well as with other principles of EU law. The SRB asserts that the delegated regulation has struck a proportionate balance between the principles of transparency, the obligation to maintain professional secrecy, and the other objectives set out by that regulation, in particular, to reach a specific target level of contributions to the funding of the Single Resolution Fund and to raise contributions from all relevant institutions in a fair and proportionate manner. According to the SRB, it duly complied with that legal framework in its statement of reasons for the decision at issue.

---

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

---

| 21.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 443/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 443/18

---

Order of the President of the Court of Justice of 4 October 2019 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg — Germany) — MG, NH v Germanwings GmbH

(Case T-190/19) (1)

(2020/C 443/19)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 213, 24.6.2019.

---

| 21.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 443/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 443/18

---

Order of the President of the Court of Justice of 2 October 2019 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia

(Case T-413/19) (1)

(2020/C 443/20)

Language of the case: Slovenian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 246, 22.7.2019.

---

| 21.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 443/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 443/18

---

Order of the President of the Court of 24 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil du Contentieux des Étrangers — Belgium) — X v État belge

(Case C-671/19) (1)

(2020/C 443/21)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 372, 4.11.2019.

---

General Court

| 21.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 443/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 443/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 October 2020 — Ben Ali v Council

(Case T-151/18) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken having regard to the situation in Tunisia - Measures taken against persons responsible for misappropriation of public funds and associated persons and entities - List of persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds - Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list - Rights of defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Obligation to adjudicate within a reasonable - Sufficient factual basis - Time limits for bringing proceedings - Legal aid - Suspensive effect - Admissibility - Conditions)

(2020/C 443/22)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Slim Ben Tijani Ben Haj Hamda Ben Ali (Verneuil-l’Étang, France) (represented by: K. Lara, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Lejeune, A. Jaume and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/141 of 29 January 2018 amending Decision 2011/72/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia (OJ 2018 L 25, p. 38), of Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/135 of 28 January 2019 amending Decision 2011/72/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia (OJ 2019 L 25, p. 23) and of Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/117 of 27 January 2020 amending Decision 2011/72/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia (OJ 2020 L 22, p. 31) to the extent that those acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/141 of 29 January 2018 amending Decision 2011/72/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia and Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/135 of 28 January 2019 amending Decision 2011/72/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia to the extent they concern Mr Slim Ben Tijani Ben Haj Hamda Ben Ali. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/141 of 29 January 2018 amending Decision 2011/72/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia and Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/135 of 28 January 2019 amending Decision 2011/72/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia to the extent they concern Mr Slim Ben Tijani Ben Haj Hamda Ben Ali.

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

2.

Dismisses the action for the remainder;

| 3. | Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Mr Ben Ali. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Mr Ben Ali.

---

(1)  OJ C 263, 5.8.2019.

---

| 21.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 443/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 443/20

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2020 — Zhejiang Jiuli Hi-Tech Metals v Commission

(Case T-307/18) (1)

(Dumping - Imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of stainless steel originating in China - Imposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty - Rights of the defence - Calculation of the dumping margin - Analogue country - Injury - Causal link)

(2020/C 443/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Zhejiang Jiuli Hi-Tech Metals Co. Ltd (Huzhou, China) (represented by: K. Adamantopoulos and P. Billiet, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Demeneix, M. França, N. Kuplewatzky and E. Schmidt, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/330 of 5 March 2018 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of stainless steel originating in the People’s Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2018 L 63, p. 15), in so far as it concerns the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Zhejiang Jiuli Hi-Tech Metals Co. Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Zhejiang Jiuli Hi-Tech Metals Co. Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 240, 9.7.2018.

---

| 21.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 443/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 443/20

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2020 — Coppo Gavazzi and Others v Parliament

(Joined Cases T-389/19 to T-394/19, T-397/19, T-398/19, T-403/19, T-404/19, T-406/19, T-407/19, T-409/19 to T-414/19, T-416/19 to T-418/19, T-420/19 to T-422/19, T-425/19 to T-427/19, T-429/19 to T-432/19, T-435/19, T-436/19, T-438/19 to T-442/19, T-444/19 to T-446/19, T-448/19, T-450/19 to T-454/19, T-463/19 and T-465/19) (1)

(Institutional law - Single statute for Members of the European Parliament - Members of the European Parliament elected in Italian constituencies - Adoption by the Ufficio di Presidenza della Camera dei deputati (Office of the President of the Italian Chamber of Deputies, Italy) of Decision No 14/2018, on pensions - Change in the amount of the pensions of members of the Italian national parliament - Consequential change by the European Parliament in the amount of the pensions of certain former Members of the European Parliament elected in Italy - Competence of the authority which adopted the measure - Obligation to state reasons - Acquired rights - Legal certainty - Legitimate expectations - Right to property - Proportionality - Equal treatment)

(2020/C 443/24)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Maria Teresa Coppo Gavazzi (Milan, Italy) and the 48 other applicants whose names are annexed to the judgment (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: S. Seyr and S. Alves, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the notes of 11 April 2019 and, with respect to the applicant in Case T-465/19, of that of 11 June 2019, drawn up, in the case of each of the applicants, by the Parliament and concerning the adjustment of the amount earned by the applicants after the entry into force, on 1 January 2019, of Decision No 14/2018 of the Ufficio di Presidenza della Camera dei deputati.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action in Case T-453/19, Panusa v Parliament as inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action in Case T-453/19, Panusa v Parliament as inadmissible;

| 2. | Dismisses the other actions; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the other actions;

| 3. | Orders Ms Maria Teresa Coppo Gavazzi and the other applicants whose names are annexed to the judgment to bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Parliament. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Ms Maria Teresa Coppo Gavazzi and the other applicants whose names are annexed to the judgment to bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Parliament.

---

(1)  OJ C 270, 12.8.2019.

---

| 21.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 443/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 443/21

---

Action brought on 3 October 2020 — EMCS v EASO

(Case T-621/20)

(2020/C 443/25)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: EMCS ltd. (Msida, Malta) (represented by: P. Kuypers and N. Groot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Asylum Support Office (EASO)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of EASO, dated 23 July 2020, with reference ‘Procurement procedure EASO/2020/789, provision of temporary agency workers for EASO in Malta’ from the procurement procedure governed by Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046, (1), to the extent that it rejected the applicant’s bid from the tender with reference number EASO/2020/789; and/or |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of EASO, dated 23 July 2020, with reference ‘Procurement procedure EASO/2020/789, provision of temporary agency workers for EASO in Malta’ from the procurement procedure governed by Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046, (1), to the extent that it rejected the applicant’s bid from the tender with reference number EASO/2020/789; and/or

| — | annul the act(s) by which EASO allowed or allows a party other than the applicant to establish a framework contract following the tender with reference number EASO/2020/789; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the act(s) by which EASO allowed or allows a party other than the applicant to establish a framework contract following the tender with reference number EASO/2020/789;

| — | order EASO to compensate the applicant for the damage that EASO caused by preventing the applicant from executing the framework contract; and |
| --- | --- |

—

order EASO to compensate the applicant for the damage that EASO caused by preventing the applicant from executing the framework contract; and

| — | order EASO to pay the applicant’s costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EASO to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that EASO infringed the principle of equal treatment and the principle of transparency, as the tender documents were not sufficiently clear, precise and unequivocal and EASO could and should have clarified the tender documents. Although the applicant asked for a clarification on multiple occasions, EASO chose not to clarify its tender documents. Therefore, EASO willingly accepted a continuous breach of the transparency principle. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that EASO infringed the principle of equal treatment and the principle of transparency, as the tender documents were not sufficiently clear, precise and unequivocal and EASO could and should have clarified the tender documents. Although the applicant asked for a clarification on multiple occasions, EASO chose not to clarify its tender documents. Therefore, EASO willingly accepted a continuous breach of the transparency principle.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that EASO unlawfully recalculated the financial bid of the applicant on its own, acting in breach of its own tender specifications and case law of both the General Court and the European Court of Justice. Subsequently, EASO based its assessment of the applicant’s tender on the modified amount. Therefore, EASO acted contrary to the principles of equal treatment and transparency. As a result, EASO could not have come to its award decision. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that EASO unlawfully recalculated the financial bid of the applicant on its own, acting in breach of its own tender specifications and case law of both the General Court and the European Court of Justice. Subsequently, EASO based its assessment of the applicant’s tender on the modified amount. Therefore, EASO acted contrary to the principles of equal treatment and transparency. As a result, EASO could not have come to its award decision.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that EPASO violated Article 170(3) of Regulation 2018/1046, by not stating the relative advantages of the consortium vis-à-vis the bid of the applicant, even after the applicant specifically requested EASO to do so. EASO did not disclose why the bid of the consortium scored higher than the bid of the applicant, resulting in the fact that the applicant was not able to identify the respective strengths and weaknesses of its own tender compared to that of the consortium. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that EPASO violated Article 170(3) of Regulation 2018/1046, by not stating the relative advantages of the consortium vis-à-vis the bid of the applicant, even after the applicant specifically requested EASO to do so. EASO did not disclose why the bid of the consortium scored higher than the bid of the applicant, resulting in the fact that the applicant was not able to identify the respective strengths and weaknesses of its own tender compared to that of the consortium.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, in relation to the claim for damages, stating that the applicant suffered damage due to the loss of profit resulting from the loss of the concluding of the framework contract. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, in relation to the claim for damages, stating that the applicant suffered damage due to the loss of profit resulting from the loss of the concluding of the framework contract.

---

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

---

| 21.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 443/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 443/22

---

Action brought on 9 October 2020 — MV v Commission

(Case T-624/20)

(2020/C 443/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: MV (represented by: G. Pandey, D. Rovetta and V. Villante, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of 30 June 2020 of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) which rejected the applicant’s complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, lodged on 27 January 2020, including the rejection of the applicant’s request for EUR 50 000 compensation; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 30 June 2020 of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) which rejected the applicant’s complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, lodged on 27 January 2020, including the rejection of the applicant’s request for EUR 50 000 compensation;

| — | annul the decision of 29 October 2019 of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO)/Selection Board rejecting the applicant’s request for review of the decision of the Selection Board not to admit him to the next phase of the competition; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 29 October 2019 of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO)/Selection Board rejecting the applicant’s request for review of the decision of the Selection Board not to admit him to the next phase of the competition;

| — | annul the decision of 5 June 2019 at the online EPSO account not to include the applicant in the draft list of officials selected for the purposes of the competition under the EPSO/AD/364/19 — 3-Security officers; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 5 June 2019 at the online EPSO account not to include the applicant in the draft list of officials selected for the purposes of the competition under the EPSO/AD/364/19 — 3-Security officers;

| — | annul the open notice of competition EPSO/AD/364/19 — 3-Security officers, published on 24 January 2019, and, in its entirety, the resulting draft list of officials selected to take part in the aforesaid competition; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the open notice of competition EPSO/AD/364/19 — 3-Security officers, published on 24 January 2019, and, in its entirety, the resulting draft list of officials selected to take part in the aforesaid competition;

| — | in addition:






  — | as a preliminary matter, where appropriate, declare Article 90 of the Staff Regulations invalid and inapplicable in the present proceedings under Article 270 TFEU; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

in addition:

—

as a preliminary matter, where appropriate, declare Article 90 of the Staff Regulations invalid and inapplicable in the present proceedings under Article 270 TFEU;

| — | order the requested measures of inquiry, as raised in the present application; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the requested measures of inquiry, as raised in the present application;

| — | order the European Commission to bear its own and the applicant’s legal costs of the present judicial proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to bear its own and the applicant’s legal costs of the present judicial proceedings;

| — | order the defendant to pay the applicant EUR 50 000 compensation for the damaged incurred because of the above unlawful contested decisions. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the applicant EUR 50 000 compensation for the damaged incurred because of the above unlawful contested decisions.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment by EPSO/the Selection Board concerning evaluation of the working experience of the applicant — breach of Annex II to the notice of competition at issue detailing the required working experience. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment by EPSO/the Selection Board concerning evaluation of the working experience of the applicant — breach of Annex II to the notice of competition at issue detailing the required working experience.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging breach of Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Council Regulation No 1 of 15 April 1958 (1), together with breach of Articles 1d and 28 of the Staff Regulations and Article 1(1)(f) to Annex III to the Staff Regulations, breach of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination, and also alleging a plea of illegality of the notice of competition under Article 277 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging breach of Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Council Regulation No 1 of 15 April 1958 (1), together with breach of Articles 1d and 28 of the Staff Regulations and Article 1(1)(f) to Annex III to the Staff Regulations, breach of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination, and also alleging a plea of illegality of the notice of competition under Article 277 TFEU.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a plea of illegality under Article 277 TFEU of the Talent Screener and of point 2.4 of the General Rules governing open competitions as well as of Article 5 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations, together with breach of Articles 1(d), 4, 7 and 29 of the Staff Regulations. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a plea of illegality under Article 277 TFEU of the Talent Screener and of point 2.4 of the General Rules governing open competitions as well as of Article 5 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations, together with breach of Articles 1(d), 4, 7 and 29 of the Staff Regulations.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging a plea of illegality under Article 277 TFEU of the whole Annex II to the notice of competition at issue, together with breach of Article 1(d) of the Staff Regulations. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a plea of illegality under Article 277 TFEU of the whole Annex II to the notice of competition at issue, together with breach of Article 1(d) of the Staff Regulations.

---

(1)  Regulation No 1 of 15 April 1958 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community (OJ, English Special Edition, Series I 1952-1958, p. 59), as amended.

---

| 21.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 443/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 443/23

---

Action brought on 12 October 2020 — LAICO/Council

(Case T-627/20)

(2020/C 443/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Libyan African Investment Co. (LAICO) (Tripoli, Libya) (represented by: A. Bahrami and N. Korogiannakis, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2020/1137 of 30 July 2020 implementing Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya (1) in so far as it maintains the name of the applicant on the list of entities set out in Annex IV to Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 of 31 July 2015 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya, and repealing Decision 2011/137/CFSP (2); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2020/1137 of 30 July 2020 implementing Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya (1) in so far as it maintains the name of the applicant on the list of entities set out in Annex IV to Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 of 31 July 2015 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya, and repealing Decision 2011/137/CFSP (2);

| — | annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1130 of 30 July 2020 implementing Article 21(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/44 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya (3) and amending Annex III to Council Regulation (EU) 2016/44 of 18 January 2016 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya and repealing Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 (4) in so far as it maintains the name of the applicant on the list of entities set out in Annex III to Regulation (EU) 2016/44; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1130 of 30 July 2020 implementing Article 21(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/44 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya (3) and amending Annex III to Council Regulation (EU) 2016/44 of 18 January 2016 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya and repealing Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 (4) in so far as it maintains the name of the applicant on the list of entities set out in Annex III to Regulation (EU) 2016/44; and

| — | order the Council to pay the applicant’s legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay the applicant’s legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging an infringement of Council Regulation (EU) 2016/44 and Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 insofar as the cumulative conditions for listing entities according to recital 3 of Decision 2015/1333 are not met. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging an infringement of Council Regulation (EU) 2016/44 and Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 insofar as the cumulative conditions for listing entities according to recital 3 of Decision 2015/1333 are not met.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the obligation of the Council to keep all restrictive measures under review to ensure that they continue to contribute towards achieving their stated objectives. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the obligation of the Council to keep all restrictive measures under review to ensure that they continue to contribute towards achieving their stated objectives.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment. In particular, the applicant claims that:






  — | LAICO is a state-owned company, governed by the General Meeting of its Shareholders and its Board of Directors; |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment. In particular, the applicant claims that:

—

LAICO is a state-owned company, governed by the General Meeting of its Shareholders and its Board of Directors;

| — | the Board of Directors of LAICO is composed of highly skilled and experienced professionals; and |
| --- | --- |

—

the Board of Directors of LAICO is composed of highly skilled and experienced professionals; and

| — | LAICO’s parent companies are not subject to the same type of restrictions. |
| --- | --- |

—

LAICO’s parent companies are not subject to the same type of restrictions.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of equal treatment. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of equal treatment.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of proportionality.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the obligation to state reasons under Article 296 TFEU and of the right to an effective remedy. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the obligation to state reasons under Article 296 TFEU and of the right to an effective remedy.

---

(1)  OJ 2020 L 247, p. 40.

(2)  OJ 2015 L 206, p. 34.

(3)  OJ 2020 L 247, p. 14.

(4)  OJ 2016 L 12, p. 1.

---

| 21.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 443/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 443/24

---

Action brought on 21 October 2020 — UPTR v Parliament and Council

(Case T-634/20)

(2020/C 443/28)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Unie van Professionele Transporteurs en Logistieke Ondernemers (Herstal, Belgium) (represented by: F. Vanden Bogaerde, lawyer)

Defendants: European Parliament, Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | declare the application for annulment admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the application for annulment admissible;

| — | annul Article 2(4) of Regulation (EU) 2020/1055 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2020 amending Regulations (EC) No 1071/2009, (EC) No 1072/2009 and (EU) No 1024/2012 with a view to adapting them to developments in the road transport sector; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Article 2(4) of Regulation (EU) 2020/1055 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2020 amending Regulations (EC) No 1071/2009, (EC) No 1072/2009 and (EU) No 1024/2012 with a view to adapting them to developments in the road transport sector;

| — | reserve the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

reserve the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the contested provision infringes Article 3(3) TEU and the principle of the free movement of services.
  In the field of road transport, and more specifically cabotage, efforts toward progressive liberalisation should be made. By the contested provision of Regulation 2020/1055, the level of liberalisation already achieved is scaled back given that that provision contains a far-reaching restriction which is especially disadvantageous to those carriers that are members of the applicant. The aim of preventing abuse in cabotage, which serves as the basis for the contested provision, is already covered by other EU legislative measures (Mobility Package). |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested provision infringes Article 3(3) TEU and the principle of the free movement of services.

In the field of road transport, and more specifically cabotage, efforts toward progressive liberalisation should be made. By the contested provision of Regulation 2020/1055, the level of liberalisation already achieved is scaled back given that that provision contains a far-reaching restriction which is especially disadvantageous to those carriers that are members of the applicant. The aim of preventing abuse in cabotage, which serves as the basis for the contested provision, is already covered by other EU legislative measures (Mobility Package).

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality.
  Prior to the adoption of the regulation containing the contested provision, there was no updating of the impact assessment conducted in respect of the Commission proposal for that regulation. The European Parliament and the Council, however, made significant amendments to the Commission’s proposal and it was therefore appropriate and necessary to update that impact assessment. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality.

Prior to the adoption of the regulation containing the contested provision, there was no updating of the impact assessment conducted in respect of the Commission proposal for that regulation. The European Parliament and the Council, however, made significant amendments to the Commission’s proposal and it was therefore appropriate and necessary to update that impact assessment.

---

| 21.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 443/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 443/25

---

Action brought on 21 October 2020 — Dermavita Company v EUIPO — Allergan Holdings France (JUVÉDERM VYBRANCE)

(Case T-635/20)

(2020/C 443/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Dermavita Company SARL (Beirut, Lebanon) (represented by: D. Todorov, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Allergan Holdings France SAS (Courbevoie, 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 JUVÉDERM VYBRANCE –European Union trade mark No 13 541 594

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 August 2020 in Case R 1014/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | ask EUIPO to deem the appeal filed; |
| --- | --- |

—

ask EUIPO to deem the appeal filed;

| — | order EUIPO and the other party to bear their own costs and pay those of the Applicant before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the other party to bear their own costs and pay those of the Applicant before the General Court.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Articles 101(4), 104, 106 and 107 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 101(4), 104, 106 and 107 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 21.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 443/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 443/26

---

Action brought on 21 October 2020 — Dermavita Company v EUIPO — Allergan Holdings France (JUVÉDERM VOLUMA)

(Case T-636/20)

(2020/C 443/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Dermavita Company SARL (Beirut, Lebanon) (represented by: D. Todorov, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Allergan Holdings France SAS (Courbevoie, 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 JUVÉDERM VOLUMA –European Union trade mark No 6 547 301

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 August 2020 in Case R 1016/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | ask EUIPO to deem the appeal filed; |
| --- | --- |

—

ask EUIPO to deem the appeal filed;

| — | order EUIPO and the other party to bear their own costs and pay those of the Applicant before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the other party to bear their own costs and pay those of the Applicant before the General Court.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Articles 101(4), 104, 106 and 107 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 101(4), 104, 106 and 107 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 21.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 443/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 443/26

---

Action brought on 21 October 2020 — Dermavita Company v EUIPO — Allergan Holdings France (JUVÉDERM VOLITE)

(Case T-637/20)

(2020/C 443/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Dermavita Company SARL (Beirut, Lebanon) (represented by: D. Todorov, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Allergan Holdings France SAS (Courbevoie, 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 JUVÉDERM VOLITE –European Union trade mark No 13 413 406

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 August 2020 in Case R 1015/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | ask EUIPO to deem the appeal filed; |
| --- | --- |

—

ask EUIPO to deem the appeal filed;

| — | order EUIPO and the other party to bear their own costs and pay those of the Applicant before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the other party to bear their own costs and pay those of the Applicant before the General Court.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Articles 101(4), 104, 106 and 107 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 101(4), 104, 106 and 107 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 21.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 443/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 443/27

---

Action brought on 26 October 2020 — NB v Court of Justice of the European Union

(Case T-648/20)

(2020/C 443/32)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: NB (represented by: J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul the decision not to promote the applicant to grade AST10, with effect from 1 January 2019; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision not to promote the applicant to grade AST10, with effect from 1 January 2019;

| — | as far as necessary, annul the decision to ‘reclassify’/ promote Ms [X] to grade AST10, with effect from 1 January 2019; |
| --- | --- |

—

as far as necessary, annul the decision to ‘reclassify’/ promote Ms [X] to grade AST10, with effect from 1 January 2019;

| — | purely in the alternative, annul all decisions to ‘reclassify’/promote the applicant’s colleagues to grade AST10, with effect from 1 January 2019; |
| --- | --- |

—

purely in the alternative, annul all decisions to ‘reclassify’/promote the applicant’s colleagues to grade AST10, with effect from 1 January 2019;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that there was no legal basis for the contested decision. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that there was no legal basis for the contested decision.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the administration’s approach regarding reclassification from grade AST9 to grade AST10 was illegal. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the administration’s approach regarding reclassification from grade AST9 to grade AST10 was illegal.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging misinterpretation of the scope of Article 31(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging misinterpretation of the scope of Article 31(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging failure to inform staff about the rules applicable to reclassification from grade AST9 to grade AST10. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging failure to inform staff about the rules applicable to reclassification from grade AST9 to grade AST10.

---

| 21.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 443/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 443/28

---

Action brought on 23 October 2020 — KL v EIB

(Case T-651/20)

(2020/C 443/33)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: European Investment Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the present action admissible and well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the present action admissible and well founded;

| — | consequently, annul the EIB’s decision of 28 February 2020 that the applicant’s absence from the medical examinations on 23 December 2019, 3 February and 28 February 2020 were unjustified absences under Article 3.6 of Annex X to the Staff Rules; |
| --- | --- |

—

consequently, annul the EIB’s decision of 28 February 2020 that the applicant’s absence from the medical examinations on 23 December 2019, 3 February and 28 February 2020 were unjustified absences under Article 3.6 of Annex X to the Staff Rules;

| — | if necessary, annul the decision of 15 July rejecting the applicant’s administrative appeal against the initial decision of 28 February 2020; |
| --- | --- |

—

if necessary, annul the decision of 15 July rejecting the applicant’s administrative appeal against the initial decision of 28 February 2020;

| — | order the EIB to pay compensation for the non-material damage suffered by the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the EIB to pay compensation for the non-material damage suffered by the applicant;

| — | order the EIB to pay the costs in their entirety. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the EIB to pay the costs in their entirety.

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 infringement of Articles 2.3 and 3.6 of Annex X to the Staff Rules. The applicant maintains in that regard that he could not attend the medical examinations because of a situation of force majeure and his situation therefore falls within the exceptions laid down by the abovementioned rules. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 2.3 and 3.6 of Annex X to the Staff Rules. The applicant maintains in that regard that he could not attend the medical examinations because of a situation of force majeure and his situation therefore falls within the exceptions laid down by the abovementioned rules.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to have regard to the welfare of staff and the principle of proportionality. The applicant submits, inter alia, that the systematic nature of the medical examinations decided on by the defendant following each medical certificate of incapacity is such as to undermine his state of health by obliging him to bring a number of appeals and infringes the abovementioned principles. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to have regard to the welfare of staff and the principle of proportionality. The applicant submits, inter alia, that the systematic nature of the medical examinations decided on by the defendant following each medical certificate of incapacity is such as to undermine his state of health by obliging him to bring a number of appeals and infringes the abovementioned principles.

| 3. | Third plea in law, raising a plea of illegality. According to the applicant, Article 3.4 of Annex X infringes Articles 31 and 34 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, on the ground that the application of that article results in practice in removing, first, his annual leave and, secondly, all remuneration from the point when he has taken all his annual leave. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, raising a plea of illegality. According to the applicant, Article 3.4 of Annex X infringes Articles 31 and 34 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, on the ground that the application of that article results in practice in removing, first, his annual leave and, secondly, all remuneration from the point when he has taken all his annual leave.

---

| 21.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 443/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 443/29

---

Action brought on 4 November 2020 — Zhejiang Beyondsun Green Energy Technology v Commission

(Case T-660/20)

(2020/C 443/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Zhejiang Beyondsun Green Energy Technology Co. Ltd (Huzhou, China) (represented by: Y. Melin and B. Vigneron, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1216 of 24 August 2020 invalidating invoices issued by Zhejiang Trunsun Solar Co Ltd. in breach of the undertaking repealed by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1570; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1216 of 24 August 2020 invalidating invoices issued by Zhejiang Trunsun Solar Co Ltd. in breach of the undertaking repealed by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1570;

| — | order the Commission, and any interveners who may be allowed to support the Commission in the course of the proceedings, to bear the costs of these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission, and any interveners who may be allowed to support the Commission in the course of the proceedings, to bear the costs of these proceedings.

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 Commission made a manifest error of assessment of the facts of the case, and breached Article 8 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union, and Article 13 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Union, and in particular paragraphs 9 thereof, when it considered that the Applicant breached the terms of the undertaking agreed between the Commission and the CCCME on behalf of inter alia the Applicant. The Applicant did not breach its commitments made under the undertaking when it issued commercial invoices with a revised price in accordance with the variable duty MIP for imports that were released for free circulation after the entry into force of the Regulation repealing the undertaking and introducing the variable duty MIP i.e., after 1 October 2017. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment of the facts of the case, and breached Article 8 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union, and Article 13 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Union, and in particular paragraphs 9 thereof, when it considered that the Applicant breached the terms of the undertaking agreed between the Commission and the CCCME on behalf of inter alia the Applicant. The Applicant did not breach its commitments made under the undertaking when it issued commercial invoices with a revised price in accordance with the variable duty MIP for imports that were released for free circulation after the entry into force of the Regulation repealing the undertaking and introducing the variable duty MIP i.e., after 1 October 2017.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, that even if the applicant breached the undertaking, quod non, the Commission acted illegally by declaring the relevant invoices invalid and collecting duties on them because the powers it relies upon to do so have either expired and/or been revoked. This is because implementing Regulations (EU) No 1238/2013 and No 1239/2013 expired on 7 December 2015 (under Article 5 of both regulations). Similarly, Implementing Regulations (EU) 2017/367 and No 2017/366 expired on 3 September 2018 (under Article 6 of both regulations). In any case, Articles 2 and 3 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/367 and Articles 2 and 3 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/366 had already been repealed by Articles 1(4), 1(5), 3(3) and 3(4) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1570. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, that even if the applicant breached the undertaking, quod non, the Commission acted illegally by declaring the relevant invoices invalid and collecting duties on them because the powers it relies upon to do so have either expired and/or been revoked. This is because implementing Regulations (EU) No 1238/2013 and No 1239/2013 expired on 7 December 2015 (under Article 5 of both regulations). Similarly, Implementing Regulations (EU) 2017/367 and No 2017/366 expired on 3 September 2018 (under Article 6 of both regulations). In any case, Articles 2 and 3 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/367 and Articles 2 and 3 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/366 had already been repealed by Articles 1(4), 1(5), 3(3) and 3(4) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1570.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging, also in the alternative, that even if the applicant breached the undertaking and if the Court does not accept that the powers used by the Commission were repealed and revoked when the contested regulation was adopted, the Commission breached Articles 8(1), (9) and (10) and Article 10(5) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union, and Articles 13(1), (9) and (10) and Article 16(5) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Union, when it invalidated undertaking invoices and then directed customs to collect duties retroactively. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging, also in the alternative, that even if the applicant breached the undertaking and if the Court does not accept that the powers used by the Commission were repealed and revoked when the contested regulation was adopted, the Commission breached Articles 8(1), (9) and (10) and Article 10(5) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union, and Articles 13(1), (9) and (10) and Article 16(5) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Union, when it invalidated undertaking invoices and then directed customs to collect duties retroactively.

---

| 21.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 443/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 443/30

---

Action brought on 6 November 2020 — Ryanair v Commission

(Case T-665/20)

(2020/C 443/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ryanair DAC (Swords, Ireland) (represented by: E. Vahida, F. Laprévote, V. Blanc, S. Rating and I. Metaxas-Maranghidis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the European Commission’s decision (EU) of 26 April 2020 on State aid SA.56867 COVID 19 –– Germany Compensation for the damage caused by the COVID-19 outbreak to Condor Flugdienst GmbH (1); and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the European Commission’s decision (EU) of 26 April 2020 on State aid SA.56867 COVID 19 –– Germany Compensation for the damage caused by the COVID-19 outbreak to Condor Flugdienst GmbH (1); and

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

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

The applicant has also requested that its action be determined under the expedited procedure as referred to in Article 23a of the Statute of the Court of Justice.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the European Commission violated specific provisions of the TFEU and the general principles of European law regarding the prohibition of discrimination, free provision of services and free establishment that have underpinned the liberalisation of the air transport market in the EU. The liberalisation of air transport has allowed the growth of truly pan-European low-fares airlines. By authorising Germany to reserve the aid to Condor, the European Commission ignored the damage caused to such pan-European airlines by the travel restrictions due to the COVID-19 crisis. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the European Commission violated specific provisions of the TFEU and the general principles of European law regarding the prohibition of discrimination, free provision of services and free establishment that have underpinned the liberalisation of the air transport market in the EU. The liberalisation of air transport has allowed the growth of truly pan-European low-fares airlines. By authorising Germany to reserve the aid to Condor, the European Commission ignored the damage caused to such pan-European airlines by the travel restrictions due to the COVID-19 crisis.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission misapplied Article 107(2)(b) TFEU and committed a manifest error of assessment in its review of the proportionality of the aid to the damage caused by the travel restrictions due to the COVID-19 crisis, particularly by considering the prolonged insolvency period of Condor as direct damage to be covered by the aid and by considering that Condor would be sold by June 2022 and could use the proceeds to repay part of the aid. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission misapplied Article 107(2)(b) TFEU and committed a manifest error of assessment in its review of the proportionality of the aid to the damage caused by the travel restrictions due to the COVID-19 crisis, particularly by considering the prolonged insolvency period of Condor as direct damage to be covered by the aid and by considering that Condor would be sold by June 2022 and could use the proceeds to repay part of the aid.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the European Commission failed to initiate a formal investigation procedure despite serious difficulties and violated the applicant’s procedural rights. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the European Commission failed to initiate a formal investigation procedure despite serious difficulties and violated the applicant’s procedural rights.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated its duty to state reasons. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated its duty to state reasons.

---

(1)  European Commission’s decision (EU) of 26 April 2020 on State aid SA.56867 COVID 19 –– Germany Compensation for the damage caused by the COVID-19 outbreak to Condor Flugdienst GmbH (OJ 2020 C 310, p. 5)

---