# Official Journal C 378/9 No

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 378 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 639 November 2020 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 378

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 639 November 2020

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2020/C 378/01 | 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

2020/C 378/01

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 378/02 | Joined Cases C-674/18 and C-675/18: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 September 2020 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — EM v TMD Friction GmbH (C-674/18), FL v TMD Friction EsCo GmbH (C-675/18) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Transfers of undertakings — Directive 2001/23/EC — Articles 3 and 5 — Safeguarding of employees’ rights — Protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer — Transfer made by the insolvency administrator of the transferring undertaking subject to insolvency proceedings — Occupational old-age pension benefits — Restriction on the obligations of the transferee — Amount of the benefit payable under the supplementary occupational pension scheme calculated on the basis of the employee’s pay when insolvency proceedings were instituted — Directive 2008/94/EC — Article 8 — Direct effect — Conditions) | 2 |
| 2020/C 378/03 | Case C-719/18: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Vivendi SA v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Electronic communications — Article 11(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Freedom and pluralism of the media — Freedom of establishment — Article 49 TFEU — Directive 2002/21/EC — Articles 15 and 16 — National legislation prohibiting an undertaking which has significant market power in a sector from establishing a significant economic dimension in another sector — Calculation of revenues received in the electronic communications sector and the media sector — Definition of the electronic communications sector — Restriction to markets which have been subject to ex ante regulation — Account taken of the income of affiliated companies — Fixing of different income thresholds for undertakings active in the electronic communications sector) | 3 |
| 2020/C 378/04 | Case C-742/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 September 2020 — Czech Republic v European Commission, Kingdom of Sweden (Appeal — European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) — Expenditure excluded from EU financing — Expenditure incurred by the Czech Republic — Regulation (EC) No 555/2008 — Articles 19 and 77 — Wine market — Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 — Article 33 — Support for rural development — Area-related aid — Decoupled direct aid — Cross-compliance checks — Traditional on-the-spot checks and on-the-spot checks by remote sensing — Burden of proof — One-off and flat-rate corrections — Doubts concerning the effectiveness of the checks — Risk analysis — Deficiencies) | 4 |
| 2020/C 378/05 | Case T-784/18 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 September 2020 — Mellifera eV, Vereinigung für wesensgemäße Bienenhaltung v European Commission (Appeal — Aarhus Convention — Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 — Article 2(1)(g) and Article 10(1) — Internal review of administrative acts — Limitation to measures of individual application — Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1056 — Extension of the approval period of the active substance glyphosate — Application for internal review — Measure of general application — Dismissal) | 4 |
| 2020/C 378/06 | Case C-817/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 September 2020 — Vereniging tot Behoud van Natuurmonumenten in Nederland and Others v European Commission and Others (Appeal — State aid — Aid scheme relating to the subsidised acquisition or free granting of nature land — Preliminary examination procedure — Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 — Article 1(h) — Concept of serious difficulties — Service of general economic interest — Secondary activities — Related actions) | 5 |
| 2020/C 378/07 | Joined Cases C-21/19 to C-23/19: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 September 2020 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Arnhem-Leeuwarden — Netherlands) — Criminal proceedings against XN (C-21/19), YO (C-22/19), P.F. Kamstra Recycling BV (C-23/19) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Waste — Shipments — Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 — Waste subject to the prior written notification and consent procedure — Article 1(3) — Shipments subject to approval requirements — Directive 2008/98/EC — Article 5(1) — Concept of by-products — Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 — Article 3, point 1 — Concept of animal by-products — Shipments of a mixture of animal by-products and other material) | 6 |
| 2020/C 378/08 | Joined Cases C-84/19, C-222/19 and C-252/19: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 September 2020 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy Szczecin — Prawobrzeże i Zachód w Szczecinie, Sąd Rejonowy w Opatowie — Poland) — Profi Credit Polska SA v QJ (C-84/19), BW v DR (C-222/19), QL v CG (C-252/19) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Article 1(2) — Scope — National provision providing for the maximum amount of non-interest credit costs — Article 3(1) — Contractual term passing on to the consumer costs of the lender’s business activity — Significant imbalance between the rights and obligations of the parties — Article 4(2) — Obligation to draft contract terms in plain intelligible language — Contractual terms which do not specify the services for which remuneration is sought — Directive 2008/48/EC — Article 3(g) — National legislation laying down a method of calculating the maximum non-interest credit cost which may be charged to the consumer) | 7 |
| 2020/C 378/09 | Joined Cases C-119/19 P and C-126/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 September 2020 — European Commission v Francisco Carreras Sequeros and Others, European Parliament, Council of the European Union (Appeal — Civil service — Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union — Reform of 1 January 2014 — Article 6 of Annex X — Officials and members of the contract staff serving in a third country — New provisions on the granting of days of paid annual leave — Objection of illegality — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 31(2) — Directive 2003/88/EC — Fundamental right to paid annual leave) | 8 |
| 2020/C 378/10 | Case C-186/19: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Supreme Site Services GmbH, Supreme Fuels GmbH & Co KG, Supreme Fuels Trading Fze v Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Article 1(1) — Scope — Civil and commercial matters — Jurisdiction — Exclusive jurisdiction — Article 24(5) — Disputes concerning the enforcement of judgments — Action brought by an international organisation based on immunity from execution seeking to have an interim garnishee order lifted and a prohibition on new orders being levied on the same grounds) | 9 |
| 2020/C 378/11 | Case C-214/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 3 September 2020 — achtung! GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (Appeal — EU trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 7(1)(b) — Distinctive character — None) | 10 |
| 2020/C 378/12 | Case C-254/19: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) — Ireland) — Friends of the Irish Environment Ltd v An Bord Pleanála (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora — Article 6(3) — Scope — Concepts of project and agreement — Appropriate assessment of the implications of a plan or project for a protected site — Decision extending the duration of a development consent for the construction of a liquefied natural gas regasification terminal — Original decision based on national legislation which did not properly transpose Directive 92/43) | 10 |
| 2020/C 378/13 | Case C-265/19: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) — Ireland) — Recorded Artists Actors Performers Ltd v Phonographic Performance (Ireland) Ltd, Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Ireland, Attorney General (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual property — Rights related to copyright — Directive 2006/115/EC — Article 8(2) — Use of phonograms in the European Union — Right of the performers to equitable remuneration shared with the phonogram producers — Applicability to nationals of third States — Performances and Phonograms Treaty — Articles 4 and 15 — Reservations notified by third States — Limitations of the right to equitable remuneration that may, on the basis of reciprocity, follow, in the European Union, for nationals of third States from those reservations — Article 17(2) and Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Fundamental right to the protection of intellectual property — Requirement that any limitation must be provided for by law, respect the essence of the fundamental right and be proportionate — Division between the European Union and the Member States of competences to set those limitations — Division of competences in relations with third States — Article 3(2) TFEU — Exclusive competence of the European Union) | 11 |
| 2020/C 378/14 | Case C-356/19: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla m. st. Warszawy w Warszawie — Poland) — Delfly sp. z o.o. v Smartwings Poland sp. z o.o., formerly Travel Service Polska sp. z o.o. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Article 7 — Right to compensation in the event of delay or cancellation of a flight — Compensation procedure — Claim expressed in national currency — National provision prohibiting the creditor from choosing the currency) | 12 |
| 2020/C 378/15 | Joined Cases C-503/19 and C-592/19: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 September 2020 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 17 de Barcelona, Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 5 de Barcelona — Spain) — UQ (C-503/19), SI (C-592/19) v Subdelegación del Gobierno en Barcelona (References for a preliminary ruling — Status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents — Directive 2003/109/EC — Article 6(1) — Elements to be taken into consideration — National rules — Failure to take those elements into consideration — Refusal to grant long-term resident status on the ground that the person concerned has previous convictions) | 13 |
| 2020/C 378/16 | Case C-530/19: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — NM, acting as liquidator of NIKI Luftfahrt GmbH v ON (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Articles 5 and 9 — Obligation of the air carrier to offer hotel accommodation to passengers whose flights have been cancelled — Damage suffered by a passenger during her stay at the hotel providing the accommodation — Possibility of invoking the liability of the air carrier as a result of negligence on the part of employees of the hotel) | 13 |
| 2020/C 378/17 | Case C-539/19: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München I — Germany) — Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband eV v Telefónica Germany GmbH & Co. OHG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Roaming on public mobile communications networks within the European Union — Regulation (EU) No 531/2012 — Article 6a — Article 6e(3) — Roaming provider required to automatically apply the regulated roaming tariff — Application to consumer having opted for a specific roaming tariff prior to the entry into force of Regulation (EU) No 531/2012) | 14 |
| 2020/C 378/18 | Case C-651/19: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État — Belgium) — JP v Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Asylum policy — Common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection — Directive 2013/32/EU — Article 46 — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 47 — Right to an effective remedy — Action brought against a subsequent application for international protection as being inadmissible — Time limit for bringing proceedings — Rules governing notification) | 15 |
| 2020/C 378/19 | Case C-273/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 22 June 2020 — Bundesrepublik Deutschland v SW | 15 |
| 2020/C 378/20 | Case C-279/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 26 June 2020 — Federal Republic of Germany v XC | 16 |
| 2020/C 378/21 | Case C-358/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Oradea (Romania) lodged on 30 July 2020 — Promexor Trade SRL v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Cluj — Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Bihor | 17 |
| 2020/C 378/22 | Case C-394/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 18 August 2020 — XY v Finanzamt V | 18 |
| 2020/C 378/23 | Case C-405/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 28 August 2020 — EB and Others v Versicherungsanstalt öffentlich Bediensteter, Eisenbahnen und Bergbau (BVAEB) | 19 |
| 2020/C 378/24 | Case C-412/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 3 September 2020 — European arrest warrant issued against P, Other party to the procedure: Openbaar Ministerie | 20 |
| 2020/C 378/25 | Case C-413/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 2 September 2020 — Belgian State v LO, OG, SH, MB, JD, OP, Bluetail Flight School SA (BFS) | 20 |
| 2020/C 378/26 | Case C-439/20 P: Appeal brought on 18 September 2020 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 8 July 2020 in Case T-110/17, Jiangsu Seraphim Solar System v Commission | 21 |
| 2020/C 378/27 | Case C-441/20 P: Appeal brought on 21 September 2020 by Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 08 July 2020 in Case T-110/17, Jiangsu Seraphim Solar System v Commission | 22 |
| | General Court |
| 2020/C 378/28 | Case T-437/16: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — Italy v Commission (Language regime — Notice of open competition for the recruitment of administrators in the field of audit — Language knowledge — Limitation of the choice of second language to German, English and French — Language for communication — Regulation No 1 — Article 1d(1), Article 27 and Article 28(f) of the Staff Regulations — Discrimination on grounds of language — Justification — Interest of the service — Proportionality) | 25 |
| 2020/C 378/29 | Case T-626/17: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — Slovenia v Commission (Agriculture — Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 — Designations of origin in the wine sector — Wine labelling — Use of the name of a wine grape variety which contains or consists of a protected designation of origin — Prohibition — Derogation — Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1353 — Inclusion of the name of the wine grape variety teran in the list set out in Part A of Annex XV to Regulation (EC) No 607/2009 — Retroactive effect from the date of the accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union — Slovenian protected designation of origin Teran — Legal certainty — Legitimate expectations — Proportionality — Right to property — Act concerning the conditions of accession of Croatia to the European Union — Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making — Institutional balance) | 25 |
| 2020/C 378/30 | Case T-745/17: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — Kerkosand v Commission (State aid — Aid for an investment project in western Slovakia — Regional investment aid — Rejection of a complaint — Decision not to raise any objections — Conditions for exemption — Article 14 of Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 — Scope of the Commission’s supervisory power — Guidelines on regional State aid for 2014-2020 — Concept of SME — Article 3(2) and (3) of Annex I to Regulation No 651/2014 — Data used for the staff headcount and the financial amounts and reference period — Article 4 of Annex I to Regulation No 651/2014 — Doubts as to the compatibility of the aid with the internal market — Article 4(4) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 — Serious difficulties) | 26 |
| 2020/C 378/31 | Case T-143/18: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — Société générale v ECB (Economic and monetary policy — Prudential supervision of credit institutions — Contribution to the deposit guarantee system or to the single resolution fund by means of irrevocable payment commitments — Tasks entrusted to the ECB — Specific supervision powers of the ECB — Article 4(1)(f) and Article 16(1)(c) and (2)(d) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 — Measure requiring the deduction of the cumulative amount of irrevocable payment commitments outstanding from Tier 1 capital — Absence of individual examination) | 27 |
| 2020/C 378/32 | Cases T-150/18 and T-345/18: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — BNP Paribas v ECB (Economic and monetary policy — Prudential supervision of credit institutions — Contribution to the deposit guarantee scheme or to the single resolution fund by way of irrevocable payment commitments — Tasks conferred on the ECB — ECB’s specific supervision powers — Article 4(1)(f), Article 16(1)(c) and Article 16(2)(d) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 — Measure imposing the deduction of the cumulative sum of outstanding irrevocable payment commitments from Common Equity Tier 1 — Absence of individual examination) | 27 |
| 2020/C 378/33 | Case T-46/19: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — Greece v Commission (EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Area-related aid scheme — Definition of permanent grasslands — Article 4(1)(h) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 — Integrated administration and control system — Key controls — Regulation No 1306/2013 — Duty to state reasons) | 28 |
| 2020/C 378/34 | Case T-50/19: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — Casual Dreams v EUIPO — López Fernández (Dayaday) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark Dayaday — Earlier national figurative marks DAYADAY and dayaday — Relative grounds for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Reputation — Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark) | 29 |
| 2020/C 378/35 | Case T-144/19: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — Kludi v EUIPO — Adlon Brand (ADLON) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark ADLON — Earlier EU word mark ADLON — Proof of the reputation of the earlier mark — Rule 19 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 7 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625) — Temporal application of the law — Late submission of documents — Board of Appeal’s discretion — Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Relative ground for refusal — Damage to reputation — Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark) | 30 |
| 2020/C 378/36 | Case T-187/19: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — Glaxo Group Ltd v EUIPO (Shade of the colour purple) (EU trade mark — Application for an EU trade mark consisting of a shade of the colour purple — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Lack of distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001) | 30 |
| 2020/C 378/37 | Case T-589/19: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — Gothe and Kunz v EUIPO — Aldi Einkauf (FAIR ZONE) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark FAIR ZONE — Earlier EU word mark FAIR — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 31 |
| 2020/C 378/38 | Case T-625/19: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — Daw v EUIPO (SOS Innenfarbe) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark SOS Innenfarbe — Absolute grounds for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001) | 31 |
| 2020/C 378/39 | Case T-669/19: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — Novomatic v EUIPO — Brouwerij Haacht (PRIMUS) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for European Union word mark PRIMUS — Earlier EU word mark PRIMUS — Earlier Benelux word mark PRIMUS — Relative ground for refusal — Damage to reputation — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 32 |
| 2020/C 378/40 | Case T-879/19: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — Sumol + Compal Marcas v EUIPO — Jacob (Dr. Jacob’s essentials) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark Dr. Jacob’s essentials — Earlier international word mark COMPAL ESSENCIAL — Earlier national and international figurative marks FRUTA essencial, COMPAL essencial and Compal FRUTA essencial — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 33 |
| 2020/C 378/41 | Case T-81/20: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — Klose v EUIPO (Representation of three coloured segments in a rectangle) (EU trade mark — Application for an EU figurative mark representing three coloured segments in a rectangle — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 33 |
| 2020/C 378/42 | Case T-131/20: Judgment of the General Court of 2 September 2020 — IR v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Rights and obligations of officials — Secondment in the interests of the service — Article 37, first paragraph, heading (a), first indent, of the Staff Regulations — Article 38 of the Staff Regulations — Refusal to extend a secondment — Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials — Rights of the defence) | 34 |
| 2020/C 378/43 | Case T-529/19: Order of the General Court of 10 September 2020 –ADESO v Commission (Action for annulment — Grant contracts relating to the projects Your Environment is Your Life and Social Safety Net for Poor and Vulnerable Households in Northern Regions of Somalia/Somaliland Phase II — Non-eligible costs — Debit notes — Confirmation letter — Challengeable act — Contractual nature of the dispute — Act not open to challenge — Act forming part of a purely contractual framework from which it is inseparable — Inadmissibility) | 34 |
| 2020/C 378/44 | Case T-645/19: Order of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — IMG v Commission (Action for annulment — Development cooperation — Implementing the EU budget in indirect management — Execution of a judgment of the Court of Justice — Commission letter requesting that certain documents be provided — Act not open to challenge — Preparatory measure — Inadmissibility — Action for damages — Close link with the claim for annulment — Lis pendens — Inadmissibility — Failure to comply with procedural requirements — Article 76(d) of the Rules of Procedure — Manifest inadmissibility) | 35 |
| 2020/C 378/45 | Case T-735/19: Order of the General Court of 25 August 2020 — Frank Recruitment Group Services Ltd v EUIPO — Pearson (PEARSON FRANK) (European Union trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the application for registration — No need to adjudicate) | 36 |
| 2020/C 378/46 | Case T-512/20: Action brought on 14 August 2020 — TrekStor v EUIPO — Zagg (Protective covers for computer hardware) | 36 |
| 2020/C 378/47 | Case T-522/20: Action brought on 11 August 2020 — Carpatair v Commission | 37 |
| 2020/C 378/48 | Case T-540/20: Action brought on 27 August 2020 — Jushi Egypt for Fiberglass Industry v Commission | 38 |
| 2020/C 378/49 | Case T-564/20: Action brought on 10 September 2020 — TrekStor v EUIPO — Zagg (Protective covers for computer hardware) | 39 |
| 2020/C 378/50 | Case T-565/20: Action brought on 10 September 2020 — TrekStor v EUIPO — Zagg (Protective covers for computer hardware) | 39 |
| 2020/C 378/51 | Case T-569/20: Action brought on 7 September 2020 — Stichting Comité N 65 Ondergronds Helvoirt v Commission | 40 |
| 2020/C 378/52 | Case T-583/20: Action brought on 23 September 2020 — Italia Wanbao-ACC v Commission | 41 |
| 2020/C 378/53 | Case T-589/20: Action brought on 24 September 2020 — Calzaturificio Emmegiemme Shoes v EUIPO — Inticom (MAIMAI MADE IN ITALY) | 43 |
| 2020/C 378/54 | Case T-593/20: Action brought on 28 September 2020 — Tirrenia di navigazione v Commission | 44 |
| 2020/C 378/55 | Case T-596/20: Action brought on 29 September 2020 — Roller v EUIPO — Flex Equipos de Descanso (DORMILLO) | 46 |
| 2020/C 378/56 | Case T-601/20: Action brought on 29 September 2020 — Tirrenia di navigazione v Commission | 46 |
| 2020/C 378/57 | Case T-53/20: Order of the General Court of 18 September 2020 — IMI 2 Joint Undertaking v CHS | 48 |
| 2020/C 378/58 | Case T-108/20: Order of the General Court of 15 September 2020 — Kahimbi Kasagwe v Council | 48 |
| 2020/C 378/59 | Case T-334/20: Order of the General Court of 8 September 2020 — KH v EEAS | 48 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2020/C 378/02

Joined Cases C-674/18 and C-675/18: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 September 2020 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — EM v TMD Friction GmbH (C-674/18), FL v TMD Friction EsCo GmbH (C-675/18) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Transfers of undertakings — Directive 2001/23/EC — Articles 3 and 5 — Safeguarding of employees’ rights — Protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer — Transfer made by the insolvency administrator of the transferring undertaking subject to insolvency proceedings — Occupational old-age pension benefits — Restriction on the obligations of the transferee — Amount of the benefit payable under the supplementary occupational pension scheme calculated on the basis of the employee’s pay when insolvency proceedings were instituted — Directive 2008/94/EC — Article 8 — Direct effect — Conditions)

2

2020/C 378/03

Case C-719/18: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Vivendi SA v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Electronic communications — Article 11(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Freedom and pluralism of the media — Freedom of establishment — Article 49 TFEU — Directive 2002/21/EC — Articles 15 and 16 — National legislation prohibiting an undertaking which has significant market power in a sector from establishing a significant economic dimension in another sector — Calculation of revenues received in the electronic communications sector and the media sector — Definition of the electronic communications sector — Restriction to markets which have been subject to ex ante regulation — Account taken of the income of affiliated companies — Fixing of different income thresholds for undertakings active in the electronic communications sector)

3

2020/C 378/04

Case C-742/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 September 2020 — Czech Republic v European Commission, Kingdom of Sweden (Appeal — European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) — Expenditure excluded from EU financing — Expenditure incurred by the Czech Republic — Regulation (EC) No 555/2008 — Articles 19 and 77 — Wine market — Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 — Article 33 — Support for rural development — Area-related aid — Decoupled direct aid — Cross-compliance checks — Traditional on-the-spot checks and on-the-spot checks by remote sensing — Burden of proof — One-off and flat-rate corrections — Doubts concerning the effectiveness of the checks — Risk analysis — Deficiencies)

4

2020/C 378/05

Case T-784/18 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 September 2020 — Mellifera eV, Vereinigung für wesensgemäße Bienenhaltung v European Commission (Appeal — Aarhus Convention — Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 — Article 2(1)(g) and Article 10(1) — Internal review of administrative acts — Limitation to measures of individual application — Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1056 — Extension of the approval period of the active substance glyphosate — Application for internal review — Measure of general application — Dismissal)

4

2020/C 378/06

Case C-817/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 September 2020 — Vereniging tot Behoud van Natuurmonumenten in Nederland and Others v European Commission and Others (Appeal — State aid — Aid scheme relating to the subsidised acquisition or free granting of nature land — Preliminary examination procedure — Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 — Article 1(h) — Concept of serious difficulties — Service of general economic interest — Secondary activities — Related actions)

5

2020/C 378/07

Joined Cases C-21/19 to C-23/19: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 September 2020 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Arnhem-Leeuwarden — Netherlands) — Criminal proceedings against XN (C-21/19), YO (C-22/19), P.F. Kamstra Recycling BV (C-23/19) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Waste — Shipments — Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 — Waste subject to the prior written notification and consent procedure — Article 1(3) — Shipments subject to approval requirements — Directive 2008/98/EC — Article 5(1) — Concept of by-products — Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 — Article 3, point 1 — Concept of animal by-products — Shipments of a mixture of animal by-products and other material)

6

2020/C 378/08

Joined Cases C-84/19, C-222/19 and C-252/19: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 September 2020 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy Szczecin — Prawobrzeże i Zachód w Szczecinie, Sąd Rejonowy w Opatowie — Poland) — Profi Credit Polska SA v QJ (C-84/19), BW v DR (C-222/19), QL v CG (C-252/19) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Article 1(2) — Scope — National provision providing for the maximum amount of non-interest credit costs — Article 3(1) — Contractual term passing on to the consumer costs of the lender’s business activity — Significant imbalance between the rights and obligations of the parties — Article 4(2) — Obligation to draft contract terms in plain intelligible language — Contractual terms which do not specify the services for which remuneration is sought — Directive 2008/48/EC — Article 3(g) — National legislation laying down a method of calculating the maximum non-interest credit cost which may be charged to the consumer)

7

2020/C 378/09

Joined Cases C-119/19 P and C-126/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 September 2020 — European Commission v Francisco Carreras Sequeros and Others, European Parliament, Council of the European Union (Appeal — Civil service — Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union — Reform of 1 January 2014 — Article 6 of Annex X — Officials and members of the contract staff serving in a third country — New provisions on the granting of days of paid annual leave — Objection of illegality — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 31(2) — Directive 2003/88/EC — Fundamental right to paid annual leave)

8

2020/C 378/10

Case C-186/19: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Supreme Site Services GmbH, Supreme Fuels GmbH & Co KG, Supreme Fuels Trading Fze v Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Article 1(1) — Scope — Civil and commercial matters — Jurisdiction — Exclusive jurisdiction — Article 24(5) — Disputes concerning the enforcement of judgments — Action brought by an international organisation based on immunity from execution seeking to have an interim garnishee order lifted and a prohibition on new orders being levied on the same grounds)

9

2020/C 378/11

Case C-214/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 3 September 2020 — achtung! GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (Appeal — EU trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 7(1)(b) — Distinctive character — None)

10

2020/C 378/12

Case C-254/19: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) — Ireland) — Friends of the Irish Environment Ltd v An Bord Pleanála (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora — Article 6(3) — Scope — Concepts of project and agreement — Appropriate assessment of the implications of a plan or project for a protected site — Decision extending the duration of a development consent for the construction of a liquefied natural gas regasification terminal — Original decision based on national legislation which did not properly transpose Directive 92/43)

10

2020/C 378/13

Case C-265/19: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) — Ireland) — Recorded Artists Actors Performers Ltd v Phonographic Performance (Ireland) Ltd, Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Ireland, Attorney General (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual property — Rights related to copyright — Directive 2006/115/EC — Article 8(2) — Use of phonograms in the European Union — Right of the performers to equitable remuneration shared with the phonogram producers — Applicability to nationals of third States — Performances and Phonograms Treaty — Articles 4 and 15 — Reservations notified by third States — Limitations of the right to equitable remuneration that may, on the basis of reciprocity, follow, in the European Union, for nationals of third States from those reservations — Article 17(2) and Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Fundamental right to the protection of intellectual property — Requirement that any limitation must be provided for by law, respect the essence of the fundamental right and be proportionate — Division between the European Union and the Member States of competences to set those limitations — Division of competences in relations with third States — Article 3(2) TFEU — Exclusive competence of the European Union)

11

2020/C 378/14

Case C-356/19: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla m. st. Warszawy w Warszawie — Poland) — Delfly sp. z o.o. v Smartwings Poland sp. z o.o., formerly Travel Service Polska sp. z o.o. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Article 7 — Right to compensation in the event of delay or cancellation of a flight — Compensation procedure — Claim expressed in national currency — National provision prohibiting the creditor from choosing the currency)

12

2020/C 378/15

Joined Cases C-503/19 and C-592/19: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 September 2020 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 17 de Barcelona, Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 5 de Barcelona — Spain) — UQ (C-503/19), SI (C-592/19) v Subdelegación del Gobierno en Barcelona (References for a preliminary ruling — Status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents — Directive 2003/109/EC — Article 6(1) — Elements to be taken into consideration — National rules — Failure to take those elements into consideration — Refusal to grant long-term resident status on the ground that the person concerned has previous convictions)

13

2020/C 378/16

Case C-530/19: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — NM, acting as liquidator of NIKI Luftfahrt GmbH v ON (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Articles 5 and 9 — Obligation of the air carrier to offer hotel accommodation to passengers whose flights have been cancelled — Damage suffered by a passenger during her stay at the hotel providing the accommodation — Possibility of invoking the liability of the air carrier as a result of negligence on the part of employees of the hotel)

13

2020/C 378/17

Case C-539/19: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München I — Germany) — Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband eV v Telefónica Germany GmbH & Co. OHG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Roaming on public mobile communications networks within the European Union — Regulation (EU) No 531/2012 — Article 6a — Article 6e(3) — Roaming provider required to automatically apply the regulated roaming tariff — Application to consumer having opted for a specific roaming tariff prior to the entry into force of Regulation (EU) No 531/2012)

14

2020/C 378/18

Case C-651/19: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État — Belgium) — JP v Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Asylum policy — Common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection — Directive 2013/32/EU — Article 46 — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 47 — Right to an effective remedy — Action brought against a subsequent application for international protection as being inadmissible — Time limit for bringing proceedings — Rules governing notification)

15

2020/C 378/19

Case C-273/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 22 June 2020 — Bundesrepublik Deutschland v SW

15

2020/C 378/20

Case C-279/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 26 June 2020 — Federal Republic of Germany v XC

16

2020/C 378/21

Case C-358/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Oradea (Romania) lodged on 30 July 2020 — Promexor Trade SRL v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Cluj — Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Bihor

17

2020/C 378/22

Case C-394/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 18 August 2020 — XY v Finanzamt V

18

2020/C 378/23

Case C-405/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 28 August 2020 — EB and Others v Versicherungsanstalt öffentlich Bediensteter, Eisenbahnen und Bergbau (BVAEB)

19

2020/C 378/24

Case C-412/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 3 September 2020 — European arrest warrant issued against P, Other party to the procedure: Openbaar Ministerie

20

2020/C 378/25

Case C-413/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 2 September 2020 — Belgian State v LO, OG, SH, MB, JD, OP, Bluetail Flight School SA (BFS)

20

2020/C 378/26

Case C-439/20 P: Appeal brought on 18 September 2020 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 8 July 2020 in Case T-110/17, Jiangsu Seraphim Solar System v Commission

21

2020/C 378/27

Case C-441/20 P: Appeal brought on 21 September 2020 by Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 08 July 2020 in Case T-110/17, Jiangsu Seraphim Solar System v Commission

22

General Court

2020/C 378/28

Case T-437/16: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — Italy v Commission (Language regime — Notice of open competition for the recruitment of administrators in the field of audit — Language knowledge — Limitation of the choice of second language to German, English and French — Language for communication — Regulation No 1 — Article 1d(1), Article 27 and Article 28(f) of the Staff Regulations — Discrimination on grounds of language — Justification — Interest of the service — Proportionality)

25

2020/C 378/29

Case T-626/17: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — Slovenia v Commission (Agriculture — Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 — Designations of origin in the wine sector — Wine labelling — Use of the name of a wine grape variety which contains or consists of a protected designation of origin — Prohibition — Derogation — Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1353 — Inclusion of the name of the wine grape variety teran in the list set out in Part A of Annex XV to Regulation (EC) No 607/2009 — Retroactive effect from the date of the accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union — Slovenian protected designation of origin Teran — Legal certainty — Legitimate expectations — Proportionality — Right to property — Act concerning the conditions of accession of Croatia to the European Union — Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making — Institutional balance)

25

2020/C 378/30

Case T-745/17: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — Kerkosand v Commission (State aid — Aid for an investment project in western Slovakia — Regional investment aid — Rejection of a complaint — Decision not to raise any objections — Conditions for exemption — Article 14 of Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 — Scope of the Commission’s supervisory power — Guidelines on regional State aid for 2014-2020 — Concept of SME — Article 3(2) and (3) of Annex I to Regulation No 651/2014 — Data used for the staff headcount and the financial amounts and reference period — Article 4 of Annex I to Regulation No 651/2014 — Doubts as to the compatibility of the aid with the internal market — Article 4(4) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 — Serious difficulties)

26

2020/C 378/31

Case T-143/18: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — Société générale v ECB (Economic and monetary policy — Prudential supervision of credit institutions — Contribution to the deposit guarantee system or to the single resolution fund by means of irrevocable payment commitments — Tasks entrusted to the ECB — Specific supervision powers of the ECB — Article 4(1)(f) and Article 16(1)(c) and (2)(d) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 — Measure requiring the deduction of the cumulative amount of irrevocable payment commitments outstanding from Tier 1 capital — Absence of individual examination)

27

2020/C 378/32

Cases T-150/18 and T-345/18: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — BNP Paribas v ECB (Economic and monetary policy — Prudential supervision of credit institutions — Contribution to the deposit guarantee scheme or to the single resolution fund by way of irrevocable payment commitments — Tasks conferred on the ECB — ECB’s specific supervision powers — Article 4(1)(f), Article 16(1)(c) and Article 16(2)(d) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 — Measure imposing the deduction of the cumulative sum of outstanding irrevocable payment commitments from Common Equity Tier 1 — Absence of individual examination)

27

2020/C 378/33

Case T-46/19: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — Greece v Commission (EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Area-related aid scheme — Definition of permanent grasslands — Article 4(1)(h) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 — Integrated administration and control system — Key controls — Regulation No 1306/2013 — Duty to state reasons)

28

2020/C 378/34

Case T-50/19: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — Casual Dreams v EUIPO — López Fernández (Dayaday) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark Dayaday — Earlier national figurative marks DAYADAY and dayaday — Relative grounds for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Reputation — Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark)

29

2020/C 378/35

Case T-144/19: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — Kludi v EUIPO — Adlon Brand (ADLON) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark ADLON — Earlier EU word mark ADLON — Proof of the reputation of the earlier mark — Rule 19 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 7 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625) — Temporal application of the law — Late submission of documents — Board of Appeal’s discretion — Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Relative ground for refusal — Damage to reputation — Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark)

30

2020/C 378/36

Case T-187/19: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — Glaxo Group Ltd v EUIPO (Shade of the colour purple) (EU trade mark — Application for an EU trade mark consisting of a shade of the colour purple — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Lack of distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001)

30

2020/C 378/37

Case T-589/19: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — Gothe and Kunz v EUIPO — Aldi Einkauf (FAIR ZONE) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark FAIR ZONE — Earlier EU word mark FAIR — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

31

2020/C 378/38

Case T-625/19: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — Daw v EUIPO (SOS Innenfarbe) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark SOS Innenfarbe — Absolute grounds for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001)

31

2020/C 378/39

Case T-669/19: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — Novomatic v EUIPO — Brouwerij Haacht (PRIMUS) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for European Union word mark PRIMUS — Earlier EU word mark PRIMUS — Earlier Benelux word mark PRIMUS — Relative ground for refusal — Damage to reputation — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

32

2020/C 378/40

Case T-879/19: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — Sumol + Compal Marcas v EUIPO — Jacob (Dr. Jacob’s essentials) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark Dr. Jacob’s essentials — Earlier international word mark COMPAL ESSENCIAL — Earlier national and international figurative marks FRUTA essencial, COMPAL essencial and Compal FRUTA essencial — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

33

2020/C 378/41

Case T-81/20: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — Klose v EUIPO (Representation of three coloured segments in a rectangle) (EU trade mark — Application for an EU figurative mark representing three coloured segments in a rectangle — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

33

2020/C 378/42

Case T-131/20: Judgment of the General Court of 2 September 2020 — IR v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Rights and obligations of officials — Secondment in the interests of the service — Article 37, first paragraph, heading (a), first indent, of the Staff Regulations — Article 38 of the Staff Regulations — Refusal to extend a secondment — Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials — Rights of the defence)

34

2020/C 378/43

Case T-529/19: Order of the General Court of 10 September 2020 –ADESO v Commission (Action for annulment — Grant contracts relating to the projects Your Environment is Your Life and Social Safety Net for Poor and Vulnerable Households in Northern Regions of Somalia/Somaliland Phase II — Non-eligible costs — Debit notes — Confirmation letter — Challengeable act — Contractual nature of the dispute — Act not open to challenge — Act forming part of a purely contractual framework from which it is inseparable — Inadmissibility)

34

2020/C 378/44

Case T-645/19: Order of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — IMG v Commission (Action for annulment — Development cooperation — Implementing the EU budget in indirect management — Execution of a judgment of the Court of Justice — Commission letter requesting that certain documents be provided — Act not open to challenge — Preparatory measure — Inadmissibility — Action for damages — Close link with the claim for annulment — Lis pendens — Inadmissibility — Failure to comply with procedural requirements — Article 76(d) of the Rules of Procedure — Manifest inadmissibility)

35

2020/C 378/45

Case T-735/19: Order of the General Court of 25 August 2020 — Frank Recruitment Group Services Ltd v EUIPO — Pearson (PEARSON FRANK) (European Union trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the application for registration — No need to adjudicate)

36

2020/C 378/46

Case T-512/20: Action brought on 14 August 2020 — TrekStor v EUIPO — Zagg (Protective covers for computer hardware)

36

2020/C 378/47

Case T-522/20: Action brought on 11 August 2020 — Carpatair v Commission

37

2020/C 378/48

Case T-540/20: Action brought on 27 August 2020 — Jushi Egypt for Fiberglass Industry v Commission

38

2020/C 378/49

Case T-564/20: Action brought on 10 September 2020 — TrekStor v EUIPO — Zagg (Protective covers for computer hardware)

39

2020/C 378/50

Case T-565/20: Action brought on 10 September 2020 — TrekStor v EUIPO — Zagg (Protective covers for computer hardware)

39

2020/C 378/51

Case T-569/20: Action brought on 7 September 2020 — Stichting Comité N 65 Ondergronds Helvoirt v Commission

40

2020/C 378/52

Case T-583/20: Action brought on 23 September 2020 — Italia Wanbao-ACC v Commission

41

2020/C 378/53

Case T-589/20: Action brought on 24 September 2020 — Calzaturificio Emmegiemme Shoes v EUIPO — Inticom (MAIMAI MADE IN ITALY)

43

2020/C 378/54

Case T-593/20: Action brought on 28 September 2020 — Tirrenia di navigazione v Commission

44

2020/C 378/55

Case T-596/20: Action brought on 29 September 2020 — Roller v EUIPO — Flex Equipos de Descanso (DORMILLO)

46

2020/C 378/56

Case T-601/20: Action brought on 29 September 2020 — Tirrenia di navigazione v Commission

46

2020/C 378/57

Case T-53/20: Order of the General Court of 18 September 2020 — IMI 2 Joint Undertaking v CHS

48

2020/C 378/58

Case T-108/20: Order of the General Court of 15 September 2020 — Kahimbi Kasagwe v Council

48

2020/C 378/59

Case T-334/20: Order of the General Court of 8 September 2020 — KH v EEAS

48

---

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice

| 9.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 378/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 378/1

---

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

(2020/C 378/01)

Last publication

OJ C 371, 3.11.2020

Past publications

OJ C 359, 26.10.2020

OJ C 348, 19.10.2020

OJ C 339, 12.10.2020

OJ C 329, 5.10.2020

OJ C 320, 28.9.2020

OJ C 313, 21.9.2020

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 9.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 378/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 378/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 September 2020 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — EM v TMD Friction GmbH (C-674/18), FL v TMD Friction EsCo GmbH (C-675/18)

(Joined Cases C-674/18 and C-675/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Transfers of undertakings - Directive 2001/23/EC - Articles 3 and 5 - Safeguarding of employees’ rights - Protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer - Transfer made by the insolvency administrator of the transferring undertaking subject to insolvency proceedings - Occupational old-age pension benefits - Restriction on the obligations of the transferee - Amount of the benefit payable under the supplementary occupational pension scheme calculated on the basis of the employee’s pay when insolvency proceedings were instituted - Directive 2008/94/EC - Article 8 - Direct effect - Conditions)

(2020/C 378/02)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: EM (C-674/18), FL (C-675/18)

Defendants: TMD Friction GmbH (C-674/18), TMD Friction EsCo GmbH (C-675/18)

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001, on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfer of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses, having regard in particular to Article 3(1) and (4) and Article 5(2)(a) of that directive, must be interpreted as not precluding, in the event of a transfer of an undertaking subject to insolvency proceedings that is carried out by the insolvency administrator of that undertaking, national legislation, as interpreted by national case-law, which provides that, on the occurrence, after the opening of insolvency proceedings, of an event that confers eligibility for a retirement pension under a supplementary occupational pension scheme, the transferee is not liable for an employee’s rights conferring prospective entitlement to that retirement pension where those rights have accrued with respect to periods of employment that preceded the opening of the insolvency proceedings, provided that, with respect to the portion of the amount for which the transferee is not liable, the measures adopted to protect the interests of the employees are at a level that is at least equivalent to the level of protection required under Article 8 of Directive 2008/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001, on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfer of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses, having regard in particular to Article 3(1) and (4) and Article 5(2)(a) of that directive, must be interpreted as not precluding, in the event of a transfer of an undertaking subject to insolvency proceedings that is carried out by the insolvency administrator of that undertaking, national legislation, as interpreted by national case-law, which provides that, on the occurrence, after the opening of insolvency proceedings, of an event that confers eligibility for a retirement pension under a supplementary occupational pension scheme, the transferee is not liable for an employee’s rights conferring prospective entitlement to that retirement pension where those rights have accrued with respect to periods of employment that preceded the opening of the insolvency proceedings, provided that, with respect to the portion of the amount for which the transferee is not liable, the measures adopted to protect the interests of the employees are at a level that is at least equivalent to the level of protection required under Article 8 of Directive 2008/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer.

| 2. | Article 3(4)(b) of Directive 2001/23, read together with Article 8 of Directive 2008/94, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, as interpreted by national case-law, which provides that, on the occurrence of an event that confers eligibility to old-age benefits under a supplementary occupational pension scheme after the opening of insolvency proceedings in the course of which a transfer of an undertaking has been made, with respect to the portion of those benefits for which the transferee is not liable: (i) the insolvency guarantee body established under national law is not required to intervene where the rights conferring prospective entitlement to old-age benefits had not already become definitive at the time when those insolvency proceedings were opened and (ii), for the purposes of determining the amount relating to the portion of those benefits liability for which falls on that body, the calculation of that amount is to be based on the gross monthly pay earned by the employee concerned at the time when those insolvency proceedings were opened, if the consequence of that legislation is that the employees are deprived of the minimum protection guaranteed by Article 8, which it is for the referring court to determine. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 3(4)(b) of Directive 2001/23, read together with Article 8 of Directive 2008/94, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, as interpreted by national case-law, which provides that, on the occurrence of an event that confers eligibility to old-age benefits under a supplementary occupational pension scheme after the opening of insolvency proceedings in the course of which a transfer of an undertaking has been made, with respect to the portion of those benefits for which the transferee is not liable: (i) the insolvency guarantee body established under national law is not required to intervene where the rights conferring prospective entitlement to old-age benefits had not already become definitive at the time when those insolvency proceedings were opened and (ii), for the purposes of determining the amount relating to the portion of those benefits liability for which falls on that body, the calculation of that amount is to be based on the gross monthly pay earned by the employee concerned at the time when those insolvency proceedings were opened, if the consequence of that legislation is that the employees are deprived of the minimum protection guaranteed by Article 8, which it is for the referring court to determine.

| 3. | Article 8 of Directive 2008/94, in that it prescribes a minimum protection of employees’ rights conferring immediate or prospective entitlement to old-age benefits, is capable of having direct effect, and consequently that provision can be relied upon in proceedings against a body governed by private law, designated by the Member State concerned as the body that guarantees occupational pensions against the risk of insolvency of employers, provided that (i) in the light of the task of guarantor with which that body has been charged and the circumstances in which it performs that task, that body can be treated as equivalent to the State and (ii) that task does actually cover the types of old-age benefits for which the minimum protection prescribed in Article 8 is sought, which it is for the referring court to determine. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 8 of Directive 2008/94, in that it prescribes a minimum protection of employees’ rights conferring immediate or prospective entitlement to old-age benefits, is capable of having direct effect, and consequently that provision can be relied upon in proceedings against a body governed by private law, designated by the Member State concerned as the body that guarantees occupational pensions against the risk of insolvency of employers, provided that (i) in the light of the task of guarantor with which that body has been charged and the circumstances in which it performs that task, that body can be treated as equivalent to the State and (ii) that task does actually cover the types of old-age benefits for which the minimum protection prescribed in Article 8 is sought, which it is for the referring court to determine.

---

(1)  OJ C 103, 18.3.2019.

---

| 9.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 378/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 378/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Vivendi SA v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni

(Case C-719/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Electronic communications - Article 11(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Freedom and pluralism of the media - Freedom of establishment - Article 49 TFEU - Directive 2002/21/EC - Articles 15 and 16 - National legislation prohibiting an undertaking which has significant market power in a sector from establishing a ‘significant economic dimension’ in another sector - Calculation of revenues received in the electronic communications sector and the media sector - Definition of the electronic communications sector - Restriction to markets which have been subject to ex ante regulation - Account taken of the income of affiliated companies - Fixing of different income thresholds for undertakings active in the electronic communications sector)

(2020/C 378/03)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vivendi SA

Defendant: Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni

Intervening party: Mediaset SpA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which has the effect of preventing a company registered in another Member State, the revenue of which in the electronic communications sector, as defined for the purposes of that legislation, is in excess of 40 % of the total revenues generated in that sector, from earning, within the integrated communications system, revenue which exceeds 10 % of the total revenues generated in that system.

---

(1)  OJ C 103, 18.3.2019.

---

| 9.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 378/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 378/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 September 2020 — Czech Republic v European Commission, Kingdom of Sweden

(Case C-742/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) - Expenditure excluded from EU financing - Expenditure incurred by the Czech Republic - Regulation (EC) No 555/2008 - Articles 19 and 77 - Wine market - Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 - Article 33 - Support for rural development - Area-related aid - Decoupled direct aid - Cross-compliance checks - Traditional on-the-spot checks and on-the-spot checks by remote sensing - Burden of proof - One-off and flat-rate corrections - Doubts concerning the effectiveness of the checks - Risk analysis - Deficiencies)

(2020/C 378/04)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, O. Serdula, J. Pavliš and J. Vláčil, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: Z. Malůšková, K. Walkerová and J. Aquilina, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Sweden

Operative part of the judgment

The Court hereby:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 13 September 2018, Czech Republic v Commission (T-627/16, not published, EU:T:2018:538), in so far as, by that judgment, the General Court rejected the plea in law concerning the one-off correction of EUR 462 517,83 in respect of the financial years 2013 to 2015, to the extent to which it concerns the ground relating to deficiencies in the risk analysis, and the plea in law concerning a flat-rate correction of EUR 636 516,20, in respect of the financial years 2011 to 2014, to the extent to which it concerns the ground relating to insufficient on-the-spot checks so far as investments financed in the wine sector are concerned; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 13 September 2018, Czech Republic v Commission (T-627/16, not published, EU:T:2018:538), in so far as, by that judgment, the General Court rejected the plea in law concerning the one-off correction of EUR 462 517,83 in respect of the financial years 2013 to 2015, to the extent to which it concerns the ground relating to deficiencies in the risk analysis, and the plea in law concerning a flat-rate correction of EUR 636 516,20, in respect of the financial years 2011 to 2014, to the extent to which it concerns the ground relating to insufficient on-the-spot checks so far as investments financed in the wine sector are concerned;

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

2.

Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder;

| 3. | Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

3.

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

| 4. | Reserves the costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Reserves the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 44, 4.2.2019.

---

| 9.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 378/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 378/4

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 September 2020 — Mellifera eV, Vereinigung für wesensgemäße Bienenhaltung v European Commission

(Case T-784/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Aarhus Convention - Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 - Article 2(1)(g) and Article 10(1) - Internal review of administrative acts - Limitation to measures of individual application - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1056 - Extension of the approval period of the active substance ‘glyphosate’ - Application for internal review - Measure of general application - Dismissal)

(2020/C 378/05)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Mellifera eV, Vereinigung für wesensgemäße Bienenhaltung (represented by: A. Willand, Rechtsanwalt)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Eggers and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Bayer Agriculture BVBA (represented by: H. Berger, A. Burghardt, J. Wauters, Rechtsanwälte, and G. Forwood, avocate)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Mellifera eV, Vereinigung für wesensgemäße Bienenhaltung to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Bayer Agriculture BVBA and by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mellifera eV, Vereinigung für wesensgemäße Bienenhaltung to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Bayer Agriculture BVBA and by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 54, 11.2.2019.

---

| 9.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 378/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 378/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 September 2020 — Vereniging tot Behoud van Natuurmonumenten in Nederland and Others v European Commission and Others

(Case C-817/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Aid scheme relating to the subsidised acquisition or free granting of nature land - Preliminary examination procedure - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Article 1(h) - Concept of ‘serious difficulties’ - Service of general economic interest - Secondary activities - Related actions)

(2020/C 378/06)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicants: Vereniging tot Behoud van Natuurmonumenten in Nederland, Stichting Het Groninger Landschap, Vereniging It Fryske Gea, Stichting Het Drentse Landschap, Stichting Het Overijssels Landschap, Stichting Het Geldersch Landschap, Stichting Flevo-Landschap, Stichting Het Utrechts Landschap, Stichting Landschap Noord-Holland, Stichting Het Zuid-Hollands Landschap, Stichting Het Zeeuwse Landschap, Stichting Het Noordbrabants Landschap, Stichting Het Limburgs Landschap (represented by: P. H. L. M. Kuypers and M. de Wit, advocaten)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: S. Noë and P.–J. Loewenthal, acting as Agents

Vereniging Gelijkberechtiging Grondbezitters, Exploitatiemaatschappij De Berghaaf BV, Stichting Het Nationale Park De Hoge Veluwe, BV Landgoed Den Alerdinck II, Landgoed Ampsen BV, Pallandt van Keppel Stichting, Landgoed Kasteel Keppel BV, Baron van Lynden, Stichting het Lijndensche Fonds voor Kerk en Zending, Landgoed Welna BV, BV Landgoed ‘Huis te Maarn’, Vicariestichting De Vijf Capellarijen/Ambachtsheerlijkheid Kloetinge, Maatschappij tot Exploitatie van het Landgoed Tongeren onder Epe BV, Landgoed Anderstein NV, Landgoed Bekspring BV, Landgoed Nijenhuis en Westerflier BV, Landgoed Caprera BV, Landgoed Schapenduinen BV, Stichting Schapenduinen, Landgoed de Noetselenberg BV (represented by: D. Gillet, T. Ruys, P. Wytinck and A. A. Al Khatib, advocaten)

Party intervening in support of the applicant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M. K. Bulterman and M. L. Noort, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the order

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Vereniging tot Behoud van Natuurmonumenten in Nederland, Stichting Het Groninger Landschap, Vereniging It Fryske Gea, Stichting Het Drentse Landschap, Stichting Het Overijssels Landschap, Stichting Het Geldersch Landschap, Stichting Flevo-Landschap, Stichting Het Utrechts Landschap, Stichting Landschap Noord-Holland, Stichting Het Zuid-Hollands Landschap, Stichting Het Zeeuwse Landschap, Stichting Het Noordbrabants Landschap and Stichting Het Limburgs Landschap to pay the costs of the proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Vereniging tot Behoud van Natuurmonumenten in Nederland, Stichting Het Groninger Landschap, Vereniging It Fryske Gea, Stichting Het Drentse Landschap, Stichting Het Overijssels Landschap, Stichting Het Geldersch Landschap, Stichting Flevo-Landschap, Stichting Het Utrechts Landschap, Stichting Landschap Noord-Holland, Stichting Het Zuid-Hollands Landschap, Stichting Het Zeeuwse Landschap, Stichting Het Noordbrabants Landschap and Stichting Het Limburgs Landschap to pay the costs of the proceedings;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission and the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission and the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 82, 4.3.2019.

---

| 9.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 378/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 378/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 September 2020 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Arnhem-Leeuwarden — Netherlands) — Criminal proceedings against XN (C-21/19), YO (C-22/19), P.F. Kamstra Recycling BV (C-23/19)

(Joined Cases C-21/19 to C-23/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Waste - Shipments - Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 - Waste subject to the prior written notification and consent procedure - Article 1(3) - Shipments subject to approval requirements - Directive 2008/98/EC - Article 5(1) - Concept of ‘by-products’ - Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 - Article 3, point 1 - Concept of ‘animal by-products’ - Shipments of a mixture of animal by-products and other material)

(2020/C 378/07)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof Arnhem-Leeuwarden

Parties in the main proceedings

XN (C-21/19), YO (C-22/19), P.F. Kamstra Recycling BV (C-23/19)

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 5(1) of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives and Article 3, point 1, of Regulation No 1069/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 laying down health rules as regards animal by-products and derived products not intended for human consumption and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 (Animal by-products Regulation) must be interpreted as meaning that a material which cannot be classified as a ‘by-product’ within the meaning of the former provision may nevertheless be regarded as an ‘animal by-product’ within the meaning of the latter provision. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 5(1) of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives and Article 3, point 1, of Regulation No 1069/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 laying down health rules as regards animal by-products and derived products not intended for human consumption and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 (Animal by-products Regulation) must be interpreted as meaning that a material which cannot be classified as a ‘by-product’ within the meaning of the former provision may nevertheless be regarded as an ‘animal by-product’ within the meaning of the latter provision.

| 2. | Article 1(3)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 135/2012 of 16 February 2012, must be interpreted as meaning that shipments of animal by-products falling within Regulation No 1069/2009 are excluded from the scope of Regulation No 1013/2006, as amended by Regulation No 135/2012, except in cases where Regulation No 1069/2009 expressly provides for the application of Regulation No 1013/2006, as amended by Regulation No 135/2012. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 1(3)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 135/2012 of 16 February 2012, must be interpreted as meaning that shipments of animal by-products falling within Regulation No 1069/2009 are excluded from the scope of Regulation No 1013/2006, as amended by Regulation No 135/2012, except in cases where Regulation No 1069/2009 expressly provides for the application of Regulation No 1013/2006, as amended by Regulation No 135/2012.

| 3. | Article 1(3)(d) of Regulation No 1013/2006, as amended by Regulation No 135/2012, must be interpreted as meaning that that provision applies to the shipment of a mixture of Category 3 animal by-products, within the meaning of Article 10 of Regulation No 1069/2009, and other material, classified as non-hazardous waste, within the meaning of Regulation No 1013/2006, as amended by Regulation No 135/2012. The proportion of animal by-products in the mixture is not relevant in that regard. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 1(3)(d) of Regulation No 1013/2006, as amended by Regulation No 135/2012, must be interpreted as meaning that that provision applies to the shipment of a mixture of Category 3 animal by-products, within the meaning of Article 10 of Regulation No 1069/2009, and other material, classified as non-hazardous waste, within the meaning of Regulation No 1013/2006, as amended by Regulation No 135/2012. The proportion of animal by-products in the mixture is not relevant in that regard.

---

(1)  OJ C 139, 15.4.2019.

---

| 9.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 378/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 378/7

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 September 2020 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy Szczecin — Prawobrzeże i Zachód w Szczecinie, Sąd Rejonowy w Opatowie — Poland) — Profi Credit Polska SA v QJ (C-84/19), BW v DR (C-222/19), QL v CG (C-252/19)

(Joined Cases C-84/19, C-222/19 and C-252/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Article 1(2) - Scope - National provision providing for the maximum amount of non-interest credit costs - Article 3(1) - Contractual term passing on to the consumer costs of the lender’s business activity - Significant imbalance between the rights and obligations of the parties - Article 4(2) - Obligation to draft contract terms in plain intelligible language - Contractual terms which do not specify the services for which remuneration is sought - Directive 2008/48/EC - Article 3(g) - National legislation laying down a method of calculating the maximum non-interest credit cost which may be charged to the consumer)

(2020/C 378/08)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy Szczecin — Prawobrzeże i Zachód w Szczecinie, Sąd Rejonowy w Opatowie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Profi Credit Polska SA (C-84/19), BW (C-222/19), QL (C-252/19)

Defendants: QJ (C-84/19), DR (C-222/19), CG (C-252/19)

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 3(g) and Article 22 of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC must be interpreted as not precluding a national provision on consumer credit that lays down a method of calculating the maximum non-interest credit cost which may be charged to the consumer, even if that calculation method allows the seller or supplier to have the consumer bear a proportion of the general costs relating to the exercise of his or her business activity, provided that, by means of its provisions relating to that maximum amount, that legislation is not contrary to the rules harmonised by that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 3(g) and Article 22 of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC must be interpreted as not precluding a national provision on consumer credit that lays down a method of calculating the maximum non-interest credit cost which may be charged to the consumer, even if that calculation method allows the seller or supplier to have the consumer bear a proportion of the general costs relating to the exercise of his or her business activity, provided that, by means of its provisions relating to that maximum amount, that legislation is not contrary to the rules harmonised by that directive;

| 2. | Article 1(2) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, as amended by Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011, must be interpreted as meaning that a contractual term which sets the non-interest credit cost in accordance with the maximum upper limit laid down by national legislation on consumer credit, where that legislation provides that non-interest credit costs are not payable in respect of the part exceeding that upper limit or the total amount of credit, is not excluded from the scope of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 1(2) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, as amended by Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011, must be interpreted as meaning that a contractual term which sets the non-interest credit cost in accordance with the maximum upper limit laid down by national legislation on consumer credit, where that legislation provides that non-interest credit costs are not payable in respect of the part exceeding that upper limit or the total amount of credit, is not excluded from the scope of that directive;

| 3. | Article 4(2) of Directive 93/13, as amended by Directive 2011/83, must be interpreted as meaning that terms of a consumer credit agreement which impose on the consumer costs other than repayment of the principal loan amount and payment of interest do not fall within the exception provided for in that provision, where those terms do not specify either the nature of those costs or the services which they are intended to remunerate and where they are formulated in such a way as to give rise to confusion on the part of the consumer as to his or her obligations and the economic consequences of those terms, which it is for the referring court to ascertain; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 4(2) of Directive 93/13, as amended by Directive 2011/83, must be interpreted as meaning that terms of a consumer credit agreement which impose on the consumer costs other than repayment of the principal loan amount and payment of interest do not fall within the exception provided for in that provision, where those terms do not specify either the nature of those costs or the services which they are intended to remunerate and where they are formulated in such a way as to give rise to confusion on the part of the consumer as to his or her obligations and the economic consequences of those terms, which it is for the referring court to ascertain;

| 4. | Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13, as amended by Directive 2011/83, must be interpreted as meaning that a contractual term relating to non-interest credit costs, which sets that cost below a statutory upper limit and which passes on, to the consumer, the costs of the lender’s economic activity, is liable to cause a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract to the detriment of the consumer, where it imposes on the consumer costs which are disproportionate to the services provided and to the amount of the loan received, which it is for the referring court to ascertain. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13, as amended by Directive 2011/83, must be interpreted as meaning that a contractual term relating to non-interest credit costs, which sets that cost below a statutory upper limit and which passes on, to the consumer, the costs of the lender’s economic activity, is liable to cause a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract to the detriment of the consumer, where it imposes on the consumer costs which are disproportionate to the services provided and to the amount of the loan received, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.

---

(1)  OJ C 164, 13.5.2019.

OJ C 280, 19.8.2019.

---

| 9.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 378/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 378/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 September 2020 — European Commission v Francisco Carreras Sequeros and Others, European Parliament, Council of the European Union

(Joined Cases C-119/19 P and C-126/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union - Reform of 1 January 2014 - Article 6 of Annex X - Officials and members of the contract staff serving in a third country - New provisions on the granting of days of paid annual leave - Objection of illegality - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 31(2) - Directive 2003/88/EC - Fundamental right to paid annual leave)

(2020/C 378/09)

Language of the case: French

Parties

(Case C-119/19 P)

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: T.S. Bohr, G. Gattinara and L. Vernier, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Francisco Carreras Sequeros, Mariola de las Heras Ojeda, Olivier Maes, Gabrio Marinozzi, Giacomo Miserocchi, Marc Thieme Groen (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, avocats), European Parliament (represented by: O. Caisou-Rousseau, J. Steele and E. Taneva, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and R. Meyer, acting as Agents)

(Case C-126/19 P)

Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and R. Meyer, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Francisco Carreras Sequeros, Mariola de las Heras Ojeda, Olivier Maes, Gabrio Marinozzi, Giacomo Miserocchi, Marc Thieme Groen (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, avocats), European Commission (represented by: T.S. Bohr, G. Gattinara and L. Vernier, acting as Agents), European Parliament (represented by: O. Caisou-Rousseau, J. Steele and E. Taneva, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 4 December 2018, Carreras Sequeros and Others v Commission (T-518/16, EU:T:2018:873); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 4 December 2018, Carreras Sequeros and Others v Commission (T-518/16, EU:T:2018:873);

| 2. | Dismisses the action brought by Mr Francisco Carreras Sequeros, Ms Mariola de las Heras Ojeda, Mr Olivier Maes, Mr Gabrio Marinozzi, Mr Giacomo Miserocchi and Mr Marc Thieme Groen in Case T-518/16; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action brought by Mr Francisco Carreras Sequeros, Ms Mariola de las Heras Ojeda, Mr Olivier Maes, Mr Gabrio Marinozzi, Mr Giacomo Miserocchi and Mr Marc Thieme Groen in Case T-518/16;

| 3. | Orders Mr Francisco Carreras Sequeros, Ms Mariola de las Heras Ojeda, Mr Olivier Maes, Mr Gabrio Marinozzi, Mr Giacomo Miserocchi and Mr Marc Thieme Groen to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union in the context of the present appeals and of the proceedings before the General Court of the European Union, as well as those incurred by the European Commission in the context of the latter proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Mr Francisco Carreras Sequeros, Ms Mariola de las Heras Ojeda, Mr Olivier Maes, Mr Gabrio Marinozzi, Mr Giacomo Miserocchi and Mr Marc Thieme Groen to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union in the context of the present appeals and of the proceedings before the General Court of the European Union, as well as those incurred by the European Commission in the context of the latter proceedings;

| 4. | Orders the Commission to bear its own costs incurred in the context of the present appeals; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Commission to bear its own costs incurred in the context of the present appeals;

| 5. | Orders the European Parliament to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Orders the European Parliament to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 131, 8.4.2019.

---

| 9.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 378/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 378/9

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Supreme Site Services GmbH, Supreme Fuels GmbH & Co KG, Supreme Fuels Trading Fze v Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe

(Case C-186/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Article 1(1) - Scope - Civil and commercial matters - Jurisdiction - Exclusive jurisdiction - Article 24(5) - Disputes concerning the enforcement of judgments - Action brought by an international organisation based on immunity from execution seeking to have an interim garnishee order lifted and a prohibition on new orders being levied on the same grounds)

(2020/C 378/10)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Supreme Site Services GmbH, Supreme Fuels GmbH & Co KG, Supreme Fuels Trading Fze

Defendant: Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 1(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 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 is to be interpreted as meaning that an action for interim relief brought before a court of a Member State in which an international organisation invokes its immunity from execution in order to obtain both the lifting of an interim garnishee order executed in a Member State other than that of the forum and a prohibition on levying such an order in the future on the same grounds, brought in parallel with substantive proceedings concerning a claim arising from alleged non-payment for fuel supplied for the purposes of a peacekeeping operation carried out by that organisation, is covered by the concept of ‘civil and commercial matters’, in so far as that action is not pursued under public powers, within the meaning of EU law, which is a matter for the assessment of the referring court. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 1(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 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 is to be interpreted as meaning that an action for interim relief brought before a court of a Member State in which an international organisation invokes its immunity from execution in order to obtain both the lifting of an interim garnishee order executed in a Member State other than that of the forum and a prohibition on levying such an order in the future on the same grounds, brought in parallel with substantive proceedings concerning a claim arising from alleged non-payment for fuel supplied for the purposes of a peacekeeping operation carried out by that organisation, is covered by the concept of ‘civil and commercial matters’, in so far as that action is not pursued under public powers, within the meaning of EU law, which is a matter for the assessment of the referring court.

| 2. | Article 24(5) of Regulation No 1215/2012 is to be interpreted as meaning that an action for interim relief brought before a court of a Member State in which an international organisation invokes its immunity from execution in order to obtain both the lifting of an interim garnishee order executed in a Member State other than that of the forum and a prohibition on levying such an order in the future on the same grounds, does not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State in which the interim garnishee order was executed. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 24(5) of Regulation No 1215/2012 is to be interpreted as meaning that an action for interim relief brought before a court of a Member State in which an international organisation invokes its immunity from execution in order to obtain both the lifting of an interim garnishee order executed in a Member State other than that of the forum and a prohibition on levying such an order in the future on the same grounds, does not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State in which the interim garnishee order was executed.

---

(1)  OJ C 155, 6.5.2019.

---

| 9.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 378/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 378/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 3 September 2020 — achtung! GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

(Case C-214/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - EU trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 7(1)(b) - Distinctive character - None)

(2020/C 378/11)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: achtung! GmbH (represented by: G.J. Seelig and D. Bischof, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Hanf, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders achtung! GmbH to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders achtung! GmbH to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 238, 15.7.2019.

---

| 9.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 378/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 378/10

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) — Ireland) — Friends of the Irish Environment Ltd v An Bord Pleanála

(Case C-254/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 92/43/EEC - Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora - Article 6(3) - Scope - Concepts of ‘project’ and ‘agreement’ - Appropriate assessment of the implications of a plan or project for a protected site - Decision extending the duration of a development consent for the construction of a liquefied natural gas regasification terminal - Original decision based on national legislation which did not properly transpose Directive 92/43)

(2020/C 378/12)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court (Ireland)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Friends of the Irish Environment Ltd

Defendant: An Bord Pleanála

Intervening party: Shannon Lng Ltd

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | A decision extending the 10-year period originally set for carrying out a project for the construction of a liquefied natural gas regasification terminal must be regarded as an agreement of a project under Article 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, where the original consent, having lapsed, ceased to have legal effect on expiry of the period originally set for those works and the latter have not been undertaken; |
| --- | --- |

1.

A decision extending the 10-year period originally set for carrying out a project for the construction of a liquefied natural gas regasification terminal must be regarded as an agreement of a project under Article 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, where the original consent, having lapsed, ceased to have legal effect on expiry of the period originally set for those works and the latter have not been undertaken;

| 2. | It is for the competent authority to assess whether a decision extending the period originally set for carrying out a project for the construction of a liquefied natural gas regasification terminal, the original consent for which has lapsed, must be preceded by the appropriate assessment of its implications under the first sentence of Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43 and, if so, whether that assessment must relate to the entire project or part thereof, taking into account, inter alia, previous assessments that may have been carried out and changes in the relevant environmental and scientific data as well as changes to the project and the existence of other plans or projects; |
| --- | --- |

2.

It is for the competent authority to assess whether a decision extending the period originally set for carrying out a project for the construction of a liquefied natural gas regasification terminal, the original consent for which has lapsed, must be preceded by the appropriate assessment of its implications under the first sentence of Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43 and, if so, whether that assessment must relate to the entire project or part thereof, taking into account, inter alia, previous assessments that may have been carried out and changes in the relevant environmental and scientific data as well as changes to the project and the existence of other plans or projects;

The assessment of a project’s implications must be carried out where it cannot be ruled out, having regard to the best scientific knowledge in the field, that the plan or project might affect the conservation objectives of the site. A previous assessment of that project, carried out before the original consent for the project was granted, cannot rule out that risk unless it contains full, precise and definitive conclusions capable of removing all reasonable scientific doubt as to the effects of the works, and provided that there are no changes in the relevant environmental and scientific data, no changes to the project and no other plans or projects

---

(1)  OJ C 206, 17.6.2019.

---

| 9.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 378/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 378/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) — Ireland) — Recorded Artists Actors Performers Ltd v Phonographic Performance (Ireland) Ltd, Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Ireland, Attorney General

(Case C-265/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual property - Rights related to copyright - Directive 2006/115/EC - Article 8(2) - Use of phonograms in the European Union - Right of the performers to equitable remuneration shared with the phonogram producers - Applicability to nationals of third States - Performances and Phonograms Treaty - Articles 4 and 15 - Reservations notified by third States - Limitations of the right to equitable remuneration that may, on the basis of reciprocity, follow, in the European Union, for nationals of third States from those reservations - Article 17(2) and Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Fundamental right to the protection of intellectual property - Requirement that any limitation must be provided for by law, respect the essence of the fundamental right and be proportionate - Division between the European Union and the Member States of competences to set those limitations - Division of competences in relations with third States - Article 3(2) TFEU - Exclusive competence of the European Union)

(2020/C 378/13)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court (Ireland)

Parties to the main proceedings

Plaintiff: Recorded Artists Actors Performers Ltd

Defendants: Phonographic Performance (Ireland) Ltd, Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Ireland, Attorney General

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 8(2) of Directive 2006/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property must, in the light of Article 4(1) and Article 15(1) of the World Intellectual Property Organisation Performances and Phonograms Treaty, be interpreted as precluding a Member State from excluding, when it transposes into its legislation the words ‘relevant performers’ which are contained in Article 8(2) of the directive and designate the performers entitled to a part of the single equitable remuneration referred to therein, performers who are nationals of States outside the European Economic Area (EEA), with the sole exception of those who are domiciled or resident in the EEA and those whose contribution to the phonogram was made in the EEA. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 8(2) of Directive 2006/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property must, in the light of Article 4(1) and Article 15(1) of the World Intellectual Property Organisation Performances and Phonograms Treaty, be interpreted as precluding a Member State from excluding, when it transposes into its legislation the words ‘relevant performers’ which are contained in Article 8(2) of the directive and designate the performers entitled to a part of the single equitable remuneration referred to therein, performers who are nationals of States outside the European Economic Area (EEA), with the sole exception of those who are domiciled or resident in the EEA and those whose contribution to the phonogram was made in the EEA.

| 2. | Article 15(3) of the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) Performances and Phonograms Treaty and Article 8(2) of Directive 2006/115 must, as EU law currently stands, be interpreted as meaning that reservations notified by third States under Article 15(3) of the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty that have the effect of limiting on their territories the right to a single equitable remuneration laid down in Article 15(1) thereof do not lead in the European Union to limitations of the right provided for in Article 8(2) of Directive 2006/115, in respect of nationals of those third States, but such limitations may be introduced by the EU legislature, provided that they comply with the requirements of Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Article 8(2) of Directive 2006/115 therefore precludes a Member State from limiting the right to a single equitable remuneration in respect of performers and phonogram producers who are nationals of those third States. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 15(3) of the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) Performances and Phonograms Treaty and Article 8(2) of Directive 2006/115 must, as EU law currently stands, be interpreted as meaning that reservations notified by third States under Article 15(3) of the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty that have the effect of limiting on their territories the right to a single equitable remuneration laid down in Article 15(1) thereof do not lead in the European Union to limitations of the right provided for in Article 8(2) of Directive 2006/115, in respect of nationals of those third States, but such limitations may be introduced by the EU legislature, provided that they comply with the requirements of Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Article 8(2) of Directive 2006/115 therefore precludes a Member State from limiting the right to a single equitable remuneration in respect of performers and phonogram producers who are nationals of those third States.

| 3. | Article 8(2) of Directive 2006/115 must be interpreted as precluding the right to a single equitable remuneration for which it provides from being limited in such a way that only the producer of the phonogram concerned receives remuneration, and does not share it with the performer who has contributed to that phonogram. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 8(2) of Directive 2006/115 must be interpreted as precluding the right to a single equitable remuneration for which it provides from being limited in such a way that only the producer of the phonogram concerned receives remuneration, and does not share it with the performer who has contributed to that phonogram.

---

(1)  OJ C 206, 17.6.2019.

---

| 9.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 378/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 378/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla m. st. Warszawy w Warszawie — Poland) — Delfly sp. z o.o. v Smartwings Poland sp. z o.o., formerly Travel Service Polska sp. z o.o.

(Case C-356/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Article 7 - Right to compensation in the event of delay or cancellation of a flight - Compensation procedure - Claim expressed in national currency - National provision prohibiting the creditor from choosing the currency)

(2020/C 378/14)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy dla m. st. Warszawy w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Delfly sp. z o.o.

Defendant: Smartwings Poland sp. z o.o., formerly Travel Service Polska sp. z o.o.

Operative part of the judgment

Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, and in particular Article 7(1) thereof, is to be interpreted as meaning that passengers whose flights have been cancelled or subject to a long delay or their legal successors may demand payment of the amount of the compensation referred to in that provision in the national currency of their place of residence, so that that provision precludes a Member State’s legislation or case-law which results in the dismissal of an action brought for that purpose by such passengers or their legal successors on the sole ground that the claim was expressed in that national currency.

---

(1)  OJ C 280, 19.8.2019.

---

| 9.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 378/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 378/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 September 2020 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 17 de Barcelona, Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 5 de Barcelona — Spain) — UQ (C-503/19), SI (C-592/19) v Subdelegación del Gobierno en Barcelona

(Joined Cases C-503/19 and C-592/19) (1)

(References for a preliminary ruling - Status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents - Directive 2003/109/EC - Article 6(1) - Elements to be taken into consideration - National rules - Failure to take those elements into consideration - Refusal to grant long-term resident status on the ground that the person concerned has previous convictions)

(2020/C 378/15)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 17 de Barcelona, Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 5 de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: UQ (C-503/19), SI (C-592/19)

Defendant: Subdelegación del Gobierno en Barcelona

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(1) of Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents, must be interpreted as precluding the legislation of a Member State as it is interpreted by some of the courts of that State, which provides that a third- country national may be refused long-term resident status for the sole reason that he or she has previous criminal convictions, without a specific assessment of his or her situation, in particular, the nature of the offence committed by that national, the threat he or she may pose to public policy or public security, the length of his or her residence on the territory of that Member State and the links he or she has with that State.

---

(1)  OJ C 363, 28.10.2019.

---

| 9.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 378/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 378/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — NM, acting as liquidator of NIKI Luftfahrt GmbH v ON

(Case C-530/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Articles 5 and 9 - Obligation of the air carrier to offer hotel accommodation to passengers whose flights have been cancelled - Damage suffered by a passenger during her stay at the hotel providing the accommodation - Possibility of invoking the liability of the air carrier as a result of negligence on the part of employees of the hotel)

(2020/C 378/16)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: NM, acting as liquidator of NIKI Luftfahrt GmbH

Defendant: ON

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 9(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, must be interpreted as meaning that the obligation of the air carrier under that provision to offer hotel accommodation free of charge to the passengers referred to therein does not mean that that carrier is required to take care of the accommodation arrangements as such. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 9(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, must be interpreted as meaning that the obligation of the air carrier under that provision to offer hotel accommodation free of charge to the passengers referred to therein does not mean that that carrier is required to take care of the accommodation arrangements as such.

| 2. | Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that an air carrier which, under Article 9(1)(b) of that regulation, has offered hotel accommodation to a passenger whose flight has been cancelled cannot be required, on the basis of that regulation alone, to compensate that passenger for damage caused by fault on the part of employees of that hotel. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that an air carrier which, under Article 9(1)(b) of that regulation, has offered hotel accommodation to a passenger whose flight has been cancelled cannot be required, on the basis of that regulation alone, to compensate that passenger for damage caused by fault on the part of employees of that hotel.

---

(1)  OJ C 328, 30.9.2019.

---

| 9.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 378/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 378/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München I — Germany) — Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband eV v Telefónica Germany GmbH & Co. OHG

(Case C-539/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Roaming on public mobile communications networks within the European Union - Regulation (EU) No 531/2012 - Article 6a - Article 6e(3) - Roaming provider required to automatically apply the regulated roaming tariff - Application to consumer having opted for a specific roaming tariff prior to the entry into force of Regulation (EU) No 531/2012)

(2020/C 378/17)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht München I

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband eV

Defendant: Telefónica Germany GmbH & Co. OHG

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 6a and 6e(3) of Regulation (EU) No 531/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2012 on roaming on public mobile communications networks within the Union, as amended by Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015, must be interpreted as meaning that, as from 15 June 2017, roaming service providers were required to apply automatically to all their customers the regulated roaming tariff referred to, inter alia, in Article 6a of that regulation, irrespective of whether those customers had previously opted for a regulated roaming tariff or for an alternative tariff, unless they had, before the deadline of 15 June 2017, expressly indicated their choice to benefit from such an alternative tariff, in accordance with the procedure laid down in that regard in the first subparagraph of Article 6e(3) of that regulation.

---

(1)  OJ C 328, 30.9.2019.

---

| 9.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 378/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 378/15

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État — Belgium) — JP v Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides

(Case C-651/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Asylum policy - Common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection - Directive 2013/32/EU - Article 46 - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 47 - Right to an effective remedy - Action brought against a subsequent application for international protection as being inadmissible - Time limit for bringing proceedings - Rules governing notification)

(2020/C 378/18)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d'État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: JP

Defendant: Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides

Operative part of the judgment

Article 46 of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State which provides that proceedings challenging a decision declaring a subsequent application for international protection to be inadmissible are subject to a limitation period of 10 days, including public holidays, as from the date of service of such decision, even where, when the applicant concerned has not specified an address for service in that Member State, that service is made at the head office of the national authority responsible for the examination of those applications, provided that (i) those applicants are informed that, where they have not specified an address for service for the purposes of notification of the decision concerning their application, they will be deemed to have specified an address for service for those purposes at the head office of that national authority; (ii) the conditions for access of those applicants to that head office do not render receipt by those applicants of the decisions concerning them excessively difficult, (iii) genuine access to the procedural safeguards granted to applicants for international protection by EU law is ensured within such a period, and (iv) the principle of equivalence is respected. It is for the referring court to determine whether the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings meets those requirements.

---

(1)  OJ C 372, 4.11.2019.

---

| 9.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 378/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 378/15

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 22 June 2020 — Bundesrepublik Deutschland v SW

(Case C-273/20)

(2020/C 378/19)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant in the appeal on a point of law: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: SW

Joined party: Stadt Darmstadt

Questions referred

| 1. | (a) | In the case of subsequent immigration in order to join an unaccompanied minor refugee in accordance with Article 10(3)(a) and Article 2(f) of Directive 2003/86/EC, (1) can the continued existence of the refugee’s minority be a ‘condition’ within the meaning of Article 16(1)(a) of Directive 2003/86? Is legislation of a Member State under which parents who immigrated subsequently to join an unaccompanied minor refugee for the purposes of Article 2(f) of Directive 2003/86 are granted a (derived) right of residence in the Member State only for as long as the refugee is actually still a minor compatible with the aforesaid provisions? |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

(a)

In the case of subsequent immigration in order to join an unaccompanied minor refugee in accordance with Article 10(3)(a) and Article 2(f) of Directive 2003/86/EC, (1) can the continued existence of the refugee’s minority be a ‘condition’ within the meaning of Article 16(1)(a) of Directive 2003/86? Is legislation of a Member State under which parents who immigrated subsequently to join an unaccompanied minor refugee for the purposes of Article 2(f) of Directive 2003/86 are granted a (derived) right of residence in the Member State only for as long as the refugee is actually still a minor compatible with the aforesaid provisions?

| (b) | If the questions in 1(a) are answered in the affirmative: Is Article 16(1)(a), read in conjunction with Article 10(3)(a) and Article 2(f), of Directive 2003/86 to be interpreted as meaning that a Member State under whose legislation the parents’ (derived) right of residence is limited to the period up until when the child comes of age is allowed to reject an application for entry and residence for the purpose of family reunification submitted by parents still resident in a third country if the refugee has come of age before the adoption of a final decision, in administrative or court proceedings, on an application lodged within three months of recognition of the child’s refugee status? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

If the questions in 1(a) are answered in the affirmative: Is Article 16(1)(a), read in conjunction with Article 10(3)(a) and Article 2(f), of Directive 2003/86 to be interpreted as meaning that a Member State under whose legislation the parents’ (derived) right of residence is limited to the period up until when the child comes of age is allowed to reject an application for entry and residence for the purpose of family reunification submitted by parents still resident in a third country if the refugee has come of age before the adoption of a final decision, in administrative or court proceedings, on an application lodged within three months of recognition of the child’s refugee status?

| 2. | If the answer to Question 1 is that it is not permissible to refuse family reunification:
  What requirements are to be imposed in terms of a real family relationship within the meaning of Article 16(1)(b) of Directive 2003/86 in cases of subsequent immigration of parents to join a refugee who comes of age before a decision is adopted on the application for entry and residence for the purposes of family reunification? In particular:






  (a) | Does a first-degree relationship in the direct ascending line suffice (Article 10(3)(a) of Directive 2003/86) or is a real family life also necessary? |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to Question 1 is that it is not permissible to refuse family reunification:

What requirements are to be imposed in terms of a real family relationship within the meaning of Article 16(1)(b) of Directive 2003/86 in cases of subsequent immigration of parents to join a refugee who comes of age before a decision is adopted on the application for entry and residence for the purposes of family reunification? In particular:

(a)

Does a first-degree relationship in the direct ascending line suffice (Article 10(3)(a) of Directive 2003/86) or is a real family life also necessary?

| (b) | If a real family life is also necessary:
  How close must it be? For example, do occasional or regular visits suffice, must the family cohabit in a single household or must they also be part of a support unit whose members are reliant upon one another? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

If a real family life is also necessary:

How close must it be? For example, do occasional or regular visits suffice, must the family cohabit in a single household or must they also be part of a support unit whose members are reliant upon one another?

| (c) | For the subsequent immigration of parents who are still in a third country and who have submitted an application for family reunification to join a child with recognised refugee status who has since come of age, must there be the expectation that, following their entry, family life will be (re-)established in the Member State in the manner required in Question 2(b)? |
| --- | --- |

(c)

For the subsequent immigration of parents who are still in a third country and who have submitted an application for family reunification to join a child with recognised refugee status who has since come of age, must there be the expectation that, following their entry, family life will be (re-)established in the Member State in the manner required in Question 2(b)?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification (OJ 2003 L 251, p. 12).

---

| 9.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 378/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 378/16

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 26 June 2020 — Federal Republic of Germany v XC

(Case C-279/20)

(2020/C 378/20)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law: Federal Republic of Germany

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: XC

Intervening party: Landkreis Cloppenburg

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 4(1)(c) of Council Directive 2003/86/EC (1) of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification to be interpreted as meaning that the child of a sponsor granted refugee status is a minor within the meaning of that provision even if the child was a minor at the time at which the asylum application was made by the sponsor but came of age before he was granted refugee status and before an application for family reunification was made? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 4(1)(c) of Council Directive 2003/86/EC (1) of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification to be interpreted as meaning that the child of a sponsor granted refugee status is a minor within the meaning of that provision even if the child was a minor at the time at which the asylum application was made by the sponsor but came of age before he was granted refugee status and before an application for family reunification was made?

| 2. | If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:
  What requirements are to be imposed in terms of a real family relationship within the meaning of Article 16(1)(b) of Directive 2003/86/EC in such a case?






  (a) | Does the legal parent/child relationship suffice or is a real family life necessary? |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:

What requirements are to be imposed in terms of a real family relationship within the meaning of Article 16(1)(b) of Directive 2003/86/EC in such a case?

(a)

Does the legal parent/child relationship suffice or is a real family life necessary?

| (b) | If a real family life is necessary: How close must it be? For example, do occasional or regular visits suffice, must the family cohabit in a single household or must they also be part of a support unit whose members are reliant upon one another? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

If a real family life is necessary: How close must it be? For example, do occasional or regular visits suffice, must the family cohabit in a single household or must they also be part of a support unit whose members are reliant upon one another?

| (c) | For the purpose of his or her subsequent immigration, must a child still in a third country who has submitted an application for family reunification to join a parent with refugee status and who has since come of age be expected following entry to (re-)establish a family life in the Member State in the manner described in Question 2(b)? |
| --- | --- |

(c)

For the purpose of his or her subsequent immigration, must a child still in a third country who has submitted an application for family reunification to join a parent with refugee status and who has since come of age be expected following entry to (re-)establish a family life in the Member State in the manner described in Question 2(b)?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification (OJ 2003 L 251, p. 12).

---

| 9.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 378/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 378/17

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Oradea (Romania) lodged on 30 July 2020 — Promexor Trade SRL v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Cluj — Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Bihor

(Case C-358/20)

(2020/C 378/21)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Judecătoria Oradea

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Promexor Trade SRL

Defendant: Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Cluj — Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Bihor

Questions referred

| 1. | Do the provisions of Directive 2006/112/EC (1) and the principle of fiscal neutrality preclude national legislation by which a Member State requires a citizen to collect and pay VAT to the State for an indefinite period without, however, at the same time granting him the right to deduct VAT on the ground that the VAT code had been revoked since no transactions subject to VAT had been indicated in the VAT returns filed for six consecutive months/two consecutive calendar quarters? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do the provisions of Directive 2006/112/EC (1) and the principle of fiscal neutrality preclude national legislation by which a Member State requires a citizen to collect and pay VAT to the State for an indefinite period without, however, at the same time granting him the right to deduct VAT on the ground that the VAT code had been revoked since no transactions subject to VAT had been indicated in the VAT returns filed for six consecutive months/two consecutive calendar quarters?

| 2. | With regard to the circumstances of the main proceedings, are the principle of legal certainty, the principle of legitimate expectations, the principle of proportionality and [the principle] of sincere cooperation, as set out in Directive 2006/112/EC, compatible with national legislation or with a practice of the tax authority according to which, although the Member State normally allows a legal person, on request, to re-register for VAT purposes following automatic revocation of the VAT code, in certain specific circumstances a taxpayer may not request re-registration for VAT purposes, for purely formal reasons, whilst being obliged to collect and pay VAT to the State, for an indeterminate period, without, however, at the same time being granted the right to deduct VAT? |
| --- | --- |

2.

With regard to the circumstances of the main proceedings, are the principle of legal certainty, the principle of legitimate expectations, the principle of proportionality and [the principle] of sincere cooperation, as set out in Directive 2006/112/EC, compatible with national legislation or with a practice of the tax authority according to which, although the Member State normally allows a legal person, on request, to re-register for VAT purposes following automatic revocation of the VAT code, in certain specific circumstances a taxpayer may not request re-registration for VAT purposes, for purely formal reasons, whilst being obliged to collect and pay VAT to the State, for an indeterminate period, without, however, at the same time being granted the right to deduct VAT?

| 3. | With regard to the circumstances of the main proceedings, are the principle of legal certainty, the principle of legitimate expectations, the principle of proportionality and [the principle] of sincere cooperation, as set out in Directive 2006/112/EC, to be interpreted as prohibiting the imposition on a taxpayer of a requirement to collect and pay VAT for an indefinite period and without granting the right to deduct VAT, without, in the particular case, the tax authority in question verifying the substantive requirements relating to the right to deduct VAT and without there being any fraud on the part of the taxpayer? |
| --- | --- |

3.

With regard to the circumstances of the main proceedings, are the principle of legal certainty, the principle of legitimate expectations, the principle of proportionality and [the principle] of sincere cooperation, as set out in Directive 2006/112/EC, to be interpreted as prohibiting the imposition on a taxpayer of a requirement to collect and pay VAT for an indefinite period and without granting the right to deduct VAT, without, in the particular case, the tax authority in question verifying the substantive requirements relating to the right to deduct VAT and without there being any fraud on the part of the taxpayer?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1, Special edition in Romanian: Chapter 09 Volume 003 P. 7).

---

| 9.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 378/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 378/18

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 18 August 2020 — XY v Finanzamt V

(Case C-394/20)

(2020/C 378/22)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: XY

Defendant: Finanzamt V

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Articles 63(1) and 65 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) be interpreted as precluding national legislation of a Member State on the levying of inheritance tax which provides that, for the calculation of the tax, the allowance to be set against the taxable value in the case of an acquisition of land situated in that Member State is lower where the deceased and the heir had their place of residence or habitual residence in another Member State at the time of the death of the deceased than the allowance that would have been applicable if at least one of them had had his or her place of residence or habitual residence in the first Member State at that time? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Articles 63(1) and 65 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) be interpreted as precluding national legislation of a Member State on the levying of inheritance tax which provides that, for the calculation of the tax, the allowance to be set against the taxable value in the case of an acquisition of land situated in that Member State is lower where the deceased and the heir had their place of residence or habitual residence in another Member State at the time of the death of the deceased than the allowance that would have been applicable if at least one of them had had his or her place of residence or habitual residence in the first Member State at that time?

| 2. | Must Articles 63(1) and 65 TFEU be interpreted as precluding national legislation of a Member State on the levying of inheritance tax which provides that, for the calculation of the tax, debts arising from reserved portions in the case of an acquisition of land situated in that Member State are not deductible where the deceased and the heir had their place of residence or habitual residence in another Member State at the time of the death of the deceased, whereas those debts would have been fully deductible from the value of the inheritance if at least the deceased or the heir had had his or her place of residence or habitual residence in the first Member State at the time of the death of the deceased? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must Articles 63(1) and 65 TFEU be interpreted as precluding national legislation of a Member State on the levying of inheritance tax which provides that, for the calculation of the tax, debts arising from reserved portions in the case of an acquisition of land situated in that Member State are not deductible where the deceased and the heir had their place of residence or habitual residence in another Member State at the time of the death of the deceased, whereas those debts would have been fully deductible from the value of the inheritance if at least the deceased or the heir had had his or her place of residence or habitual residence in the first Member State at the time of the death of the deceased?

---

| 9.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 378/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 378/19

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 28 August 2020 — EB and Others v Versicherungsanstalt öffentlich Bediensteter, Eisenbahnen und Bergbau (BVAEB)

(Case C-405/20)

(2020/C 378/23)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: EB, JS and DP

Defendant: Versicherungsanstalt öffentlich Bediensteter, Eisenbahnen und Bergbau (BVAEB)

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the limitation of the scope ratione temporis of the requirement of equal treatment for men and women laid down in the judgment in Case C-262/88, Barber, (1) as well as in Protocol No 33 concerning Article 157 TFEU and Article 12 of Directive 2006/54/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (‘Directive 2006/54/EC’), be interpreted as meaning that an (Austrian) pensioner cannot lawfully rely on the requirement of equal treatment for men and women, or can do so only (in part) in respect of that part of his entitlement that relates to periods of employment after 1 January 1994, in order to claim that he has been discriminated against by rules on an adjustment of civil servants’ pensions laid down for 2018 such as that which was applied in the main proceedings? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must the limitation of the scope ratione temporis of the requirement of equal treatment for men and women laid down in the judgment in Case C-262/88, Barber, (1) as well as in Protocol No 33 concerning Article 157 TFEU and Article 12 of Directive 2006/54/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (‘Directive 2006/54/EC’), be interpreted as meaning that an (Austrian) pensioner cannot lawfully rely on the requirement of equal treatment for men and women, or can do so only (in part) in respect of that part of his entitlement that relates to periods of employment after 1 January 1994, in order to claim that he has been discriminated against by rules on an adjustment of civil servants’ pensions laid down for 2018 such as that which was applied in the main proceedings?

| 2. | Must the requirement of equal treatment for men and women (pursuant to Article 157 TFEU in conjunction with Article 5 of Directive 2006/54/EC) be interpreted as meaning that indirect discrimination such as that which — in some cases — results from the rules, at issue in the main proceedings, concerning the 2018 pension adjustment, even in the light of similar measures adopted previously and the considerable loss caused by the cumulative effect of those measures as compared with an adjustment of the actual value of pensions to take into account inflation (in this instance, a loss of 25 %), is justified in particular






  — | in order to avoid a ‘divide’ between higher and lower pensions (caused by periodic adjustment at a single rate), even though this would be purely nominal and would leave the differential between the two unchanged, |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Must the requirement of equal treatment for men and women (pursuant to Article 157 TFEU in conjunction with Article 5 of Directive 2006/54/EC) be interpreted as meaning that indirect discrimination such as that which — in some cases — results from the rules, at issue in the main proceedings, concerning the 2018 pension adjustment, even in the light of similar measures adopted previously and the considerable loss caused by the cumulative effect of those measures as compared with an adjustment of the actual value of pensions to take into account inflation (in this instance, a loss of 25 %), is justified in particular

—

in order to avoid a ‘divide’ between higher and lower pensions (caused by periodic adjustment at a single rate), even though this would be purely nominal and would leave the differential between the two unchanged,

| — | in order to put in place a general ‘social component’ in the form of steps to increase the purchasing power of those on lower pensions, even though (a) that objective could be attained even without limiting the adjustment of higher pensions and (b) the legislature does not also provide for the same type of measure to increase purchasing power when it comes to adjusting for inflation the salaries of lower-paid civil servants (to the detriment of the adjustment applied to the salaries of higher-paid civil servants), and has also not laid down rules for a comparable intervention in the adjustment applied to the value of pensions under other occupational social security schemes (in which the State does not participate) in order to increase the purchasing power of lower pensions (to the detriment of the adjustment of higher pensions), |
| --- | --- |

—

in order to put in place a general ‘social component’ in the form of steps to increase the purchasing power of those on lower pensions, even though (a) that objective could be attained even without limiting the adjustment of higher pensions and (b) the legislature does not also provide for the same type of measure to increase purchasing power when it comes to adjusting for inflation the salaries of lower-paid civil servants (to the detriment of the adjustment applied to the salaries of higher-paid civil servants), and has also not laid down rules for a comparable intervention in the adjustment applied to the value of pensions under other occupational social security schemes (in which the State does not participate) in order to increase the purchasing power of lower pensions (to the detriment of the adjustment of higher pensions),

| — | in order to maintain and finance ‘the scheme’, even though civil service pensions are payable not by an insurer-operated scheme organised in the form of insurance and financed from contributions, but by the Federal Government as employer of retired civil servants and in consideration for work performed, so that the maintenance or financing of a scheme is not decisive, the only relevant considerations, ultimately, being budgetary, |
| --- | --- |

—

in order to maintain and finance ‘the scheme’, even though civil service pensions are payable not by an insurer-operated scheme organised in the form of insurance and financed from contributions, but by the Federal Government as employer of retired civil servants and in consideration for work performed, so that the maintenance or financing of a scheme is not decisive, the only relevant considerations, ultimately, being budgetary,

| — | because the fact that the statistically much higher representation of men among recipients of higher pensions is to be regarded as the consequence of the lack of equal opportunities for women in matters of employment and occupation that was typical in the past in particular, constitutes an independent ground of justification or (upstream of that) rules out from the outset any assumption of indirect discrimination on grounds of sex, within the meaning of Directive 2006/54/EC, to the detriment of men, or |
| --- | --- |

—

because the fact that the statistically much higher representation of men among recipients of higher pensions is to be regarded as the consequence of the lack of equal opportunities for women in matters of employment and occupation that was typical in the past in particular, constitutes an independent ground of justification or (upstream of that) rules out from the outset any assumption of indirect discrimination on grounds of sex, within the meaning of Directive 2006/54/EC, to the detriment of men, or

| — | because the scheme is permissible as positive action for the purposes of Article 157(4) TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

—

because the scheme is permissible as positive action for the purposes of Article 157(4) TFEU.

---

(1)  Judgment of 17 May 1990, C-262/88, EU:C:1990:209.

(2)  Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast) (OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23).

---

| 9.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 378/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 378/20

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 3 September 2020 — European arrest warrant issued against P, Other party to the procedure: Openbaar Ministerie

(Case C-412/20)

(2020/C 378/24)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings

European arrest warrant issued against: P

Other party to the procedure: Openbaar Ministerie

Question referred

Do Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, (1) the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union and/or the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union indeed preclude an executing judicial authority from executing an EAW issued by a court in the case where that court does not meet the requirements of effective judicial protection/actual judicial protection, and at the time of issuing the EAW already no longer met those requirements, because the legislation in the issuing Member State does not guarantee the independence of that court, and at the time of issuing the EAW already no longer guaranteed that independence?

---

(1)  Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States — Statements made by certain Member States on the adoption of the Framework Decision (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1).

---

| 9.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 378/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 378/20

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 2 September 2020 — Belgian State v LO, OG, SH, MB, JD, OP, Bluetail Flight School SA (BFS)

(Case C-413/20)

(2020/C 378/25)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Belgian State

Defendants: LO, OG, SH, MB, JD, OP, Bluetail Flight School SA (BFS)

Questions referred

| 1. | Does point 9 of Appendix 3 to Subpart A of Annex I to Commission Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 of 3 November 2011 laying down technical requirements and administrative procedures related to civil aviation aircrew pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) allow hours of training completed on an FNPT II flight simulator (instrument ground time) in excess of the number of 15 hours of MCC referred to in point 9(e)(2) and in excess of the maximum of 40 hours of instrument flight instruction in an FNPT II, referred to in point 9(e)(3)(ii), that is to say more than 55 hours of instrument ground time, to be taken into account for the purpose of calculating the 115 hours of instrument time referred to in point 9(e)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does point 9 of Appendix 3 to Subpart A of Annex I to Commission Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 of 3 November 2011 laying down technical requirements and administrative procedures related to civil aviation aircrew pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) allow hours of training completed on an FNPT II flight simulator (instrument ground time) in excess of the number of 15 hours of MCC referred to in point 9(e)(2) and in excess of the maximum of 40 hours of instrument flight instruction in an FNPT II, referred to in point 9(e)(3)(ii), that is to say more than 55 hours of instrument ground time, to be taken into account for the purpose of calculating the 115 hours of instrument time referred to in point 9(e)?

| 2. | Does the answer to the first question vary depending on whether the hours completed in excess of the 15 hours and 40 hours referred to above consist of hours of MCC or of a different type of simulator training? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the answer to the first question vary depending on whether the hours completed in excess of the 15 hours and 40 hours referred to above consist of hours of MCC or of a different type of simulator training?

| 3. | If the answer to the two preceding questions is in the negative, does point 10 of Appendix 3 to Subpart A of Annex I to that regulation permit the CPL(A) licence to be granted after the candidate pilots have completed their training by a sufficient number of hours in an aircraft, without the skill test relating to instrument flight being retaken? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the answer to the two preceding questions is in the negative, does point 10 of Appendix 3 to Subpart A of Annex I to that regulation permit the CPL(A) licence to be granted after the candidate pilots have completed their training by a sufficient number of hours in an aircraft, without the skill test relating to instrument flight being retaken?

| 4. | If the answer to the three preceding questions is in the negative, does the general principle of legal certainty require that the interpretation of the legal rule in question provided by the Court of Justice be limited in time, so that, for example, it will apply only to candidate pilots who request the grant of a CPL(A) licence, or even to those who have commenced their training in order to obtain such a licence, after the date of the judgment of the Court of Justice? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If the answer to the three preceding questions is in the negative, does the general principle of legal certainty require that the interpretation of the legal rule in question provided by the Court of Justice be limited in time, so that, for example, it will apply only to candidate pilots who request the grant of a CPL(A) licence, or even to those who have commenced their training in order to obtain such a licence, after the date of the judgment of the Court of Justice?

---

(1)  OJ 2011 L 311, p. 1.

---

| 9.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 378/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 378/21

---

Appeal brought on 18 September 2020 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 8 July 2020 in Case T-110/17, Jiangsu Seraphim Solar System v Commission

(Case C-439/20 P)

(2020/C 378/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche, G. Luengo, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Jiangsu Seraphim Solar System Co. Ltd, Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 July 2020 in Case T-110/17 Jiangsu Seraphim Solar System Co. Ltd v Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 July 2020 in Case T-110/17 Jiangsu Seraphim Solar System Co. Ltd v Commission;

| — | reject the application at first instance as inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

reject the application at first instance as inadmissible;

| — | in the alternative: reject the application at first instance as unfounded; and in any event; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative: reject the application at first instance as unfounded; and in any event;

| — | order the applicant to pay the costs of the appeal and of the first instance. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the applicant to pay the costs of the appeal and of the first instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits four grounds of appeal.

First, the General Court committed an error in law related to the admissibility and effectiveness of the application at first instance.

Second, the General Court committed errors in law concerning the qualification of the collection of duties as ‘retroactive’.

Third, the General Court erred in the interpretation of Article 8(1), (9) and (10), and Article 10(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (1) and Article 13(1), (9) and (10), and Article 16(5) of Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 (2) when concluding that the collection of duties on imports that have breached the undertaking was not possible.

Fourth, the General Court erred in the interpretation of Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 and 24(1) of Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 when concluding that the Council lacked the legal basis to provide that wherever the Commission invalidates an undertaking invoice, the duty was to be collected.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009, L 343, p. 51).

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 of 11 June 2009 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009, L 188, p. 93).

---

| 9.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 378/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 378/22

---

Appeal brought on 21 September 2020 by Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 08 July 2020 in Case T-110/17, Jiangsu Seraphim Solar System v Commission

(Case C-441/20 P)

(2020/C 378/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: H. Marcos Fraile, Agent, N. Tuominen, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: Jiangsu Seraphim Solar System Co. Ltd, European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the Contested Judgment; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the Contested Judgment;

| — | reject the application at first instance for the annulment of the Contested Regulation; and |
| --- | --- |

—

reject the application at first instance for the annulment of the Contested Regulation; and

| — | order the Applicant to pay the Council's costs both at first instance and on appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Applicant to pay the Council's costs both at first instance and on appeal.

Alternatively:

| — | refer back the case to the General Court for reconsideration; |
| --- | --- |

—

refer back the case to the General Court for reconsideration;

| — | reserve the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

reserve the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

First, the General Court erred in law by ruling that the application is admissible.

The Applicant has to show standing under Article 263 TFEU, in particular direct concern, and interest to act in respect of Article 2 of the Contested Regulation (1). The anti-dumping duties, due as legal consequence for invalidating the invoices, are not owed to national customs authorities by the Applicant, but by another company, Seraphim Solar System GmbH. Therefore, the Council considers that the Applicant has failed to demonstrate direct concern and interest to act and the General Court erred in decided it had.

The Applicant is furthermore time-barred from raising a plea of illegality under Article 277 TFEU in application of the TWD Textilwerke Deggendorf and Nachi Europe case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘Court of Justice’).

Finally, the admissibility of actions against Regulation No 1238/2013 (2) and Regulation No 1239/2013 (3) is also crystal-clear based on the SolarWorld case law, which ruled that Article 3 of Regulation No 1238/2013 and Article 2 of Regulation No 1239/2013 cannot be severed from the remainder of those Regulations.

Second, the General Court erred in law by finding that Articles 8 and 13 of the Basic Regulations ‘exhaust’ the possibility of collection of duties on imports that have breached an undertaking and any other approach qualifies as ‘retroactive’ collection of duties.

The General Court’s view is based on an erroneous understanding of the Basic Regulations. Articles 10(5) and 16(5) of the Basic Regulations deal in general with the consequences of having found that an undertaking has been breached. This is the equivalent of the ‘retroactivity within the meaning of the Basic Regulations’, that is to say the imposition of definitive anti-dumping / countervailing duties no more than 90 days from the application of provisional measures to imports subjected to registration under Articles 14(5) and 24(5) of the Basic Regulations.

The scenario at hand, i.e. the violation of an undertaking and its consequences is clearly of a different nature. The only restraint imposed by Articles 10(5) and 16(5) of the Basic Regulations is that such a retroactive collection shall not apply to imports entered during the 90 days retroactive period before the breach or withdrawal of the undertaking.

Moreover, there cannot be any retroactivity when the duties are imposed as from the beginning and only an exception from their collection is foreseen. Indeed, through an undertaking, the exporting producer avoids the application of the duties at issue, if the conditions for benefiting from such a result are provided. However, a customs debt will be incurred whenever the declarant has chosen to release the goods in free circulation, i.e. without collection of an anti-dumping duty, and one or several conditions of that undertaking are found to have been violated.

Third, the General Court erred in law by finding that Articles 14(1) and 24(1) of the Basic Regulations did not authorise the Council to set up a monitoring system for undertakings that included the invalidation of invoices.

Articles 14(1) and 24(1) of the Basic Regulations give very broad powers to the Council when adopting a regulation imposing duties, as clarified by the Court of Justice in Deichmann. Therefore, the General Court erred in law by finding that the Council lacked the power to set up a monitoring system for undertakings, which included the invalidation of invoices.

The General Court’s position goes against the intention of the legislator. There is no justification in EU law for such a far-reaching protection of an economic operator that is violating its voluntarily agreed obligations and, like in the present case, does not even dispute that such violations occurred. This position is also stricter than what is required under World Trade Organisation (‘WTO’) law, thus placing the EU at a disadvantage compared to the other WTO members’ trade partners.

In addition, the Contested Judgment makes undertakings disproportionally risky for the Commission. Entering into undertakings carries a risk on the EU side as well as difficulty in monitoring the arrangement. In fact, it is the primary obligation of the party accepting the undertaking that it cooperates with the Commission and thereby ensures a smooth monitoring of the proper fulfilment of the undertaking. Without this guarantee, the Commission would be left with all the risk, while anyone breaching an undertaking would be allowed to keep any advantages accrued during the breach. This interpretation also defeats the purpose of an effective protection of the EU industry from injurious dumping / subsidisation, which is (alternatively) remedied through the undertaking.

---

(1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2146 of 7 December 2016 withdrawing the acceptance of the undertaking for two exporting producers under Implementing Decision 2013/707/EU confirming the acceptance of an undertaking offered in connection with the anti-dumping and anti-subsidy proceedings concerning imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People's Republic of China for the period of application of definitive measures (OJ 2016, L 333, p. 4).

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1238/2013 of 2 December 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People's Republic of China (OJ 2013, L 325, p. 1).

(3)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2013 of 2 December 2013 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People's Republic of China (OJ 2013, L 325, p. 66).

---

General Court

| 9.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 378/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 378/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — Italy v Commission

(Case T-437/16) (1)

(Language regime - Notice of open competition for the recruitment of administrators in the field of audit - Language knowledge - Limitation of the choice of second language to German, English and French - Language for communication - Regulation No 1 - Article 1d(1), Article 27 and Article 28(f) of the Staff Regulations - Discrimination on grounds of language - Justification - Interest of the service - Proportionality)

(2020/C 378/28)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and by P. Gentili, Avvocato dello Stato)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara and D. Milanowska, acting as Agents)

Intervener, in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: L. Aguilera Ruiz, acting as Agent)

Re

Action brought under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the notice of open competition EPSO/AD/322/16 for drawing up a reserve list of Administrators in the field of audit (AD 5/AD 7) (OJ 2016, C 171 A, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls notice of open competition EPSO/AD/322/16 for drawing up a reserve list of Administrators in the field of audit (AD 5/AD 7); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls notice of open competition EPSO/AD/322/16 for drawing up a reserve list of Administrators in the field of audit (AD 5/AD 7);

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

2.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Italian Republic;

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

3.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 371, 10.10.2016.

---

| 9.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 378/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 378/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — Slovenia v Commission

(Case T-626/17) (1)

(Agriculture - Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 - Designations of origin in the wine sector - Wine labelling - Use of the name of a wine grape variety which contains or consists of a protected designation of origin - Prohibition - Derogation - Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1353 - Inclusion of the name of the wine grape variety ‘teran’ in the list set out in Part A of Annex XV to Regulation (EC) No 607/2009 - Retroactive effect from the date of the accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union - Slovenian protected designation of origin ‘Teran’ - Legal certainty - Legitimate expectations - Proportionality - Right to property - Act concerning the conditions of accession of Croatia to the European Union - Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making - Institutional balance)

(2020/C 378/29)

Language of the case: Slovenian

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Slovenia (represented by: V. Klemenc and T. Mihelič Žitko, acting as Agents, and by R. Knaak, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Eggers, I. Galindo Martín and B. Rous Demiri, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Republic of Croatia (represented by: G. Vidović Mesarek, acting as Agent, and by I. Ćuk, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1353 of 19 May 2017 amending Regulation (EC) No 607/2009 as regards the wine grape varieties and their synonyms that may appear on wine labels (OJ 2017 L 190, p. 5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the application; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application;

| 2. | Orders the Republic of Slovenia to pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Republic of Slovenia to pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders the Republic of Croatia to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Republic of Croatia to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 392, 20.11.2017.

---

| 9.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 378/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 378/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — Kerkosand v Commission

(Case T-745/17) (1)

(State aid - Aid for an investment project in western Slovakia - Regional investment aid - Rejection of a complaint - Decision not to raise any objections - Conditions for exemption - Article 14 of Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 - Scope of the Commission’s supervisory power - Guidelines on regional State aid for 2014-2020 - Concept of SME - Article 3(2) and (3) of Annex I to Regulation No 651/2014 - Data used for the staff headcount and the financial amounts and reference period - Article 4 of Annex I to Regulation No 651/2014 - Doubts as to the compatibility of the aid with the internal market - Article 4(4) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 - Serious difficulties)

(2020/C 378/30)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Kerkosand spol. s r. o. (Šajdíkove Humence, Slovakia) (represented by: A. Rosenfeld and C. Holtmann, lawyers)

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

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2017) 5050 final of 20 July 2017 concerning investment aid to the Slovak glass sand producer NAJPI a. s. (SA.38121 (2016/FC) — Slovakia) (JO 2017, C 336, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision C(2017) 5050 final of 20 July 2017 concerning investment aid to the Slovak glass sand producer NAJPI a. s. (SA.38121 (2016/FC) — Slovakia); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision C(2017) 5050 final of 20 July 2017 concerning investment aid to the Slovak glass sand producer NAJPI a. s. (SA.38121 (2016/FC) — Slovakia);

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 42, 5.2.2018.

---

| 9.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 378/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 378/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — Société générale v ECB

(Case T-143/18) (1)

(Economic and monetary policy - Prudential supervision of credit institutions - Contribution to the deposit guarantee system or to the single resolution fund by means of irrevocable payment commitments - Tasks entrusted to the ECB - Specific supervision powers of the ECB - Article 4(1)(f) and Article 16(1)(c) and (2)(d) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 - Measure requiring the deduction of the cumulative amount of irrevocable payment commitments outstanding from Tier 1 capital - Absence of individual examination)

(2020/C 378/31)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Société générale (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Gosset-Grainville, M. Trabucchi and M. Dalon, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: E. Koupepidou, R. Bax and F. Bonnard, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU for partial annulment, first, of ECB Decision ECB/SSM/2017-O2RNE8IBXP4R0TD8PU41/174 of 19 December 2017, and, second, of ECB Decision ECB-SSM-2019-FRSOG-10 of 14 February 2019.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls paragraph 5 of Decision ECB/SSM/2017-O2RNE8IBXP4R0TD8PU41/174 of the European Central Bank (ECB) of 19 December 2017 and Article 3 of Annex A thereto and paragraph 5 of Decision ECB-SSM-2019-FRSOG-10 of the ECB of 14 February 2019 and Article 3 of the annex thereto to the extent that Société génerale is concerned; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls paragraph 5 of Decision ECB/SSM/2017-O2RNE8IBXP4R0TD8PU41/174 of the European Central Bank (ECB) of 19 December 2017 and Article 3 of Annex A thereto and paragraph 5 of Decision ECB-SSM-2019-FRSOG-10 of the ECB of 14 February 2019 and Article 3 of the annex thereto to the extent that Société génerale is concerned;

| 2. | Orders the ECB is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the ECB is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 161, 7.5.2018.

---

| 9.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 378/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 378/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — BNP Paribas v ECB

(Cases T-150/18 and T-345/18) (1)

(Economic and monetary policy - Prudential supervision of credit institutions - Contribution to the deposit guarantee scheme or to the single resolution fund by way of irrevocable payment commitments - Tasks conferred on the ECB - ECB’s specific supervision powers - Article 4(1)(f), Article 16(1)(c) and Article 16(2)(d) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 - Measure imposing the deduction of the cumulative sum of outstanding irrevocable payment commitments from Common Equity Tier 1 - Absence of individual examination)

(2020/C 378/32)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: BNP Paribas (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Gosset-Grainville, M. Trabucchi and M. Dalon, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: E. Koupepidou, R. Bax and F. Bonnard, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for partial annulment of Decision ECB/SSM/2017-R0MUWSFPU8MPRO8K5P83/248 of the ECB of 19 December 2017, Decision ECB-SSM-2018-FRBNP-17 of the ECB of 26 April 2018, and Decision ECB-SSM-2019-FRBNP-12 of the ECB of 14 February 2019.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Joins Cases T-150/18 and T-345/18 for the purposes of the present judgment; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Joins Cases T-150/18 and T-345/18 for the purposes of the present judgment;

| 2. | Annuls paragraphs 9.1 to 9.3 of Decision ECB/SSM/2017-R0MUWSFPU8MPRO8K5P83/248 of the European Central Bank (ECB) of 19 December 2017, paragraphs 9.1 to 9.3 of Decision ECB-SSM-2018-FRBNP-17 of the ECB of 26 April 2018, and paragraphs 8.1 to 8.4 of Decision ECB-SSM-2019-FRBNP-12 of the ECB of 14 February 2019; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Annuls paragraphs 9.1 to 9.3 of Decision ECB/SSM/2017-R0MUWSFPU8MPRO8K5P83/248 of the European Central Bank (ECB) of 19 December 2017, paragraphs 9.1 to 9.3 of Decision ECB-SSM-2018-FRBNP-17 of the ECB of 26 April 2018, and paragraphs 8.1 to 8.4 of Decision ECB-SSM-2019-FRBNP-12 of the ECB of 14 February 2019;

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

3.

Orders the ECB to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 161, 7.5.2018.

---

| 9.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 378/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 378/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — Greece v Commission

(Case T-46/19) (1)

(EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Area-related aid scheme - Definition of ‘permanent grasslands’ - Article 4(1)(h) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 - Integrated administration and control system - Key controls - Regulation No 1306/2013 - Duty to state reasons)

(2020/C 378/33)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: G. Kanellopoulos, E. Leftheriotou and A. Vasilopoulou, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Konstantinidis, J. Aquilina and A. Sauka, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU for the partial annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/1841 of 16 November 2018 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2018, L 298, p. 34) to the extent that it concerns the expenditure incurred by the Hellenic Republic.

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/1841 of 16 November 2018 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) is annulled to the extent that it imposes on the Hellenic Republic a flat rate correction of 2 % on Decoupled Direct Aids; in an amount of EUR 12 342 563.07 for the 2016 financial year and EUR 12 060 283.13 for the 2017 financial year. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/1841 of 16 November 2018 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) is annulled to the extent that it imposes on the Hellenic Republic a flat rate correction of 2 % on Decoupled Direct Aids; in an amount of EUR 12 342 563.07 for the 2016 financial year and EUR 12 060 283.13 for the 2017 financial year.

| 2. | The action is dismissed for the remainder. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The action is dismissed for the remainder.

| 3. | The European Commission and the Hellenic Republic shall bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The European Commission and the Hellenic Republic shall bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 93, 11.3.2019.

---

| 9.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 378/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 378/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — Casual Dreams v EUIPO — López Fernández (Dayaday)

(Case T-50/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark Dayaday - Earlier national figurative marks DAYADAY and dayaday - Relative grounds for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Reputation - Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark)

(2020/C 378/34)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Casual Dreams, SLU (Manresa, Spain) (represented by: A. B. Padial Martínez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: H. O'Neill, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Miguel Ángel López Fernández (Fuensalida, Spain)

Re

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 November 2018 (Case R 2097/2018-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Casual Dreams and Mr López Fernández.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 16 November 2018 (Case R 2097/2018-5) in so far as it concerns the following goods:






  — | ‘Polarizing spectacles’, ‘Snow goggles’, ‘Cyclists’ glasses’, ‘Goggles for sports’, ‘Swim goggles’, in Class 9; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 16 November 2018 (Case R 2097/2018-5) in so far as it concerns the following goods:

—

‘Polarizing spectacles’, ‘Snow goggles’, ‘Cyclists’ glasses’, ‘Goggles for sports’, ‘Swim goggles’, in Class 9;

| — | ‘Wash cloths’, ‘Textile goods and substitutes for textile goods’, ‘Fabrics’, ‘Textiles, not included in other classes’, in Class 24; |
| --- | --- |

—

‘Wash cloths’, ‘Textile goods and substitutes for textile goods’, ‘Fabrics’, ‘Textiles, not included in other classes’, in Class 24;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders the parties each to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the parties each to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 103, 18.3.2019.

---

| 9.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 378/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 378/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — Kludi v EUIPO — Adlon Brand (ADLON)

(Case T-144/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark ADLON - Earlier EU word mark ADLON - Proof of the reputation of the earlier mark - Rule 19 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 7 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625) - Temporal application of the law - Late submission of documents - Board of Appeal’s discretion - Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Relative ground for refusal - Damage to reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark)

(2020/C 378/35)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Kludi GmbH & Co. KG (Menden, Germany) (represented by: A. Zafar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Fischer and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Adlon Brand GmbH & Co. KG (Düren, Germany) (represented by: P. Baronikians, E. Saarmann and N. Dimmler, lawyers)

Re

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 November 2018 (Case R 1500/2018-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Adlon Brand and Kludi.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

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

---

(1)  OJ C 139, 15.4.2019.

---

| 9.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 378/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 378/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — Glaxo Group Ltd v EUIPO (Shade of the colour purple)

(Case T-187/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for an EU trade mark consisting of a shade of the colour purple - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Lack of distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2020/C 378/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Glaxo Group Ltd (Brentford, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, QC, S. Baran, Barrister, and R. Jacob, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Hanne and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 January 2019 (Case R 1870/2017-1), concerning an application for registration of a sign consisting of a shade of the colour purple as an EU trade mark:

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Glaxo Group Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Glaxo Group Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 172, 20.5.2019.

---

| 9.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 378/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 378/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — Gothe and Kunz v EUIPO — Aldi Einkauf (FAIR ZONE)

(Case T-589/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark FAIR ZONE - Earlier EU word mark FAIR - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2020/C 378/37)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Oliver Gothe (Cologne, Germany) and Martin Kunz (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: K. Kruse, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG (Essen, Germany) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher, C. Fürsen, and M. Minkner, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the EUIPO of 3 July 2019 (Case R 2253/2018-4), concerning opposition proceedings between, on the one hand, Aldi Einkauf and, on the other hand, Mr Gothe and Mr Kunz.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

The action is dismissed;

| 2. | Mr Oliver Gothe and Mr Martin Kunz are ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Oliver Gothe and Mr Martin Kunz are ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 337, 7.10.2019.

---

| 9.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 378/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 378/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — Daw v EUIPO (SOS Innenfarbe)

(Case T-625/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark SOS Innenfarbe - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2020/C 378/38)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Daw SE (Ober-Ramstadt, Germany) (represented by: A. Haberl, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 July 2019 (Case R 277/2019-4), concerning an application for registration of the word sign SOS Innenfarbe as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Daw SE is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Daw SE is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 372, 4.11.2019.

---

| 9.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 378/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 378/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — Novomatic v EUIPO — Brouwerij Haacht (PRIMUS)

(Case T-669/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for European Union word mark PRIMUS - Earlier EU word mark PRIMUS - Earlier Benelux word mark PRIMUS - Relative ground for refusal - Damage to reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2020/C 378/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Novomatic AG (Gumpoldskirchen, Austria) (represented by: W. Mosing, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Brouwerij Haacht NV (Boortmeerbeek, Belgium) (represented by: G. Glas and E. Taelman, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 July 2019 (Case R 2528/2018-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Brouwerij Haacht and Novomatic.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Novomatic AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Novomatic AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 399, 25.11.2019.

---

| 9.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 378/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 378/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — Sumol + Compal Marcas v EUIPO — Jacob (Dr. Jacob’s essentials)

(Case T-879/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark Dr. Jacob’s essentials - Earlier international word mark COMPAL ESSENCIAL - Earlier national and international figurative marks FRUTA essencial, COMPAL essencial and Compal FRUTA essencial - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2020/C 378/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sumol + Compal Marcas, SA (Carnaxide, Portugal) (represented by: A. de Sampaio, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Söder and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Ludwig Manfred Jacob (Heidesheim, Germany) (represented by: W. Berlit, lawyer)

Re:

Action for annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 October 2019 (Case R 1025/2019 1), relating to opposition proceedings between Sumol + Compal Marcas and Mr Jacob.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Sumol + Compal Marcas, SA to pay the costs relating to the present action. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Sumol + Compal Marcas, SA to pay the costs relating to the present action.

---

(1)  OJ C 61, 24.2.2020.

---

| 9.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 378/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 378/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — Klose v EUIPO (Representation of three coloured segments in a rectangle)

(Case T-81/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for an EU figurative mark representing three coloured segments in a rectangle - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2020/C 378/41)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Anne-Marie Klose (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: I. Seher, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO (represented by: A. Söder, agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 December 2019 (Case R 1955/2019-2), concerning an application for registration of a figurative sign representing three coloured segments in a rectangle as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Ms Anne-Marie Klose to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ms Anne-Marie Klose to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 114, 6.4.2020.

---

| 9.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 378/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 378/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 2 September 2020 — IR v Commission

(Case T-131/20) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Rights and obligations of officials - Secondment in the interests of the service - Article 37, first paragraph, heading (a), first indent, of the Staff Regulations - Article 38 of the Staff Regulations - Refusal to extend a secondment - Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials - Rights of the defence)

(2020/C 378/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: IR (represented by: S. Pappas and A. Pappas, lawyers)

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

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment, first, of the decision of the Commission of 2 July 2019 rejecting the request of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop) that the applicant’s secondment within its services should be extended for an additional year and, second, of the decision of 23 January 2020 rejecting the applicant’s complaint brought against the decision of 2 July 2019.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 2 July 2019 rejecting the request of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop) that IR’s secondment within its services be extended for an additional year; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 2 July 2019 rejecting the request of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop) that IR’s secondment within its services be extended for an additional year;

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

2.

Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 161, 11.5.2020.

---

| 9.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 378/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 378/34

---

Order of the General Court of 10 September 2020 –ADESO v Commission

(Case T-529/19) (1)

(Action for annulment - Grant contracts relating to the projects ‘Your Environment is Your Life’ and ‘Social Safety Net for Poor and Vulnerable Households in Northern Regions of Somalia/Somaliland Phase II’ - Non-eligible costs - Debit notes - Confirmation letter - Challengeable act - Contractual nature of the dispute - Act not open to challenge - Act forming part of a purely contractual framework from which it is inseparable - Inadmissibility)

(2020/C 378/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: African Development Solutions (ADESO) (Nairobi, Kenya) (represented by: R. Martens, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Estrada de Solà, M. Ilkova and A. Katsimerou, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of a Commission decision allegedly contained in a letter dated 10 May 2019 concerning the recovery of certain sums paid under grant contracts relating to the projects ‘Your Environment is Your Life’ (FED/2013/313-770) and ‘Social Safety Net for Poor and Vulnerable Households in Northern Regions of Somalia/Somaliland Phase II’ (FED/2013/316-291).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | African Development Solutions (ADESO) shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

African Development Solutions (ADESO) shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 357, 21.10.2019.

---

| 9.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 378/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 378/35

---

Order of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — IMG v Commission

(Case T-645/19) (1)

(Action for annulment - Development cooperation - Implementing the EU budget in indirect management - Execution of a judgment of the Court of Justice - Commission letter requesting that certain documents be provided - Act not open to challenge - Preparatory measure - Inadmissibility - Action for damages - Close link with the claim for annulment - Lis pendens - Inadmissibility - Failure to comply with procedural requirements - Article 76(d) of the Rules of Procedure - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2020/C 378/44)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: International Management Group (IMG) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi and J.-Y. de Cara, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz and J. Norris, acting as Agents)

Re:

First, application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the letter of the Commission of 18 July 2019 by which the Commission, in execution of the judgment of 31 January 2019, International Management Group v Commission (C-183/17 P and C-184/17 P, EU:C:2019:78), requests the applicant to provide certain documents and, second, application based on Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of that letter and of the Commission decisions annulled by that judgment.

Operative part of the judgment

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

1)

The action is dismissed.

| 2) | International Management Group (IMG) is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2)

International Management Group (IMG) is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 399, 25.11.2019.

---

| 9.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 378/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 378/36

---

Order of the General Court of 25 August 2020 — Frank Recruitment Group Services Ltd v EUIPO — Pearson (PEARSON FRANK)

(Case T-735/19) (1)

(European Union trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the application for registration - No need to adjudicate)

(2020/C 378/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Frank Recruitment Group Services Ltd (Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Dennis, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Pearson Plc (London, United Kingdom)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 August 2019 (Case R 1884/2018-4) regarding opposition proceedings between Pearson Plc and Frank Recruitment Group Services Ltd.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

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

| 2. | Frank Recruitment Group Services Ltd and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) are ordered to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Frank Recruitment Group Services Ltd and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) are ordered to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 432, 23.12.2019.

---

| 9.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 378/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 378/36

---

Action brought on 14 August 2020 — TrekStor v EUIPO — Zagg (Protective covers for computer hardware)

(Case T-512/20)

(2020/C 378/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: TrekStor GmbH (Bensheim, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch and N. Willich, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Zagg Inc. (Salt Lake City, Utah, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Design at issue: European Union design No 1 253 876-0001

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 June 2020 in Case R 294/2019-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to declare the contested design invalid in accordance with Article 25(1)(f) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to declare the contested design invalid in accordance with Article 25(1)(f) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 25(1)(f) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 25(1)(f) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002.

---

| 9.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 378/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 378/37

---

Action brought on 11 August 2020 — Carpatair v Commission

(Case T-522/20)

(2020/C 378/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Carpatair SA (Timiş, Romania) (represented by: J. Rivas Andrés and A. Manzaneque Valverde, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Decision on State aid SA.31662 — C/2011 (ex NN/2011) — Implemented by Romania for Timisoara International Airport — Wizz Air; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Decision on State aid SA.31662 — C/2011 (ex NN/2011) — Implemented by Romania for Timisoara International Airport — Wizz Air;

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

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

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 a manifest error of law in the contested decision as regards the selective nature of the 2010 Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP).






  — | As recognised by Romanian courts, the discounts included in the 2010 AIP granted State aid to Wizz Air at the Timisoara Airport. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of law in the contested decision as regards the selective nature of the 2010 Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP).

—

As recognised by Romanian courts, the discounts included in the 2010 AIP granted State aid to Wizz Air at the Timisoara Airport.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment of facts and an error of law as regards the conclusion that the arrangements between the airport manager and Wizz Air did not confer an undue advantage to the latter.






  — | First, the airport manager-s behaviour was not comparable to that of a private operator in a market economy. Second, the Commission wrongly assessed the arrangements as isolated facts and disregarded elements of critical relevance for the Market Economy Operator test (MEO test). Foreseeable developments at the time of the conclusion of the arrangements produced the result that they were not profitable to the airport manager in the medium-long term. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment of facts and an error of law as regards the conclusion that the arrangements between the airport manager and Wizz Air did not confer an undue advantage to the latter.

—

First, the airport manager-s behaviour was not comparable to that of a private operator in a market economy. Second, the Commission wrongly assessed the arrangements as isolated facts and disregarded elements of critical relevance for the Market Economy Operator test (MEO test). Foreseeable developments at the time of the conclusion of the arrangements produced the result that they were not profitable to the airport manager in the medium-long term.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging an error of law by the Commission’s violation of its duty of care regarding the applicant’s allegation of price discrimination at the Timisoara Airport. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging an error of law by the Commission’s violation of its duty of care regarding the applicant’s allegation of price discrimination at the Timisoara Airport.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by an error of law by disregarding the State aid granted to Wizz Air through a discounted security charge. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by an error of law by disregarding the State aid granted to Wizz Air through a discounted security charge.

---

| 9.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 378/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 378/38

---

Action brought on 27 August 2020 — Jushi Egypt for Fiberglass Industry v Commission

(Case T-540/20)

(2020/C 378/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Jushi Egypt for Fiberglass Industry SAE (Ain Sukhna, Egypt) (represented by: B. Servais and V. Crochet, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) Application pursuant to Article 263(4) of the TFEU for the annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/870 of 24 June 2020 imposing a definitive countervailing duty and definitively collecting the provisional countervailing duty imposed on imports of continuous filament glass fibre products originating in Egypt, and levying the definitive countervailing duty on the registered imports of continuous filament glass fibre products originating in Egypt, in as far as it relates to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) Application pursuant to Article 263(4) of the TFEU for the annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/870 of 24 June 2020 imposing a definitive countervailing duty and definitively collecting the provisional countervailing duty imposed on imports of continuous filament glass fibre products originating in Egypt, and levying the definitive countervailing duty on the registered imports of continuous filament glass fibre products originating in Egypt, in as far as it relates to the applicant;

| — | order the defendant and any intervener who may be allowed to support the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant and any intervener who may be allowed to support the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s decision to countervail financial contributions granted to the applicant by Chinese public bodies violates Articles 2(a), 2(b), 3(1)(a), 4(2), 4(3) and 28 of the Basic Regulation and the Government of Egypt’s right of defence. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s decision to countervail financial contributions granted to the applicant by Chinese public bodies violates Articles 2(a), 2(b), 3(1)(a), 4(2), 4(3) and 28 of the Basic Regulation and the Government of Egypt’s right of defence.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s decision regarding the provision of land to the applicant violates its rights of defence and Article 30 of the Basic Regulation as well as Articles 3(2), 5 and 6(d) of the Basic Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s decision regarding the provision of land to the applicant violates its rights of defence and Article 30 of the Basic Regulation as well as Articles 3(2), 5 and 6(d) of the Basic Regulation.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s decision to countervail the import tariff rebate scheme for imported materials used by Jushi for sales of glass fibre products to its domestic related customer violates Articles 3(1)(a)(ii), 3(2) and 5 of the Basic Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s decision to countervail the import tariff rebate scheme for imported materials used by Jushi for sales of glass fibre products to its domestic related customer violates Articles 3(1)(a)(ii), 3(2) and 5 of the Basic Regulation.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s decision to countervail the tax treatment of foreign exchange losses violates Articles 3(2) and 4(2)(c) of the Basic Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s decision to countervail the tax treatment of foreign exchange losses violates Articles 3(2) and 4(2)(c) of the Basic Regulation.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s methodology for the determination of the undercutting margin with regard to the Applicant violates Articles 1(1), 2(d), 8(1), 8(2) and 8(5) of the Basic Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s methodology for the determination of the undercutting margin with regard to the Applicant violates Articles 1(1), 2(d), 8(1), 8(2) and 8(5) of the Basic Regulation.

---

| 9.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 378/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 378/39

---

Action brought on 10 September 2020 — TrekStor v EUIPO — Zagg (Protective covers for computer hardware)

(Case T-564/20)

(2020/C 378/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: TrekStor GmbH (Bensheim, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch and N. Willich, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Zagg Inc. (Salt Lake City, Utah, États-Unis)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Design at issue: European Union design No 1 253 876-0002

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 June 2020 in Case R 296/2020-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to declare the contested design invalid in accordance with Article 25(1)(f) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to declare the contested design invalid in accordance with Article 25(1)(f) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 25(1)(f) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 25(1)(f) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002.

---

| 9.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 378/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 378/39

---

Action brought on 10 September 2020 — TrekStor v EUIPO — Zagg (Protective covers for computer hardware)

(Case T-565/20)

(2020/C 378/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: TrekStor GmbH (Bensheim, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch and N. Willich, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Zagg Inc. (Salt Lake City, Utah, États-Unis)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Design at issue: European Union design No 1 253 876-0003

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 June 2020 in Case R 297/2020-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to declare the contested design invalid in accordance with Article 25(1)(f) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to declare the contested design invalid in accordance with Article 25(1)(f) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 25(1)(f) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 25(1)(f) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002.

---

| 9.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 378/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 378/40

---

Action brought on 7 September 2020 — Stichting Comité N 65 Ondergronds Helvoirt v Commission

(Case T-569/20)

(2020/C 378/51)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Stichting Comité N 65 Ondergronds Helvoirt (Helvoirt, Netherlands) (represented by: T. Malfait and A. Croes, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul the Commission decision of 6 July 2020 by which the applicant’s request for an internal review of the decision to close complaint file CHAP (2019)2512 pursuant to Article 2(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1367/2006 was declared inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission decision of 6 July 2020 by which the applicant’s request for an internal review of the decision to close complaint file CHAP (2019)2512 pursuant to Article 2(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1367/2006 was declared inadmissible;

| — | return the file to the Commission so that it might declare it admissible and assess its substance; |
| --- | --- |

—

return the file to the Commission so that it might declare it admissible and assess its substance;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 1 and Article 9(2) and (3) of the Aarhus Convention, Article 216 TFEU, Article 1(1)(d), Article 2(1)(g) and (2) and Article 10 of Regulation (EU) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (‘the Aarhus Regulation’).






  — | In the contested decision, the Commission declares the applicant’s request for internal review inadmissible in so far as the request relates to an administrative act taken by the Commission as administrative review body. Such acts are excluded, under Article 2(1)(g) of the Aarhus Regulation, from the scope of the review procedure of Article 10 of the Aarhus Regulation. That decision is unlawful because the request for internal review relates to a Commission decision taken in the context of a complaint procedure, whereby it takes a purely interpretative position and thus does not act as an oversight body (such as in infringement proceedings, for example). The decision therefore does fall within the material scope of the review procedure of Article 10 of the Aarhus Regulation. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 1 and Article 9(2) and (3) of the Aarhus Convention, Article 216 TFEU, Article 1(1)(d), Article 2(1)(g) and (2) and Article 10 of Regulation (EU) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (‘the Aarhus Regulation’).

—

In the contested decision, the Commission declares the applicant’s request for internal review inadmissible in so far as the request relates to an administrative act taken by the Commission as administrative review body. Such acts are excluded, under Article 2(1)(g) of the Aarhus Regulation, from the scope of the review procedure of Article 10 of the Aarhus Regulation. That decision is unlawful because the request for internal review relates to a Commission decision taken in the context of a complaint procedure, whereby it takes a purely interpretative position and thus does not act as an oversight body (such as in infringement proceedings, for example). The decision therefore does fall within the material scope of the review procedure of Article 10 of the Aarhus Regulation.

| — | By its decision of inadmissibility, the Commission breaches the objectives of the Aarhus Regulation and the Aarhus Convention, in particular ensuring effective access to justice in environmental matters. |
| --- | --- |

—

By its decision of inadmissibility, the Commission breaches the objectives of the Aarhus Regulation and the Aarhus Convention, in particular ensuring effective access to justice in environmental matters.

| — | In the alternative, if it were nevertheless to be held that, pursuant to Article 2(1)(g) of the Aarhus Regulation, a Commission decision following a complaint does not fall within the scope of the review procedure of Article 10 of the Aarhus Regulation (quod non), it must be held that Article 10 of the Aarhus Regulation in conjunction with Article 2(1)(g) thereof is contrary to the Aarhus Convention and accordingly should be disapplied by way of plea of illegality. |
| --- | --- |

—

In the alternative, if it were nevertheless to be held that, pursuant to Article 2(1)(g) of the Aarhus Regulation, a Commission decision following a complaint does not fall within the scope of the review procedure of Article 10 of the Aarhus Regulation (quod non), it must be held that Article 10 of the Aarhus Regulation in conjunction with Article 2(1)(g) thereof is contrary to the Aarhus Convention and accordingly should be disapplied by way of plea of illegality.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 5 of the Aarhus Convention, Articles 2 and 8 ECHR, Articles 2 and 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 3(3), Article 9, Article 168(1) and Article 191(1) and (2) TFEU and Articles 6, 7, 23 of Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe (‘the Air Quality Directive’), as well as of Annex III and Annex XI, point B thereto.






  — | The Commission does not carry out a substantive assessment in the contested decision and accordingly fails to recognise that the Netherlands Government always assesses the air quality along busy roads that traverse build-up areas (such as in Helvoirt) at more than ten metres from the kerbside, as a result of which exceedances of air pollution standards at these locations are not registered, resulting in the known dangers to public health. This practice of the Netherlands is contrary to Annex II, Section C to the Air Quality Directive, which describes the assessment of air quality and the siting of sampling points, specifying in particular that that assessment is to be made at no more than ten metres from the kerbside, in so far as is practicable. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 5 of the Aarhus Convention, Articles 2 and 8 ECHR, Articles 2 and 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 3(3), Article 9, Article 168(1) and Article 191(1) and (2) TFEU and Articles 6, 7, 23 of Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe (‘the Air Quality Directive’), as well as of Annex III and Annex XI, point B thereto.

—

The Commission does not carry out a substantive assessment in the contested decision and accordingly fails to recognise that the Netherlands Government always assesses the air quality along busy roads that traverse build-up areas (such as in Helvoirt) at more than ten metres from the kerbside, as a result of which exceedances of air pollution standards at these locations are not registered, resulting in the known dangers to public health. This practice of the Netherlands is contrary to Annex II, Section C to the Air Quality Directive, which describes the assessment of air quality and the siting of sampling points, specifying in particular that that assessment is to be made at no more than ten metres from the kerbside, in so far as is practicable.

| — | The Commission also fails to recognise that the Netherlands Government classifies the area in question of Helvoirt as a rural area, even though it is indeed quite an urban area, and that the wrong modelling techniques are therefore being applied. This also has the consequence that exceedances of air pollution standards are not determined. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Commission also fails to recognise that the Netherlands Government classifies the area in question of Helvoirt as a rural area, even though it is indeed quite an urban area, and that the wrong modelling techniques are therefore being applied. This also has the consequence that exceedances of air pollution standards are not determined.

| — | In addition, the Commission fails to recognise that, by this unlawful practice, not only are exceedances not recorded, but that as a consequence no air quality plan has yet been drawn up for the Helvoirt area, even though the Netherlands Government is obliged to do so pursuant to Article 23(1) of the Air Quality Directive. |
| --- | --- |

—

In addition, the Commission fails to recognise that, by this unlawful practice, not only are exceedances not recorded, but that as a consequence no air quality plan has yet been drawn up for the Helvoirt area, even though the Netherlands Government is obliged to do so pursuant to Article 23(1) of the Air Quality Directive.

| — | Lastly, the Commission fails to recognise that, by this unlawful practice, the Netherlands Government adversely affects not only the right of every European Union citizen to access correct environmental information, but also the right of every European Union citizen to life and good health. |
| --- | --- |

—

Lastly, the Commission fails to recognise that, by this unlawful practice, the Netherlands Government adversely affects not only the right of every European Union citizen to access correct environmental information, but also the right of every European Union citizen to life and good health.

---

| 9.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 378/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 378/41

---

Action brought on 23 September 2020 — Italia Wanbao-ACC v Commission

(Case T-583/20)

(2020/C 378/52)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italia Wanbao-ACC Srl (Borgo Valbelluna, Italy) (represented by: P. Ferrari and F. Filì, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Primarily: |
| --- | --- |

—

Primarily:

| — | annul European Commission Decision of 15 May 2020, Case M.8947 — Nidec/Whirlpool (Embraco Business), C(2020) 3118 final, published on 14 July 2020 (Decision 2), in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul European Commission Decision of 15 May 2020, Case M.8947 — Nidec/Whirlpool (Embraco Business), C(2020) 3118 final, published on 14 July 2020 (Decision 2), in its entirety;

| — | In the alternative: |
| --- | --- |

—

In the alternative:

| — | annul Decision 2 to the extent to which it waives the prohibition on reacquisition, for the purposes of paragraph 5 of the Commitments, in relation to the assets, patents, intellectual-property rights and knowhow, technology rights, development projects, contracts and relationships with clients and suppliers, client lists, other data and information and personnel connected to the VSD version of the Delta Series. |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Decision 2 to the extent to which it waives the prohibition on reacquisition, for the purposes of paragraph 5 of the Commitments, in relation to the assets, patents, intellectual-property rights and knowhow, technology rights, development projects, contracts and relationships with clients and suppliers, client lists, other data and information and personnel connected to the VSD version of the Delta Series.

| — | In any event: |
| --- | --- |

—

In any event:

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings;

| — | adopt any other measure which it considers appropriate. |
| --- | --- |

—

adopt any other measure which it considers appropriate.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action has been brought against the decision of 15 May 2020 by which the Commission waived the ‘non-reacquisition’ clause relating to the acquisition by Nidec Corporation of control of the refrigeration compressor sector belonging to Whirlpool Corporation (Case M.8947 — Nidec/Whirlpool (EMBRACO BUSINESS)); that clause was provided for in the decision of 12 April 2019 declaring the transaction compatible with the internal market while making that declaration subject to certain conditions.

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

| 1. | First and second pleas in law, alleging incorrect application and misinterpretation of the legal rules and distortion of the clear sense of the evidence






  — | The applicant argues in this regard that an amendment to structural commitments such as that here at issue may be authorised by the Commission solely in exceptional circumstances, that is to say, when changes occur in market conditions that are (i) significant, (ii) durable and (iii) unforeseeable. In addition, (iv) the competitive reason that led to the adoption of the Commitments must have disappeared. The conditions in points (i) to (iv) are cumulative. However, none of those conditions is satisfied in the present case. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First and second pleas in law, alleging incorrect application and misinterpretation of the legal rules and distortion of the clear sense of the evidence

—

The applicant argues in this regard that an amendment to structural commitments such as that here at issue may be authorised by the Commission solely in exceptional circumstances, that is to say, when changes occur in market conditions that are (i) significant, (ii) durable and (iii) unforeseeable. In addition, (iv) the competitive reason that led to the adoption of the Commitments must have disappeared. The conditions in points (i) to (iv) are cumulative. However, none of those conditions is satisfied in the present case.

| — | As for the condition of significant scope (point (i)) and that of the disappearance of competitive reasons connected to the Commitments (point (iv)), the assessment of the evidence carried out by the Commission appears, in the view of the applicant, to be entirely distorted, and the reading and analysis of that evidence appear to be manifestly unreasonable. |
| --- | --- |

—

As for the condition of significant scope (point (i)) and that of the disappearance of competitive reasons connected to the Commitments (point (iv)), the assessment of the evidence carried out by the Commission appears, in the view of the applicant, to be entirely distorted, and the reading and analysis of that evidence appear to be manifestly unreasonable.

| 2. | Third and fourth pleas in law, alleging insufficient investigation and an insufficient statement of reasons and inconsistency with previous decisions






  — | The applicant submits in this regard that the analysis of the market shares in the decision is focused solely on data relating to volumes, entirely disregarding data relating to value. Such an approach not only leads to a partial analysis but also appears to be at variance with the Commission’s decision of 12 April 2019, Case M.8947, C(2019) 2734 final. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Third and fourth pleas in law, alleging insufficient investigation and an insufficient statement of reasons and inconsistency with previous decisions

—

The applicant submits in this regard that the analysis of the market shares in the decision is focused solely on data relating to volumes, entirely disregarding data relating to value. Such an approach not only leads to a partial analysis but also appears to be at variance with the Commission’s decision of 12 April 2019, Case M.8947, C(2019) 2734 final.

| — | The applicant further submits, also in relation to the data concerning market shares, that the decision appears to be based exclusively on the estimates provided by Nidec, that is, one single operator, which is, moreover, a directly interested party. The Commission ought, at the very least, to have been required to collect information also from other operators (by way of requests for information, that is, market tests). |
| --- | --- |

—

The applicant further submits, also in relation to the data concerning market shares, that the decision appears to be based exclusively on the estimates provided by Nidec, that is, one single operator, which is, moreover, a directly interested party. The Commission ought, at the very least, to have been required to collect information also from other operators (by way of requests for information, that is, market tests).

---

| 9.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 378/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 378/43

---

Action brought on 24 September 2020 — Calzaturificio Emmegiemme Shoes v EUIPO — Inticom (MAIMAI MADE IN ITALY)

(Case T-589/20)

(2020/C 378/53)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Calzaturificio Emmegiemme Shoes Srl (Surano, Italy) (represented by: R. Fragalà, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Inticom SpA (Gallarate, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark MAIMAI MADE IN ITALY — Application for registration No 11 266 624

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 July 2020 in Case R 1874/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | as an ancillary and preliminary matter, pursuant to Article 256(3) TFEU in conjunction with the first paragraph of Article 263 TFEU and point (b) of the first paragraph of Article 267 TFEU, rule on the lawfulness of Article 18(1) of Decision 2018-9 of 12 November 2018 of the Presidium of the Boards of Appeal, which does not lay down an obligation to change the members of a Board of Appeal in appeals against an opposition decision referred for misapplication of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council or of any rule of law relating to its application, on the ground that it is contrary to the imperative rules of the principle of ‘sound administration’ and of the right to ‘an effective remedy/fair trial’ laid down in Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

—

as an ancillary and preliminary matter, pursuant to Article 256(3) TFEU in conjunction with the first paragraph of Article 263 TFEU and point (b) of the first paragraph of Article 267 TFEU, rule on the lawfulness of Article 18(1) of Decision 2018-9 of 12 November 2018 of the Presidium of the Boards of Appeal, which does not lay down an obligation to change the members of a Board of Appeal in appeals against an opposition decision referred for misapplication of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council or of any rule of law relating to its application, on the ground that it is contrary to the imperative rules of the principle of ‘sound administration’ and of the right to ‘an effective remedy/fair trial’ laid down in Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

| — | in the main and on the substance, pursuant to Article 72 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, alter and/or annul, with reference to another Board of Appeal or to the Grand Board pursuant to Article 165(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, the contested decision in so far as it was issued in breach of an essential procedural requirement, in breach of the TFEU, and in breach and/or misapplication of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and of Commission Delegated Regulation 2018/625; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the main and on the substance, pursuant to Article 72 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, alter and/or annul, with reference to another Board of Appeal or to the Grand Board pursuant to Article 165(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, the contested decision in so far as it was issued in breach of an essential procedural requirement, in breach of the TFEU, and in breach and/or misapplication of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and of Commission Delegated Regulation 2018/625;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law relied on

| — | unlawfulness of Article 18(1) of Decision 2018-9 of 12 November 2018 of the Presidium of the Boards of Appeal on the organisation of the Boards, on account of its being contrary to Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights; |
| --- | --- |

—

unlawfulness of Article 18(1) of Decision 2018-9 of 12 November 2018 of the Presidium of the Boards of Appeal on the organisation of the Boards, on account of its being contrary to Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights;

| — | procedural and formal irregularities of the contested decision:
  infringement of Article 24(1) of Commission Delegated Regulation 2018/625 and of Article 3(4) and (5) of Decision 2020-1 of 27 February 2020 of the Presidium of the Boards of Appeal, infringement of the right to a fair trial, and failure to observe the principle of audi alteram partem laid down in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights;
  infringement of Article 55(2), (3) and (4) of Commission Delegated Regulation 2018/625, infringement of the right to a fair trial, and failure to observe the principle of audi alteram partem laid down in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights;
  infringement of Article 54(1)(a), (b), (c) and (d) of Decision 2020-1 of 27 February 2020 of the Presidium of the Boards of Appeal, and of Article 27(4) of Commission Delegated Regulation 2018/625, infringement of the right to a fair trial, and failure to observe the principle of audi alteram partem laid down in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights;
  infringement and/or misapplication of point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 18(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

procedural and formal irregularities of the contested decision:

infringement of Article 24(1) of Commission Delegated Regulation 2018/625 and of Article 3(4) and (5) of Decision 2020-1 of 27 February 2020 of the Presidium of the Boards of Appeal, infringement of the right to a fair trial, and failure to observe the principle of audi alteram partem laid down in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights;

infringement of Article 55(2), (3) and (4) of Commission Delegated Regulation 2018/625, infringement of the right to a fair trial, and failure to observe the principle of audi alteram partem laid down in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights;

infringement of Article 54(1)(a), (b), (c) and (d) of Decision 2020-1 of 27 February 2020 of the Presidium of the Boards of Appeal, and of Article 27(4) of Commission Delegated Regulation 2018/625, infringement of the right to a fair trial, and failure to observe the principle of audi alteram partem laid down in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights;

infringement and/or misapplication of point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 18(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | infringement and/or misapplication of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and of Article 10(2) and (3) of Commission Delegated Regulation 2018/625. |
| --- | --- |

—

infringement and/or misapplication of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and of Article 10(2) and (3) of Commission Delegated Regulation 2018/625.

---

| 9.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 378/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 378/44

---

Action brought on 28 September 2020 — Tirrenia di navigazione v Commission

(Case T-593/20)

(2020/C 378/54)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Tirrenia di navigazione SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: B. Nascimbene and F. Rossi Dal Pozzo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision in so far as indicated in the application and specifically with respect to Articles 2, 3 and 4 only; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in so far as indicated in the application and specifically with respect to Articles 2, 3 and 4 only;

| — | in the alternative, annul Articles 6 and 7 of the contested decision which order the immediate and effective recovery of the alleged aid; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Articles 6 and 7 of the contested decision which order the immediate and effective recovery of the alleged aid;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action has been brought against Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Decision C (2020) 1110 final of 2 March 2020. By that decision, the Commission held that the public service compensation granted to Tirrenia AS from 2009 and subsequently to its acquirer Compagnia Italiana di Navigazione for providing ferry services in Italy was compatible with the EU rules on State aid.

However it found that other measures granted to Tirrenia AS were incompatible with the EU rules on State aid. The Commission also held that the public service compensation granted between 1992 and 2008 to the companies of the former Tirrenia Group (Adriatica, Caremar, Saremar, Siremar and Toremar) was compatible with the EU rules on State aid with the exception of aid for a specific route, which was found to be incompatible.

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU and Article 108(2) TFEU and the 2004 Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines.






  — | The applicant claims in this regard that the contested decision contains an error of law as regards the application of Article 107(3)(b) TFEU and also as regards the 2004 Guidelines, in so far as it held that the rescue aid for Tirrenia AS was unlawfully prolonged and incompatible with the internal market. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU and Article 108(2) TFEU and the 2004 Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines.

—

The applicant claims in this regard that the contested decision contains an error of law as regards the application of Article 107(3)(b) TFEU and also as regards the 2004 Guidelines, in so far as it held that the rescue aid for Tirrenia AS was unlawfully prolonged and incompatible with the internal market.

| — | In relation to that point the applicant clarifies that:






  (a) | the restructuring plan existed before the expiry of the six-month time limit in question; the plan was ‘feasible, coherent and far-reaching’ so as to restore the viability of the Tirrenia business branch by means of liquidation, and was fully and completely implemented by the privatisation of the Tirrenia business branch; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

In relation to that point the applicant clarifies that:

(a)

the restructuring plan existed before the expiry of the six-month time limit in question; the plan was ‘feasible, coherent and far-reaching’ so as to restore the viability of the Tirrenia business branch by means of liquidation, and was fully and completely implemented by the privatisation of the Tirrenia business branch;

| (b) | paying back in full, in a single payment, the whole amount of the rescue aid fully honoured the commitment to reimburse the secured loan on completion of the privatisation procedures, using the amounts obtained by way of purchase price for the divestment of the company’s assets; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

paying back in full, in a single payment, the whole amount of the rescue aid fully honoured the commitment to reimburse the secured loan on completion of the privatisation procedures, using the amounts obtained by way of purchase price for the divestment of the company’s assets;

| (c) | the basic principle underlying the rescue decision was respected: to allow the Tirrenia business branch to guarantee the continuity of maritime transport services by means of a temporary and reversible support measure, without interrupting the important essential public service during the period concerned, until the end of the privatisation process. |
| --- | --- |

(c)

the basic principle underlying the rescue decision was respected: to allow the Tirrenia business branch to guarantee the continuity of maritime transport services by means of a temporary and reversible support measure, without interrupting the important essential public service during the period concerned, until the end of the privatisation process.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU and Article 108(2) TFEU in relation to exemptions from the payment of certain taxes.






  — | The applicant claims in this regard that the right to the tax exemption at issue is subject to the conditions defined generally for insolvency proceedings and that, as the Commission acknowledges in the contested decision, it is not possible to anticipate, even now, whether the condition of a positive difference between the undertaking’s assets at the beginning of the extraordinary administration procedure, on the one hand, and the residual assets at the end of the extraordinary administration procedure, on the other, will be satisfied. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU and Article 108(2) TFEU in relation to exemptions from the payment of certain taxes.

—

The applicant claims in this regard that the right to the tax exemption at issue is subject to the conditions defined generally for insolvency proceedings and that, as the Commission acknowledges in the contested decision, it is not possible to anticipate, even now, whether the condition of a positive difference between the undertaking’s assets at the beginning of the extraordinary administration procedure, on the one hand, and the residual assets at the end of the extraordinary administration procedure, on the other, will be satisfied.

| — | Therefore, the corporate income tax exemption is fundamentally conditional on the occurrence of future and uncertain events that are such as to have prevented, to date, the consolidation of any advantage for Tirrenia AS and to make it entirely possible, as the Commission acknowledges in the contested decision, that such an advantage might be realised in the future. As a result, in the light of all the conditions laid down by national law that must be satisfied in order to benefit from the advantage in question, it cannot be held that the hypothetical advantage deriving from the tax exemption has been acquired by Tirrenia AS. Consequently, that exemption falls outside the scope of the concept of State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU and, as a result, is not State aid. |
| --- | --- |

—

Therefore, the corporate income tax exemption is fundamentally conditional on the occurrence of future and uncertain events that are such as to have prevented, to date, the consolidation of any advantage for Tirrenia AS and to make it entirely possible, as the Commission acknowledges in the contested decision, that such an advantage might be realised in the future. As a result, in the light of all the conditions laid down by national law that must be satisfied in order to benefit from the advantage in question, it cannot be held that the hypothetical advantage deriving from the tax exemption has been acquired by Tirrenia AS. Consequently, that exemption falls outside the scope of the concept of State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU and, as a result, is not State aid.

| — | Moreover, assuming that the conditions that must be satisfied in order for the tax exemption in question to apply might materialise in future, it is doubtful that that would be the case when Tirrenia is fully liquidated. |
| --- | --- |

—

Moreover, assuming that the conditions that must be satisfied in order for the tax exemption in question to apply might materialise in future, it is doubtful that that would be the case when Tirrenia is fully liquidated.

| — | The applicant further states that, even if the measure in question should materialise as an advantage, Tirrenia AS does not take part in trade within the European Union and holds no position on the national market which might be maintained or increased so that the opportunities for undertakings established in other Member States to penetrate the Italian market are reduced as a result. |
| --- | --- |

—

The applicant further states that, even if the measure in question should materialise as an advantage, Tirrenia AS does not take part in trade within the European Union and holds no position on the national market which might be maintained or increased so that the opportunities for undertakings established in other Member States to penetrate the Italian market are reduced as a result.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging failure to observe the principles of legal certainty and good administration in view of the duration of the procedure.






  — | The applicant claims that the investigation procedure challenged in the present case was of an excessive duration, contrary to the principles of legal certainty and good administration. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging failure to observe the principles of legal certainty and good administration in view of the duration of the procedure.

—

The applicant claims that the investigation procedure challenged in the present case was of an excessive duration, contrary to the principles of legal certainty and good administration.

---

| 9.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 378/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 378/46

---

Action brought on 29 September 2020 — Roller v EUIPO — Flex Equipos de Descanso (DORMILLO)

(Case T-596/20)

(2020/C 378/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Roller GmbH & Co. KG (Gelsenkirchen, Germany) (represented by: W. Zürbig, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Flex Equipos de Descanso, SA (Getafe, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trademark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark DORMILLO — International registration designating the European Union No 1 410 451

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 June 2020 in Case R 2846/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | reject the opposition of the opponent as far as protection of international registration No 1 410 451 is refused for the European Union for all the contested goods and services of classes 20, 24 and 35; |
| --- | --- |

—

reject the opposition of the opponent as far as protection of international registration No 1 410 451 is refused for the European Union for all the contested goods and services of classes 20, 24 and 35;

| — | grant protection for the contested international registration Dormillo No 1 410 451 for all contested designated goods and services for the territory of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

—

grant protection for the contested international registration Dormillo No 1 410 451 for all contested designated goods and services for the territory of the European Union;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 72(2) in conjunction with Article 8(1)b of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 72(2) in conjunction with Article 8(1)b of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 9.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 378/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 378/46

---

Action brought on 29 September 2020 — Tirrenia di navigazione v Commission

(Case T-601/20)

(2020/C 378/56)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Tirrenia di navigazione SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: B. Nascimbene and F. Rossi Dal Pozzo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision with respect to Article 1(3); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision with respect to Article 1(3);

| — | in the alternative, annul Article 2 of the contested decision which orders recovery of the alleged aid, which is to be immediate and effective; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Article 2 of the contested decision which orders recovery of the alleged aid, which is to be immediate and effective;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2020) 1108 final of 2 March 2020 on the State aid No C 64/99 (ex NN 68/99) implemented by Italy for the Adriatica, Caremar, Siremar, Saremar and Toremar shipping companies (Tirrenia Group), in so far as, in Article 1(3), it declares the aid granted to Adriatica for the period January 1992 to July 1994 in relation to the Brindisi/Corfu/Igoumenitsa/Patras connection incompatible with the internal market and unlawful and, in Article 2, orders Italy to recover the aid from the beneficiary.

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of procedural matters connected to the limitation period for recovery of the aid held to be unlawful and incompatible.






  — | The applicant claims in this regard that by its decision the defendant infringed Article 17 of the rules of procedure (Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union), according to which the powers of the Commission to recover aid are subject to a limitation period of 10 years. The applicant maintains that that limitation period has been exceeded. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of procedural matters connected to the limitation period for recovery of the aid held to be unlawful and incompatible.

—

The applicant claims in this regard that by its decision the defendant infringed Article 17 of the rules of procedure (Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union), according to which the powers of the Commission to recover aid are subject to a limitation period of 10 years. The applicant maintains that that limitation period has been exceeded.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging misapplication of the rules regarding State aid, misclassification of the aid as new, unlawfulness of the decision which declares the State aid new and incompatible, and failure to fulfil the obligation to state reasons and to observe the principle of proportionality.






  — | The applicant claims in this regard that the defendant wrongly classified the subsidies for public service obligations (PSOs) granted to Adriatica as new aid. According to the applicant, the funding for the public service obligations assumed by Adriatica is part of an aid scheme that was created in 1936 and the subsequent amendments to that aid scheme have not affected its very nature, causing it to become a new aid scheme. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging misapplication of the rules regarding State aid, misclassification of the aid as new, unlawfulness of the decision which declares the State aid new and incompatible, and failure to fulfil the obligation to state reasons and to observe the principle of proportionality.

—

The applicant claims in this regard that the defendant wrongly classified the subsidies for public service obligations (PSOs) granted to Adriatica as new aid. According to the applicant, the funding for the public service obligations assumed by Adriatica is part of an aid scheme that was created in 1936 and the subsequent amendments to that aid scheme have not affected its very nature, causing it to become a new aid scheme.

| — | Moreover, the defendant wrongly classified the subsidies for PSOs granted to Adriatica for the period January 1992 to July 1994 in relation to the Brindisi/Corfu/Igoumenitsa/Patras connection incompatible with the internal market. The defendant maintains that the incompatibility of the aid granted to Adriatica results from the involvement of the latter, during that period, in a price-fixing agreement for the tariffs for commercial vehicles on the Brindisi/Corfu/Igoumenitsa/Patras route. |
| --- | --- |

—

Moreover, the defendant wrongly classified the subsidies for PSOs granted to Adriatica for the period January 1992 to July 1994 in relation to the Brindisi/Corfu/Igoumenitsa/Patras connection incompatible with the internal market. The defendant maintains that the incompatibility of the aid granted to Adriatica results from the involvement of the latter, during that period, in a price-fixing agreement for the tariffs for commercial vehicles on the Brindisi/Corfu/Igoumenitsa/Patras route.

| — | With regard to the second plea in law, the applicant maintains that the defendant did not sufficiently fulfil its obligation to state reasons in accordance with the requirements resulting from the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. According to the applicant, the contested decision is therefore vitiated by an insufficient statement of reasons preventing the General Court from conducting a review of legality. |
| --- | --- |

—

With regard to the second plea in law, the applicant maintains that the defendant did not sufficiently fulfil its obligation to state reasons in accordance with the requirements resulting from the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. According to the applicant, the contested decision is therefore vitiated by an insufficient statement of reasons preventing the General Court from conducting a review of legality.

| — | The applicant also alleges failure to observe the principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

—

The applicant also alleges failure to observe the principle of proportionality.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging failure to observe the principles of legal certainty and sound administration regarding the duration of proceedings, and relevance, in the present case, of the principle of legitimate expectations.






  — | The applicant claims in this regard that, overall, the procedure which led to the adoption of the contested decision was of an excessive duration and, therefore, failed to observe the principles of legal certainty and sound administration. In addition, the duration of the proceedings led the applicant to believe that the measures concerning it were not capable of being classified as new and incompatible State aid. The applicant therefore maintains that the defendant could not order recovery of the aid because this would be contrary to a general principle of EU law. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging failure to observe the principles of legal certainty and sound administration regarding the duration of proceedings, and relevance, in the present case, of the principle of legitimate expectations.

—

The applicant claims in this regard that, overall, the procedure which led to the adoption of the contested decision was of an excessive duration and, therefore, failed to observe the principles of legal certainty and sound administration. In addition, the duration of the proceedings led the applicant to believe that the measures concerning it were not capable of being classified as new and incompatible State aid. The applicant therefore maintains that the defendant could not order recovery of the aid because this would be contrary to a general principle of EU law.

---

| 9.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 378/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 378/48

---

Order of the General Court of 18 September 2020 — IMI 2 Joint Undertaking v CHS

(Case T-53/20) (1)

(2020/C 378/57)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 114, 6.4.2020.

---

| 9.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 378/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 378/48

---

Order of the General Court of 15 September 2020 — Kahimbi Kasagwe v Council

(Case T-108/20) (1)

(2020/C 378/58)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 129, 20.4.2020.

---

| 9.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 378/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 378/48

---

Order of the General Court of 8 September 2020 — KH v EEAS

(Case T-334/20) (1)

(2020/C 378/59)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 247, 27.7.2020.

---