# Official Journal C 382/20 S

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 382 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6420 September 2021 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 382

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6420 September 2021

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2021/C 382/01 | Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union | 1 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

2021/C 382/01

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 |
| 2021/C 382/02 | Case C-791/19: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 July 2021 — European Commission v Republic of Poland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Disciplinary regime applicable to judges — Rule of law — Independence of judges — Effective legal protection in the fields covered by Union law — Second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU — Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Disciplinary offences resulting from the content of judicial decisions — Independent disciplinary courts or tribunals established by law — Respect for reasonable time and the rights of the defence in disciplinary proceedings — Article 267 TFEU — Restriction of the right of national courts to submit requests for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice and of their obligation to do so) | 2 |
| 2021/C 382/03 | Case C-911/19: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Fédération bancaire française (FBF) v Autorité de contrôle prudentiel et de résolution (ACPR) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 263 and 267 TFEU — EU act which is not legally binding — Judicial review — Guidelines issued by the European Banking Authority (EBA) — Product oversight and governance arrangements for retail banking products — Validity — Competence of the EBA) | 3 |
| 2021/C 382/04 | Case C-262/21 PPU: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 August 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus — Finland) — A v B (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Scope — Article 2(11) — Definition of wrongful removal or retention of a child — Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 — Application for the return of a young child whose parents have joint custody — Third-country nationals — Transfer of the child and his or her mother to the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 (Dublin III)) | 4 |
| 2021/C 382/05 | Case C-81/20: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Bucureşti — Romania) — SC Mitliv Exim SRL v Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală, Direcţia Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) and Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Fundamental rights — Principle of ne bis in idem — Both criminal and administrative penalties — Not applicable — Ancillary tax liabilities — Interest on a sum paid by the taxpayer in the context of criminal proceedings) | 5 |
| 2021/C 382/06 | Case C-206/20: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) — United Kingdom) — Execution of a European arrest warrant issued against VA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Article 8(1)(c) — European arrest warrant issued by the public prosecutor’s office of a Member State for the purposes of criminal prosecution on the basis of a measure involving deprivation of liberty issued by the same authority — No judicial review prior to surrender of the requested person — Consequences — Effective judicial protection — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 47) | 5 |
| 2021/C 382/07 | Case C-636/20: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Pécsi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Tolnatext Bt. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Union Customs Code — Article 22(6) — Article 29 — Right to be heard — Procedures initiated ex officio — Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Insufficient information as to the reasons justifying the need for an answer to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling for the purposes of resolving the dispute in the main proceedings — Manifest inadmissibility of the request for a preliminary ruling) | 6 |
| 2021/C 382/08 | Case C-95/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 16 February 2021 — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v AirHelp Germany GmbH | 6 |
| 2021/C 382/09 | Case C-142/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 5 March 2021 — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v AirHelp Germany GmbH | 7 |
| 2021/C 382/10 | Case C-173/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 22 March 2021 — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v GE | 7 |
| 2021/C 382/11 | Case C-302/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia n.o 4 de Castellón de la Plana (Spain) lodged on 12 May 2021 — Casilda v Banco Cetelem SA | 7 |
| 2021/C 382/12 | Case C-312/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil n.o 3 de Valencia (Spain) lodged on 19 May 2021 — Tráficos Manuel Ferrer, S.L. and Other v Daimler AG | 9 |
| 2021/C 382/13 | Case C-326/21 P: Appeal brought on 25 May 2021 by PNB Banka AS against the order of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 12 March 2021 in Case T-50/20, PNB Banka v ECB | 9 |
| 2021/C 382/14 | Case C-333/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil n.o 17 de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 27 May 2021 — European Super League Company, S.L. v Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) and Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) | 10 |
| 2021/C 382/15 | Case C-335/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia n.o 10 bis de Sevilla (Spain) lodged on 27 May 2021 — Vicente v Delia | 12 |
| 2021/C 382/16 | Case C-346/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação do Porto (Portugal) lodged on 4 June 2021 — ING Luxembourg SA v VX | 13 |
| 2021/C 382/17 | Case C-368/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 14 June 2021 — R.T. v Hauptzollamt Hamburg | 13 |
| 2021/C 382/18 | Case C-372/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 17 June 2021 — Freikirche der Siebenten-Tags-Adventisten in Deutschland KdöR | 14 |
| 2021/C 382/19 | Case C-386/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons (Belgium) lodged on 24 June 2021 — Ryanair DAC v Happy Flights Srl, formerly Happy Flights Sprl | 14 |
| 2021/C 382/20 | Case C-388/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Erfurt (Germany) lodged on 23 June 2021 — A v B | 15 |
| 2021/C 382/21 | Case C-396/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München I (Germany) lodged on 29 June 2021 — KT, NS v FTI Touristik GmbH | 16 |
| 2021/C 382/22 | Case C-398/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État (France) lodged on 28 June 2021 — Conseil national des barreaux, Conférence des bâtonniers, Ordre des avocats du barreau de Paris v Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Economie, des Finances et de la Relance | 16 |
| 2021/C 382/23 | Case C-413/21 P: Appeal brought on 6 July 2021 by the Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 21 April 2021 in Case T-322/19, El-Qaddafi v Council | 17 |
| 2021/C 382/24 | Case C-441/21 P: Appeal brought on 16 July 2021 by Ryanair DAC against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 19 May 2021 in Case T-628/20, Ryanair v Commission (Spain; Covid-19) | 18 |
| 2021/C 382/25 | Case C-442/21 P: Appeal brought on 15 July 2021 by ITD, Brancheorganisation for den danske vejgodstransport A/S, Danske Fragtmænd A/S against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 5 May 2021 in Case T-561/18, ITD and Danske Fragtmænd v Commission | 19 |
| 2021/C 382/26 | Case C-444/21: Action brought on 16 July 2021 — European Commission v Ireland | 19 |
| 2021/C 382/27 | Case C-454/21 P: Appeal brought on 22 July 2021 by Engie Global LNG Holding Sàrl, Engie Invest International SA and Engie SA against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 12 May 2021 in Joined Cases T-516/18 and T-525/18, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and Others v Commission | 21 |
| 2021/C 382/28 | Case C-478/21 P: Appeal brought on 2 August 2021 by China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Machinery and Electronic Products, Cangzhou Qinghong Foundry Co. Ltd, Botou City Qinghong Foundry Co. Ltd, Lingshou County Boyuan Foundry Co. Ltd, Handan Qunshan Foundry Co. Ltd, Heping Cast Co. Ltd Yi County, Hong Guang Handan Cast Foundry Co. Ltd, Shanxi Yuansheng Casting and Forging Industrial Co. Ltd, Botou City Wangwu Town Tianlong Casting Factory, Tangxian Hongyue Machinery Accessory Foundry Co. Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 19 May 2021 in Case T-254/18, China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Machinery and Electronic Products and Others v Commission | 22 |
| 2021/C 382/29 | Case C-345/20: Order of the President of the Court of 25 June 2021 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic | 23 |
| 2021/C 382/30 | Case C-629/20: Order of the President of the Court of 17 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln — Germany) — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v LE | 23 |
| 2021/C 382/31 | Case C-9/21: Order of the President of the Court of 21 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln — Germany) — AX v Deutsche Lufthansa AG | 23 |
| 2021/C 382/32 | Case C-37/21: Order of the President of the Court of 29 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg — Germany) — flightright GmbH v Ryanair DAC | 23 |
| 2021/C 382/33 | Case C-106/21: Order of the President of the Court of 18 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln — Germany) — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v BC | 24 |
| 2021/C 382/34 | Case C-182/21: Order of the President of the Court of 24 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Nokia Technologies Oy v Daimler AG, in the presence of: Continental Automotive GmbH and Others | 24 |
| | General Court |
| 2021/C 382/35 | Case T-866/19: Order of the General Court of 12 July 2021 — Ryanair and Laudamotion v Commission (Action for annulment — Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 — Rules on the distribution of air traffic between Schiphol and Lelystad Airports — Priority for the allocation of slots to Lelystad Airport — Regulatory act entailing implementing measures — Not individually concerned — Inadmissibility) | 25 |
| 2021/C 382/36 | Case T-79/20: Order of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — AI v ECDC (Action for annulment and for damages — Civil service — ECDC staff — Psychological harassment — Article 12a of the Staff Regulations — Damage to reputation — Request for assistance — Article 24 of the Staff Regulations — Dismissal of application — Right to be heard — Absence of prima facie evidence — Duty of care — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law) | 25 |
| 2021/C 382/37 | Case T-455/20: Order of the General Court of 15 July 2021 — Roxtec v EUIPO — Wallmax (Representation of an orange square containing seven concentric black circles) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark depicting an orange square containing seven concentric black circles — Absolute ground for refusal — Sign consisting exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result — Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 26 |
| 2021/C 382/38 | Case T-230/21 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 12 July 2021 — Jalkh v Parliament (Interim measures — Law governing the institutions — Member of the European Parliament — Privileges and immunities — Waiver of parliamentary immunity — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency) | 27 |
| 2021/C 382/39 | Case T-449/21: Action brought on 30 July 2021 — Natixis v Commission | 27 |
| 2021/C 382/40 | Case T-458/21: Action brought on 2 August 2021 — Quantic Dream v EUIPO — Quentia (Q) | 28 |
| 2021/C 382/41 | Case T-459/21: Action brought on 3 August 2021 — Calrose Rice v EUIPO — Ricegrowers (Sunwhite) | 29 |
| 2021/C 382/42 | Case T-465/21: Action brought on 4 August 2021 — Ionfarma v EUIPO — LG Electronics (AION) | 30 |
| 2021/C 382/43 | Case T-466/21: Action brought on 4 August 2021 — Baumberger v EUIPO — Nube (Lío) | 31 |
| 2021/C 382/44 | Case T-467/21: Action brought on 4 August 2021 — DBM Videovertrieb v EUIPO — Nube (Lío) | 31 |
| 2021/C 382/45 | Case T-472/21: Action brought on 4 August 2021 — RTE v ACER | 32 |
| 2021/C 382/46 | Case T-474/21: Action brought on 4 August 2021 — Schenk Italia v EUIPO — Consorzio per la tutela dei vini Valpolicella (AMICONE) | 33 |
| 2021/C 382/47 | Case T-477/21: Action brought on 9 August 2021 — Glaxo Group v EUIPO — Cipla Europe (Shape of an inhaler) | 34 |
| 2021/C 382/48 | Case T-478/21: Action brought on 9 August 2021 — Les Éditions P. Amaury v EUIPO — Golden Balls (BALLON D’OR) | 35 |
| 2021/C 382/49 | Case T-482/21: Action brought on 9 August 2021 — TenneT TSO and TenneT TSO v ACER | 35 |
| 2021/C 382/50 | Case T-49/21: Order of the General Court of 13 July 2021– PZ v Commission. | 37 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2021/C 382/02

Case C-791/19: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 July 2021 — European Commission v Republic of Poland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Disciplinary regime applicable to judges — Rule of law — Independence of judges — Effective legal protection in the fields covered by Union law — Second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU — Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Disciplinary offences resulting from the content of judicial decisions — Independent disciplinary courts or tribunals established by law — Respect for reasonable time and the rights of the defence in disciplinary proceedings — Article 267 TFEU — Restriction of the right of national courts to submit requests for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice and of their obligation to do so)

2

2021/C 382/03

Case C-911/19: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Fédération bancaire française (FBF) v Autorité de contrôle prudentiel et de résolution (ACPR) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 263 and 267 TFEU — EU act which is not legally binding — Judicial review — Guidelines issued by the European Banking Authority (EBA) — Product oversight and governance arrangements for retail banking products — Validity — Competence of the EBA)

3

2021/C 382/04

Case C-262/21 PPU: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 August 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus — Finland) — A v B (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Scope — Article 2(11) — Definition of wrongful removal or retention of a child — Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 — Application for the return of a young child whose parents have joint custody — Third-country nationals — Transfer of the child and his or her mother to the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 (Dublin III))

4

2021/C 382/05

Case C-81/20: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Bucureşti — Romania) — SC Mitliv Exim SRL v Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală, Direcţia Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) and Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Fundamental rights — Principle of ne bis in idem — Both criminal and administrative penalties — Not applicable — Ancillary tax liabilities — Interest on a sum paid by the taxpayer in the context of criminal proceedings)

5

2021/C 382/06

Case C-206/20: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) — United Kingdom) — Execution of a European arrest warrant issued against VA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Article 8(1)(c) — European arrest warrant issued by the public prosecutor’s office of a Member State for the purposes of criminal prosecution on the basis of a measure involving deprivation of liberty issued by the same authority — No judicial review prior to surrender of the requested person — Consequences — Effective judicial protection — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 47)

5

2021/C 382/07

Case C-636/20: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Pécsi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Tolnatext Bt. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Union Customs Code — Article 22(6) — Article 29 — Right to be heard — Procedures initiated ex officio — Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Insufficient information as to the reasons justifying the need for an answer to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling for the purposes of resolving the dispute in the main proceedings — Manifest inadmissibility of the request for a preliminary ruling)

6

2021/C 382/08

Case C-95/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 16 February 2021 — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v AirHelp Germany GmbH

6

2021/C 382/09

Case C-142/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 5 March 2021 — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v AirHelp Germany GmbH

7

2021/C 382/10

Case C-173/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 22 March 2021 — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v GE

7

2021/C 382/11

Case C-302/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia n.o 4 de Castellón de la Plana (Spain) lodged on 12 May 2021 — Casilda v Banco Cetelem SA

o

7

2021/C 382/12

Case C-312/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil n.o 3 de Valencia (Spain) lodged on 19 May 2021 — Tráficos Manuel Ferrer, S.L. and Other v Daimler AG

o

9

2021/C 382/13

Case C-326/21 P: Appeal brought on 25 May 2021 by PNB Banka AS against the order of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 12 March 2021 in Case T-50/20, PNB Banka v ECB

9

2021/C 382/14

Case C-333/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil n.o 17 de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 27 May 2021 — European Super League Company, S.L. v Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) and Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA)

o

10

2021/C 382/15

Case C-335/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia n.o 10 bis de Sevilla (Spain) lodged on 27 May 2021 — Vicente v Delia

o

12

2021/C 382/16

Case C-346/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação do Porto (Portugal) lodged on 4 June 2021 — ING Luxembourg SA v VX

13

2021/C 382/17

Case C-368/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 14 June 2021 — R.T. v Hauptzollamt Hamburg

13

2021/C 382/18

Case C-372/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 17 June 2021 — Freikirche der Siebenten-Tags-Adventisten in Deutschland KdöR

14

2021/C 382/19

Case C-386/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons (Belgium) lodged on 24 June 2021 — Ryanair DAC v Happy Flights Srl, formerly Happy Flights Sprl

14

2021/C 382/20

Case C-388/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Erfurt (Germany) lodged on 23 June 2021 — A v B

15

2021/C 382/21

Case C-396/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München I (Germany) lodged on 29 June 2021 — KT, NS v FTI Touristik GmbH

16

2021/C 382/22

Case C-398/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État (France) lodged on 28 June 2021 — Conseil national des barreaux, Conférence des bâtonniers, Ordre des avocats du barreau de Paris v Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Economie, des Finances et de la Relance

16

2021/C 382/23

Case C-413/21 P: Appeal brought on 6 July 2021 by the Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 21 April 2021 in Case T-322/19, El-Qaddafi v Council

17

2021/C 382/24

Case C-441/21 P: Appeal brought on 16 July 2021 by Ryanair DAC against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 19 May 2021 in Case T-628/20, Ryanair v Commission (Spain; Covid-19)

18

2021/C 382/25

Case C-442/21 P: Appeal brought on 15 July 2021 by ITD, Brancheorganisation for den danske vejgodstransport A/S, Danske Fragtmænd A/S against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 5 May 2021 in Case T-561/18, ITD and Danske Fragtmænd v Commission

19

2021/C 382/26

Case C-444/21: Action brought on 16 July 2021 — European Commission v Ireland

19

2021/C 382/27

Case C-454/21 P: Appeal brought on 22 July 2021 by Engie Global LNG Holding Sàrl, Engie Invest International SA and Engie SA against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 12 May 2021 in Joined Cases T-516/18 and T-525/18, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and Others v Commission

21

2021/C 382/28

Case C-478/21 P: Appeal brought on 2 August 2021 by China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Machinery and Electronic Products, Cangzhou Qinghong Foundry Co. Ltd, Botou City Qinghong Foundry Co. Ltd, Lingshou County Boyuan Foundry Co. Ltd, Handan Qunshan Foundry Co. Ltd, Heping Cast Co. Ltd Yi County, Hong Guang Handan Cast Foundry Co. Ltd, Shanxi Yuansheng Casting and Forging Industrial Co. Ltd, Botou City Wangwu Town Tianlong Casting Factory, Tangxian Hongyue Machinery Accessory Foundry Co. Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 19 May 2021 in Case T-254/18, China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Machinery and Electronic Products and Others v Commission

22

2021/C 382/29

Case C-345/20: Order of the President of the Court of 25 June 2021 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

23

2021/C 382/30

Case C-629/20: Order of the President of the Court of 17 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln — Germany) — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v LE

23

2021/C 382/31

Case C-9/21: Order of the President of the Court of 21 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln — Germany) — AX v Deutsche Lufthansa AG

23

2021/C 382/32

Case C-37/21: Order of the President of the Court of 29 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg — Germany) — flightright GmbH v Ryanair DAC

23

2021/C 382/33

Case C-106/21: Order of the President of the Court of 18 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln — Germany) — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v BC

24

2021/C 382/34

Case C-182/21: Order of the President of the Court of 24 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Nokia Technologies Oy v Daimler AG, in the presence of: Continental Automotive GmbH and Others

24

General Court

2021/C 382/35

Case T-866/19: Order of the General Court of 12 July 2021 — Ryanair and Laudamotion v Commission (Action for annulment — Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 — Rules on the distribution of air traffic between Schiphol and Lelystad Airports — Priority for the allocation of slots to Lelystad Airport — Regulatory act entailing implementing measures — Not individually concerned — Inadmissibility)

25

2021/C 382/36

Case T-79/20: Order of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — AI v ECDC (Action for annulment and for damages — Civil service — ECDC staff — Psychological harassment — Article 12a of the Staff Regulations — Damage to reputation — Request for assistance — Article 24 of the Staff Regulations — Dismissal of application — Right to be heard — Absence of prima facie evidence — Duty of care — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

25

2021/C 382/37

Case T-455/20: Order of the General Court of 15 July 2021 — Roxtec v EUIPO — Wallmax (Representation of an orange square containing seven concentric black circles) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark depicting an orange square containing seven concentric black circles — Absolute ground for refusal — Sign consisting exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result — Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

26

2021/C 382/38

Case T-230/21 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 12 July 2021 — Jalkh v Parliament (Interim measures — Law governing the institutions — Member of the European Parliament — Privileges and immunities — Waiver of parliamentary immunity — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency)

27

2021/C 382/39

Case T-449/21: Action brought on 30 July 2021 — Natixis v Commission

27

2021/C 382/40

Case T-458/21: Action brought on 2 August 2021 — Quantic Dream v EUIPO — Quentia (Q)

28

2021/C 382/41

Case T-459/21: Action brought on 3 August 2021 — Calrose Rice v EUIPO — Ricegrowers (Sunwhite)

29

2021/C 382/42

Case T-465/21: Action brought on 4 August 2021 — Ionfarma v EUIPO — LG Electronics (AION)

30

2021/C 382/43

Case T-466/21: Action brought on 4 August 2021 — Baumberger v EUIPO — Nube (Lío)

31

2021/C 382/44

Case T-467/21: Action brought on 4 August 2021 — DBM Videovertrieb v EUIPO — Nube (Lío)

31

2021/C 382/45

Case T-472/21: Action brought on 4 August 2021 — RTE v ACER

32

2021/C 382/46

Case T-474/21: Action brought on 4 August 2021 — Schenk Italia v EUIPO — Consorzio per la tutela dei vini Valpolicella (AMICONE)

33

2021/C 382/47

Case T-477/21: Action brought on 9 August 2021 — Glaxo Group v EUIPO — Cipla Europe (Shape of an inhaler)

34

2021/C 382/48

Case T-478/21: Action brought on 9 August 2021 — Les Éditions P. Amaury v EUIPO — Golden Balls (BALLON D’OR)

35

2021/C 382/49

Case T-482/21: Action brought on 9 August 2021 — TenneT TSO and TenneT TSO v ACER

35

2021/C 382/50

Case T-49/21: Order of the General Court of 13 July 2021– PZ v Commission.

37

---

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 20.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/1

---

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

(2021/C 382/01)

Last publication

OJ C 368, 13.9.2021

Past publications

OJ C 357, 6.9.2021

OJ C 349, 30.8.2021

OJ C 338, 23.8.2021

OJ C 329, 16.8.2021

OJ C 320, 9.8.2021

OJ C 310, 2.8.2021

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 20.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 July 2021 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

(Case C-791/19) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Disciplinary regime applicable to judges - Rule of law - Independence of judges - Effective legal protection in the fields covered by Union law - Second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Disciplinary offences resulting from the content of judicial decisions - Independent disciplinary courts or tribunals established by law - Respect for reasonable time and the rights of the defence in disciplinary proceedings - Article 267 TFEU - Restriction of the right of national courts to submit requests for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice and of their obligation to do so)

(2021/C 382/02)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented: initially by K. Banks, S.L. Kalėda and H. Krämer, and subsequently by K. Banks, S.L. Kalėda and P.J.O. Van Nuffel, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, D. Kupczak, S. Żyrek, A. Dalkowska and A. Gołaszewska, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: C. Pochet, M. Jacobs and L. Van den Broeck, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Denmark (represented: initially by M. Wolff, M. Jespersen and J. Nymann-Lindegren and subsequently by M. Wolff and J. Nymann-Lindegren, acting as Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M.K. Bulterman and J. Langer, acting as Agents), Republic of Finland (represented by: M. Pere and H. Leppo, acting as Agents), and Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: C. Meyer-Seitz, H. Shev, A. Falk, J. Lundberg and H. Eklinder, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that:






  — | by failing to guarantee the independence and impartiality of the Izba Dyscyplinarna (Disciplinary Chamber) of the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court, Poland), which is responsible for reviewing decisions issued in disciplinary proceedings against judges (Article 3(5), Article 27 and Article 73 § 1 of the ustawa o Sądzie Najwyższym (Law on the Supreme Court) of 8 December 2017, in the consolidated version published in the Dziennik Ustaw Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej of 2019 (item 825), read in conjunction with Article 9a of the ustawa o Krajowej Radzie Sądownictwa (Law on the National Council of the Judiciary) of 12 May 2011, as amended by the ustawa o zmianie ustawy o Krajowej Radzie Sądownictwa oraz niektórych innych ustaw (Law amending the Law on the National Council of the Judiciary and certain other laws) of 8 December 2017); |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Declares that:

—

by failing to guarantee the independence and impartiality of the Izba Dyscyplinarna (Disciplinary Chamber) of the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court, Poland), which is responsible for reviewing decisions issued in disciplinary proceedings against judges (Article 3(5), Article 27 and Article 73 § 1 of the ustawa o Sądzie Najwyższym (Law on the Supreme Court) of 8 December 2017, in the consolidated version published in the Dziennik Ustaw Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej of 2019 (item 825), read in conjunction with Article 9a of the ustawa o Krajowej Radzie Sądownictwa (Law on the National Council of the Judiciary) of 12 May 2011, as amended by the ustawa o zmianie ustawy o Krajowej Radzie Sądownictwa oraz niektórych innych ustaw (Law amending the Law on the National Council of the Judiciary and certain other laws) of 8 December 2017);

| — | by allowing the content of judicial decisions to be classified as a disciplinary offence involving judges of the ordinary courts (Article 107 § 1 of the ustawa — Prawo o ustroju sądów powszechnych (Law on the organisation of the ordinary courts) of 27 July 2001, in the version resulting from the successive amendments published in the Dziennik Ustaw Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej of 2019 (items 52, 55, 60, 125, 1469 and 1495), and Article 97 § § 1 and 3 of the Law on the Supreme Court, in the consolidated version published in the Dziennik Ustaw Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej of 2019 (item 825)); |
| --- | --- |

—

by allowing the content of judicial decisions to be classified as a disciplinary offence involving judges of the ordinary courts (Article 107 § 1 of the ustawa — Prawo o ustroju sądów powszechnych (Law on the organisation of the ordinary courts) of 27 July 2001, in the version resulting from the successive amendments published in the Dziennik Ustaw Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej of 2019 (items 52, 55, 60, 125, 1469 and 1495), and Article 97 § § 1 and 3 of the Law on the Supreme Court, in the consolidated version published in the Dziennik Ustaw Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej of 2019 (item 825));

| — | by conferring on the President of the Izba Dyscyplinarna (Disciplinary Chamber) of the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court) the discretionary power to designate the disciplinary tribunal with jurisdiction at first instance in cases concerning judges of the ordinary courts (Article 110 § 3 and Article 114 § 7 of the Law on the organisation of the ordinary courts, in the version resulting from the successive amendments published in the Dziennik Ustaw Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej of 2019 (items 52, 55, 60, 125, 1469 and 1495)) and, therefore, by failing to guarantee that disciplinary cases are examined by a tribunal ‘established by law’; and |
| --- | --- |

—

by conferring on the President of the Izba Dyscyplinarna (Disciplinary Chamber) of the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court) the discretionary power to designate the disciplinary tribunal with jurisdiction at first instance in cases concerning judges of the ordinary courts (Article 110 § 3 and Article 114 § 7 of the Law on the organisation of the ordinary courts, in the version resulting from the successive amendments published in the Dziennik Ustaw Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej of 2019 (items 52, 55, 60, 125, 1469 and 1495)) and, therefore, by failing to guarantee that disciplinary cases are examined by a tribunal ‘established by law’; and

| — | by failing to guarantee that disciplinary cases against judges of the ordinary courts are examined within a reasonable time (second sentence of Article 112b § 5 of the Law on the organisation of the ordinary courts), and by providing that actions relating to the appointment of defence counsel and the taking up of the defence by that counsel do not have a suspensory effect on the course of the disciplinary proceedings (Article 113a of that law) and that the disciplinary tribunal is to conduct the proceedings despite the justified absence of the notified accused judge or his or her defence counsel (Article 115a § 3 of the same law) and, therefore, by failing to guarantee respect for the rights of defence of accused judges of the ordinary courts,
  the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU; |
| --- | --- |

—

by failing to guarantee that disciplinary cases against judges of the ordinary courts are examined within a reasonable time (second sentence of Article 112b § 5 of the Law on the organisation of the ordinary courts), and by providing that actions relating to the appointment of defence counsel and the taking up of the defence by that counsel do not have a suspensory effect on the course of the disciplinary proceedings (Article 113a of that law) and that the disciplinary tribunal is to conduct the proceedings despite the justified absence of the notified accused judge or his or her defence counsel (Article 115a § 3 of the same law) and, therefore, by failing to guarantee respect for the rights of defence of accused judges of the ordinary courts,

the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU;

| 2. | Declares that, by allowing the right of courts and tribunals to submit requests for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union to be restricted by the possibility of triggering disciplinary proceedings, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the second and third paragraphs of Article 267 TFEU; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that, by allowing the right of courts and tribunals to submit requests for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union to be restricted by the possibility of triggering disciplinary proceedings, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the second and third paragraphs of Article 267 TFEU;

| 3. | Orders the Republic of Poland to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, including those relating to the proceedings for interim relief; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Republic of Poland to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, including those relating to the proceedings for interim relief;

| 4. | Orders the Kingdom of Belgium, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Finland, and the Kingdom of Sweden to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Kingdom of Belgium, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Finland, and the Kingdom of Sweden to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 413, 9.12.2019.

---

| 20.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Fédération bancaire française (FBF) v Autorité de contrôle prudentiel et de résolution (ACPR)

(Case C-911/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 263 and 267 TFEU - EU act which is not legally binding - Judicial review - Guidelines issued by the European Banking Authority (EBA) - Product oversight and governance arrangements for retail banking products - Validity - Competence of the EBA)

(2021/C 382/03)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Fédération bancaire française (FBF)

Defendant: Autorité de contrôle prudentiel et de résolution (ACPR)

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 263 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that measures such as the guidelines of the European Banking Authority (EBA), of 22 March 2016, on product oversight and governance arrangements for retail banking products (EBA/GL/2015/18) may not be the object of an action for annulment under that article; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 263 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that measures such as the guidelines of the European Banking Authority (EBA), of 22 March 2016, on product oversight and governance arrangements for retail banking products (EBA/GL/2015/18) may not be the object of an action for annulment under that article;

| 2. | Article 267 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that the Court has jurisdiction, under that article, to assess the validity of measures such as the guidelines of the European Banking Authority (EBA), of 22 March 2016, on product oversight and governance arrangements for retail banking products (EBA/GL/2015/18); |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 267 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that the Court has jurisdiction, under that article, to assess the validity of measures such as the guidelines of the European Banking Authority (EBA), of 22 March 2016, on product oversight and governance arrangements for retail banking products (EBA/GL/2015/18);

| 3. | EU law does not require that the admissibility, before a national jurisdiction, of a plea of illegality directed against an EU measure be subject to the condition that that measure directly and individually concerns the person relying on that plea; |
| --- | --- |

3.

EU law does not require that the admissibility, before a national jurisdiction, of a plea of illegality directed against an EU measure be subject to the condition that that measure directly and individually concerns the person relying on that plea;

| 4. | Consideration of the third question referred for a preliminary ruling has not disclosed any factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of the guidelines of the European Banking Authority, of 22 March 2016, on product oversight and governance arrangements for retail banking products (EBA/GL/2015/18). |
| --- | --- |

4.

Consideration of the third question referred for a preliminary ruling has not disclosed any factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of the guidelines of the European Banking Authority, of 22 March 2016, on product oversight and governance arrangements for retail banking products (EBA/GL/2015/18).

---

(1)  OJ C 61, 24.2.2020.

---

| 20.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/4

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 August 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus — Finland) — A v B

(Case C-262/21 PPU) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Scope - Article 2(11) - Definition of ‘wrongful removal or retention of a child’ - Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 - Application for the return of a young child whose parents have joint custody - Third-country nationals - Transfer of the child and his or her mother to the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 (Dublin III))

(2021/C 382/04)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: A

Defendant: B

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(11) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, must be interpreted as meaning that the situation in which one parent, without the consent of the other parent, is led to take his or her child from his or her Member State of habitual residence to another Member State in application of a transfer decision, made by the former Member State on the basis of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person, and then to remain in the latter Member State after that transfer decision has been annulled without the authorities of the former Member State deciding to take back the persons transferred or to grant them residence, cannot constitute a wrongful removal or retention within the meaning of that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 252, 28.6.2021.

---

| 20.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/5

---

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Bucureşti — Romania) — SC Mitliv Exim SRL v Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală, Direcţia Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili

(Case C-81/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) and Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Fundamental rights - Principle of ne bis in idem - Both criminal and administrative penalties - Not applicable - Ancillary tax liabilities - Interest on a sum paid by the taxpayer in the context of criminal proceedings)

(2021/C 382/05)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Bucureşti

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SC Mitliv Exim SRL

Defendants: Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală, Direcţia Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili

Operative part of the order

Articles 2 and 63 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that, where taxable transactions have taken place and the related value added tax is chargeable, a payment made, even provisionally, seeking to honour the corresponding tax claim cannot be regarded as unfair and cannot generate interest to the benefit of the taxpayer who made that payment.

---

(1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2020.

---

| 20.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/5

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) — United Kingdom) — Execution of a European arrest warrant issued against VA

(Case C-206/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - European arrest warrant - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Article 8(1)(c) - European arrest warrant issued by the public prosecutor’s office of a Member State for the purposes of criminal prosecution on the basis of a measure involving deprivation of liberty issued by the same authority - No judicial review prior to surrender of the requested person - Consequences - Effective judicial protection - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 47)

(2021/C 382/06)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: VA

Defendant: Prosecutor of the regional prosecutor’s office in Ruse, Bulgaria

Operative part of the order

Article 8(1)(c) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the case-law of the Court of Justice, must be interpreted as meaning that the requirements inherent in the effective judicial protection that must be afforded to a person who is the subject of a European arrest warrant for the purposes of criminal prosecution are not satisfied where both the European arrest warrant and the judicial decision on which that warrant is based are issued by a public prosecutor — who may be classified as an ‘issuing judicial authority’ within the meaning of Article 6(1) of that framework decision, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299 — but that European arrest warrant or judicial decision cannot be reviewed by a court in the issuing Member State prior to the surrender of the requested person by the executing Member State.

---

(1)  OJ C 262, 10.8.2020.

---

| 20.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/6

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Pécsi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Tolnatext Bt. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

(Case C-636/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Union Customs Code - Article 22(6) - Article 29 - Right to be heard - Procedures initiated ex officio - Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Insufficient information as to the reasons justifying the need for an answer to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling for the purposes of resolving the dispute in the main proceedings - Manifest inadmissibility of the request for a preliminary ruling)

(2021/C 382/07)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Pécsi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Tolnatext Bt.

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling from the Pécsi Törvényszék (Pécs Court, Hungary), made by decision of 30 October 2020, is manifestly inadmissible.

---

(1)  OJ C 62, 22.2.2021.

---

| 20.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/6

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 16 February 2021 — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v AirHelp Germany GmbH

(Case C-95/21)

(2021/C 382/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Defendant and appellant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

Applicant and respondent: AirHelp Germany GmbH

This case was removed from the Register of the Court of Justice by order of the President of the Court of 17 June 2021.

---

| 20.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/7

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 5 March 2021 — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v AirHelp Germany GmbH

(Case C-142/21)

(2021/C 382/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

Defendant: AirHelp Germany GmbH

The case was removed from the register of the Court of Justice by order of the President of the Court of 18 June 2021.

---

| 20.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/7

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 22 March 2021 — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v GE

(Case C-173/21)

(2021/C 382/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

Defendant: GE

The case was removed from the register of the Court of Justice by order of the President of the Court of 14 June 2021.

---

| 20.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/7

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia n.o 4 de Castellón de la Plana (Spain) lodged on 12 May 2021 — Casilda v Banco Cetelem SA

(Case C-302/21)

(2021/C 382/11)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia n.o 4 de Castellón de la Plana

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Casilda

Defendant: Banco Cetelem SA

Questions referred

First question referred:

| (a) | In accordance with the principle of the primacy of EU law within the sphere of its applicability, and in particular within the context of the regulation of consumer credit and agreements with consumers, must the national court assess ‘of its own motion’ the compatibility with EU law of the case-law established by the Spanish Supreme Court (being the highest court [in Spain]), with respect to the interpretation and application of the Ley de 23 de julio de 1908, sobre nulidad de los contratos de préstamos usurarios (Law of 23 July 1908 on the nullity of predatory loan agreements), being a national provision, in so far as that case-law applies not only to the invalidity of the agreement concluded, but also to the definition of the ‘main subject matter’ of the consumer credit agreement, in the form of a ‘revolving’ credit facility, and to the adequacy of the ‘quality/price’ ratio of the service provided? Or is it the case, by contrast, as the Spanish Supreme Court states, that that duty to assess compatibility with EU law and EU directives remains conditional upon, or subordinate to, the ‘relief sought’ by the applicant (principle of party disposition), with the result that if the declaration that the consumer credit agreement is void on the ground that it is ‘of a predatory nature’ is sought as the ‘sole or main action’, that action being derived from a provision of national law, the view must be taken that the primacy of EU law and its harmonising effects ‘do not come into play’, even though the case-law established by the Spanish Supreme Court with respect to the interpretation and application of the aforementioned Law on predatory lending applies to the definition of the main subject matter and the adequacy of the quality/price ratio of the consumer credit agreement forming the subject of the case that falls to be disposed of by the national court? |
| --- | --- |

(a)

In accordance with the principle of the primacy of EU law within the sphere of its applicability, and in particular within the context of the regulation of consumer credit and agreements with consumers, must the national court assess ‘of its own motion’ the compatibility with EU law of the case-law established by the Spanish Supreme Court (being the highest court [in Spain]), with respect to the interpretation and application of the Ley de 23 de julio de 1908, sobre nulidad de los contratos de préstamos usurarios (Law of 23 July 1908 on the nullity of predatory loan agreements), being a national provision, in so far as that case-law applies not only to the invalidity of the agreement concluded, but also to the definition of the ‘main subject matter’ of the consumer credit agreement, in the form of a ‘revolving’ credit facility, and to the adequacy of the ‘quality/price’ ratio of the service provided? Or is it the case, by contrast, as the Spanish Supreme Court states, that that duty to assess compatibility with EU law and EU directives remains conditional upon, or subordinate to, the ‘relief sought’ by the applicant (principle of party disposition), with the result that if the declaration that the consumer credit agreement is void on the ground that it is ‘of a predatory nature’ is sought as the ‘sole or main action’, that action being derived from a provision of national law, the view must be taken that the primacy of EU law and its harmonising effects ‘do not come into play’, even though the case-law established by the Spanish Supreme Court with respect to the interpretation and application of the aforementioned Law on predatory lending applies to the definition of the main subject matter and the adequacy of the quality/price ratio of the consumer credit agreement forming the subject of the case that falls to be disposed of by the national court?

| (b) | In accordance with the aforementioned primacy and harmonising effects of EU law in the context of the regulation of consumer credit and credit agreements with consumers, given that the Spanish Supreme Court has itself reiterated in numerous judgments in its case-law that, since the ‘exclusion’ provided for in the harmonising provision Article 4(2) of Directive 93/13/EC has been fully transposed into the Spanish legal system, (1) it is not appropriate for the national court to conduct a judicial review of prices, and given that no legislation within the Spanish legal system — not even the 1908 Law on predatory lending itself — affords permission or provides a basis in general terms for such a judicial review of prices, and given further that there has been no assessment of whether the provision determining the price of the consumer credit lacks transparency, is it contrary to Article 4(2) of Directive 93/13/EEC for the national court, acting pursuant to a provision of national law in the form of the aforementioned 1908 Law against predatory lending, and operating outside its natural jurisdiction in the context of a declaration as to the nullity of the agreement concluded, to exercise, under a ‘newly created’ power, a ‘judicial review’ of the main subject matter of the agreement whereby it determines in general terms either the price of the consumer credit, understood as being a reference to the remunerative interest (Nominal Interest Rate) applied to it, or the cost of the consumer credit, understood as being a reference to the Annual Percentage Rate (APR) applied to it? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

In accordance with the aforementioned primacy and harmonising effects of EU law in the context of the regulation of consumer credit and credit agreements with consumers, given that the Spanish Supreme Court has itself reiterated in numerous judgments in its case-law that, since the ‘exclusion’ provided for in the harmonising provision Article 4(2) of Directive 93/13/EC has been fully transposed into the Spanish legal system, (1) it is not appropriate for the national court to conduct a judicial review of prices, and given that no legislation within the Spanish legal system — not even the 1908 Law on predatory lending itself — affords permission or provides a basis in general terms for such a judicial review of prices, and given further that there has been no assessment of whether the provision determining the price of the consumer credit lacks transparency, is it contrary to Article 4(2) of Directive 93/13/EEC for the national court, acting pursuant to a provision of national law in the form of the aforementioned 1908 Law against predatory lending, and operating outside its natural jurisdiction in the context of a declaration as to the nullity of the agreement concluded, to exercise, under a ‘newly created’ power, a ‘judicial review’ of the main subject matter of the agreement whereby it determines in general terms either the price of the consumer credit, understood as being a reference to the remunerative interest (Nominal Interest Rate) applied to it, or the cost of the consumer credit, understood as being a reference to the Annual Percentage Rate (APR) applied to it?

| (c) | In accordance with the foregoing and having regard to the framework of regulation and harmonisation laid down in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in particular as regards the European Union’s competence in relation to the functioning of the internal market, is the review exercised by the national court with a view to setting, in general terms, the price or cost of the consumer credit, in the absence of a prior provision of national law expressly establishing a legal basis for doing so, ‘compatible’ with Article 120 TFEU, in the context of an open market economy and in the light of the principle of the freedom of contract enjoyed by the parties? |
| --- | --- |

(c)

In accordance with the foregoing and having regard to the framework of regulation and harmonisation laid down in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in particular as regards the European Union’s competence in relation to the functioning of the internal market, is the review exercised by the national court with a view to setting, in general terms, the price or cost of the consumer credit, in the absence of a prior provision of national law expressly establishing a legal basis for doing so, ‘compatible’ with Article 120 TFEU, in the context of an open market economy and in the light of the principle of the freedom of contract enjoyed by the parties?

Second question referred:

In accordance with the principle of the primacy of EU law within the sphere of the harmonisation of the matters to which it applies, in particular in the context of the directives regulating consumer credit and agreements with consumers, given that the principle of legal certainty constitutes a condition precedent to the proper and effective functioning of the internal market in consumer credit, is it contrary to that principle of legal certainty (being a condition of the proper functioning of the internal market in consumer credit) to place a limit on the APR which may be imposed, in general terms, on the consumer in a consumer credit agreement with a view to combating predatory lending, such as the limit established by the Spanish Supreme Court, not on the basis of objective and precise parameters but merely by reference to an approximate criterion, with the result that it is left to the discretion of each national court to determine the specific value of that limit in order to dispose of the dispute pending before it?

---

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

---

| 20.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/9

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil n.o 3 de Valencia (Spain) lodged on 19 May 2021 — Tráficos Manuel Ferrer, S.L. and Other v Daimler AG

(Case C-312/21)

(2021/C 382/12)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Mercantil n.o 3 de Valencia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Tráficos Manuel Ferrer, S.L., D. Ignacio

Defendant: Daimler AG

Questions referred

| 1. | Are the rules laid down in Article 394(2) [of the Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil (Law on Civil Procedure)], pursuant to which an injured party is to bear a portion of the costs of the proceedings based on the amount of the sums wrongly paid as a surcharge which are returned to him after his claim for damages is upheld in part, where, as a premiss for a declaration, it is assumed that there is an infringement of competition law and that that infringement has a causal link to the harm suffered, which is indeed verified, quantified and awarded as a result of the proceedings, compatible with the right to full compensation of a person harmed by anti-competitive conduct, as referred to in Article 101 TFEU and in accordance with the case-law interpreting it? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are the rules laid down in Article 394(2) [of the Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil (Law on Civil Procedure)], pursuant to which an injured party is to bear a portion of the costs of the proceedings based on the amount of the sums wrongly paid as a surcharge which are returned to him after his claim for damages is upheld in part, where, as a premiss for a declaration, it is assumed that there is an infringement of competition law and that that infringement has a causal link to the harm suffered, which is indeed verified, quantified and awarded as a result of the proceedings, compatible with the right to full compensation of a person harmed by anti-competitive conduct, as referred to in Article 101 TFEU and in accordance with the case-law interpreting it?

| 2. | Does the power of the national court to estimate the amount of damages enable those damages to be quantified in the alternative and independently, on the grounds that a situation of information asymmetry or insoluble difficulties regarding quantification have been identified which must not impede the right to full compensation of the person harmed by an anti-competitive practice as referred to in Article 101 TFEU, in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter, including where the person harmed by an infringement of competition law consisting of a cartel generating a surcharge has had access during the course of the proceedings to the data on which the defendant based his expert report for the purpose of denying the existence of damage eligible for compensation? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the power of the national court to estimate the amount of damages enable those damages to be quantified in the alternative and independently, on the grounds that a situation of information asymmetry or insoluble difficulties regarding quantification have been identified which must not impede the right to full compensation of the person harmed by an anti-competitive practice as referred to in Article 101 TFEU, in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter, including where the person harmed by an infringement of competition law consisting of a cartel generating a surcharge has had access during the course of the proceedings to the data on which the defendant based his expert report for the purpose of denying the existence of damage eligible for compensation?

| 3. | Does the power of the national court to estimate the amount of damages enable those damages to be quantified in the alternative and independently, on the grounds that a situation of information asymmetry or insoluble difficulties regarding quantification have been identified which must not impede the right to full compensation of the person harmed by an anti-competitive practice as referred to in Article 101 TFEU, in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter, including where the person harmed by an infringement of competition law consisting of a cartel generating a surcharge brings his claim for damages against one of the addressees of the administrative decision, who is jointly and severally liable for those damages but who did not sell the product or service acquired by the injured party in question? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the power of the national court to estimate the amount of damages enable those damages to be quantified in the alternative and independently, on the grounds that a situation of information asymmetry or insoluble difficulties regarding quantification have been identified which must not impede the right to full compensation of the person harmed by an anti-competitive practice as referred to in Article 101 TFEU, in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter, including where the person harmed by an infringement of competition law consisting of a cartel generating a surcharge brings his claim for damages against one of the addressees of the administrative decision, who is jointly and severally liable for those damages but who did not sell the product or service acquired by the injured party in question?

---

| 20.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/9

---

Appeal brought on 25 May 2021 by PNB Banka AS against the order of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 12 March 2021 in Case T-50/20, PNB Banka v ECB

(Case C-326/21 P)

(2021/C 382/13)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Other party to the proceedings: European Central Bank (ECB)

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the order under appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the order under appeal;

| — | declare void pursuant to Article 264 TFEU the ECB’s decision of 19 November 2019 refusing to instruct the appellant’s insolvency administrator to grant the lawyer authorised by the appellant’s board of directors access to its premises, to the information that it holds and to its staff and resources; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare void pursuant to Article 264 TFEU the ECB’s decision of 19 November 2019 refusing to instruct the appellant’s insolvency administrator to grant the lawyer authorised by the appellant’s board of directors access to its premises, to the information that it holds and to its staff and resources;

| — | to the extent that the Court of Justice is not in a position to take a decision on the merits to refer the case back to the General Court for it to determine the action for annulment; and |
| --- | --- |

—

to the extent that the Court of Justice is not in a position to take a decision on the merits to refer the case back to the General Court for it to determine the action for annulment; and

| — | order the ECB to pay the appellant's costs and the costs of the appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the ECB to pay the appellant's costs and the costs of the appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on twelve pleas in law.

First ground of appeal: the General Court incorrectly relied on case law concerning actions brought by non-addressees against EU acts with general effect which require transposition or entail national implementing acts and applies such case law to the present case which concerns a direct action against an individual EU act which can only be challenged by means of an action for annulment pursuant to Article 263 TFEU and which directly produces effects without any need for implementation.

Second ground of appeal: the order under appeal violates the principle that access to the Court of Justice in the context of Article 263 TFEU cannot depend on the Member States.

Third ground of appeal: the order under appeal is inconsistent with the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union pursuant to Article 263 TFEU.

Fourth ground of appeal: the order under appeal is inconsistent with the principle that a remedy is not effective if for structural reasons it is theoretical and illusory.

Fifth ground of appeal: the order under appeal violates Article 51 of the Charter.

Sixth ground of appeal: the order under appeal is based on an erroneous teleological reduction of the ECB’s prudential supervisory competences.

Seventh ground of appeal: the General Court fails to take into consideration that the analysis pursuant to Article 47 of the Charter needs to be based on the manner in which the relevant European institution actually acts and may act and not merely on its ability to give formal binding orders to third parties.

Eighth ground of appeal: the order under appeal is based on an erroneous distinction between prudential supervisory law and insolvency law.

Ninth ground of appeal: the General Court erroneously assumed that the ECB lacks the requisite competence.

Tenth ground of appeal: the order under appeal is based on an erroneous assumption as to the effect of the license withdrawal on the competence of the ECB.

Eleventh ground of appeal: the General Court erroneously assumed that the ECB complied with the judgment of 5 November 2019, ECB and others / Trasta Komercbanka and others (C-663/17 P, C-665/17 P and C-669/17 P, EU:C:2019:923).

Twelfth ground of appeal: the General Court did not appropriately address the appellant’s pleas as to its rights to be heard, the requirement to provide a statement of reason and the nemo auditur principle.

---

| 20.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil n.o 17 de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 27 May 2021 — European Super League Company, S.L. v Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) and Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA)

(Case C-333/21)

(2021/C 382/14)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Mercantil n.o 17 de Madrid

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: European Super League Company, S.L.

Defendants: Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) and Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA)

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 102 TFEU be interpreted as meaning that that article prohibits the abuse of a dominant position consisting of the stipulation by FIFA and UEFA in their statutes (in particular, Articles 22 and 71 to 73 of the FIFA Statutes, Articles 49 and 51 of the UEFA Statutes, and any similar article contained in the statutes of the member associations and national leagues) that the prior approval of those entities, which have conferred on themselves the exclusive power to organise or give permission for international club competitions in Europe, is required in order for a third-party entity to set up a new pan-European club competition like the Super League, in particular where no regulated procedure, based on objective, transparent and non-discriminatory criteria, exists, and taking into account the possible conflict of interests affecting FIFA and UEFA? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 102 TFEU be interpreted as meaning that that article prohibits the abuse of a dominant position consisting of the stipulation by FIFA and UEFA in their statutes (in particular, Articles 22 and 71 to 73 of the FIFA Statutes, Articles 49 and 51 of the UEFA Statutes, and any similar article contained in the statutes of the member associations and national leagues) that the prior approval of those entities, which have conferred on themselves the exclusive power to organise or give permission for international club competitions in Europe, is required in order for a third-party entity to set up a new pan-European club competition like the Super League, in particular where no regulated procedure, based on objective, transparent and non-discriminatory criteria, exists, and taking into account the possible conflict of interests affecting FIFA and UEFA?

| 2. | Must Article 101 TFEU be interpreted as meaning that that article prohibits FIFA and UEFA from requiring in their statutes (in particular, Articles 22 and 71 to 73 of the FIFA Statutes, Articles 49 and 51 of the UEFA Statutes, and any similar article contained in the statutes of the member associations and national leagues) the prior approval of those entities, which have conferred on themselves the exclusive power to organise or give permission for international competitions in Europe, in order for a third-party entity to create a new pan-European club competition like the Super League, in particular where no regulated procedure, based on objective, transparent and non-discriminatory criteria, exists, and taking into account the possible conflict of interests affecting FIFA and UEFA? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must Article 101 TFEU be interpreted as meaning that that article prohibits FIFA and UEFA from requiring in their statutes (in particular, Articles 22 and 71 to 73 of the FIFA Statutes, Articles 49 and 51 of the UEFA Statutes, and any similar article contained in the statutes of the member associations and national leagues) the prior approval of those entities, which have conferred on themselves the exclusive power to organise or give permission for international competitions in Europe, in order for a third-party entity to create a new pan-European club competition like the Super League, in particular where no regulated procedure, based on objective, transparent and non-discriminatory criteria, exists, and taking into account the possible conflict of interests affecting FIFA and UEFA?

| 3. | Must Articles 101 and/or 102 be interpreted as meaning that those articles prohibit conduct by FIFA, UEFA, their member associations and/or national leagues which consists of the threat to adopt sanctions against clubs participating in the Super League and/or their players, owing to the deterrent effect that those sanctions may create? If sanctions are adopted involving exclusion from competitions or a ban on [OR 30] participating in national team matches, would those sanctions, if they were not based on objective, transparent and objective criteria, constitute an infringement of Articles 101 and/ or 102 of the TFEU? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Must Articles 101 and/or 102 be interpreted as meaning that those articles prohibit conduct by FIFA, UEFA, their member associations and/or national leagues which consists of the threat to adopt sanctions against clubs participating in the Super League and/or their players, owing to the deterrent effect that those sanctions may create? If sanctions are adopted involving exclusion from competitions or a ban on [OR 30] participating in national team matches, would those sanctions, if they were not based on objective, transparent and objective criteria, constitute an infringement of Articles 101 and/ or 102 of the TFEU?

| 4. | Must Articles 101 and/or 102 TFEU be interpreted as meaning that the provisions of Articles 67 and 68 of the FIFA Statutes are incompatible with those articles in so far as they identify UEFA and its national member associations as ‘original owners of all of the rights emanating from competitions ... coming under their respective jurisdiction’, thereby depriving participating clubs and any organiser of an alternative competition of the original ownership of those rights and arrogating to themselves sole responsibility for the marketing of those rights? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Must Articles 101 and/or 102 TFEU be interpreted as meaning that the provisions of Articles 67 and 68 of the FIFA Statutes are incompatible with those articles in so far as they identify UEFA and its national member associations as ‘original owners of all of the rights emanating from competitions ... coming under their respective jurisdiction’, thereby depriving participating clubs and any organiser of an alternative competition of the original ownership of those rights and arrogating to themselves sole responsibility for the marketing of those rights?

| 5. | If FIFA and UEFA, as entities which have conferred on themselves the exclusive power to organise and give permission for international club football competitions in Europe, were to prohibit or prevent the development of the Super League on the basis of the abovementioned provisions of their statutes, would Article 101 TFEU have to be interpreted as meaning that those restrictions on competition qualify for the exception laid down therein, regard being had to the fact that production is substantially limited, the appearance on the market of products other than those offered by FIFA/UEFA is impeded, and innovation is restricted, since other formats and types are precluded, thereby eliminating potential competition on the market and limiting consumer choice? Would that restriction be covered by an objective justification which would permit the view that there is no abuse of a dominant position for the purposes of Article 102 TFEU? |
| --- | --- |

5.

If FIFA and UEFA, as entities which have conferred on themselves the exclusive power to organise and give permission for international club football competitions in Europe, were to prohibit or prevent the development of the Super League on the basis of the abovementioned provisions of their statutes, would Article 101 TFEU have to be interpreted as meaning that those restrictions on competition qualify for the exception laid down therein, regard being had to the fact that production is substantially limited, the appearance on the market of products other than those offered by FIFA/UEFA is impeded, and innovation is restricted, since other formats and types are precluded, thereby eliminating potential competition on the market and limiting consumer choice? Would that restriction be covered by an objective justification which would permit the view that there is no abuse of a dominant position for the purposes of Article 102 TFEU?

| 6. | Must Articles 45, 49, 56 and/or 63 TFEU be interpreted as meaning that, by requiring the prior approval of FIFA and UEFA for the establishment, by an economic operator of a Member State, of a pan-European club competition like the Super League, a provision of the kind contained in the statutes of FIFA and UEFA (in particular, Articles 22 and 71 to 73 of the FIFA Statutes, Articles 49 and 51 of the UEFA Statutes, and any other similar article contained in the statutes of national member associations [and] national leagues) constitutes a restriction contrary to one or more of the fundamental freedoms recognised in those articles? |
| --- | --- |

6.

Must Articles 45, 49, 56 and/or 63 TFEU be interpreted as meaning that, by requiring the prior approval of FIFA and UEFA for the establishment, by an economic operator of a Member State, of a pan-European club competition like the Super League, a provision of the kind contained in the statutes of FIFA and UEFA (in particular, Articles 22 and 71 to 73 of the FIFA Statutes, Articles 49 and 51 of the UEFA Statutes, and any other similar article contained in the statutes of national member associations [and] national leagues) constitutes a restriction contrary to one or more of the fundamental freedoms recognised in those articles?

---

| 20.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/12

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia n.o 10 bis de Sevilla (Spain) lodged on 27 May 2021 — Vicente v Delia

(Case C-335/21)

(2021/C 382/15)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia n.o 10 bis de Sevilla

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vicente

Defendant: Delia

Questions referred

| 1. | Is a summary procedure for the recovery of a lawyer’s fees, in which the court is unable to examine of its own motion whether the terms in the consumer contract are unfair, since the procedure does not provide for the court to intervene at any point unless the client challenges the claim and one of the parties subsequently applies to the court for a review of the final decision of the Letrado de la Administración de Justicia (Registrar), compliant with Directive 93/13 (1)
  and the principle of the effectiveness of the directive, in conjunction with the right to an effective remedy in Article 47 of the Charter [of Fundamental Rights of the European Union]? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is a summary procedure for the recovery of a lawyer’s fees, in which the court is unable to examine of its own motion whether the terms in the consumer contract are unfair, since the procedure does not provide for the court to intervene at any point unless the client challenges the claim and one of the parties subsequently applies to the court for a review of the final decision of the Letrado de la Administración de Justicia (Registrar), compliant with Directive 93/13 (1)
  and the principle of the effectiveness of the directive, in conjunction with the right to an effective remedy in Article 47 of the Charter [of Fundamental Rights of the European Union]?

| 2. | Is the fact that, in this type of summary procedure, any consideration of the unfairness of terms by the courts, whether of their own motion or on the application of a party, takes place in the context of an application for review of the decision of a non-judicial body such as the Registrar, and that the courts must in principle restrict their consideration solely to the subject matter of the decision and may not examine any evidence other than the documentary evidence already submitted by the parties, compliant with Directive 93/13 and the principle of the effectiveness of the directive, in conjunction with the right to an effective remedy in Article 47 of the Charter? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the fact that, in this type of summary procedure, any consideration of the unfairness of terms by the courts, whether of their own motion or on the application of a party, takes place in the context of an application for review of the decision of a non-judicial body such as the Registrar, and that the courts must in principle restrict their consideration solely to the subject matter of the decision and may not examine any evidence other than the documentary evidence already submitted by the parties, compliant with Directive 93/13 and the principle of the effectiveness of the directive, in conjunction with the right to an effective remedy in Article 47 of the Charter?

| 3. | Must a term in a contract between a lawyer and a consumer such as the term at issue, which provides specifically for payment of fees in the event that the client discontinues proceedings before the case is concluded or reaches an agreement with the entity either without his or her legal team’s knowledge or against its advice, be deemed to fall within the terms of Article 4(2) of Directive 93/13, on the grounds that it is a main contract term that concerns the subject matter of the contract, in this case, the price? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Must a term in a contract between a lawyer and a consumer such as the term at issue, which provides specifically for payment of fees in the event that the client discontinues proceedings before the case is concluded or reaches an agreement with the entity either without his or her legal team’s knowledge or against its advice, be deemed to fall within the terms of Article 4(2) of Directive 93/13, on the grounds that it is a main contract term that concerns the subject matter of the contract, in this case, the price?

| 4. | If the answer to the previous question is in the affirmative, can that term, which fixes the fees by reference to a fee scale set by a bar association which establishes different rules depending on the specific circumstances and which was not mentioned in the prior information, be considered plain and intelligible in accordance with the terms of the aforesaid Article 4(2) of Directive 93/13? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If the answer to the previous question is in the affirmative, can that term, which fixes the fees by reference to a fee scale set by a bar association which establishes different rules depending on the specific circumstances and which was not mentioned in the prior information, be considered plain and intelligible in accordance with the terms of the aforesaid Article 4(2) of Directive 93/13?

| 5. | If the answer to the previous question is in the negative, can the inclusion in a contract between a lawyer and a consumer of a term such as the one at issue, which fixes the lawyer’s fees purely by reference to a fee scale set by a Bar association which establishes different rules depending on the specific circumstances and which was not mentioned in the quotation for services or in the prior information, be deemed an unfair business practice under the terms of Directive 2005/29? (2) |
| --- | --- |

5.

If the answer to the previous question is in the negative, can the inclusion in a contract between a lawyer and a consumer of a term such as the one at issue, which fixes the lawyer’s fees purely by reference to a fee scale set by a Bar association which establishes different rules depending on the specific circumstances and which was not mentioned in the quotation for services or in the prior information, be deemed an unfair business practice under the terms of Directive 2005/29? (2)

---

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

(2)  Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22).

---

| 20.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/13

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação do Porto (Portugal) lodged on 4 June 2021 — ING Luxembourg SA v VX

(Case C-346/21)

(2021/C 382/16)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal da Relação do Porto

Parties to the main proceedings

Defendant at first instance and appellant at second instance: ING Luxembourg SA

Applicant at first instance and respondent at second instance: VX

Questions referred

| 1. | May Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 (1) be interpreted as meaning that service by registered letter that is effected on a company having its registered office in another Member State, without use of the form set out in Annex II to Regulation No 1393/2007, may, in the circumstances of the present case, be regarded as valid? |
| --- | --- |

1.

May Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 (1) be interpreted as meaning that service by registered letter that is effected on a company having its registered office in another Member State, without use of the form set out in Annex II to Regulation No 1393/2007, may, in the circumstances of the present case, be regarded as valid?

| 2. | May Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 and the principles of EU law therein be interpreted as meaning that they preclude the application of Article 191(2) of the Portuguese Código de Processo Civil (Code of Civil Procedure) to the present case, in so far as that provision states that a pleading of nullity of service must be lodged within a certain time limit (namely, the time limit laid down for lodging a defence)? |
| --- | --- |

2.

May Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 and the principles of EU law therein be interpreted as meaning that they preclude the application of Article 191(2) of the Portuguese Código de Processo Civil (Code of Civil Procedure) to the present case, in so far as that provision states that a pleading of nullity of service must be lodged within a certain time limit (namely, the time limit laid down for lodging a defence)?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (service of documents), and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 (OJ 2007 L 324, p. 79).

---

| 20.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/13

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 14 June 2021 — R.T. v Hauptzollamt Hamburg

(Case C-368/21)

(2021/C 382/17)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: R.T.

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg

Questions referred

| 1. | Are Articles 30 and 60 of Directive 2006/112/EC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the place of importation under VAT legislation of a means of transport registered in a third country and imported into the EU in breach of customs legislation is located in the Member State in which the customs legislation was infringed and the means of transport was first used as such in the EU, or is it located in the Member State in which the person who failed to comply with customs obligations resides and uses the vehicle? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are Articles 30 and 60 of Directive 2006/112/EC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the place of importation under VAT legislation of a means of transport registered in a third country and imported into the EU in breach of customs legislation is located in the Member State in which the customs legislation was infringed and the means of transport was first used as such in the EU, or is it located in the Member State in which the person who failed to comply with customs obligations resides and uses the vehicle?

| 2. | If the place of importation is located in a Member State other than Germany, is Directive 2006/112/EC and, in particular, Articles 30 and 60 thereof, infringed where Article 87(4) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 (2) is declared under a national provision to be applicable mutatis mutandis to import VAT? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the place of importation is located in a Member State other than Germany, is Directive 2006/112/EC and, in particular, Articles 30 and 60 thereof, infringed where Article 87(4) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 (2) is declared under a national provision to be applicable mutatis mutandis to import VAT?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).

(2)  Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code (OJ 2013 L 269, p. 1).

---

| 20.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 17 June 2021 — Freikirche der Siebenten-Tags-Adventisten in Deutschland KdöR

(Case C-372/21)

(2021/C 382/18)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law: Freikirche der Siebenten-Tags-Adventisten in Deutschland KdöR

Respondent authority: Bildungsdirektion für Vorarlberg

Questions referred

| 1. | In the light of Article 17 TFEU, does a situation in which a religious society that is recognised and established in one Member State of the European Union applies in another Member State for subsidisation of a private school which is recognised as denominational by that religious society and which is operated in that other Member State by an association registered under the law of that other Member State fall within the scope of EU law, in particular Article 56 TFEU?
  If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: |
| --- | --- |

1.

In the light of Article 17 TFEU, does a situation in which a religious society that is recognised and established in one Member State of the European Union applies in another Member State for subsidisation of a private school which is recognised as denominational by that religious society and which is operated in that other Member State by an association registered under the law of that other Member State fall within the scope of EU law, in particular Article 56 TFEU?

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:

| 2. | Is Article 56 TFEU to be interpreted as precluding a national rule which provides, as a condition for the subsidisation of denominational private schools, that the applicant must be recognised as a church or religious society under national law? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is Article 56 TFEU to be interpreted as precluding a national rule which provides, as a condition for the subsidisation of denominational private schools, that the applicant must be recognised as a church or religious society under national law?

---

| 20.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons (Belgium) lodged on 24 June 2021 — Ryanair DAC v Happy Flights Srl, formerly Happy Flights Sprl

(Case C-386/21)

(2021/C 382/19)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Mons

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ryanair DAC

Defendant: Happy Flights Srl, formerly Happy Flights Sprl

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 7(1)(a) 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 (1) be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘matters relating to a contract’, within the meaning of that provision, covers an action for compensation brought on the basis 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, (2) by a collection agency, a third party to the contract of carriage by air, which relies on its status as assignee of the claim, even though that agency does not demonstrate that it is the successor to all the initial contracting party’s rights and obligations? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 7(1)(a) 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 (1) be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘matters relating to a contract’, within the meaning of that provision, covers an action for compensation brought on the basis 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, (2) by a collection agency, a third party to the contract of carriage by air, which relies on its status as assignee of the claim, even though that agency does not demonstrate that it is the successor to all the initial contracting party’s rights and obligations?

| 2. | If the first question is answered in the affirmative, must Article 7(1)(a) and 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 1215/2012 be interpreted as meaning that the place of performance of the obligation in question is the place of performance of the contract of carriage by air, that is to say the place of departure or place of arrival of the flight, or, if appropriate, another place? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the first question is answered in the affirmative, must Article 7(1)(a) and 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 1215/2012 be interpreted as meaning that the place of performance of the obligation in question is the place of performance of the contract of carriage by air, that is to say the place of departure or place of arrival of the flight, or, if appropriate, another place?

---

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

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

---

| 20.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/15

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Erfurt (Germany) lodged on 23 June 2021 — A v B

(Case C-388/21)

(2021/C 382/20)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Erfurt

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: A

Defendant: B

Questions referred

| 1. | Are Articles 18(1), 26(1) and 46 of Directive 2007/46/EC, (1) read in conjunction with Articles 4, 5 and 13 of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007, (2) also intended to protect the interests of individual purchasers of motor vehicles and their assets? Does this also include the interest of an individual purchaser of a vehicle in not purchasing a vehicle which does not comply with the requirements of EU law, and in particular in not purchasing a vehicle equipped with a prohibited defeat device within the meaning of Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are Articles 18(1), 26(1) and 46 of Directive 2007/46/EC, (1) read in conjunction with Articles 4, 5 and 13 of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007, (2) also intended to protect the interests of individual purchasers of motor vehicles and their assets? Does this also include the interest of an individual purchaser of a vehicle in not purchasing a vehicle which does not comply with the requirements of EU law, and in particular in not purchasing a vehicle equipped with a prohibited defeat device within the meaning of Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007?

| 2. | Does EU law, especially the principle of effectiveness, European fundamental rights and the inherent rights of nature, require that the purchaser of a vehicle have a civil claim for damages against the vehicle manufacturer in the event of any culpable — negligent or intentional — act on the part of the vehicle manufacturer in relation to the placing on the market of a vehicle equipped with a prohibited defeat device within the meaning of Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does EU law, especially the principle of effectiveness, European fundamental rights and the inherent rights of nature, require that the purchaser of a vehicle have a civil claim for damages against the vehicle manufacturer in the event of any culpable — negligent or intentional — act on the part of the vehicle manufacturer in relation to the placing on the market of a vehicle equipped with a prohibited defeat device within the meaning of Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007?

---

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

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

---

| 20.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/16

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München I (Germany) lodged on 29 June 2021 — KT, NS v FTI Touristik GmbH

(Case C-396/21)

(2021/C 382/21)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht München I

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: KT, NS

Defendant: FTI Touristik GmbH

Question referred

Do restrictions imposed due to an infectious disease that is prevalent at the travel destination constitute a lack of conformity within the meaning of Article 14(1) of Directive (EU) 2015/2302 (1) even if, because of the worldwide spread of the infectious disease, such restrictions were imposed both in the traveller’s place of residence and in other countries?

---

(1)  Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on package travel and linked travel arrangements, amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 90/314/EEC (OJ 2015 L 326, p. 1).

---

| 20.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/16

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État (France) lodged on 28 June 2021 — Conseil national des barreaux, Conférence des bâtonniers, Ordre des avocats du barreau de Paris v Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Economie, des Finances et de la Relance

(Case C-398/21)

(2021/C 382/22)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d'État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Conseil national des barreaux, Conférence des bâtonniers, Ordre des avocats du barreau de Paris

Defendants: Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Economie, des Finances et de la Relance

Questions referred

Does Article 8ab(5) of Directive 2011/16: (1)

| — | infringe the right to a fair hearing guaranteed by Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in that it does not exclude, in principle, lawyers participating in judicial proceedings from the scope of intermediaries who must supply the tax authorities with the information necessary for reporting a cross-border tax arrangement or who must notify another intermediary of that obligation? |
| --- | --- |

—

infringe the right to a fair hearing guaranteed by Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in that it does not exclude, in principle, lawyers participating in judicial proceedings from the scope of intermediaries who must supply the tax authorities with the information necessary for reporting a cross-border tax arrangement or who must notify another intermediary of that obligation?

| — | infringe the rights in respect of correspondence and private life guaranteed by Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in that it does not exclude, in principle, lawyers assessing their client’s legal situation from the scope of intermediaries who must supply the tax authorities with the information necessary for reporting a cross-border tax arrangement or who must notify another intermediary of that obligation? |
| --- | --- |

—

infringe the rights in respect of correspondence and private life guaranteed by Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in that it does not exclude, in principle, lawyers assessing their client’s legal situation from the scope of intermediaries who must supply the tax authorities with the information necessary for reporting a cross-border tax arrangement or who must notify another intermediary of that obligation?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2011/16/EU of 15 February 2011 on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation and repealing Directive 77/799/EEC (OJ 2011 L 64, p. 1).

---

| 20.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/17

---

Appeal brought on 6 July 2021 by the Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 21 April 2021 in Case T-322/19, El-Qaddafi v Council

(Case C-413/21 P)

(2021/C 382/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: V. Piessevaux, M. Bishop, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Aisha Muammer Mohamed El-Qaddafi

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the contested judgment of the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the contested judgment of the General Court;

| — | give final judgment in the matters that are the subject of this appeal and to dismiss the applicant’s action;
  and |
| --- | --- |

—

give final judgment in the matters that are the subject of this appeal and to dismiss the applicant’s action;

and

| — | order the applicant to pay the costs arising from the present appeal and from Case T-322/19. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the applicant to pay the costs arising from the present appeal and from Case T-322/19.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Council submits that the General Court erred in the contested judgment in case T-322/19 on the following points:

| — | first ground of appeal: violation of Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 36, read in conjunction with Article 53, first paragraph, of the Statute of the Court of Justice and misinterpretation of Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 (1); |
| --- | --- |

—

first ground of appeal: violation of Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 36, read in conjunction with Article 53, first paragraph, of the Statute of the Court of Justice and misinterpretation of Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 (1);

| — | second ground of appeal: misinterpretation of Articles 8(1) and 9(1) of Council Decision 2015/1333 and Article 6(1) of Council Regulation 2016/44 (2); |
| --- | --- |

—

second ground of appeal: misinterpretation of Articles 8(1) and 9(1) of Council Decision 2015/1333 and Article 6(1) of Council Regulation 2016/44 (2);

| — | third ground of appeal: the General Court distorted the arguments of the Council, violated the principle that pleadings are to be construed in accordance with their actual terms, misinterpreted Council Decision 2015/1333 and Council Regulation 2016/44 and violated Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights; |
| --- | --- |

—

third ground of appeal: the General Court distorted the arguments of the Council, violated the principle that pleadings are to be construed in accordance with their actual terms, misinterpreted Council Decision 2015/1333 and Council Regulation 2016/44 and violated Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights;

| — | fourth ground of appeal: the General Court distorted the evidence, violated the principle that documents and pleadings are to be construed in accordance with their actual terms, violated Article 36, read in conjunction with Article 53, first paragraph, of the Statute of the Court of Justice, and violated Article 263 TFEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. |
| --- | --- |

—

fourth ground of appeal: the General Court distorted the evidence, violated the principle that documents and pleadings are to be construed in accordance with their actual terms, violated Article 36, read in conjunction with Article 53, first paragraph, of the Statute of the Court of Justice, and violated Article 263 TFEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

---

(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 of 31 July 2015 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya, and repealing Decision 2011/137/CFSP (OJ 2015, L 206, p. 34).

(2)  Council Regulation (EU) 2016/44 of 18 January 2016 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya and repealing Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 (OJ 2016, L 12, p. 1).

---

| 20.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/18

---

Appeal brought on 16 July 2021 by Ryanair DAC against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 19 May 2021 in Case T-628/20, Ryanair v Commission (Spain; Covid-19)

(Case C-441/21 P)

(2021/C 382/24)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Ryanair DAC (represented by: V. Blanc, E. Vahida and F.-C. Laprévote, avocats, S. Rating, abogado, and I. G. Metaxas-Maranghidis, dikigoros)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Kingdom of Spain, French Republic

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment under appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment under appeal;

| — | declare in accordance with Articles 263 TFEU and 264 TFEU that Commission Decision C(2020) 5414 final of 31 July 2020 on State Aid SA.57659 (2020/N) — Spain — COVID-19 — Recapitalisation fund is void; and |
| --- | --- |

—

declare in accordance with Articles 263 TFEU and 264 TFEU that Commission Decision C(2020) 5414 final of 31 July 2020 on State Aid SA.57659 (2020/N) — Spain — COVID-19 — Recapitalisation fund is void; and

| — | order the Commission to bear its own costs and pay those incurrent by Ryanair, and order the interveners at first instance and in this appeal (if any) to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to bear its own costs and pay those incurrent by Ryanair, and order the interveners at first instance and in this appeal (if any) to bear their own costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law: the General Court erred in law in rejecting the appellant’s claim that the non-discrimination principle has been unjustifiably violated.

Second plea in law: the General Court erred in law and manifestly distorted the facts regarding the appellant’s claim on the infringement of the freedom of establishment and the free provision of services.

Third plea in law: the General Court erred in law and manifestly distorted the facts in rejecting the appellant’s plea concerning the misapplication of the balancing test.

Fourth plea in law: the General Court erred in law and committed a manifest error of assessment in the classification of the aid as an aid scheme.

Fifth plea in law: the General Court erred in law and manifestly distorted the facts regarding the Commission’s failure to open a formal investigation procedure.

Sixth plea in law: the General Court erred in law and manifestly distorted the facts regarding the Commission’s failure to state reasons.

---

| 20.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/19

---

Appeal brought on 15 July 2021 by ITD, Brancheorganisation for den danske vejgodstransport A/S, Danske Fragtmænd A/S against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 5 May 2021 in Case T-561/18, ITD and Danske Fragtmænd v Commission

(Case C-442/21 P)

(2021/C 382/25)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: ITD, Brancheorganisation for den danske vejgodstransport A/S, Danske Fragtmænd A/S (represented by: L. Sandberg-Mørch, advokat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Jørgen Jensen Distribution A/S, Dansk Distribution A/S, Kingdom of Denmark

Form of order sought

The Appellants claim that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of 5 May 2021 of the General Court in Case T-561/18 to the extent that it dismissed the appellants’ pleas that the Commission encountered serious difficulties in concluding that the universal postal service obligation (USO) compensation constitutes compatible aid; that the Commission faced serious difficulties in finding that the State guarantee was existing aid; and that the Commission also faced serious difficulties with regard to its assessment of the misallocation of costs; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of 5 May 2021 of the General Court in Case T-561/18 to the extent that it dismissed the appellants’ pleas that the Commission encountered serious difficulties in concluding that the universal postal service obligation (USO) compensation constitutes compatible aid; that the Commission faced serious difficulties in finding that the State guarantee was existing aid; and that the Commission also faced serious difficulties with regard to its assessment of the misallocation of costs;

| — | order the Respondent to pay its own costs and the costs of the appellants. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Respondent to pay its own costs and the costs of the appellants.

Pleas in law and main arguments

| 1. | First, the General Court erred in law and distorted the facts by ruling that the Commission did not face serious difficulties with regard to the exclusion from the NAC of the intangible benefits (consisting of corporate reputation and ubiquity) that Post Danmark enjoyed as a consequence of the USO. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First, the General Court erred in law and distorted the facts by ruling that the Commission did not face serious difficulties with regard to the exclusion from the NAC of the intangible benefits (consisting of corporate reputation and ubiquity) that Post Danmark enjoyed as a consequence of the USO.

| 2. | Second, the General Court erred in law by ruling that the Commission did not face serious difficulties when it found the aid to be compatible on the basis of the SGEI Framework for discharging the obligation to provide the USO, but then authorized the aid for the costs of dismissing employees within the context of the transformation/restructuring of Post Danmark. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second, the General Court erred in law by ruling that the Commission did not face serious difficulties when it found the aid to be compatible on the basis of the SGEI Framework for discharging the obligation to provide the USO, but then authorized the aid for the costs of dismissing employees within the context of the transformation/restructuring of Post Danmark.

| 3. | Third, in violation of Articles 107(1) and 108(2) TFEU, the General Court erred in law by concluding that the Commission did not experience serious difficulties when it concluded that Post Danmark’s over-allocation of common costs to the USO account did not constitute State aid.
  The Appellants argue that the General Court’s erroneous conclusion is based on two errors in law, corresponding to two subpleas:






  a. | The General Court erred in law by holding that section 4(4)(c) of the 2006 accounting regulation and section 4(3)(c) of the 2011 accounting regulation are only a specific application of the principles laid down in section 4(4)(a) and 4(4)(b) of the 2006 and 2011 accounting regulations. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third, in violation of Articles 107(1) and 108(2) TFEU, the General Court erred in law by concluding that the Commission did not experience serious difficulties when it concluded that Post Danmark’s over-allocation of common costs to the USO account did not constitute State aid.

The Appellants argue that the General Court’s erroneous conclusion is based on two errors in law, corresponding to two subpleas:

a.

The General Court erred in law by holding that section 4(4)(c) of the 2006 accounting regulation and section 4(3)(c) of the 2011 accounting regulation are only a specific application of the principles laid down in section 4(4)(a) and 4(4)(b) of the 2006 and 2011 accounting regulations.

| b. | The General Court erred in law by holding that the appropriateness of Post Danmark’s allocation of common cost is evidenced by the fact that Post Danmark’s accounts have been subject to regular audits. |
| --- | --- |

b.

The General Court erred in law by holding that the appropriateness of Post Danmark’s allocation of common cost is evidenced by the fact that Post Danmark’s accounts have been subject to regular audits.

---

| 20.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/19

---

Action brought on 16 July 2021 — European Commission v Ireland

(Case C-444/21)

(2021/C 382/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: C. Hermes and M. Noll-Ehlers, Agents)

Defendant: Ireland

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(4) and Article 6(1) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1) (the Directive) by






  — | failing to designate, as soon as possible and within six years at most, as special areas of conservation (SAC) 217 sites out of the 423 sites of Community interest in the Atlantic biogeographical region on its territory that had been listed by Commission Decision 2004/813/EC of 7 December 2004 (2), as updated by Commission Decision 2008/23/EC of 12 November 2007 (3) and Commission Decision 2009/96/EC of 12 December 2008 (4); |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

declare that Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(4) and Article 6(1) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1) (the Directive) by

—

failing to designate, as soon as possible and within six years at most, as special areas of conservation (SAC) 217 sites out of the 423 sites of Community interest in the Atlantic biogeographical region on its territory that had been listed by Commission Decision 2004/813/EC of 7 December 2004 (2), as updated by Commission Decision 2008/23/EC of 12 November 2007 (3) and Commission Decision 2009/96/EC of 12 December 2008 (4);

| — | failing to set site-specific detailed conservation objectives for 140 sites out of the 423 sites listed in the aforementioned Commission Decisions; and |
| --- | --- |

—

failing to set site-specific detailed conservation objectives for 140 sites out of the 423 sites listed in the aforementioned Commission Decisions; and

| — | failing to establish the necessary conservation measures which correspond to the ecological requirements of the natural habitat types in Annex I and the species in Annex II of the Directive for any of the 423 sites listed in the aforementioned Commission Decisions. |
| --- | --- |

—

failing to establish the necessary conservation measures which correspond to the ecological requirements of the natural habitat types in Annex I and the species in Annex II of the Directive for any of the 423 sites listed in the aforementioned Commission Decisions.

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

—

order Ireland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission considers that Ireland failed to set up and manage its Natura 2000 network in line with the legal requirements set out by the Directive.

First, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Art. 4(4) of the Directive by not designating as SAC as soon as possible and within a maximum period of six years all the 423 sites listed in the aforementioned Commission Decisions. This omission concerned 217 sites by the end of the period laid down in the additional reasoned opinion.

Secondly, Ireland has failed to comply with Art. 4(4) of the Directive by not setting site-specific conservation objectives for every of the 423 sites in question. This omission concerned 140 sites by the end of the period laid down in the additional reasoned opinion.

Thirdly, Ireland has failed to establish the necessary conservation measures that correspond to the ecological requirements of the natural habitat types in Annex I and the species in Annex II pursuant to Art. 6(1) of the Directive for the 423 sites covered by this infringement. Ireland’s practice with regard to conservation measures has led to a situation in which none of the 423 sites covered by this infringement had by the end of the period laid down in the additional reasoned opinion conservation measures corresponding to the legal requirements of Art. 6(1) of the Directive. Many sites had no conservation measures at all. Other sites had conservation measures for only a subset of the relevant Annex I natural habitat types and Annex II species significantly present in the sites. Furthermore, a large number of sites lacked conservation measures based on site-specific clearly defined conservation objectives. In addition, Ireland also generally and persistently failed to comply with Art. 6(1) of the Directive by establishing conservation measures that are not sufficiently precise and detailed and fail to address all significant pressures and threats.

---

(1)  OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7.

(2)  2004/813/EC: Commission Decision of 7 December 2004 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, the list of sites of Community importance for the Atlantic biogeographical region (OJ 2004 L 387, p. 1).

(3)  2008/23/EC: Commission Decision of 12 November 2007 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, a first updated list of sites of Community importance for the Atlantic biogeographical region (OJ 2008 L 12, p. 1).

(4)  2009/96/EC: Commission Decision of 12 December 2008 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, a second updated list of sites of Community importance for the Atlantic biogeographical region (OJ 2009 L 43, p. 466).

---

| 20.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/21

---

Appeal brought on 22 July 2021 by Engie Global LNG Holding Sàrl, Engie Invest International SA and Engie SA against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 12 May 2021 in Joined Cases T-516/18 and T-525/18, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and Others v Commission

(Case C-454/21 P)

(2021/C 382/27)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: Engie Global LNG Holding Sàrl, Engie Invest International SA and Engie SA (represented by: C. Rydzynski, B Le Bret, M. Struys and F. Pili, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

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

—

declare the present appeal admissible and well founded;

| — | annul the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 12 May 2021 in Joined Cases T-516/18 and T-525/18, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and Others v Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 12 May 2021 in Joined Cases T-516/18 and T-525/18, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and Others v Commission;

| — | give a final ruling on the substance in accordance with Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and, primarily, grant the form of order sought by Engie at first instance or, in the alternative, annul Article 2 of Commission Decision (EU) 2019/421 of 20 June 2018 on State aid SA.44888 (2016/C) (ex 2016/NN) implemented by Luxembourg in favour of ENGIE (OJ 2019 L 78, p. 1), in so far as it orders the recovery of the aid; |
| --- | --- |

—

give a final ruling on the substance in accordance with Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and, primarily, grant the form of order sought by Engie at first instance or, in the alternative, annul Article 2 of Commission Decision (EU) 2019/421 of 20 June 2018 on State aid SA.44888 (2016/C) (ex 2016/NN) implemented by Luxembourg in favour of ENGIE (OJ 2019 L 78, p. 1), in so far as it orders the recovery of the aid;

| — | in the further alternative, refer the case back to the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the further alternative, refer the case back to the General Court;

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

—

order the Commission to pay all the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of the appeal, Engie Global LNG Holding, Engie Invest International and Engie rely on three grounds of appeal.

According to the appellants, the General Court erred in law and distorted the facts in its definition of the narrow reference framework by (i) excluding the Parent-Subsidiary Directive when defining that reference framework, (ii) creating a link between Articles 164 and 166 of the Law on income tax in Luxembourg, (iii) finding that the ZORA accretions constituted profit distributions, and (iv) considering that the tax rulings at issue granted a selective advantage.

Furthermore, the General Court erred in law and distorted the facts in its demonstration of the existence of a selective advantage in the light of the Luxembourgish provision on abuse of law (i) in respect of the reference framework used, (ii) when identifying a selective advantage, and (iii) when interpreting the Luxembourgish law.

Following on the first and second grounds of appeal, the appellants submit that the General Court erred in law by rejecting the arguments that they set out in the action for annulment in respect of the Commission’s limited competence under Articles 2, 3, 4 and 5 TFEU on the division of powers between the European Union and the Member States, read in conjunction with Articles 113 to 117 TFEU.

Lastly, the recovery of the aid ordered by the General Court was contrary to the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations.

---

| 20.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/22

---

Appeal brought on 2 August 2021 by China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Machinery and Electronic Products, Cangzhou Qinghong Foundry Co. Ltd, Botou City Qinghong Foundry Co. Ltd, Lingshou County Boyuan Foundry Co. Ltd, Handan Qunshan Foundry Co. Ltd, Heping Cast Co. Ltd Yi County, Hong Guang Handan Cast Foundry Co. Ltd, Shanxi Yuansheng Casting and Forging Industrial Co. Ltd, Botou City Wangwu Town Tianlong Casting Factory, Tangxian Hongyue Machinery Accessory Foundry Co. Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 19 May 2021 in Case T-254/18, China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Machinery and Electronic Products and Others v Commission

(Case C-478/21 P)

(2021/C 382/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Machinery and Electronic Products (CCCME), Cangzhou Qinghong Foundry Co. Ltd, Botou City Qinghong Foundry Co. Ltd, Lingshou County Boyuan Foundry Co. Ltd, Handan Qunshan Foundry Co. Ltd, Heping Cast Co. Ltd Yi County, Hong Guang Handan Cast Foundry Co. Ltd, Shanxi Yuansheng Casting and Forging Industrial Co. Ltd, Botou City Wangwu Town Tianlong Casting Factory, Tangxian Hongyue Machinery Accessory Foundry Co. Ltd (represented by: R. Antonini, avvocato, E. Monard and B. Maniatis, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, EJ Picardie, Fondatel Lecomte, Fonderies Dechaumont, Fundiciones de Odena, SA, Heinrich Meier Eisengießerei GmbH & Co. KG, Saint-Gobain Construction Products UK Ltd, Saint-Gobain Pam, Ulefos Oy

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment under appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment under appeal;

| — | grant the form of order sought by the appellants in their application made to the General Court and annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/140 of 29 January 2018 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain cast iron articles originating in the People’s Republic of China and terminating the investigation on imports of certain cast iron articles originating in India (1), in so far as it relates to the CCCME, the individual companies and the members concerned; and |
| --- | --- |

—

grant the form of order sought by the appellants in their application made to the General Court and annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/140 of 29 January 2018 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain cast iron articles originating in the People’s Republic of China and terminating the investigation on imports of certain cast iron articles originating in India (1), in so far as it relates to the CCCME, the individual companies and the members concerned; and

| — | order the Commission to bear the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and the Court of Justice, including those of the Appellants, and order the interveners to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to bear the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and the Court of Justice, including those of the Appellants, and order the interveners to bear their own costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

First ground of appeal. The General Court erred in not finding a violation of Articles 3(2), 3(3), 3(5), 3(6) and 3(7) of the basic Regulation (2) and the principle of good administration in relation to the import data.

Second ground of appeal. The General Court erred in not finding a violation of Articles 3(2), 3(3), 3(5), 3(6) and 3(7) of the basic Regulation and the principle of good administration as there was a failure to base the injury and causation determinations on positive evidence and an objective examination.

Third ground of appeal. The General Court erred in finding that no segmented analysis was required to fulfil the obligations under Articles 3(6) and 3(7) of the basic Regulation.

Fourth ground of appeal. The General Court erred in not finding a violation of Articles 3(6) and 3(7) of the basic Regulation in relation to the lack of price undercutting for a part of Union sales.

Fifth ground of appeal. The General Court applied the wrong legal standard in finding that the third plea in law was partly inadmissible. The General Court erred in not finding a violation of Articles 6(7), 19(1), 19(2), 20(2) and 20(4) of the basic Regulation as well as the rights of the defence regarding the requirement to disclose essential facts and considerations.

---

(1)  OJ 2018 L 25, p. 6.

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

---

| 20.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/23

---

Order of the President of the Court of 25 June 2021 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-345/20) (1)

(2021/C 382/29)

Language of the case: Portuguese

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

---

(1)  OJ C 329, 5.10.2020.

---

| 20.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/23

---

Order of the President of the Court of 17 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln — Germany) — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v LE

(Case C-629/20) (1)

(2021/C 382/30)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 72, 1.3.2021.

---

| 20.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/23

---

Order of the President of the Court of 21 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln — Germany) — AX v Deutsche Lufthansa AG

(Case C-9/21) (1)

(2021/C 382/31)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 88, 15.03.2021.

---

| 20.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/23

---

Order of the President of the Court of 29 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg — Germany) — flightright GmbH v Ryanair DAC

(Case C-37/21) (1)

(2021/C 382/32)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 163, 3.5.2021.

---

| 20.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/24

---

Order of the President of the Court of 18 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln — Germany) — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v BC

(Case C-106/21) (1)

(2021/C 382/33)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 182, 10.05.2021.

---

| 20.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/24

---

Order of the President of the Court of 24 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Nokia Technologies Oy v Daimler AG, in the presence of: Continental Automotive GmbH and Others

(Case C-182/21) (1)

(2021/C 382/34)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 252, 28.6.2021.

---

General Court

| 20.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/25

---

Order of the General Court of 12 July 2021 — Ryanair and Laudamotion v Commission

(Case T-866/19) (1)

(Action for annulment - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 - Rules on the distribution of air traffic between Schiphol and Lelystad Airports - Priority for the allocation of slots to Lelystad Airport - Regulatory act entailing implementing measures - Not individually concerned - Inadmissibility)

(2021/C 382/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Ryanair DAC (Swords, Ireland), Laudamotion GmbH (Schwechat, Austria) (represented by: E. Vahida and I.G. Metaxas-Maranghidis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci and W. Mölls, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/1585 of 24 September 2019 on the establishment of traffic distribution rules pursuant to Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council for the airports Amsterdam Schiphol and Amsterdam Lelystad (OJ 2019 L 246, p. 24).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | There is no need to rule on the application for leave to intervene submitted by the Kingdom of the Netherlands. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no need to rule on the application for leave to intervene submitted by the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

| 3. | Ryanair DAC and Laudamotion GmbH shall bear their own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Ryanair DAC and Laudamotion GmbH shall bear their own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

| 4. | The Kingdom of the Netherlands shall bear its own costs relating to the application for leave to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Kingdom of the Netherlands shall bear its own costs relating to the application for leave to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 68, 2.3.2020.

---

| 20.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/25

---

Order of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — AI v ECDC

(Case T-79/20) (1)

(Action for annulment and for damages - Civil service - ECDC staff - Psychological harassment - Article 12a of the Staff Regulations - Damage to reputation - Request for assistance - Article 24 of the Staff Regulations - Dismissal of application - Right to be heard - Absence of prima facie evidence - Duty of care - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

(2021/C 382/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (represented by: A. Iber and J. Mannheim, acting as Agents, and by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of ECDC’s decision of 5 April 2019 rejecting the applicant’s request for assistance of 10 April 2018 and, in so far as necessary, of ECDC’s decision of 4 November 2019 rejecting the complaint against the decision of 5 April 2019 and, secondly, compensation for the damage suffered.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | AI is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

AI is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 129, 20.4.2020.

---

| 20.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/26

---

Order of the General Court of 15 July 2021 — Roxtec v EUIPO — Wallmax (Representation of an orange square containing seven concentric black circles)

(Case T-455/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark depicting an orange square containing seven concentric black circles - Absolute ground for refusal - Sign consisting exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result - Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2021/C 382/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Roxtec AB (Karlskrona, Sweden) (represented by: J. Olsson and J. Adamsson, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: Wallmax Srl (Milan, Italy) (represented by: A. Bergmann, F. Ferrari and L. Goglia, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 April 2020 (Case R 2385/2018-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Wallmax and Roxtec.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

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

2.

Roxtec AB shall bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

| 3. | Wallmax Srl shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Wallmax Srl shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 304, 14.9.2020.

---

| 20.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/27

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 12 July 2021 — Jalkh v Parliament

(Case T-230/21 R)

(Interim measures - Law governing the institutions - Member of the European Parliament - Privileges and immunities - Waiver of parliamentary immunity - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency)

(2021/C 382/38)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Jean-François Jalkh (Gretz-Armainvilliers, France) (represented by: F. Wagner, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Lorenz and A.-M. Dumbrăvan, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 278 TFEU for suspension of operation of European Parliament decision P9_TA(2021)0092 of 25 March 2021 on the request for waiver of the immunity of the applicant (2020/2110(IMM)).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---

| 20.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/27

---

Action brought on 30 July 2021 — Natixis v Commission

(Case T-449/21)

(2021/C 382/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Natixis (Paris, France) (represented by: J. Stratford, Barrister-at-law, and J.-J. Lemonnier, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare Commission Decision C(2021) 3489 final adopted on 20 May 2021 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement in Case AT.40324: European Government Bonds (the ‘Contested Decision’) to be void in its entirety, as concerns the applicant, and |
| --- | --- |

—

declare Commission Decision C(2021) 3489 final adopted on 20 May 2021 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement in Case AT.40324: European Government Bonds (the ‘Contested Decision’) to be void in its entirety, as concerns the applicant, and

| — | order the Commission to pay the applicant’s legal and other costs and expenses in relation to this matter. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the applicant’s legal and other costs and expenses in relation to this matter.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission did not have a legitimate interest in adopting the Contested Decision within the meaning of the last sentence of Article 7(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1). |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission did not have a legitimate interest in adopting the Contested Decision within the meaning of the last sentence of Article 7(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1).

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging the infringement of: (a) the applicant’s rights of defence; (b) Article 27(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (and/or (c) Articles 10(1) and 11(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) N 773/2004/EC (2).






  — | The applicant states that in the Contested Decision, the Commission relied on the legal and deterrent effects stemming from a finding of infringement in support of its finding of a legitimate interest; notwithstanding that this was not an objection put to the applicant on which it had an opportunity of meaningfully making representations. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging the infringement of: (a) the applicant’s rights of defence; (b) Article 27(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (and/or (c) Articles 10(1) and 11(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) N 773/2004/EC (2).

—

The applicant states that in the Contested Decision, the Commission relied on the legal and deterrent effects stemming from a finding of infringement in support of its finding of a legitimate interest; notwithstanding that this was not an objection put to the applicant on which it had an opportunity of meaningfully making representations.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision was supported by inadequate reasons and/or was disproportionate. The further applicant alleges that:






  — | In the event that there was a legitimate interest (which the applicant disputes) in making a finding of infringement against the applicant, the Commission gave no adequate reasons for exercising its discretion to make that finding. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision was supported by inadequate reasons and/or was disproportionate. The further applicant alleges that:

—

In the event that there was a legitimate interest (which the applicant disputes) in making a finding of infringement against the applicant, the Commission gave no adequate reasons for exercising its discretion to make that finding.

| — | The exercise of the Commission’s discretion contravened the principle of proportionality because the Contested Decision was unnecessary to achieve the aim of the effective enforcement of competition law and the disadvantages to the applicant of a finding of infringement were disproportionate to that aim. |
| --- | --- |

—

The exercise of the Commission’s discretion contravened the principle of proportionality because the Contested Decision was unnecessary to achieve the aim of the effective enforcement of competition law and the disadvantages to the applicant of a finding of infringement were disproportionate to that aim.

If any or all of the first, second and/or third pleas in law is upheld, the applicant contends that the Contested Decision must be annulled in its entirety. To the extent necessary, however, the applicant advances a further plea in law.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that Article 3 of the Contested Decision was unlawful because the Commission:






  — | exceeded its powers in directing the termination of an infringement and prohibiting its resumption, in circumstances where that infringement had ceased; |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that Article 3 of the Contested Decision was unlawful because the Commission:

—

exceeded its powers in directing the termination of an infringement and prohibiting its resumption, in circumstances where that infringement had ceased;

| — | adopted a reverse burden of proof, in breach of the presumption of innocence, insofar as it exercised its powers because it could not be sure the infringement had ceased; |
| --- | --- |

—

adopted a reverse burden of proof, in breach of the presumption of innocence, insofar as it exercised its powers because it could not be sure the infringement had ceased;

| — | erred in fact in concluding that the infringement, on the part of the applicant and/or as a whole, had not ceased; and/or |
| --- | --- |

—

erred in fact in concluding that the infringement, on the part of the applicant and/or as a whole, had not ceased; and/or

| — | acted disproportionately, because it was neither necessary nor appropriate for the Commission to exercise its powers to prevent an infringement of competition law by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

acted disproportionately, because it was neither necessary nor appropriate for the Commission to exercise its powers to prevent an infringement of competition law by the applicant.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty (OJ 2004 L 123, p. 18).

---

| 20.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/28

---

Action brought on 2 August 2021 — Quantic Dream v EUIPO — Quentia (Q)

(Case T-458/21)

(2021/C 382/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Quantic Dream (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Grolée, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Quentia GmbH (Gersthofen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark Q — Application for registration No 18 069 734

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 June 2021 in Case R 2070/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | and, by way of correction, reject the opposition NooB 3 092 566 to the registration of the European Union trademark application Q Noo18 069 734 filed on 21 May 2019; |
| --- | --- |

—

and, by way of correction, reject the opposition NooB 3 092 566 to the registration of the European Union trademark application Q Noo18 069 734 filed on 21 May 2019;

| — | order that the EUIPO and/or Quentia GmbH bear the costs involved in the proceedings before the EUIPO and before the Court by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order that the EUIPO and/or Quentia GmbH bear the costs involved in the proceedings before the EUIPO and before the Court by the applicant.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 71(1)(a) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 71(1)(a) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;

| — | Infringement of Article 7 TFEU; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7 TFEU;

| — | Infringement of Article 58a of the Statute of the Court of Justice; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 58a of the Statute of the Court of Justice;

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

—

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

---

| 20.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/29

---

Action brought on 3 August 2021 — Calrose Rice v EUIPO — Ricegrowers (Sunwhite)

(Case T-459/21)

(2021/C 382/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Calrose Rice (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: H. Raychev, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ricegrowers Ltd (Leeton, New South Wales, Australia)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark Sunwhite — Application for registration No 18 115 808

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 June 2021 in Case R 2465/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and remit the European trade mark application No 18 115 808 SUNWHITE to the EUIPO in order to allow it to proceed to registration; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and remit the European trade mark application No 18 115 808 SUNWHITE to the EUIPO in order to allow it to proceed to registration;

| — | order the EUIPO and the intervener in the present proceedings to bear their own costs and to pay the applicant’s costs of these proceedings, as well as the costs of the appeal procedure before the Fourth Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the EUIPO and the intervener in the present proceedings to bear their own costs and to pay the applicant’s costs of these proceedings, as well as the costs of the appeal procedure before the Fourth Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

| — | The Board wrongly assumed that the applicant had admitted in its statement of grounds that the compared goods in Class 30 are identical; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board wrongly assumed that the applicant had admitted in its statement of grounds that the compared goods in Class 30 are identical;

| — | The Board erred in finding that the compared signs share all their elements; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board erred in finding that the compared signs share all their elements;

| — | The Board was wrong to limit, or focus exclusively, its conclusions regarding the comparison of the signs on the verbal components of the signs; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board was wrong to limit, or focus exclusively, its conclusions regarding the comparison of the signs on the verbal components of the signs;

| — | The Board failed to take sufficient account of the visual difference between the marks and made merely general conclusions in this regard without concrete reasoning. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board failed to take sufficient account of the visual difference between the marks and made merely general conclusions in this regard without concrete reasoning.

---

| 20.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/30

---

Action brought on 4 August 2021 — Ionfarma v EUIPO — LG Electronics (AION)

(Case T-465/21)

(2021/C 382/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ionfarma, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: S. Correa Rodríguez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: LG Electronics, Inc. (Seoul, South Korea)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark AION — Application for registration No 17 892 367

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 May 2021 in Case R 2223/2020–4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | revoke the contested decision and reject the European Union trademark Noo17 892 367 AION for all goods; |
| --- | --- |

—

revoke the contested decision and reject the European Union trademark Noo17 892 367 AION for all goods;

| — | order EUIPO and, in case LG Electronics decides to intervene in the present proceedings, LG Electronics to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and, in case LG Electronics decides to intervene in the present proceedings, LG Electronics to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 20.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/31

---

Action brought on 4 August 2021 — Baumberger v EUIPO — Nube (Lío)

(Case T-466/21)

(2021/C 382/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Dino Baumberger (Wesel, Germany) (represented by: J. Fusbahn and D. Dawirs, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nube, SL (Ibiza, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark Lío in golden yellow and black colour — European Union trade mark No 14 194 872

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 June 2021 in Case R 1221/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and, consequently, the decision of the Cancellation Division of 28 April 2020 (Invalidity No. 000025762 C); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and, consequently, the decision of the Cancellation Division of 28 April 2020 (Invalidity No. 000025762 C);

| — | reject the application for a declaration of invalidity and keep the contested trademark registration No. 14 194 872 registered; |
| --- | --- |

—

reject the application for a declaration of invalidity and keep the contested trademark registration No. 14 194 872 registered;

| — | decide that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the EUIPO and Nube SL. |
| --- | --- |

—

decide that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the EUIPO and Nube SL.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 20.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/31

---

Action brought on 4 August 2021 — DBM Videovertrieb v EUIPO — Nube (Lío)

(Case T-467/21)

(2021/C 382/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: DBM Videovertrieb GmbH (Wesel, Germany) (represented by: J. Fusbahn and D. Dawirs, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nube, SL (Ibiza, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark Lío in golden yellow and black colour — European Union trade mark No 17 225 939

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 June 2021 in Case R 1220/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and, consequently, the decision of the Cancellation Division of 28 April 2020 (Invalidity No. 000025781 C); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and, consequently, the decision of the Cancellation Division of 28 April 2020 (Invalidity No. 000025781 C);

| — | reject the application for a declaration of invalidity and keep the contested trademark registration No. 17 225 939 registered; |
| --- | --- |

—

reject the application for a declaration of invalidity and keep the contested trademark registration No. 17 225 939 registered;

| — | decide that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the EUIPO and Nube, SL. |
| --- | --- |

—

decide that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the EUIPO and Nube, SL.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 20.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/32

---

Action brought on 4 August 2021 — RTE v ACER

(Case T-472/21)

(2021/C 382/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: RTE Réseau de transport de l’électricité (Paris, France) (represented by: M. Levitt, lawyer, B. Byrne, Solicitor, and D. Vasbeck, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul, insofar as it concerns the applicant, the defendant’s Board of Appeal Decision A-001-2021 (consolidated) of 28 May 2021 (the ‘Decision’) upholding the defendant’s Decision 30/2020 of 30 November 2020; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul, insofar as it concerns the applicant, the defendant’s Board of Appeal Decision A-001-2021 (consolidated) of 28 May 2021 (the ‘Decision’) upholding the defendant’s Decision 30/2020 of 30 November 2020;

| — | Grant the relief sought by the Applicant in its Notice of Appeal before the defendant’s Board of Appeal; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Grant the relief sought by the Applicant in its Notice of Appeal before the defendant’s Board of Appeal; and

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Decision is vitiated by an error of law because, in upholding the defendant’s Decision 30/2020 of 30 November 2020, the defendant’s Board of Appeal unlawfully extended the scope of Article 16(13), Electricity Regulation (1) as well as Article 74, CACM (2), and breached the fundamental principle of conferral laid down in Article 5(2) of the TEU. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Decision is vitiated by an error of law because, in upholding the defendant’s Decision 30/2020 of 30 November 2020, the defendant’s Board of Appeal unlawfully extended the scope of Article 16(13), Electricity Regulation (1) as well as Article 74, CACM (2), and breached the fundamental principle of conferral laid down in Article 5(2) of the TEU.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Decision is vitiated by an error of law because the defendant’s Board of Appeal incorrectly interpreted the relevant legal framework and failed to correctly apply the requisite parameters for adopting a common methodology for cost sharing of redispatching and countertrading for the Core capacity calculation region. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Decision is vitiated by an error of law because the defendant’s Board of Appeal incorrectly interpreted the relevant legal framework and failed to correctly apply the requisite parameters for adopting a common methodology for cost sharing of redispatching and countertrading for the Core capacity calculation region.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Decision violates the principle of good administration and the obligation to state reasons, and fails to discharge the legal obligations of the defendant’s Board of Appeal as an appeal board. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Decision violates the principle of good administration and the obligation to state reasons, and fails to discharge the legal obligations of the defendant’s Board of Appeal as an appeal board.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Decision is vitiated by an error in law because the defendant’s Board of Appeal wrongly interpreted and applied Article 3 of Regulation (3) and related provisions and principles of EU law governing the languages in which the defendant is required to issue its decisions, including Article 342 TFEU, Article 3(3) TEU, Article 22 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, Article 44(1) of the ACER Regulation (4), the principle of legal certainty, and the rights of defence. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Decision is vitiated by an error in law because the defendant’s Board of Appeal wrongly interpreted and applied Article 3 of Regulation (3) and related provisions and principles of EU law governing the languages in which the defendant is required to issue its decisions, including Article 342 TFEU, Article 3(3) TEU, Article 22 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, Article 44(1) of the ACER Regulation (4), the principle of legal certainty, and the rights of defence.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) 2019/943 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019 on the internal market for electricity (OJ 2019, L 158, p. 54).

(2)  Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/1222 of 24 July 2015 establishing a guideline on capacity allocation and congestion management (OJ 2015, L 197, p. 24).

(3)  Council Regulation No 1 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community (OJ 1958, P 17, p. 385) as amended most recently by Council Regulation 517/2013 of 13 May 2013 (OJ 2013 L 158, p. 1).

(4)  Regulation (EU) 2019/942 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019 establishing a European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (recast) (OJ 2019 L 158, p. 22).

---

| 20.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/33

---

Action brought on 4 August 2021 — Schenk Italia v EUIPO — Consorzio per la tutela dei vini Valpolicella (AMICONE)

(Case T-474/21)

(2021/C 382/46)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Schenk Italia SpA (Ora, Italy) (represented by: D. Caneva and M. Lucchini, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Consorzio per la tutela dei vini Valpolicella (San Pietro in Cariano, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark AMICONE — European Union trade mark No 11 005 725

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 June 2021 in Case R 2885/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | find and declare that the European Union mark AMICONE No 11 005 725 does not constitute an evocation of the PDO ‘Amarone della Valpolicella’ for the purposes of Article 103(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, (1) that it is not caught by any of the other absolute and relative grounds for invalidity raised by the Consorzio per la tutela dei vini Valpolicella and that it is therefore valid; |
| --- | --- |

—

find and declare that the European Union mark AMICONE No 11 005 725 does not constitute an evocation of the PDO ‘Amarone della Valpolicella’ for the purposes of Article 103(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, (1) that it is not caught by any of the other absolute and relative grounds for invalidity raised by the Consorzio per la tutela dei vini Valpolicella and that it is therefore valid;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those of the Consorzio per la tutela dei vini Valpolicella and any other interveners. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those of the Consorzio per la tutela dei vini Valpolicella and any other interveners.

Pleas in law

| — | Incorrect identification of the significant part of the PDO ‘Amarone della Valpolicella’ for the purposes of the application of Article 103(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013; |
| --- | --- |

—

Incorrect identification of the significant part of the PDO ‘Amarone della Valpolicella’ for the purposes of the application of Article 103(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013;

| — | Incorrect application of Article 103(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 as regards the assessment of the evocation of the PDO by the contested mark; |
| --- | --- |

—

Incorrect application of Article 103(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 as regards the assessment of the evocation of the PDO by the contested mark;

| — | Incorrect application of Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council read in conjunction with Article 27(4) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625; |
| --- | --- |

—

Incorrect application of Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council read in conjunction with Article 27(4) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;

| — | The mark AMICONE is not caught by any other absolute or relative ground for invalidity relied on by the Consorzio per la tutela dei vini Valpolicella. |
| --- | --- |

—

The mark AMICONE is not caught by any other absolute or relative ground for invalidity relied on by the Consorzio per la tutela dei vini Valpolicella.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 671).

---

| 20.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/34

---

Action brought on 9 August 2021 — Glaxo Group v EUIPO — Cipla Europe (Shape of an inhaler)

(Case T-477/21)

(2021/C 382/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Glaxo Group Ltd (Brentford, United Kingdom) (represented by: T. de Haan and F. Verhoestraete, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cipla Europe NV (Antwerp, Belgium)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union tridimensional mark (Shape of an inhaler) — European Union trade mark No 2 179 562

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 May 2021 in Case R 1835/2016-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and the intervener to bear the costs, including those incurred by the applicant before the Office’s First Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the intervener to bear the costs, including those incurred by the applicant before the Office’s First Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Articles 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) 40/94; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) 40/94;

| — | Infringement of Article 52(2) of Council Regulation (EC) 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 52(2) of Council Regulation (EC) 207/2009.

---

| 20.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/35

---

Action brought on 9 August 2021 — Les Éditions P. Amaury v EUIPO — Golden Balls (BALLON D’OR)

(Case T-478/21)

(2021/C 382/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Les Éditions P. Amaury (Boulogne-Billancourt, France) (represented by: T. de Haan and M. Laborde, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Golden Balls Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark BALLON D’OR — European Union trade mark No 4 226 148

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 June 2021 in Case R 1073/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | partially set aside the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

partially set aside the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and the intervener to bear the costs, including those incurred by the applicant before the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the intervener to bear the costs, including those incurred by the applicant before the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) 207/2009.

---

| 20.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/35

---

Action brought on 9 August 2021 — TenneT TSO and TenneT TSO v ACER

(Case T-482/21)

(2021/C 382/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: TenneT TSO GmbH (Bayreuth, Germany), TenneT TSO BV (Arnhem, Netherlands) (represented by: D. Uwer, J. Meinzenbach, P. Rieger, R. Klein and S. Westphal, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision A-001-2021 (consolidated) of the Board of Appeal of ACER of 28 May 2021, which upholds ACER Decision 30/2020 of 30 November 2020 on the Core CCR TSOs’ proposal for the methodology for cost sharing of redispatching and countertrading (RDCTCS), in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision A-001-2021 (consolidated) of the Board of Appeal of ACER of 28 May 2021, which upholds ACER Decision 30/2020 of 30 November 2020 on the Core CCR TSOs’ proposal for the methodology for cost sharing of redispatching and countertrading (RDCTCS), in its entirety;

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

—

order the defendant to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the scope of the confirmed methodology for cost sharing of redispatching and countertrading costs is unlawful. According to this scope, in principle, ‘all’ network elements with a kilovolt level of 220 and higher shall be eligible for cost sharing under the Polluter Pays Principle under Article 16(13) of the Regulation (EU) 2019/943 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019 on the internal market for electricity (‘ER’). This is unlawful. The scope of the cost sharing methodology needs to comply with the capacity calculation process, according to which only network elements with a Power Transfer Distribution Factor (PTDF) of at least 5 % are technically feasible to limit cross-border trade and, thus, to require redispatching and countertrading measures of cross-border relevance.
  The contested decision has to be annulled, because it infringes, in particular, Article 16(13) ER and Article 74(2) and (4) of the Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/1222 of 24 July 2015 establishing a guideline on capacity allocation and congestion management (‘CACM Regulation’). The Board of Appeal mistakes that a legal basis is necessary to extend the cost sharing under the Polluter Pays Principle also to network elements with a Power Transfer Distribution Factor below 5 %. However, such legal basis does not exist. Moreover, including almost all network elements into the scope of the methodology in question infringes Article 74 CACM Regulation, because it results in wrong incentives and is incompatible with the statutory responsibilities and liabilities of the TSOs involved. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the scope of the confirmed methodology for cost sharing of redispatching and countertrading costs is unlawful. According to this scope, in principle, ‘all’ network elements with a kilovolt level of 220 and higher shall be eligible for cost sharing under the Polluter Pays Principle under Article 16(13) of the Regulation (EU) 2019/943 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019 on the internal market for electricity (‘ER’). This is unlawful. The scope of the cost sharing methodology needs to comply with the capacity calculation process, according to which only network elements with a Power Transfer Distribution Factor (PTDF) of at least 5 % are technically feasible to limit cross-border trade and, thus, to require redispatching and countertrading measures of cross-border relevance.

The contested decision has to be annulled, because it infringes, in particular, Article 16(13) ER and Article 74(2) and (4) of the Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/1222 of 24 July 2015 establishing a guideline on capacity allocation and congestion management (‘CACM Regulation’). The Board of Appeal mistakes that a legal basis is necessary to extend the cost sharing under the Polluter Pays Principle also to network elements with a Power Transfer Distribution Factor below 5 %. However, such legal basis does not exist. Moreover, including almost all network elements into the scope of the methodology in question infringes Article 74 CACM Regulation, because it results in wrong incentives and is incompatible with the statutory responsibilities and liabilities of the TSOs involved.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision has to be annulled because the Board of Appeal unlawfully confirmed the Power Flow Colouring Method (‘PFC’) as the applicable flow decomposition method for the methodology in question.
  The PFC conflicts with the objective of Article 16(13) ER to establish the Polluter Pays Principle. The PFC is not based on actual physical flows, but rather on virtual market results. However, it is commonly known that physical flows deviate from market results. Therefore, the outcome of the PFC does not allow to reliably identify the actual causer of a respective congestion. As a result, the PFC also fails to set correct incentives to manage congestions, remedial actions and efficient investments contrary to Article 74 CACM Regulation. Further, the Board of Appeal did not duly assess the technical aspects which result in the unlawfulness of the PFC and draw implausible conclusions from incapable evidence.
  With regard to flow decomposition, the Board of Appeal also unlawfully confirmed specific assumptions which shall only apply to the flow decomposition process on HVDC network elements. These assumptions are physically unfounded, conflict with Article 16(13) ER and result in an increased cost allocation to HVDC network elements. Furthermore, these assumptions establish a discriminatory treatment of HVDC network elements as in relation to AC network elements. The Board of Appeal did not sufficiently assess these assumptions on HVDC network elements and draw implausible conclusions from incapable evidence. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision has to be annulled because the Board of Appeal unlawfully confirmed the Power Flow Colouring Method (‘PFC’) as the applicable flow decomposition method for the methodology in question.

The PFC conflicts with the objective of Article 16(13) ER to establish the Polluter Pays Principle. The PFC is not based on actual physical flows, but rather on virtual market results. However, it is commonly known that physical flows deviate from market results. Therefore, the outcome of the PFC does not allow to reliably identify the actual causer of a respective congestion. As a result, the PFC also fails to set correct incentives to manage congestions, remedial actions and efficient investments contrary to Article 74 CACM Regulation. Further, the Board of Appeal did not duly assess the technical aspects which result in the unlawfulness of the PFC and draw implausible conclusions from incapable evidence.

With regard to flow decomposition, the Board of Appeal also unlawfully confirmed specific assumptions which shall only apply to the flow decomposition process on HVDC network elements. These assumptions are physically unfounded, conflict with Article 16(13) ER and result in an increased cost allocation to HVDC network elements. Furthermore, these assumptions establish a discriminatory treatment of HVDC network elements as in relation to AC network elements. The Board of Appeal did not sufficiently assess these assumptions on HVDC network elements and draw implausible conclusions from incapable evidence.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision has to be annulled, because it unlawfully confirms a common loop flow threshold which ACER set to 10 % based on cost estimates. This contradicts Article 16(13) ER, because the threshold is not based on reliable factual data on the level of loop flows that would exist in the absence of structural congestions. ACER was not competent to determine a threshold of 10 %. The threshold also disregards Article 16(8) ER according to which Transmission System Operators may use up to 30 % for internal flows, reliability margin and loop flows. Moreover, the assessment of the Board of Appeal is
  based on factual errors and sets wrong incentives for network investments contrary to Article 74 CACM Regulation. Furthermore, the Board of Appeal committed a legal error by assuming that Article 16(13) ER would require a loop flow threshold only per bidding zone instead of per bidding zone borders. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision has to be annulled, because it unlawfully confirms a common loop flow threshold which ACER set to 10 % based on cost estimates. This contradicts Article 16(13) ER, because the threshold is not based on reliable factual data on the level of loop flows that would exist in the absence of structural congestions. ACER was not competent to determine a threshold of 10 %. The threshold also disregards Article 16(8) ER according to which Transmission System Operators may use up to 30 % for internal flows, reliability margin and loop flows. Moreover, the assessment of the Board of Appeal is

based on factual errors and sets wrong incentives for network investments contrary to Article 74 CACM Regulation. Furthermore, the Board of Appeal committed a legal error by assuming that Article 16(13) ER would require a loop flow threshold only per bidding zone instead of per bidding zone borders.

---

| 20.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/37

---

Order of the General Court of 13 July 2021– PZ v Commission.

(Case T-49/21) (1)

(2021/C 382/50)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  C 128, 12.4.2021.

---