# Official Journal C 148/26 A

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 148 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6426 April 2021 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 148

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6426 April 2021

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2021/C 148/01 | 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 148/01

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 148/02 | Case C-746/18: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 2 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus — Estonia) — Criminal proceedings against H.K. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Processing of personal data in the electronic communications sector — Directive 2002/58/EC — Providers of electronic communications services — Confidentiality of the communications — Limitations — Article 15(1) — Articles 7, 8 and 11 and Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Legislation providing for the general and indiscriminate retention of traffic and location data by providers of electronic communications services — Access of national authorities to retained data for the purpose of investigations — Combating of crime in general — Authorisation given by the public prosecutor’s office — Use of data in criminal proceedings as evidence — Admissibility) | 2 |
| 2021/C 148/03 | Case C-824/18: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 2 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — A.B., C.D., E.F., G.H., I.J. v Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 2 and the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU — Rule of law — Effective judicial protection — Principle of judicial independence — Procedure for appointment to a position as judge at the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court, Poland) — Appointment by the President of the Republic of Poland on the basis of a resolution emanating from the National Council of the Judiciary — Lack of independence of that council — Lack of effectiveness of the judicial remedy available against such a resolution — Judgment of the Trybunał Konstytucyjny (Constitutional Court, Poland) repealing the provision on which the referring court’s jurisdiction is based — Adoption of legislation declaring the discontinuance of pending cases by operation of law and precluding in the future any judicial remedy in such cases — Article 267 TFEU — Option and/or obligation for national courts to make a reference for a preliminary ruling and to maintain that reference — Article 4(3) TEU — Principle of sincere cooperation — Primacy of EU law — Power to disapply national provisions which do not comply with EU law) | 3 |
| 2021/C 148/04 | Case C-425/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 2 March 2021 — European Commission v Italian Republic, Banca Popolare di Bari Società Cooperativa per Azioni, Fondo interbancario di tutela dei depositi, Banca d’Italia (Appeal — State aid — Measures adopted by a consortium of banks governed by private law for the benefit of one of its members — Measures authorised by the Central Bank of the Member State — Concept of State aid — Whether imputable to the State — State resources — Evidence supporting the conclusion that a measure is imputable — Distortion of elements of fact and of law — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market) | 4 |
| 2021/C 148/05 | Case C-329/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Słupsku (Poland) lodged on 22 July 2020 — Raiffeisen Bank International AG v UI and MB | 5 |
| 2021/C 148/06 | Case C-653/20 P: Appeal brought on 2 December 2020 by the European Union Intellectual Property Office against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 23 September 2020 in Case T-174/19, Guillaume Vincenti v EUIPO | 5 |
| 2021/C 148/07 | Case C-16/21 P: Appeal brought on 7 January 2021 by the Republic of Estonia against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 October 2020 in Case T-594/18, Pharma Mar v European Commission | 6 |
| 2021/C 148/08 | Case C-30/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Lennestadt (Germany) lodged on 19 January 2021 — Nemzeti Útdíjfizetési Szolgáltató Zrt., National Toll Payment Services PLC v NW | 7 |
| 2021/C 148/09 | Case C-57/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud České republiky (Czech Republic) lodged on 1 February 2021 — RegioJet a.s. | 7 |
| 2021/C 148/10 | Case C-85/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark (Austria) lodged on 11 February 2021 — WY | 8 |
| 2021/C 148/11 | Case C-101/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 18 February 2021 — HJ | 9 |
| 2021/C 148/12 | Case C-104/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Úřad pro přístup k dopravní infrastruktuře (Czech Republic) lodged on 19 February 2021 — RegioJet a.s. v České dráhy a.s. | 9 |
| 2021/C 148/13 | Case C-113/21 P: Appeal brought on 23 February 2021 by Maen Haikal against the judgment of the General Court delivered on 16 December 2020 in Case T-189/19, Maen Haikal v Council of the European Union | 10 |
| 2021/C 148/14 | Case C-125/21: Action brought on 26 February 2021 — European Commission v Ireland | 11 |
| 2021/C 148/15 | Case C-126/21: Action brought on 26 February 2021 — European Commission v Ireland | 11 |
| 2021/C 148/16 | Case C-137/21: Action brought on 4 March 2021 — European Parliament v European Commission | 12 |
| 2021/C 148/17 | Case C-166/21: Action brought on 12 March 2021 — European Commission v Republic of Poland | 13 |
| | General Court |
| 2021/C 148/18 | Case T-108/18: Judgment of the General Court of 24 February 2021 — Universität Koblenz-Landau v EACEA (Arbitration clause — Tempus IV Programmes — Grant agreements — Contractual nature of the dispute — Reclassification of the action — Eligible costs — Systemic and recurrent irregularities — Full repayment of amounts paid — Proportionality — Right to be heard — Obligation to state reasons — Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights) | 14 |
| 2021/C 148/19 | Case T-606/18: Judgment of the General Court of 24 February 2021 — Universität Koblenz-Landau v EACEA (Arbitration clause — Tempus Programmes — Grant agreement — Eligible costs — Suspension of payments — Repayment of amounts paid — Obligation to state reasons) | 14 |
| 2021/C 148/20 | Case T-723/18: Judgment of the General Court of 3 March 2021 — Barata v Parliament (Civil service — Officials — Promotion — Certification procedure — Exclusion of the applicant from the final list of officials entitled to take part in the training programme — Article 45a of the Staff Regulations — Action for annulment — Communication by registered letter — Article 26 of the Staff Regulations — Registered letter not collected by the person to whom it was addressed — Starting point of the period prescribed for instituting proceedings — Admissibility — Obligation to state reasons — Right to be heard — Principle of sound administration — Proportionality — Rules on the use of languages) | 15 |
| 2021/C 148/21 | Case T-599/19: Judgment of the General Court of 3 March 2021 — EM v Parliament (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Psychological harassment — Request for assistance — Rejection of the request — Retirement — Duty to provide assistance — Principle of sound administration — Duty to have regard for the welfare of staff) | 16 |
| 2021/C 148/22 | Case T-48/20: Judgment of the General Court of 3 March 2021 — Sahaj Marg Spirituality Foundation v EUIPO (Heartfulness) (EU trade mark — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark Heartfulness — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 16 |
| 2021/C 148/23 | Case T-753/19: Order of the General Court of 16 February 2021 — Ungureanu v Commission (Action for damages — Law governing the institutions — Alleged unlawfulness stemming from the failure to bring an action for a declaration of a failure to fulfil obligations under Article 258 TFEU — Discretionary power of the Commission — Action manifestly inadmissible) | 17 |
| 2021/C 148/24 | Case T-567/20: Order of the General Court of 17 February 2021 — ML v Commission (Action for annulment and for damages — Public procurement — Call for tenders — Sustainable catering services for the Commission in Brussels and its surrounding areas — Rejection of the tender of a tenderer — Annulment of the call for tenders — No need to adjudicate) | 17 |
| 2021/C 148/25 | Case T-656/20 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 23 February 2021 — Symrise v ECHA (Application for interim relief — REACH — Homosalate substance — Compliance check of registrations — Obligation to provide certain information requiring animal testing — Application for interim measures — No urgency) | 18 |
| 2021/C 148/26 | Case T-37/21: Action brought on 19 January 2021 — KF v EIB | 18 |
| 2021/C 148/27 | Case T-71/21: Action brought on 2 February 2021 — QB v Commission | 19 |
| 2021/C 148/28 | Case T-83/21: Action brought on 5 February 2021 — Van Walle v ECDC | 20 |
| 2021/C 148/29 | Case T-96/21: Action brought on 16 February 2021 — Amort and Others v Commission | 21 |
| 2021/C 148/30 | Case T-97/21: Action brought on 16 February 2021 — Synesis v Council | 22 |
| 2021/C 148/31 | Case T-116/21: Action brought on 22 February 2021 — Maternus v EUIPO — adp Gauselmann (WILD) | 22 |
| 2021/C 148/32 | Case T-123/21: Action brought on 25 February 2021 — Stowarzyszenie chłodnictwa klimatyzacji i pomp ciepła v Commission | 23 |
| 2021/C 148/33 | Case T-125/21: Action brought on 27 February 2021 — Banco de Investimento Global v EUIPO — Banco BIC Português (EUROBIC) | 24 |
| 2021/C 148/34 | Case T-126/21: Action brought on 26 February 2021 — Nevinnomysskiy Azot and NAK Azot v Commission | 24 |
| 2021/C 148/35 | Case T-130/21: Action brought on 2 March 2021 — CCPL and Others v Commission | 25 |
| 2021/C 148/36 | Case T-132/21: Action brought on 3 March 2021 — Telefónica Germany v EUIPO (LOOP) | 26 |
| 2021/C 148/37 | Case T-136/21: Action brought on 5 March 2021 — Amort and Others v Commission | 27 |
| 2021/C 148/38 | Case T-142/21: Action brought on 7 March 2021 — WIZZ Air Hungary v Commission | 28 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2021/C 148/02

Case C-746/18: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 2 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus — Estonia) — Criminal proceedings against H.K. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Processing of personal data in the electronic communications sector — Directive 2002/58/EC — Providers of electronic communications services — Confidentiality of the communications — Limitations — Article 15(1) — Articles 7, 8 and 11 and Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Legislation providing for the general and indiscriminate retention of traffic and location data by providers of electronic communications services — Access of national authorities to retained data for the purpose of investigations — Combating of crime in general — Authorisation given by the public prosecutor’s office — Use of data in criminal proceedings as evidence — Admissibility)

2

2021/C 148/03

Case C-824/18: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 2 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — A.B., C.D., E.F., G.H., I.J. v Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 2 and the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU — Rule of law — Effective judicial protection — Principle of judicial independence — Procedure for appointment to a position as judge at the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court, Poland) — Appointment by the President of the Republic of Poland on the basis of a resolution emanating from the National Council of the Judiciary — Lack of independence of that council — Lack of effectiveness of the judicial remedy available against such a resolution — Judgment of the Trybunał Konstytucyjny (Constitutional Court, Poland) repealing the provision on which the referring court’s jurisdiction is based — Adoption of legislation declaring the discontinuance of pending cases by operation of law and precluding in the future any judicial remedy in such cases — Article 267 TFEU — Option and/or obligation for national courts to make a reference for a preliminary ruling and to maintain that reference — Article 4(3) TEU — Principle of sincere cooperation — Primacy of EU law — Power to disapply national provisions which do not comply with EU law)

3

2021/C 148/04

Case C-425/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 2 March 2021 — European Commission v Italian Republic, Banca Popolare di Bari Società Cooperativa per Azioni, Fondo interbancario di tutela dei depositi, Banca d’Italia (Appeal — State aid — Measures adopted by a consortium of banks governed by private law for the benefit of one of its members — Measures authorised by the Central Bank of the Member State — Concept of State aid — Whether imputable to the State — State resources — Evidence supporting the conclusion that a measure is imputable — Distortion of elements of fact and of law — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market)

4

2021/C 148/05

Case C-329/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Słupsku (Poland) lodged on 22 July 2020 — Raiffeisen Bank International AG v UI and MB

5

2021/C 148/06

Case C-653/20 P: Appeal brought on 2 December 2020 by the European Union Intellectual Property Office against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 23 September 2020 in Case T-174/19, Guillaume Vincenti v EUIPO

5

2021/C 148/07

Case C-16/21 P: Appeal brought on 7 January 2021 by the Republic of Estonia against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 October 2020 in Case T-594/18, Pharma Mar v European Commission

6

2021/C 148/08

Case C-30/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Lennestadt (Germany) lodged on 19 January 2021 — Nemzeti Útdíjfizetési Szolgáltató Zrt., National Toll Payment Services PLC v NW

7

2021/C 148/09

Case C-57/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud České republiky (Czech Republic) lodged on 1 February 2021 — RegioJet a.s.

7

2021/C 148/10

Case C-85/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark (Austria) lodged on 11 February 2021 — WY

8

2021/C 148/11

Case C-101/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 18 February 2021 — HJ

9

2021/C 148/12

Case C-104/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Úřad pro přístup k dopravní infrastruktuře (Czech Republic) lodged on 19 February 2021 — RegioJet a.s. v České dráhy a.s.

9

2021/C 148/13

Case C-113/21 P: Appeal brought on 23 February 2021 by Maen Haikal against the judgment of the General Court delivered on 16 December 2020 in Case T-189/19, Maen Haikal v Council of the European Union

10

2021/C 148/14

Case C-125/21: Action brought on 26 February 2021 — European Commission v Ireland

11

2021/C 148/15

Case C-126/21: Action brought on 26 February 2021 — European Commission v Ireland

11

2021/C 148/16

Case C-137/21: Action brought on 4 March 2021 — European Parliament v European Commission

12

2021/C 148/17

Case C-166/21: Action brought on 12 March 2021 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

13

General Court

2021/C 148/18

Case T-108/18: Judgment of the General Court of 24 February 2021 — Universität Koblenz-Landau v EACEA (Arbitration clause — Tempus IV Programmes — Grant agreements — Contractual nature of the dispute — Reclassification of the action — Eligible costs — Systemic and recurrent irregularities — Full repayment of amounts paid — Proportionality — Right to be heard — Obligation to state reasons — Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights)

14

2021/C 148/19

Case T-606/18: Judgment of the General Court of 24 February 2021 — Universität Koblenz-Landau v EACEA (Arbitration clause — Tempus Programmes — Grant agreement — Eligible costs — Suspension of payments — Repayment of amounts paid — Obligation to state reasons)

14

2021/C 148/20

Case T-723/18: Judgment of the General Court of 3 March 2021 — Barata v Parliament (Civil service — Officials — Promotion — Certification procedure — Exclusion of the applicant from the final list of officials entitled to take part in the training programme — Article 45a of the Staff Regulations — Action for annulment — Communication by registered letter — Article 26 of the Staff Regulations — Registered letter not collected by the person to whom it was addressed — Starting point of the period prescribed for instituting proceedings — Admissibility — Obligation to state reasons — Right to be heard — Principle of sound administration — Proportionality — Rules on the use of languages)

15

2021/C 148/21

Case T-599/19: Judgment of the General Court of 3 March 2021 — EM v Parliament (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Psychological harassment — Request for assistance — Rejection of the request — Retirement — Duty to provide assistance — Principle of sound administration — Duty to have regard for the welfare of staff)

16

2021/C 148/22

Case T-48/20: Judgment of the General Court of 3 March 2021 — Sahaj Marg Spirituality Foundation v EUIPO (Heartfulness) (EU trade mark — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark Heartfulness — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

16

2021/C 148/23

Case T-753/19: Order of the General Court of 16 February 2021 — Ungureanu v Commission (Action for damages — Law governing the institutions — Alleged unlawfulness stemming from the failure to bring an action for a declaration of a failure to fulfil obligations under Article 258 TFEU — Discretionary power of the Commission — Action manifestly inadmissible)

17

2021/C 148/24

Case T-567/20: Order of the General Court of 17 February 2021 — ML v Commission (Action for annulment and for damages — Public procurement — Call for tenders — Sustainable catering services for the Commission in Brussels and its surrounding areas — Rejection of the tender of a tenderer — Annulment of the call for tenders — No need to adjudicate)

17

2021/C 148/25

Case T-656/20 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 23 February 2021 — Symrise v ECHA (Application for interim relief — REACH — Homosalate substance — Compliance check of registrations — Obligation to provide certain information requiring animal testing — Application for interim measures — No urgency)

18

2021/C 148/26

Case T-37/21: Action brought on 19 January 2021 — KF v EIB

18

2021/C 148/27

Case T-71/21: Action brought on 2 February 2021 — QB v Commission

19

2021/C 148/28

Case T-83/21: Action brought on 5 February 2021 — Van Walle v ECDC

20

2021/C 148/29

Case T-96/21: Action brought on 16 February 2021 — Amort and Others v Commission

21

2021/C 148/30

Case T-97/21: Action brought on 16 February 2021 — Synesis v Council

22

2021/C 148/31

Case T-116/21: Action brought on 22 February 2021 — Maternus v EUIPO — adp Gauselmann (WILD)

22

2021/C 148/32

Case T-123/21: Action brought on 25 February 2021 — Stowarzyszenie chłodnictwa klimatyzacji i pomp ciepła v Commission

23

2021/C 148/33

Case T-125/21: Action brought on 27 February 2021 — Banco de Investimento Global v EUIPO — Banco BIC Português (EUROBIC)

24

2021/C 148/34

Case T-126/21: Action brought on 26 February 2021 — Nevinnomysskiy Azot and NAK Azot v Commission

24

2021/C 148/35

Case T-130/21: Action brought on 2 March 2021 — CCPL and Others v Commission

25

2021/C 148/36

Case T-132/21: Action brought on 3 March 2021 — Telefónica Germany v EUIPO (LOOP)

26

2021/C 148/37

Case T-136/21: Action brought on 5 March 2021 — Amort and Others v Commission

27

2021/C 148/38

Case T-142/21: Action brought on 7 March 2021 — WIZZ Air Hungary v Commission

28

---

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 26.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/1

---

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

(2021/C 148/01)

Last publication

OJ C 138, 19.4.2021

Past publications

OJ C 128, 12.4.2021

OJ C 110, 29.3.2021

OJ C 98, 22.3.2021

OJ C 88, 15.3.2021

OJ C 79, 8.3.2021

OJ C 72, 1.3.2021

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 26.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 2 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus — Estonia) — Criminal proceedings against H.K.

(Case C-746/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Processing of personal data in the electronic communications sector - Directive 2002/58/EC - Providers of electronic communications services - Confidentiality of the communications - Limitations - Article 15(1) - Articles 7, 8 and 11 and Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Legislation providing for the general and indiscriminate retention of traffic and location data by providers of electronic communications services - Access of national authorities to retained data for the purpose of investigations - Combating of crime in general - Authorisation given by the public prosecutor’s office - Use of data in criminal proceedings as evidence - Admissibility)

(2021/C 148/02)

Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Riigikohus

Parties in the main proceedings

H.K.

Other party: Prokuratuur

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications), as amended by Directive 2009/136/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009, read in the light of Articles 7, 8 and 11 and Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation that permits public authorities to have access to a set of traffic or location data, that are liable to provide information regarding the communications made by a user of a means of electronic communication or regarding the location of the terminal equipment which he or she uses and to allow precise conclusions to be drawn concerning his or her private life, for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences, without such access being confined to procedures and proceedings to combat serious crime or prevent serious threats to public security, and that is so regardless of the length of the period in respect of which access to those data is sought and the quantity or nature of the data available in respect of such a period. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications), as amended by Directive 2009/136/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009, read in the light of Articles 7, 8 and 11 and Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation that permits public authorities to have access to a set of traffic or location data, that are liable to provide information regarding the communications made by a user of a means of electronic communication or regarding the location of the terminal equipment which he or she uses and to allow precise conclusions to be drawn concerning his or her private life, for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences, without such access being confined to procedures and proceedings to combat serious crime or prevent serious threats to public security, and that is so regardless of the length of the period in respect of which access to those data is sought and the quantity or nature of the data available in respect of such a period.

| 2. | Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58, as amended by Directive 2009/136, read in the light of Articles 7, 8 and 11 and Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation that confers upon the public prosecutor’s office, whose task is to direct the criminal pre-trial procedure and to bring, where appropriate, the public prosecution in subsequent proceedings, the power to authorise access of a public authority to traffic and location data for the purposes of a criminal investigation. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58, as amended by Directive 2009/136, read in the light of Articles 7, 8 and 11 and Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation that confers upon the public prosecutor’s office, whose task is to direct the criminal pre-trial procedure and to bring, where appropriate, the public prosecution in subsequent proceedings, the power to authorise access of a public authority to traffic and location data for the purposes of a criminal investigation.

---

(1)  OJ C 54, 11.2.2019.

---

| 26.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 2 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — A.B., C.D., E.F., G.H., I.J. v Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa

(Case C-824/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 2 and the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU - Rule of law - Effective judicial protection - Principle of judicial independence - Procedure for appointment to a position as judge at the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court, Poland) - Appointment by the President of the Republic of Poland on the basis of a resolution emanating from the National Council of the Judiciary - Lack of independence of that council - Lack of effectiveness of the judicial remedy available against such a resolution - Judgment of the Trybunał Konstytucyjny (Constitutional Court, Poland) repealing the provision on which the referring court’s jurisdiction is based - Adoption of legislation declaring the discontinuance of pending cases by operation of law and precluding in the future any judicial remedy in such cases - Article 267 TFEU - Option and/or obligation for national courts to make a reference for a preliminary ruling and to maintain that reference - Article 4(3) TEU - Principle of sincere cooperation - Primacy of EU law - Power to disapply national provisions which do not comply with EU law)

(2021/C 148/03)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: A.B., C.D., E.F., G.H., I.J.

Defendant: Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa

Intervening parties: Prokurator Generalny, Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Where amendments are made to the national legal system which, first, deprive a national court of its jurisdiction to rule in the first and last instance on appeals lodged by candidates for positions as judges at a court such as the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court, Poland) against decisions of a body such as the Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa (National Council of the Judiciary, Poland) not to put forward their application, but to put forward that of other candidates to the President of the Republic of Poland for appointment to such positions, which, secondly, declare such appeals to be discontinued by operation of law while they are still pending, ruling out the possibility of their being continued or lodged again, and which, thirdly, in so doing, deprive such a national court of the possibility of obtaining an answer to the questions that it has referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling:






  — | Article 267 TFEU and Article 4(3) TEU must be interpreted as precluding such amendments where it is apparent — a matter which it is for the referring court to assess on the basis of all the relevant factors — that those amendments have had the specific effects of preventing the Court from ruling on questions referred for a preliminary ruling such as those put to it by that court and of precluding any possibility of a national court repeating in the future questions similar to those questions; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Where amendments are made to the national legal system which, first, deprive a national court of its jurisdiction to rule in the first and last instance on appeals lodged by candidates for positions as judges at a court such as the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court, Poland) against decisions of a body such as the Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa (National Council of the Judiciary, Poland) not to put forward their application, but to put forward that of other candidates to the President of the Republic of Poland for appointment to such positions, which, secondly, declare such appeals to be discontinued by operation of law while they are still pending, ruling out the possibility of their being continued or lodged again, and which, thirdly, in so doing, deprive such a national court of the possibility of obtaining an answer to the questions that it has referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling:

—

Article 267 TFEU and Article 4(3) TEU must be interpreted as precluding such amendments where it is apparent — a matter which it is for the referring court to assess on the basis of all the relevant factors — that those amendments have had the specific effects of preventing the Court from ruling on questions referred for a preliminary ruling such as those put to it by that court and of precluding any possibility of a national court repeating in the future questions similar to those questions;

| — | the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU must be interpreted as precluding such amendments where it is apparent — a matter which it is for the referring court to assess on the basis of all the relevant factors — that those amendments are capable of giving rise to legitimate doubts, in the minds of subjects of the law, as to the imperviousness of the judges appointed, by the President of the Republic of Poland, on the basis of those decisions of the Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa (National Council of the Judiciary), to external factors, in particular, to the direct or indirect influence of the legislature and the executive, and as to their neutrality with respect to the interests before them and, thus, may lead to those judges not being seen to be independent or impartial with the consequence of prejudicing the trust which justice in a democratic society governed by the rule of law must inspire in subjects of the law. |
| --- | --- |

—

the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU must be interpreted as precluding such amendments where it is apparent — a matter which it is for the referring court to assess on the basis of all the relevant factors — that those amendments are capable of giving rise to legitimate doubts, in the minds of subjects of the law, as to the imperviousness of the judges appointed, by the President of the Republic of Poland, on the basis of those decisions of the Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa (National Council of the Judiciary), to external factors, in particular, to the direct or indirect influence of the legislature and the executive, and as to their neutrality with respect to the interests before them and, thus, may lead to those judges not being seen to be independent or impartial with the consequence of prejudicing the trust which justice in a democratic society governed by the rule of law must inspire in subjects of the law.

Where it is proved that those articles have been infringed, the principle of primacy of EU law must be interpreted as requiring the referring court to disapply the amendments at issue, whether they are of a legislative or constitutional origin, and, consequently, to continue to assume the jurisdiction previously vested in it to hear disputes referred to it before those amendments were made.

| 2. | The second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU must be interpreted as precluding provisions amending the state of national law in force under which:






  — | notwithstanding the fact that a candidate for a position as judge at a court such as the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court) lodges an appeal against the decision of a body such as the Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa (National Council of the Judiciary) not to accept his or her application, but to put forward that of other candidates to the President of the Republic of Poland, that decision is final inasmuch as it puts forward those other candidates, with the result that that appeal does not preclude the appointment of those other candidates by the President of the Republic of Poland and that any annulment of that decision inasmuch as it did not put forward the appellant for appointment may not lead to a fresh assessment of the appellant’s situation for the purposes of any assignment of the position concerned, and. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

The second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU must be interpreted as precluding provisions amending the state of national law in force under which:

—

notwithstanding the fact that a candidate for a position as judge at a court such as the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court) lodges an appeal against the decision of a body such as the Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa (National Council of the Judiciary) not to accept his or her application, but to put forward that of other candidates to the President of the Republic of Poland, that decision is final inasmuch as it puts forward those other candidates, with the result that that appeal does not preclude the appointment of those other candidates by the President of the Republic of Poland and that any annulment of that decision inasmuch as it did not put forward the appellant for appointment may not lead to a fresh assessment of the appellant’s situation for the purposes of any assignment of the position concerned, and.

| — | moreover, such an appeal may not be based on an allegation that there was an incorrect assessment of the candidates’ fulfilment of the criteria taken into account when a decision on the presentation of the proposal for appointment was made, |
| --- | --- |

—

moreover, such an appeal may not be based on an allegation that there was an incorrect assessment of the candidates’ fulfilment of the criteria taken into account when a decision on the presentation of the proposal for appointment was made,

where it is apparent — a matter which it is for the referring court to assess on the basis of all the relevant factors — that those provisions are capable of giving rise to legitimate doubts, in the minds of subjects of the law, as to the imperviousness of the judges thus appointed, by the President of the Republic of Poland, on the basis of the decisions of the Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa (National Council of the Judiciary), to external factors, in particular, to the direct or indirect influence of the legislature and the executive, and as to their neutrality with respect to the interests before them and, thus, may lead to those judges not being seen to be independent or impartial with the consequence of prejudicing the trust which justice in a democratic society governed by the rule of law must inspire in subjects of the law.

Where it is proved that the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU has been infringed, the principle of primacy of EU law must be interpreted as requiring the referring court to disapply those provisions and to apply instead the national provisions previously in force while itself exercising the judicial review envisaged by those latter provisions.

---

(1)  OJ C 164, 13.5.2019.

---

| 26.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 2 March 2021 — European Commission v Italian Republic, Banca Popolare di Bari Società Cooperativa per Azioni, Fondo interbancario di tutela dei depositi, Banca d’Italia

(Case C-425/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Measures adopted by a consortium of banks governed by private law for the benefit of one of its members - Measures authorised by the Central Bank of the Member State - Concept of ‘State aid’ - Whether imputable to the State - State resources - Evidence supporting the conclusion that a measure is imputable - Distortion of elements of fact and of law - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market)

(2021/C 148/04)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: P. Stancanelli, L. Flynn, A. Bouchagiar and by D. Recchia, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, P. Gentili and S. Fiorentino, avvocati dello Stato), Banca Popolare di Bari SCpA, formerly Tercas-Cassa di risparmio della provincia di Teramo SpA (Banca Tercas SpA) (represented initially by A. Santa Maria, M. Crisostomo, E. Gambaro and F. Mazzocchi, avvocati, and subsequently by A. Santa Maria, M. Crisostomo and E. Gambaro, avvocati), Fondo interbancario di tutela dei depositi (represented by: M. Siragusa, G. Scassellati Sforzolini, G. Faella and A. Comino, avvocati), Banca d’Italia (represented by: M. Perassi, M. Todino, L. Sciotto and O. Capolino, avvocati)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

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

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 238, 15.7.2019.

---

| 26.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/5

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Słupsku (Poland) lodged on 22 July 2020 — Raiffeisen Bank International AG v UI and MB

(Case C-329/20)

(2021/C 148/05)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Słupsku

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Raiffeisen Bank International AG

Defendants: UI and MB

By order of 11 February 2021, the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) ruled that the request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Słupsku (Poland) lodged on 22 July 2020 is manifestly inadmissible.

---

| 26.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/5

---

Appeal brought on 2 December 2020 by the European Union Intellectual Property Office against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 23 September 2020 in Case T-174/19, Guillaume Vincenti v EUIPO

(Case C-653/20 P)

(2021/C 148/06)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Lukošiūtė and K. Tóth, acting as Agents, B. Wägenbaur, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: Guillaume Vincenti

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| 1. | set aside the judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2020 in Case T-174/19, Guillaume Vincenti v EUIPO; |
| --- | --- |

1.

set aside the judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2020 in Case T-174/19, Guillaume Vincenti v EUIPO;

| 2. | order the applicant to pay the costs, including those relating to the proceedings at first instance. |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the applicant to pay the costs, including those relating to the proceedings at first instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appeal is based on two grounds of appeal:

First, the General Court misapplied Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union by ruling that the official must be heard before a decision not to promote him is taken.

On the one hand, the General Court failed to recognise that there is no subjective right to promotion and that non-promotion does not constitute an infringement of rights.

On the other hand, the General Court also failed to recognise that non-promotion is not comparable to a punitive administrative act.

Second, the General Court held that it cannot be excluded that the decision could reasonably have led to a different result if EUIPO had heard the official beforehand. In that regard, there is a failure to state reasons because the General Court did not examine the applicant’s arguments.

---

| 26.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/6

---

Appeal brought on 7 January 2021 by the Republic of Estonia against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 October 2020 in Case T-594/18, Pharma Mar v European Commission

(Case C-16/21 P)

(2021/C 148/07)

Language of the case: Estonian

Parties

Appellant: Republic of Estonia (represented by: N. Grünberg)

Other parties to the proceedings: Pharma Mar, SA (represented by: M. Merola and V. Salvatore), European Commission (represented by: L. Haasbeek and A. Sipos)

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court of 28 October 2020; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of 28 October 2020;

| — | order each of the parties to bear their own costs incurred in the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order each of the parties to bear their own costs incurred in the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Republic of Estonia puts forward the following arguments:

| 1. | The General Court misconstrued the requirement of impartiality laid down in Article 63 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 (1) by finding that, in respect of experts who participate in the work of a scientific advisory group (SAG), owing to the mere fact that they are in an employment relationship with a university hospital, any legitimate doubt as to possible bias that may exist in respect of their impartiality cannot be excluded. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The General Court misconstrued the requirement of impartiality laid down in Article 63 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 (1) by finding that, in respect of experts who participate in the work of a scientific advisory group (SAG), owing to the mere fact that they are in an employment relationship with a university hospital, any legitimate doubt as to possible bias that may exist in respect of their impartiality cannot be excluded.

| 2. | First, when examining the principle of impartiality within the meaning of Article 63 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, the General Court erred in finding that a university hospital can, as a whole, be equated with a pharmaceutical company. |
| --- | --- |

2.

First, when examining the principle of impartiality within the meaning of Article 63 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, the General Court erred in finding that a university hospital can, as a whole, be equated with a pharmaceutical company.

| 3. | Second, when examining the principle of impartiality the General Court made a manifest error of assessment in the evaluation of the rival medicinal product and the connection between the expert and the manufacture of the ‘rival medicinal product’. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Second, when examining the principle of impartiality the General Court made a manifest error of assessment in the evaluation of the rival medicinal product and the connection between the expert and the manufacture of the ‘rival medicinal product’.

| 4. | Third, when examining the principle of impartiality the General Court erred by failing properly to assess the connection between the experts concerned and the cell therapy centre and the experts’ influence on the SAG’s decisions. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Third, when examining the principle of impartiality the General Court erred by failing properly to assess the connection between the experts concerned and the cell therapy centre and the experts’ influence on the SAG’s decisions.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 1).

---

| 26.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/7

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Lennestadt (Germany) lodged on 19 January 2021 — Nemzeti Útdíjfizetési Szolgáltató Zrt., National Toll Payment Services PLC v NW

(Case C-30/21)

(2021/C 148/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Lennestadt

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Nemzeti Útdíjfizetési Szolgáltató Zrt., National Toll Payment Services PLC

Defendant: NW

Question referred

Is Article 1(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters to be interpreted as meaning that judicial proceedings brought by a State-owned company against a natural person domiciled in another Member State, for the purposes of recovering a debt, which is punitive in nature, for the unauthorised use of a toll road, come within the scope of that regulation?

---

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

---

| 26.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/7

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud České republiky (Czech Republic) lodged on 1 February 2021 — RegioJet a.s.

(Case C-57/21)

(2021/C 148/09)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší soud České republiky

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: České dráhy, a.s.

Other parties to the proceedings: RegioJet a.s., Česká republika — Ministerstvo dopravy

Questions referred

| 1. | Is an approach whereby a court decides to impose the obligation to disclose evidence, even though proceedings are at the same time being conducted by the Commission for the purposes of the adoption of a decision pursuant to Chapter III of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1) of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (‘the Regulation’), due to which proceedings concerning an action for damages caused by a breach of competition legislation have been suspended on that ground by a court, consistent with the interpretation of Article 5(1) of Directive 2014/104/EU (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 November 2014 on certain rules governing actions for damages under national law for infringements of the competition law provisions of the Member States and of the European Union (‘the Directive’)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is an approach whereby a court decides to impose the obligation to disclose evidence, even though proceedings are at the same time being conducted by the Commission for the purposes of the adoption of a decision pursuant to Chapter III of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1) of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (‘the Regulation’), due to which proceedings concerning an action for damages caused by a breach of competition legislation have been suspended on that ground by a court, consistent with the interpretation of Article 5(1) of Directive 2014/104/EU (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 November 2014 on certain rules governing actions for damages under national law for infringements of the competition law provisions of the Member States and of the European Union (‘the Directive’)?

| 2. | Does the interpretation of Article 6(5)(a) and Article 6(9) of the Directive preclude national legislation that restricts the disclosure of all information submitted in the course of proceedings at the request of a competition authority, even if the information concerned is such that a party is obliged to create and keep (or creates and keeps) it on the basis of other legislation, regardless of the proceedings concerning a breach of the competition legislation? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the interpretation of Article 6(5)(a) and Article 6(9) of the Directive preclude national legislation that restricts the disclosure of all information submitted in the course of proceedings at the request of a competition authority, even if the information concerned is such that a party is obliged to create and keep (or creates and keeps) it on the basis of other legislation, regardless of the proceedings concerning a breach of the competition legislation?

| 3. | Can the closure of proceedings ‘otherwise’, within the meaning of Article 6(5) of the Directive, consist of the fact that a national competition authority suspended its proceedings as soon as the European Commission commenced proceedings for the purposes of adopting a decision pursuant to Chapter III of the Regulation? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Can the closure of proceedings ‘otherwise’, within the meaning of Article 6(5) of the Directive, consist of the fact that a national competition authority suspended its proceedings as soon as the European Commission commenced proceedings for the purposes of adopting a decision pursuant to Chapter III of the Regulation?

| 4. | Having regard to the purpose and goals of the Directive, is an approach by a national court whereby it analogously applies national legislation implementing Article 6(7) of the Directive to a category of information such as information pursuant to Article 6(5) of the Directive, that is to say, it decides to order the disclosure of evidence with the proviso that the question whether the evidence contains information that was prepared by a natural or legal person specifically for the proceedings of a competition authority (within the meaning of Article 6(5) of the Directive) is to be examined only after the evidence is disclosed to the court, compliant with Article 5(1) of the Directive in conjunction with Article 6(5) thereof? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Having regard to the purpose and goals of the Directive, is an approach by a national court whereby it analogously applies national legislation implementing Article 6(7) of the Directive to a category of information such as information pursuant to Article 6(5) of the Directive, that is to say, it decides to order the disclosure of evidence with the proviso that the question whether the evidence contains information that was prepared by a natural or legal person specifically for the proceedings of a competition authority (within the meaning of Article 6(5) of the Directive) is to be examined only after the evidence is disclosed to the court, compliant with Article 5(1) of the Directive in conjunction with Article 6(5) thereof?

| 5. | If the reply to the previous question is in the affirmative, must Article 5(4) of the Directive be interpreted such that effective measures for the protection of confidential information adopted by a court may, before a final evaluation by the court as to whether the evidence disclosed, or any part thereof, falls into the category of evidence under Article 6(5)(a) of the Directive, exclude access to the disclosed evidence by the applicant or other parties to the proceedings and their representatives? |
| --- | --- |

5.

If the reply to the previous question is in the affirmative, must Article 5(4) of the Directive be interpreted such that effective measures for the protection of confidential information adopted by a court may, before a final evaluation by the court as to whether the evidence disclosed, or any part thereof, falls into the category of evidence under Article 6(5)(a) of the Directive, exclude access to the disclosed evidence by the applicant or other parties to the proceedings and their representatives?

---

(1)  OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1.

(2)  OJ 2014 L 349, p. 1.

---

| 26.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/8

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark (Austria) lodged on 11 February 2021 — WY

(Case C-85/21)

(2021/C 148/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: WY

Respondent authority: Steiermärkische Landesregierung

Question referred

Is Article 21 TFEU to be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of an ex lege loss of nationality provided for under national law, and the subsequent loss of citizenship of the Union, it is to be included in the examination of proportionality in each individual case in accordance with the principles of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Tjebbes and Others case (1) and is capable of constituting an obstacle to the loss of nationality in the case where a national has reacquired his or her previous nationality by means of a declaration of reacquisition, and the threatened loss of citizenship of the Union has a significant impact on his or her family life and professional life?

---

(1)  EU:C:2019:189.

---

| 26.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/9

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 18 February 2021 — HJ

(Case C-101/21)

(2021/C 148/11)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: HJ

Other party to the proceedings: Ministerstvo práce a sociálních věcí

Question referred

Does Article 2 of Directive 2008/94/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer, in conjunction with Article 12(a) and (c) thereof, preclude [the application of] national case-law according to which a CEO of a trading company is not deemed to be an ‘employee’ for the purpose of the satisfaction of pay claims pursuant to Directive 2008/94/EC, for the sole reason that the CEO as an employee is, at the same time, a member of the statutory body of the same trading company?

---

(1)  OJ 2008 L 283, p. 36.

---

| 26.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/9

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Úřad pro přístup k dopravní infrastruktuře (Czech Republic) lodged on 19 February 2021 — RegioJet a.s. v České dráhy a.s.

(Case C-104/21)

(2021/C 148/12)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Úřad pro přístup k dopravní infrastruktuře

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: RegioJet a.s.

Defendant: České dráhy a.s.

Questions referred

| 1. | Do information media featuring information for passengers in paper form that are placed on the premises of a railway station constitute a service facility, as defined by Article 3 [point] 11 of Directive 2012/34? (1) |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do information media featuring information for passengers in paper form that are placed on the premises of a railway station constitute a service facility, as defined by Article 3 [point] 11 of Directive 2012/34? (1)

| 2. | Is Directive 2012/34 binding for České dráhy, a.s., as the State in the broader sense of the word, pursuant to Article 288 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union? Can individuals rely on the direct effect of an incorrectly transposed or untransposed directive against České dráhy, a.s.? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is Directive 2012/34 binding for České dráhy, a.s., as the State in the broader sense of the word, pursuant to Article 288 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union? Can individuals rely on the direct effect of an incorrectly transposed or untransposed directive against České dráhy, a.s.?

---

(1)  Directive 2012/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 establishing a single European railway area (OJ 2012 L 343, p. 32).

---

| 26.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/10

---

Appeal brought on 23 February 2021 by Maen Haikal against the judgment of the General Court delivered on 16 December 2020 in Case T-189/19, Maen Haikal v Council of the European Union

(Case C-113/21 P)

(2021/C 148/13)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Appellant: Maen Haikal (represented by: S. Koev, advokat)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

| — | declare the present appeal to be admissible and well founded in its entirety and declare all the grounds of appeal set out in support of the present appeal to be well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the present appeal to be admissible and well founded in its entirety and declare all the grounds of appeal set out in support of the present appeal to be well founded;

| — | declare that the contested decision of the General Court under appeal may be annulled in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the contested decision of the General Court under appeal may be annulled in its entirety;

| — | annul in part Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2019/87 of 21 January 2019 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, in so far as they concern Mr Maen Haikal; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul in part Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2019/87 of 21 January 2019 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, in so far as they concern Mr Maen Haikal;

| — | annul in part Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/85 (1) of 21 January 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 (2) concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, in so far as they concern Mr Maen Haikal; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul in part Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/85 (1) of 21 January 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 (2) concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, in so far as they concern Mr Maen Haikal;

| — | annul in part Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/806 of 17 May 2019 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, in so far as it concerns Mr Maen Haikal; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul in part Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/806 of 17 May 2019 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, in so far as it concerns Mr Maen Haikal;

| — | annul in part Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/798 (3) of 17 May 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, in so far as it concerns Mr Maen Haikal; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul in part Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/798 (3) of 17 May 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, in so far as it concerns Mr Maen Haikal;

| — | order the Council of the European Union to pay all the appellant’s costs, expenses, fees and other expenditure linked to his defence. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council of the European Union to pay all the appellant’s costs, expenses, fees and other expenditure linked to his defence.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

| 1. | Error in the application of the law by the General Court, in so far as it found that the Council correctly applied the presumption that the appellant was a prominent businessman operating in Syria, given that that presumption has no legal basis and is disproportionate in relation to the legal objective pursued. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Error in the application of the law by the General Court, in so far as it found that the Council correctly applied the presumption that the appellant was a prominent businessman operating in Syria, given that that presumption has no legal basis and is disproportionate in relation to the legal objective pursued.

| 2. | Infringement of the principle of proportionality — Article 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Infringement of the principle of proportionality — Article 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| 3. | Infringement of the rules on evidence, on account of the lack of evidence for the purposes of applying the presumption and the refusal to apply Articles 27(3) and 28(3) of Decision 2013/255 amended by Decision 2015/18364. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Infringement of the rules on evidence, on account of the lack of evidence for the purposes of applying the presumption and the refusal to apply Articles 27(3) and 28(3) of Decision 2013/255 amended by Decision 2015/18364.

| 4. | Error of assessment, as confirmed by the Council’s measures by which it removed the appellant’s name from the sanctions lists. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Error of assessment, as confirmed by the Council’s measures by which it removed the appellant’s name from the sanctions lists.

---

(1)  OJ 2019 L 18 I, p. 4.

(2)  OJ 2012 L 16, p. 1.

(3)  OJ 2019 L 132, p. 1.

---

| 26.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/11

---

Action brought on 26 February 2021 — European Commission v Ireland

(Case C-125/21)

(2021/C 148/14)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Tomkin, and S. Grünheid, Agents)

Defendant: Ireland

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union (1) or, in any event, by failing to notify such provisions to the Commission, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 29(1) and (2) of that Framework Decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union (1) or, in any event, by failing to notify such provisions to the Commission, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 29(1) and (2) of that Framework Decision;

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

—

order Ireland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

According to Articles 29(1) and (2) of Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA, Member States were to take the measures necessary to comply with the provisions of this Framework Decision by 5 December 2011 and to notify such measures to the Commission.

The Commission considers that Ireland has infringed its obligations under Article 29(1) and (2) of the Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the Framework Decision or, in any event, by failing to notify such provisions to the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ 2008, L 327, p. 27.

---

| 26.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/11

---

Action brought on 26 February 2021 — European Commission v Ireland

(Case C-126/21)

(2021/C 148/15)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Tomkin, and S. Grünheid, Agents)

Defendant: Ireland

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Framework Decision 2009/829/JHA of 23 October 2009 on the application, between Member States of the European Union, of the principle of mutual recognition to decisions on supervision measures as an alternative to provisional detention (1) or, in any event, by failing to notify such provisions to the Commission, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 27 of that Framework Decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Framework Decision 2009/829/JHA of 23 October 2009 on the application, between Member States of the European Union, of the principle of mutual recognition to decisions on supervision measures as an alternative to provisional detention (1) or, in any event, by failing to notify such provisions to the Commission, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 27 of that Framework Decision;

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

—

order Ireland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

According to Article 27 of Framework Decision 2009/829/JHA, Member States were to take the necessary measures to comply with the provisions of the Framework Decision by 1 December 2012 and to notify the Commission of such measures.

The Commission considers that Ireland has infringed its obligations under Article 27 of the Council Framework Decision 2009/829/JHA, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the Framework Decision or, in any event, by failing to notify such provisions to the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ 2009, L 294, p. 20.

---

| 26.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/12

---

Action brought on 4 March 2021 — European Parliament v European Commission

(Case C-137/21)

(2021/C 148/16)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: P. López-Carceller, J. Rodrigues, S. Alonso de León, Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | establish that by not adopting the delegated act pursuant to Article 7(f) of Regulation 2018/1806 (1), the Commission infringed the Treaty; |
| --- | --- |

—

establish that by not adopting the delegated act pursuant to Article 7(f) of Regulation 2018/1806 (1), the Commission infringed the Treaty;

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

—

order European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, namely the infringement of the Treaties.

According to the Parliament, the Commission was under the obligation to adopt a delegated act, pursuant to Article 7(f) of Regulation 2018/1806.1 By resolution of 22 October 2020, the Parliament called on the Commission to adopt the act in question. Since the Commission did not adopt the delegated act by 22 December 2020, the Parliament has decided to bring an action for failure to act under Article 265 TFEU.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) 2018/1806 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 November 2018 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement (OJ 2018, L 303, p. 39).

---

| 26.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/13

---

Action brought on 12 March 2021 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

(Case C-166/21)

(2021/C 148/17)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: C. Perrin and M. Siekierzyńska, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Poland

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by depriving importers of ethyl alcohol used for the production of medicines who do not opt for the application of a duty suspension arrangement of the possibility of relying on the mandatory exemption from excise duty, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 27(1)(d) of Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages, (1) and has infringed the principle of proportionality; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by depriving importers of ethyl alcohol used for the production of medicines who do not opt for the application of a duty suspension arrangement of the possibility of relying on the mandatory exemption from excise duty, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 27(1)(d) of Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages, (1) and has infringed the principle of proportionality;

| — | order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Republic of Poland introduced national legislation according to which importers of ethyl alcohol used for the production of medicines who do not opt for the application of a duty suspension arrangement are deprived of the possibility of relying on the exemption from excise duty.

In the Commission’s view, this constitutes a failure to fulfil obligations under Article 27(1)(d) of Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages, and has infringed the principle of proportionality.

According to that provision of the directive, where alcohol is used for the production of medicines, Member States are obliged to exempt it from excise duty under the conditions laid down by them for the purpose of ensuring the correct and straightforward application of such exemptions and of preventing any evasion, avoidance or abuse. In the Commission’s view, making the exemption from excise duty dependent on the application of a duty suspension arrangement is not necessary for the purpose of ensuring the correct and straightforward application of that exemption or of preventing any evasion, avoidance or abuse. It is also contrary to the principle of proportionality.

---

(1)  OJ 1992 L 316, p. 21.

---

General Court

| 26.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/14

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 February 2021 — Universität Koblenz-Landau v EACEA

(Case T-108/18) (1)

(Arbitration clause - Tempus IV Programmes - Grant agreements - Contractual nature of the dispute - Reclassification of the action - Eligible costs - Systemic and recurrent irregularities - Full repayment of amounts paid - Proportionality - Right to be heard - Obligation to state reasons - Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights)

(2021/C 148/18)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Universität Koblenz-Landau (Mainz, Germany) (represented by: C. von der Lühe and I. Felder, lawyers)

Defendant: Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) (represented by: H. Monet, acting as Agent, and by R. van der Hout and C. Wagner, lawyers)

Re:

Application principally under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the letters of 21 December 2017 and 7 February 2018 of the EACEA relating to the amounts paid to the applicant in the context of grant agreements concluded for the implementation of three projects in the field of higher education and, alternatively, under Article 272 TFEU for a declaration that the right to recovery claimed is not established.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Universität Koblenz-Landau to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Universität Koblenz-Landau to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 166, 14.5.2018.

---

| 26.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/14

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 February 2021 — Universität Koblenz-Landau v EACEA

(Case T-606/18) (1)

(Arbitration clause - Tempus Programmes - Grant agreement - Eligible costs - Suspension of payments - Repayment of amounts paid - Obligation to state reasons)

(2021/C 148/19)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Universität Koblenz-Landau (Mainz, Germany) (represented by: C. von der Lühe and I. Felder, lawyers)

Defendant: Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (represented by: H. Monet, acting as Agent, and R. van der Hout and C. Wagner, lawyers)

Re:

Application under Article 272 TFEU asking the General Court, first, to declare that the EACEA is not owed a debt of EUR 22 452,22, to which the latter claims to be entitled in respect of the performance of Grant Agreement No. 2012-3075 concerning the implementation of the project ‘Qualification Frameworks in Central Asia: Bologna-Based Principles and Regional Coordination’, and, secondly, to order EACEA to pay the applicant a sum of EUR 41 408,15 under that agreement, together with default interest.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Universität Koblenz-Landau to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Universität Koblenz-Landau to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.

---

| 26.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/15

---

Judgment of the General Court of 3 March 2021 — Barata v Parliament

(Case T-723/18) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Promotion - Certification procedure - Exclusion of the applicant from the final list of officials entitled to take part in the training programme - Article 45a of the Staff Regulations - Action for annulment - Communication by registered letter - Article 26 of the Staff Regulations - Registered letter not collected by the person to whom it was addressed - Starting point of the period prescribed for instituting proceedings - Admissibility - Obligation to state reasons - Right to be heard - Principle of sound administration - Proportionality - Rules on the use of languages)

(2021/C 148/20)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: João Miguel Barata (Evere, Belgium) (represented by: G. Pandey, D. Rovetta and V. Villante, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: J. Steele and I. Terwinghe, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of 23 July 2018, the act of 7 December 2017, the act of 21 December 2017, the letter of 1 March 2018, the letter of 22 March 2018 concerning the applicant’s candidacy in the 2017 certification procedure and the notice of internal competition of 22 September 2017.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders João Miguel Barata to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders João Miguel Barata to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 72, 25.2.2019.

---

| 26.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/16

---

Judgment of the General Court of 3 March 2021 — EM v Parliament

(Case T-599/19) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Psychological harassment - Request for assistance - Rejection of the request - Retirement - Duty to provide assistance - Principle of sound administration - Duty to have regard for the welfare of staff)

(2021/C 148/21)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: EM (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: D. Boytha, C. González Argüelles and T. Lazian, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the Parliament’s decision of 31 October 2018 rejecting the applicant’s request for assistance, as confirmed by the decision of 24 May 2019 rejecting his complaint and, secondly, compensation for the material and non-material harm which the applicant claims to have suffered as a result of those decisions.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 383, 11.11.2019.

---

| 26.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/16

---

Judgment of the General Court of 3 March 2021 — Sahaj Marg Spirituality Foundation v EUIPO (Heartfulness)

(Case T-48/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark Heartfulness - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2021/C 148/22)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sahaj Marg Spirituality Foundation (Manapakkam, India) (represented by: E. Manresa Medina, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 November 2019 (Case R 1266/2019-4), relating to the international registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark Heartfulness.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Sahaj Marg Spirituality Foundation to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Sahaj Marg Spirituality Foundation to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 87, 16.3.2020.

---

| 26.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/17

---

Order of the General Court of 16 February 2021 — Ungureanu v Commission

(Case T-753/19) (1)

(Action for damages - Law governing the institutions - Alleged unlawfulness stemming from the failure to bring an action for a declaration of a failure to fulfil obligations under Article 258 TFEU - Discretionary power of the Commission - Action manifestly inadmissible)

(2021/C 148/23)

Language of the case: Romanian

Parties

Applicant: Simeda Ungureanu (Cluj-Napoca, Romania) (represented by: R. Chiriţă, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Sipos and M. Carpus Carcea, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation in respect of the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the infringement by the Commission of its obligation to ensure that Romania complies with the Treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Ms Simeda Ungureanu shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Ms Simeda Ungureanu shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 68, 2.3.2020.

---

| 26.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/17

---

Order of the General Court of 17 February 2021 — ML v Commission

(Case T-567/20) (1)

(Action for annulment and for damages - Public procurement - Call for tenders - Sustainable catering services for the Commission in Brussels and its surrounding areas - Rejection of the tender of a tenderer - Annulment of the call for tenders - No need to adjudicate)

(2021/C 148/24)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ML (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. André and M. Ilkova, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application, first, under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the Commission’s decision of 30 June 2020 rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant in the context of the call for tenders OIB/2019/CPN/039 concerning sustainable catering services for the Commission in the Brussels-Capital Region and surrounding areas and, secondly, under Article 268 TFEU for compensation for the losses allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of that decision.

Operative part of the order

The Court hereby orders:

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

1.

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

| 2. | The European Commission shall bear its own costs and pay half of the costs incurred by ML. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Commission shall bear its own costs and pay half of the costs incurred by ML.

| 3. | ML shall bear half of its costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

ML shall bear half of its costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 371, 3.11.2020.

---

| 26.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/18

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 23 February 2021 — Symrise v ECHA

(Case T-656/20 R)

(Application for interim relief - REACH - Homosalate substance - Compliance check of registrations - Obligation to provide certain information requiring animal testing - Application for interim measures - No urgency)

(2021/C 148/25)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Symrise AG (Holzminden, Germany) (represented by: R. Cana, E. Mullier and H. Widemann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (represented by: W. Broere, N. Knight and M. Heikkilä, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Articles 278 and 279 TFEU for the grant of interim measures seeking, first, suspension of the implementation of Decision A-009-2018 of the Board of Appeal of ECHA of 18 August 2020, relating to the applicant’s registration dossier for homosalate and, second, extension of the prescribed period to communicate the results of the tests for the duration of the suspension.

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.

---

| 26.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/18

---

Action brought on 19 January 2021 — KF v EIB

(Case T-37/21)

(2021/C 148/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: KF (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Investment Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the defendant’s decision dated 13 October 2020; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the defendant’s decision dated 13 October 2020;

| — | grant compensation for the moral prejudice suffered; and |
| --- | --- |

—

grant compensation for the moral prejudice suffered; 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 two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging violation of Article 8 (1), Article 46 (1) and Article 51 (1) of the defendant’s Pension Scheme Regulations and a manifest error of appreciation of the legal concept of invalidity. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging violation of Article 8 (1), Article 46 (1) and Article 51 (1) of the defendant’s Pension Scheme Regulations and a manifest error of appreciation of the legal concept of invalidity.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging lack of impartiality by the defendant. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging lack of impartiality by the defendant.

---

| 26.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/19

---

Action brought on 2 February 2021 — QB v Commission

(Case T-71/21)

(2021/C 148/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: QB (represented by: R. Wardyn, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the PMO of 6 April 2020 and the decision of the appointing authority of 3 November 2020, by which the European Commission refused to grant the applicant the expatriation allowance; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the PMO of 6 April 2020 and the decision of the appointing authority of 3 November 2020, by which the European Commission refused to grant the applicant the expatriation allowance;

| — | 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 three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging insufficient reasoning of the decisions of the PMO and the Appointing Authority.






  — | The applicant argues that the PMO and the Appointing Authority did not refer to the fact that the constitutional and legal provisions applicable to all Polish judges, in conformity with the principle of rule of law, did not allow the applicant to enter into any legal relationship with the European Judicial Training Network (EJTN) or any other private law body in Poland or abroad; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging insufficient reasoning of the decisions of the PMO and the Appointing Authority.

—

The applicant argues that the PMO and the Appointing Authority did not refer to the fact that the constitutional and legal provisions applicable to all Polish judges, in conformity with the principle of rule of law, did not allow the applicant to enter into any legal relationship with the European Judicial Training Network (EJTN) or any other private law body in Poland or abroad;

| — | He further argues that the PMO and the Appointing Authority ignored the fact that, according to the Polish law, the applicant, who was a judge in active judicial service, could not have been under the supervision of any other authority than the District Court of Lubartow and the KSSiP (National School of Judiciary and Public Prosecution) hierarchy. |
| --- | --- |

—

He further argues that the PMO and the Appointing Authority ignored the fact that, according to the Polish law, the applicant, who was a judge in active judicial service, could not have been under the supervision of any other authority than the District Court of Lubartow and the KSSiP (National School of Judiciary and Public Prosecution) hierarchy.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging violation of Article 4(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations.






  — | It is argued that the phrase ‘work done for another State’ within the meaning of Article 4(1) of Annex VII of the Staff Regulations should be interpreted as covering all circumstances arising from work done for another State and should not be limited to work done for the official representation of that State, and that neither the law nor the case-law support the Appointing Authority’s restrictive appreciation; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging violation of Article 4(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations.

—

It is argued that the phrase ‘work done for another State’ within the meaning of Article 4(1) of Annex VII of the Staff Regulations should be interpreted as covering all circumstances arising from work done for another State and should not be limited to work done for the official representation of that State, and that neither the law nor the case-law support the Appointing Authority’s restrictive appreciation;

| — | It is further argued that the KSSiP should be considered a central State body and, consequently, work done by the applicant during his delegation to the KSSiP should be considered as work done for the State of Poland; |
| --- | --- |

—

It is further argued that the KSSiP should be considered a central State body and, consequently, work done by the applicant during his delegation to the KSSiP should be considered as work done for the State of Poland;

| — | The applicant argues, furthermore, that the work done by him (1) was subsidiary to the legal relationship between the applicant and the KSSiP; |
| --- | --- |

—

The applicant argues, furthermore, that the work done by him (1) was subsidiary to the legal relationship between the applicant and the KSSiP;

| — | The applicant argues, in addition, that his main occupation during the reference period was his work for the KSSiP in Poland. |
| --- | --- |

—

The applicant argues, in addition, that his main occupation during the reference period was his work for the KSSiP in Poland.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment.






  — | It is argued that the applicant preserved a specific tie linking him to Poland, thereby hindering the creation of a lasting tie to Belgium; |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment.

—

It is argued that the applicant preserved a specific tie linking him to Poland, thereby hindering the creation of a lasting tie to Belgium;

| — | Furthermore, the applicant maintains that his legal and factual situation did not allow him to integrate in Belgian society. |
| --- | --- |

—

Furthermore, the applicant maintains that his legal and factual situation did not allow him to integrate in Belgian society.

---

(1)  Editorial note: phrase omitted to ensure anonymity.

---

| 26.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/20

---

Action brought on 5 February 2021 — Van Walle v ECDC

(Case T-83/21)

(2021/C 148/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ivo Van Walle (Järfälla, Sweden) (represented by: L. Levi and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the 30 March 2020 decision not to renew his contract; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the 30 March 2020 decision not to renew his contract;

| — | annul, if need be, the decision dated 26 October 2020 rejecting his complaint of 24 June 2020; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, if need be, the decision dated 26 October 2020 rejecting his complaint of 24 June 2020;

| — | order the payment of his net salary retroactively between 31 October 2020 and the date of his reinstatement; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the payment of his net salary retroactively between 31 October 2020 and the date of his reinstatement;

| — | order compensation of his material prejudice of EUR 30 000 and the compensation of his non-material prejudice which can be evaluated, ex aequo et bono, at EUR 20 000; |
| --- | --- |

—

order compensation of his material prejudice of EUR 30 000 and the compensation of his non-material prejudice which can be evaluated, ex aequo et bono, at EUR 20 000;

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

—

order the defendant to pay all 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 manifest errors of assessment. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging misuse of power. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging misuse of power.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging breach of the duty of care. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging breach of the duty of care.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the right to be heard. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the right to be heard.

---

| 26.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/21

---

Action brought on 16 February 2021 — Amort and Others v Commission

(Case T-96/21)

(2021/C 148/29)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Heidi Amort (Jenesien, Italy) and 35 other applicants (represented by: R. Holzeisen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should annul the contested implementing decision, as amended and supplemented.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action against European Commission Implementing Decision C(2020) 9598 (final) of 21 December 2020 granting a conditional marketing authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council for ‘Comirnaty — COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine (nucleoside modified)’, a medicinal product for human use, the applicants rely on the following pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the contested implementing decision infringes Article 2(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 507/2006. (1) It has been scientifically proven that the worldwide panic on account of the high mortality rate supposedly connected with the SARS-CoV-2 infection is unfounded. Furthermore, the WHO and the EU have not duly recognised the crisis situation as a public health threat. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested implementing decision infringes Article 2(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 507/2006. (1) It has been scientifically proven that the worldwide panic on account of the high mortality rate supposedly connected with the SARS-CoV-2 infection is unfounded. Furthermore, the WHO and the EU have not duly recognised the crisis situation as a public health threat.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the contested implementing decision infringes Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 507/2006 due to:






  — | the absence of a positive risk-benefit balance, as defined in Article 1(28a) of Directive 2001/83/EC; (2) |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested implementing decision infringes Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 507/2006 due to:

—

the absence of a positive risk-benefit balance, as defined in Article 1(28a) of Directive 2001/83/EC; (2)

| — | the failure to meet the requirement under Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 507/2006, since the applicant is not likely to be in a position to provide the comprehensive clinical data; |
| --- | --- |

—

the failure to meet the requirement under Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 507/2006, since the applicant is not likely to be in a position to provide the comprehensive clinical data;

| — | the failure to meet the requirement under Article 4(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 507/2006, since there are no unmet medical needs that will be fulfilled by the authorised medicinal product; |
| --- | --- |

—

the failure to meet the requirement under Article 4(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 507/2006, since there are no unmet medical needs that will be fulfilled by the authorised medicinal product;

| — | the failure to meet the requirement under Article 4(1)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 507/2006. |
| --- | --- |

—

the failure to meet the requirement under Article 4(1)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 507/2006.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Regulation (EC) No 1394/2007, (3) Directive 2001/83/EC and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004. (4) |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Regulation (EC) No 1394/2007, (3) Directive 2001/83/EC and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004. (4)

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging serious infringement of Articles 168 and 169 TFEU and Articles 3, 35 and 38 of the EU Charter. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging serious infringement of Articles 168 and 169 TFEU and Articles 3, 35 and 38 of the EU Charter.

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 507/2006 of 29 March 2006 on the conditional marketing authorisation for medicinal products for human use falling within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2006 L 92, p. 6).

(2)  Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67).

(3)  Regulation (EC) No 1394/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on advanced therapy medicinal products and amending Directive 2001/83/EC and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 (OJ 2007 L 324, p. 121).

(4)  Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 1).

---

| 26.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/22

---

Action brought on 16 February 2021 — Synesis v Council

(Case T-97/21)

(2021/C 148/30)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Synesis OOO (Minsk, Belarus) (represented by: G. Lansky and A. Egger, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, annul Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2020/2130 of 17 December 2020 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus (OJ 2020 L 426 I, p. 14) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2129 of 17 December 2020 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ 2020 L 426 I, p. 1), in so far as they concern the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, annul Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2020/2130 of 17 December 2020 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus (OJ 2020 L 426 I, p. 14) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2129 of 17 December 2020 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ 2020 L 426 I, p. 1), in so far as they concern the applicant;

| — | pursuant to Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

pursuant to Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the argument that the contested measures are unlawful in so far as they concern the applicant, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment and in particular infringed its examination obligations. In the applicant’s view, the Council failed to provide any concrete evidence to justify the validity of the applicant’s inclusion on the list in the contested measures.

---

| 26.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/22

---

Action brought on 22 February 2021 — Maternus v EUIPO — adp Gauselmann (WILD)

(Case T-116/21)

(2021/C 148/31)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Maternus GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: M. Zoebisch and R. Drozdz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: adp Gauselmann GmbH (Espelkamp, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark WILD — European Union trade mark No 9 515 248

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 December 2020 in Case R 932/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of the first sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the first sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 59(1)(a) and Article 59(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 59(1)(a) and Article 59(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 26.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/23

---

Action brought on 25 February 2021 — Stowarzyszenie chłodnictwa klimatyzacji i pomp ciepła v Commission

(Case T-123/21)

(2021/C 148/32)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the European Commission, notified on 15 December 2020, fixing the amount of the quota allocated to the applicant in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on fluorinated greenhouse gases and repealing Regulation (EC) No 842/2006, (1) in so far as the Commission reduced the quota on the basis of Article 25 of the Regulation; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the European Commission, notified on 15 December 2020, fixing the amount of the quota allocated to the applicant in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on fluorinated greenhouse gases and repealing Regulation (EC) No 842/2006, (1) in so far as the Commission reduced the quota on the basis of Article 25 of the Regulation;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant puts forward a plea in law alleging the incorrect application of Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council as a result of the misinterpretation of the concept of ‘placing on the market’ set out in Article 2, point 10, of that regulation.

---

(1)  OJ 2014 L 150, p. 195.

---

| 26.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/24

---

Action brought on 27 February 2021 — Banco de Investimento Global v EUIPO — Banco BIC Português (EUROBIC)

(Case T-125/21)

(2021/C 148/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Banco de Investimento Global SA (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: N. Lucas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Banco BIC Português SA (Lisbon, Portugal)

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 EUROBIC — Application for registration No 16 775 199

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 November 2020 in case R 607/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, in accordance with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, there is a likelihood of confusion between Banco de Investimento Global SA’s earlier trade marks and the contested trade mark and, consequently, annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, in accordance with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, there is a likelihood of confusion between Banco de Investimento Global SA’s earlier trade marks and the contested trade mark and, consequently, annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of infringement of Article 95 (1) and (2) and Article 97(1)(c) and (f) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of infringement of Article 95 (1) and (2) and Article 97(1)(c) and (f) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

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

—

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

---

| 26.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/24

---

Action brought on 26 February 2021 — Nevinnomysskiy Azot and NAK ‘Azot’ v Commission

(Case T-126/21)

(2021/C 148/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: AO Nevinnomysskiy Azot (Nevinnomyssk, Russia) and AO Novomoskovskaya Aktsionernaya Kompania NAK ‘Azot’ (Novomoskovsk, Russia) (represented by: P. Vander Schueren and E. Gergondet, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2020/2100 of 15 December 2020, (1) as far as it applies to the applicants; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2020/2100 of 15 December 2020, (1) as far as it applies to the applicants;

| — | order the defendant to to pay the costs incurred by the applicants in relation to these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to to pay the costs incurred by the applicants in relation to these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on a single plea in law, alleging that the defendant did not receive an expiry review request containing ‘sufficient evidence’ and therefore committed manifest errors of assessment, acted in breach of Articles 11(2), 11(5) and 5(3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036, (2) and violated its duty to examine carefully and impartially all the relevant aspects of the individual case when it initiated the expiry review.

---

(1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2020/2100 of 15 December 2020 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2020 L 425, p. 21).

(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).

---

| 26.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/25

---

Action brought on 2 March 2021 — CCPL and Others v Commission

(Case T-130/21)

(2021/C 148/35)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: CCPL — Consorzio Cooperative di Produzione e Lavoro SC (Reggio Emilia, Italy), Coopbox Group SpA (Bibbiano, Italy), Coopbox Eastern s.r.o. (Nové Mesto nad Váhom, Slovakia) (represented by: E. Cucchiara and E. Rocchi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul the fine imposed on the applicants; or |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the fine imposed on the applicants; or

| — | in the alternative, reduce the amount of that fine; and, in any event |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, reduce the amount of that fine; and, in any event

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is directed against European Commission Decision C(2020) 8969 final of 17 December 2020, in Case AT.39563 — Retail food packaging, which concerns infringement of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 23(2) of 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).






  — | The applicants claim in that regard that the value taken into consideration by the Commission for the purposes of calculating the 10 % limit laid down by Article 23(2) of Regulation (CE) No 1/2003 is clearly wrong, since that figure includes the total turnover of the CCPL group, even though the Commission has by no means proved the parental liability of the group’s parent company. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 23(2) of 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).

—

The applicants claim in that regard that the value taken into consideration by the Commission for the purposes of calculating the 10 % limit laid down by Article 23(2) of Regulation (CE) No 1/2003 is clearly wrong, since that figure includes the total turnover of the CCPL group, even though the Commission has by no means proved the parental liability of the group’s parent company.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging breach of the principles of proportionality and equal treatment in determining the size of the penalty.






  — | The applicants claim in that regard that the fine imposed on them is clearly and unjustifiably disproportionate compared with that imposed on the other parties. The mechanical application of the 10 % limit for each of the alleged infringements is contrary to the principles of proportionality and equal treatment, as well as the principles that fines should be specific to the individual and progressive. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging breach of the principles of proportionality and equal treatment in determining the size of the penalty.

—

The applicants claim in that regard that the fine imposed on them is clearly and unjustifiably disproportionate compared with that imposed on the other parties. The mechanical application of the 10 % limit for each of the alleged infringements is contrary to the principles of proportionality and equal treatment, as well as the principles that fines should be specific to the individual and progressive.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement by the European Commission of the duty to state reasons laid down in Article 296 TFEU, since it took into account only partially the evidence which concerns the inability to pay adduced by the CCPL group.






  — | The applicants claim in that regard, that the contested decision, even though it acknowledges that the applicants are facing a very serious crisis, did not take that situation sufficiently into account in setting the level of the penalty. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement by the European Commission of the duty to state reasons laid down in Article 296 TFEU, since it took into account only partially the evidence which concerns the inability to pay adduced by the CCPL group.

—

The applicants claim in that regard, that the contested decision, even though it acknowledges that the applicants are facing a very serious crisis, did not take that situation sufficiently into account in setting the level of the penalty.

---

| 26.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/26

---

Action brought on 3 March 2021 — Telefónica Germany v EUIPO (LOOP)

(Case T-132/21)

(2021/C 148/36)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Telefónica Germany GmbH & Co. OHG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: A. Fottner and M. Müller, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark LOOP — Application for registration No 18 008 477

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 December 2020 in Case R 644/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision in so far as it rejected the EU trade mark registration application No 18008477; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in so far as it rejected the EU trade mark registration application No 18008477;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred in the proceedings before the General Court and the costs incurred during the appeal and examination procedures before EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred in the proceedings before the General Court and the costs incurred during the appeal and examination procedures before EUIPO.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, of Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in conjunction with Article 20 and Article 21(1) thereof. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, of Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in conjunction with Article 20 and Article 21(1) thereof.

---

| 26.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/27

---

Action brought on 5 March 2021 — Amort and Others v Commission

(Case T-136/21)

(2021/C 148/37)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Heidi Amort (Jenesien, Italy) and 37 other applicants (represented by: R. Holzeisen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should annul the contested implementing decision.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action against European Commission Implementing Decision C(2021) 94 (final) of 6 January 2021 granting a conditional marketing authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council for ‘COVID-19 Vaccine Moderna — COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine (nucleoside modified)’, a medicinal product for human use, the applicants rely on the following pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the contested implementing decision infringes Article 2(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 507/2006. (1) It has been scientifically proven that the worldwide panic on account of the high mortality rate supposedly connected with the SARS-CoV-2 infection is unfounded. Furthermore, the WHO and the EU have not duly recognised the crisis situation as a public health threat. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested implementing decision infringes Article 2(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 507/2006. (1) It has been scientifically proven that the worldwide panic on account of the high mortality rate supposedly connected with the SARS-CoV-2 infection is unfounded. Furthermore, the WHO and the EU have not duly recognised the crisis situation as a public health threat.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the contested implementing decision infringes Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 507/2006 due to:






  — | the absence of a positive risk-benefit balance, as defined in Article 1(28a) of Directive 2001/83/EC; (2) |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested implementing decision infringes Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 507/2006 due to:

—

the absence of a positive risk-benefit balance, as defined in Article 1(28a) of Directive 2001/83/EC; (2)

| — | the failure to meet the requirement under Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 507/2006, since the applicant is not likely to be in a position to provide the comprehensive clinical data; |
| --- | --- |

—

the failure to meet the requirement under Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 507/2006, since the applicant is not likely to be in a position to provide the comprehensive clinical data;

| — | the failure to meet the requirement under Article 4(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 507/2006, since there are no unmet medical needs that will be fulfilled by the authorised medicinal product; |
| --- | --- |

—

the failure to meet the requirement under Article 4(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 507/2006, since there are no unmet medical needs that will be fulfilled by the authorised medicinal product;

| — | the failure to meet the requirement under Article 4(1)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 507/2006. |
| --- | --- |

—

the failure to meet the requirement under Article 4(1)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 507/2006.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Regulation (EC) No 1394/2007, (3) Directive 2001/83/EC and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004. (4) |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Regulation (EC) No 1394/2007, (3) Directive 2001/83/EC and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004. (4)

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging serious infringement of Articles 168 and 169 TFEU and Articles 3, 35 and 38 of the EU Charter. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging serious infringement of Articles 168 and 169 TFEU and Articles 3, 35 and 38 of the EU Charter.

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 507/2006 of 29 March 2006 on the conditional marketing authorisation for medicinal products for human use falling within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2006 L 92, p. 6).

(2)  Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67).

(3)  Regulation (EC) No 1394/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on advanced therapy medicinal products and amending Directive 2001/83/EC and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 (OJ 2007 L 324, p. 121).

(4)  Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 1).

---

| 26.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/28

---

Action brought on 7 March 2021 — WIZZ Air Hungary v Commission

(Case T-142/21)

(2021/C 148/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: WIZZ Air Hungary Légiközlekedési Zrt. (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: E. Vahida, S. Rating, and I. Metaxas-Maranghidis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the defendant’s decision (EU) of 20 August 2020 in State aid Case SA.57026 (2020/N) — Romania COVID-19: Aid to Blue Air (1); and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the defendant’s decision (EU) of 20 August 2020 in State aid Case SA.57026 (2020/N) — Romania COVID-19: Aid to Blue Air (1); 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 six pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the defendant misapplied Article 107(2)(b) TFEU and committed a manifest error of assessment in its review of the proportionality of the aid to the damage caused by the COVID-19 crisis. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant misapplied Article 107(2)(b) TFEU and committed a manifest error of assessment in its review of the proportionality of the aid to the damage caused by the COVID-19 crisis.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant’s review of the eligibility and compatibility conditions for the rescue aid is flawed. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant’s review of the eligibility and compatibility conditions for the rescue aid is flawed.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated specific provisions of the TFEU and the general principles of European law regarding the prohibition of discrimination, free provision of services and free establishment that have underpinned the liberalisation of air transport in the EU since the late 1980s (2). |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated specific provisions of the TFEU and the general principles of European law regarding the prohibition of discrimination, free provision of services and free establishment that have underpinned the liberalisation of air transport in the EU since the late 1980s (2).

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant relied on inexistent or inadequate evidence. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant relied on inexistent or inadequate evidence.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to initiate a formal investigation procedure despite serious difficulties and violated the applicant’s procedural rights. |
| --- | --- |

5.

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

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated its duty to state reasons. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated its duty to state reasons.

---

(1)  OJ 2020 C 430, p. 2

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community (Recast) (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2008 L 293, p. 3–20)

---