# Official Journal C 84/21 F

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 84 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6521 February 2022 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 84

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6521 February 2022

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2022/C 84/01 | Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union | 1 |
| | General Court |
| 2022/C 84/02 | Taking of the oath by new Members of the General Court | 2 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

2022/C 84/01

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

General Court

2022/C 84/02

Taking of the oath by new Members of the General Court

2

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2022/C 84/03 | Joined Cases C-357/19, C-379/19, C-547/19, C-811/19 and C-840/19: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 December 2021 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie, Tribunalul Bihor — Romania) — Criminal proceedings against PM (C-357/19), RO (C-357/19), SP (C-357/19), TQ (C-357/19), KI (C-379/19), LJ (C-379/19), JH (C-379/19), IG (C-379/19), FQ (C-811/19), GP (C-811/19), HO (C-811/19), IN (C-811/19), NC (C-840/19) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Decision 2006/928/EC — Mechanism for cooperation and verification of progress in Romania to address specific benchmarks in the areas of judicial reform and the fight against corruption — Legal nature and effects — Binding on Romania — Rule of law — Judicial independence — Second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU — Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Fight against corruption — Protection of the European Union’s financial interests — Article 325(1) TFEU — PFI Convention — Criminal proceedings — Decisions of the Curtea Constituțională (Constitutional Court, Romania) concerning the legality of the taking of certain evidence and the composition of judicial panels in cases of serious corruption — Duty on national courts to give full effect to the decisions of the Curtea Constituțională (Constitutional Court) — Disciplinary liability of judges in case of non-compliance with such decisions — Power to disapply decisions of the Curtea Constituțională (Constitutional Court) that conflict with EU law — Principle of primacy of EU law) | 3 |
| 2022/C 84/04 | Joined Cases C-478/19 and C-479/19: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 December 2021 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — UBS Real Estate Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH v Agenzia delle Entrate (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Free movement of capital — Closed-ended mutual investment funds — Open-ended mutual investment funds — Investments in real estate — Mortgage registration tax and land registry fees — Tax advantage granted only to closed-ended real estate investment funds — Difference in treatment — Comparability of situations — Objective criteria of differentiation) | 4 |
| 2022/C 84/05 | Case C-724/19: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against HP (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European Investigation Order (EIO) — Directive 2014/41/EU — Article 2(c)(i) — Concept of issuing authority — Article 6 — Conditions for issuing an EIO — Article 9(1) and (3) — Recognition of an EIO — EIO seeking to obtain traffic and location data associated with telecommunications, issued by a public prosecutor designated as issuing authority by the national measure transposing Directive 2014/41 — Exclusive competence of the judge, in a similar domestic case, to order the investigative measure indicated in that order) | 5 |
| 2022/C 84/06 | Case C-874/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 December 2021 — Aeris Invest Sàrl v Single Resolution Board (SRB) (Appeal — Economic and monetary union — Banking union — Recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms — Single resolution mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) — Single Resolution Board (SRB) — Resolution procedure applicable where an entity is failing or is likely to fail — Adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español SA — Sale of business tool — Write-down and conversion of capital instruments — Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 — Article 20 — Concept of definitive valuation — Consequences — Refusal or failure to proceed with an ex post definitive valuation — Remedies — Action for annulment) | 6 |
| 2022/C 84/07 | Case C-876/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 21 December 2021 — PlasticsEurope AISBL v European Chemicals Agency, French Republic, ClientEarth (Appeal — Establishment of a list of substances subject to authorisation — List of substances identified with a view to their eventual inclusion in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 — Updating of the entry of the substance bisphenol A as a substance of very high concern) | 6 |
| 2022/C 84/08 | Case C-934/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 December 2021 — Algebris (UK) Ltd, Anchorage Capital Group LLC v Single Resolution Board (SRB) (Appeal — Economic and monetary union — Banking union — Recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms — Single resolution mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) — Single Resolution Board (SRB) — Resolution procedure applicable where an entity is failing or is likely to fail — Adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español SA — Sale of business tool — Write-down and conversion of capital instruments — Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 — Article 20 — Concept of definitive valuation — Consequences — Refusal or failure to proceed with an ex post definitive valuation — Remedies — Action for annulment) | 7 |
| 2022/C 84/09 | Case C-124/20: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Bank Melli Iran v Telekom Deutschland GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Commercial policy — Regulation (EC) No 2271/96 — Protection against the effects of the extraterritorial application of legislation adopted by a third country — Restrictive measures taken by the United States of America against Iran — Secondary sanctions adopted by that third country preventing persons from engaging, outside its territory, in commercial relationships with certain Iranian undertakings — Prohibition on complying with such a law — Exercise of the right of ordinary termination) | 8 |
| 2022/C 84/10 | Joined Cases C-146/20, C-188/20, C-196/20 and C-270/20: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 December 2021 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf, Landesgericht Korneuburg — Germany, Austria) — AD, BE, CF v Corendon Airlines (C-146/20), JG, LH, MI, NJ v OP, acting as liquidator of Azurair GmbH (C-188/20), Eurowings GmbH v flightright GmbH (C-196/20), AG, MG, HG v Austrian Airlines AG (C-270/20) (References for a preliminary ruling — Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of cancellation or long delay of flights — Articles 2 and 3 — Concepts of operating air carrier, confirmed reservation and scheduled time of arrival — Articles 5, 7 and 8 — Flight departure time brought forward in relation to the original planned departure time — Classification — Reduction in the amount of compensation — Offer of re-routing — Article 14 — Obligation to inform passengers of their rights — Scope) | 9 |
| 2022/C 84/11 | Case C-203/20: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Bratislava III — Slovakia) — Criminal proceedings against AB and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Scope — Article 51 — Implementation of EU law — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Jurisdiction of the Court — Reference made before the issue of a European arrest warrant — Admissibility — Principle ne bis in idem — Article 50 — Concepts of acquittal and conviction — Amnesty in the issuing Member State — Final decision discontinuing a criminal prosecution — Revocation of the amnesty — Setting-aside of the decision discontinuing the criminal prosecution — Resumption of proceedings — Need for a decision taken after a determination of the criminal liability of the person concerned — Directive 2012/13/EU — Right to information in criminal proceedings — Scope — Concept of criminal proceedings — Legislative procedure for the adoption of a resolution relating to the revocation of an amnesty — Judicial procedure for review of the compliance of that resolution with the national Constitution) | 11 |
| 2022/C 84/12 | Case C-225/20: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Constanţa — Romania) — Euro Delta Danube SRL v Agenţia de Plăţi şi Intervenţie pentru Agricultură — Centrul Judeţean Tulcea (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — Delegated Regulation (EU) No 640/2014 — Area-related aid scheme — Single area payment — Eligibility criteria — Concession agreement for agricultural land — Change of use of that land without the agreement of the grantor — Agricultural use of areas intended for aquaculture use — Difference between the area declared and the area determined — Over-declaration — Administrative penalties) | 11 |
| 2022/C 84/13 | Case C-243/20: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Polymeles Protodikeio Athinon — Greece) — DP, SG v Trapeza Peiraios AE (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms — Article 1(2) — Contractual terms which reflect mandatory statutory or regulatory provisions — Exclusion from the scope of that directive — Loan repayable in a foreign currency — Term which reflects a national provision of non-mandatory law — Relevance of the failure to transpose Article 1(2) — Article 3(1) and Article 4(1) — Review of the unfairness of a term — Article 8 — Adoption or retention of provisions which ensure a higher level of protection for consumers — Interaction between those various provisions of Directive 93/13) | 12 |
| 2022/C 84/14 | Case C-251/20: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Gtflix Tv v DR (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Article 7(2) — Special jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict — Publication on the internet of allegedly disparaging comments concerning a person — Place where the harmful event occurred — Courts of each Member State in which content placed online is or has been accessible) | 13 |
| 2022/C 84/15 | Case C-263/20: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg — Austria) — Airhelp Limited v Laudamotion GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of cancellation or long delay of flights — Article 2(l) — Article 5(1)(c) — Flight booked through an online platform — Flight departure time brought forward by the operating air carrier — Classification — Receipt of notification of the flight being brought forward sent to an electronic address not belonging to the passengers concerned — Directive 2000/31/EC — Electronic commerce — Article 11 — Presumption of receipt — Scope of the operating air carrier’s obligation to provide information) | 14 |
| 2022/C 84/16 | Case C-274/20: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di pace di Massa — Italy) — GN, WX v Prefettura di Massa Carrara — Ufficio Territoriale del Governo di Massa Carrara (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 63 TFEU — Free movement of capital — Road traffic — Registration and taxation of motor vehicles — Driver residing in a Member State — Vehicle registered in another Member State — Vehicle provided free of charge for a short period — National legislation prohibiting persons who have resided in Italy for more than 60 days from driving in that Member State a vehicle registered in another country) | 15 |
| 2022/C 84/17 | Case C-394/20: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — XY v Finanzamt V (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Free movement of capital — Articles 63 and 65 TFEU — National legislation on inheritance tax — Immovable property situated in a Member State — Limited tax liability — Different treatment of residents and non-residents — Right to an allowance on the taxable value — Proportionate reduction in the case of limited tax liability — Liabilities under reserved portions — No deduction in the case of limited tax liability) | 15 |
| 2022/C 84/18 | Case C-395/20: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — EP, GM v Corendon Airlines Turistik Hava Taşımacılık A.Ş. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of cancellation or long delay of flights — Article 2(l) — Article 5(1) — Change in the departure time of a flight — Departure postponed by approximately three hours — Passengers notified nine days before departure — Concepts of cancellation and delay) | 16 |
| 2022/C 84/19 | Case C-428/20: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Apelacyjny w Warszawie — Poland) — A.K. v Skarb Państwa (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles — Second Directive 84/5/EEC — Article 1(2) — Directive 2005/14/EC — Directive 2009/103/EC — Article 9(1) — Obligation to increase the minimum amounts covered by compulsory insurance — Transitional period — New rule applying immediately to the future effects of a situation arising under the old rule — Situation arising prior to the entry into force of an EU rule of substantive law — National legislation excluding insurance contracts concluded before 11 December 2009 from the obligation to increase the minimum amounts covered by compulsory insurance) | 17 |
| 2022/C 84/20 | Case C-490/20: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — V.М.А. v Stolichna obshtina, rayon Pancharevo (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Citizenship of the Union — Articles 20 and 21 TFEU — Right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States — Child born in the host Member State of her parents — Birth certificate issued by that Member State mentioning two mothers in respect of that child — Refusal by the Member State of origin of one of those two mothers to issue a birth certificate for the child in the absence of information as to the identity of the child’s biological mother — Possession of such a certificate being a prerequisite for the issue of an identity card or a passport — Persons of the same sex not recognised as parents under the national legislation of that Member State of origin) | 17 |
| 2022/C 84/21 | Case C-497/20: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Randstad Italia SpA v Umana SpA, Azienda USL Valle d’Aosta, IN. VA SpA, Synergie Italia agenzia per il Lavoro SpA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU — Obligation of Member States to provide remedies sufficient to ensure effective legal protection in the fields covered by Union law — Public procurement — Directive 89/665/EEC — Article 1(1) and (3) — Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Judgment of a Member State’s highest administrative court declaring inadmissible, in breach of the case-law of the Court of Justice, an action brought by a tenderer excluded from a public procurement procedure — No remedy against that judgment before the highest court in that Member State’s judicial order — Principles of effectiveness and equivalence) | 18 |
| 2022/C 84/22 | Case C-524/20: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Městský soud v Praze — Czech Republic) — Vítkovice Steel a.s. v Ministerstvo životního prostředí (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading — Directive 2003/87/EC — Article 11(3) — Decision 2011/278/EU — Article 3(b) and Article 10(2)(a) — Product benchmark sub-installation — Decision 2013/448/EU — Validity — Installation using a basic oxygen furnace — Hot metal — Input from a third-party installation — Refusal to allocate emission allowances — Admissibility — Failure by the applicant in the main proceedings to bring an action for annulment) | 19 |
| 2022/C 84/23 | Case C-575/20: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 16 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Apollo Tyres (Hungary) Kft. v Innovációért és Technológiáért Felelős Miniszter (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Atmospheric pollution — System for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading — Directive 2003/87/EC — Installations for the combustion of fuels — Annex I — Total rated thermal input — Rules for calculation — Aggregation rule) | 19 |
| 2022/C 84/24 | Case C-586/20 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 December 2021 — P. Krücken Organic GmbH v European Commission (Appeal — Law governing the institutions — Action for damages — Conditions governing the non-contractual liability of the European Union — Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 — Organic production and labelling of organic products — Article 33(3) — Concept of appropriate supervision — Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008 — Arrangements for imports of organic products from third countries — Private control body for the purpose of equivalence — Attribution of that body’s conduct to the European Commission) | 20 |
| 2022/C 84/25 | Case C-255/20: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 9 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Regionale del Lazio — Italy) — Agenzia delle dogane e dei monopoli — Ufficio delle dogane di Gaeta v Punto Nautica Srl (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Taxation — Harmonisation of legislation — Excise duty — Directive 92/12/EEC — Article 3(2) — Directive 2008/118/EC — Article 1(2) — Other indirect taxes on excise goods — Regional tax on the sale of fuel for motor vehicles — Specific purposes — Absence) | 21 |
| 2022/C 84/26 | Case C-400/21: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 January 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Arad — Romania) — Asociaţia Naţională de Terapii Complementare din România (ANATECOR) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Interpretation of national law — National insolvency proceedings — Possibility for the insolvency judge to determine his or her substantive jurisdiction and the claim — Purely internal dispute — Lack of connection with EU law — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court) | 21 |
| 2022/C 84/27 | Case C-476/21 P: Appeal brought on 1 August 2021 by Rezon OOD against the judgment of the General Court delivered on 16 June 2021 in Case T-487/20, Rezon v EUIPO | 22 |
| 2022/C 84/28 | Case C-538/21 P: Appeal brought on 26 August 2021 by Republic of Cyprus against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 16 June 2021 in Case T-281/19, Cyprus v EUIPO | 22 |
| 2022/C 84/29 | Case C-661/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie (Belgium) lodged on 4 November 2021 — Verbraeken J. en Zonen BV, PN | 22 |
| 2022/C 84/30 | Case C-671/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 9 November 2021 — Gargždų geležinkelis UAB v Lietuvos transporto saugos administracija | 23 |
| 2022/C 84/31 | Case C-677/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vredegerecht te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 11 November 2021 — Fluvius Antwerpen v MX | 24 |
| 2022/C 84/32 | Case C-681/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 11 November 2021 — Versicherungsanstalt öffentlich Bediensteter, Eisenbahnen und Bergbau | 25 |
| 2022/C 84/33 | Case C-682/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 11 November 2021 — HSC Baltic UAB, Mitnija UAB, Montuotojas UAB v Vilniaus miesto savivaldybės administracija | 25 |
| 2022/C 84/34 | Case C-683/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vilniaus apygardos administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 12 November 2021 — Nacionalinis visuomenės sveikatos centras prie Sveikatos apsaugos ministerijos v Valstybinė duomenų apsaugos inspekcija | 26 |
| 2022/C 84/35 | Case C-684/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 12 November 2021 — Papierfabriek Doetinchem B.V. v Sprick GmbH Bielefelder Papier- und Wellpappenwerk & Co. | 27 |
| 2022/C 84/36 | Case C-685/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 15 November 2021 — YV v Stadtverkehr Lindau (B) GmbH | 28 |
| 2022/C 84/37 | Case C-695/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 19 November 2021 — Recreatieprojecten Zeeland BV, Casino Admiral Zeeland BV, Supergame BV v Belgische Staat | 28 |
| 2022/C 84/38 | Case C-769/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā rajona tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 13 December 2021 — AAS BTA Baltic Insurance Company v Iepirkumu uzraudzības birojs, Tieslietu ministrija | 29 |
| 2022/C 84/39 | Case C-786/21 P: Appeal brought on 16 December 2021 by Nec Corp. against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 29 September 2021 in Case T-341/18, Nec v Commission | 29 |
| 2022/C 84/40 | Case C-789/21: Action brought on 16 December 2021 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria | 30 |
| 2022/C 84/41 | Case C-814/21: Action brought on 21 December 2021 — European Commission v Republic of Poland | 31 |
| 2022/C 84/42 | Case C-815/21 P: Appeal brought on 21 December 2021 by Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon Services LLC, Amazon EU Sàrl, Amazon Europe Core Sàrl against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 14 October 2021 in Case T-19/21, Amazon.com and Others v Commission | 31 |
| 2022/C 84/43 | Case C-824/21 P: Appeal brought on 29 December 2021 by Oriol Junqueras i Vies against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 14 October 2021 in Case T-100/20 Junqueras i Vies v Parliament | 32 |
| 2022/C 84/44 | Case C-206/21: Order of the President of the Court of 29 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Dijon — France) — Mr. X v Préfet de Saône-et-Loire | 33 |
| 2022/C 84/45 | Case C-334/21: Order of the President of the Court of 9 November 2021 — (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Rieti — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against G.B., R.H., interested party: Procura della Repubblica di Rieti | 33 |
| 2022/C 84/46 | Case C-456/21: Order of the President of the Court of 26 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats 's-Hertogenbosch — Netherlands) — E, F v Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid | 34 |
| 2022/C 84/47 | Case C-489/21: Order of the President of the Court of 12 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad — Bulgaria) — Banka DSK EAD v M. V. | 34 |
| | General Court |
| 2022/C 84/48 | Case T-565/19: Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2021 — Oltchim v Commission (State aid — Measures taken by Romania to support a petrochemical company — Non-enforcement, accumulation and cancellation of public claims — Action for annulment — Period within which proceedings must be brought — Point from which time starts to run — Article 24(1) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 — Interest in bringing proceedings — Existence of one or more measures — State resources — Imputability to the State — Applicability of the private creditor test — Application of the private creditor test — Obligation to state reasons) | 35 |
| 2022/C 84/49 | Case T-159/20: Judgment of the General Court of 21 December 2021 — Hamers v Cedefop (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Investigation conducted by OLAF — Transmission to national judicial authorities of information relating to facts liable to lead to criminal proceedings — National criminal proceedings — Acquittal — Cedefop’s conduct in relation to the national criminal proceedings — Rejection of the claim for compensation — Action for annulment and damages — Conflict of interests — Presumption of innocence — Powers of Cedefop’s Board of Appeal) | 35 |
| 2022/C 84/50 | Case T-224/20: Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2021 — FT and Others v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — Remuneration — Commission staff posted to a third country — Interim update of correction coefficients — Manifest error of assessment — Retroactive effect — Legal certainty — Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials) | 36 |
| 2022/C 84/51 | Case T-225/20: Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2021 — FJ and Others v EEAS (Civil Service — Officials — Remuneration — EEAS staff posted to a third country — Interim update of correction coefficients — Manifest error of assessment — Retroactive effect — Legal certainty — Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials) | 37 |
| 2022/C 84/52 | Case T-409/20: Judgment of the General Court of 21 December 2021 — KS v Frontex (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Fixed-term contract — Termination of the contract — Breakdown in the relationship of trust — Article 47(b)(ii) of the CEOS — Right to be heard — Duty to have regard for the welfare of staff — Requests for assistance and compensation — Action for annulment and compensation) | 37 |
| 2022/C 84/53 | Case T-573/20: Judgment of the General Court of 21 December 2021 — MG v EIB (Civil service — EIB staff — Remuneration — Family allowances — Refusal to grant allowances to non-custodial parent — Conciliation procedure — Reasonable time — Liability) | 38 |
| 2022/C 84/54 | Case T-618/20: Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2021 — FZ and Others v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — Remuneration — Commission staff posted to a third country — Annual and interim update of correction coefficients — Manifest error of assessment) | 38 |
| 2022/C 84/55 | Case T-619/20: Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2021 — FJ and Others v EEAS (Civil Service — Officials — Remuneration — EEAS staff posted to a third country — Annual and interim update of correction coefficients — Manifest error of assessment) | 39 |
| 2022/C 84/56 | Case T-188/21: Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2021 — Lück v EUIPO — R. H. Investment (MALLE) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark MALLE — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Ineffective nature of the single plea in law) | 40 |
| 2022/C 84/57 | Case T-708/21: Action brought on 27 October 2021 — NO v Commission | 40 |
| 2022/C 84/58 | Case T-748/21: Action brought on 25 November 2021 — Hangzhou Dingsheng Industrial Group and Others v Commission | 41 |
| 2022/C 84/59 | Case T-774/21: Action brought on 13 December 2021 — DPG Deutsche Pfandsystem v EUIPO — Užstato sistemos administratorius (Representation of a bottle silhouette and an arrow) | 42 |
| 2022/C 84/60 | Case T-778/21: Action brought on 15 December 2021 — Folkertsma v Commission | 42 |
| 2022/C 84/61 | Case T-788/21: Action brought on 21 December 2021 — TDK Foil Italy v Commission | 43 |
| 2022/C 84/62 | Case T-792/21: Action brought on 21 December 2021 — ClientEarth v Commission | 44 |
| 2022/C 84/63 | Case T-796/21: Action brought on 27 December 2021 — Grupo Eig Multimedia v EUIPO — Globalización de Valores CFC & GCI (FORO16) | 44 |
| 2022/C 84/64 | Case T-799/21: Action brought on 24 December 2021 — European Food v EUIPO — Société des produits Nestlé (FITNESS) | 45 |
| 2022/C 84/65 | Case T-1/22: Action brought on 4 January 2022 — Airoldi Metalli v Commission | 46 |
| 2022/C 84/66 | Case T-2/22: Action brought on 4 January 2022 — Sveza Verkhnyaya Sinyachikha and Others/Commission | 46 |
| 2022/C 84/67 | Case T-3/22: Action brought on 4 January 2022 — ZHPLK/Commission | 47 |
| 2022/C 84/68 | Case T-5/22: Action brought on 5 January 2022 — Puma v EUIPO — Brooks Sports (Representation of a chevron) | 49 |
| 2022/C 84/69 | Case T-7/22: Action brought on 6 January 2022 — FFI Female Financial Invest v EUIPO — MLP Finanzberatung SE (Financery) | 49 |
| 2022/C 84/70 | Case T-8/22: Action brought on 6 January 2022 — Topcart v EUIPO — Carl International (TC CARL) | 50 |
| 2022/C 84/71 | Case T-9/22: Action brought on 7 January 2022 — Olimp Laboratories v EUIPO (VITA-MIN MULTIPLE SPORT) | 51 |
| 2022/C 84/72 | Case T-10/22: Action brought on 7 January 2022 — Wajos v EUIPO (Shape of a bottle) | 51 |
| 2022/C 84/73 | Case T-15/22: Action brought on 10 January 2022 — Motel One v EUIPO — Apartment One (APART MENT ONE SLEEP CLEVER.) | 52 |
| 2022/C 84/74 | Case T-17/22: Action brought on 8 January 2022 — Tóth v Commission | 53 |
| 2022/C 84/75 | Case T-18/22: Action brought on 10 January 2022 — Nemport Liman İşletmeleri Ve Özel Antrepo Nakliye Ticaret v EUIPO — Newport Europe (NEMPORT LİMAN İŞLETMELERİ) | 53 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2022/C 84/03

Joined Cases C-357/19, C-379/19, C-547/19, C-811/19 and C-840/19: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 December 2021 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie, Tribunalul Bihor — Romania) — Criminal proceedings against PM (C-357/19), RO (C-357/19), SP (C-357/19), TQ (C-357/19), KI (C-379/19), LJ (C-379/19), JH (C-379/19), IG (C-379/19), FQ (C-811/19), GP (C-811/19), HO (C-811/19), IN (C-811/19), NC (C-840/19) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Decision 2006/928/EC — Mechanism for cooperation and verification of progress in Romania to address specific benchmarks in the areas of judicial reform and the fight against corruption — Legal nature and effects — Binding on Romania — Rule of law — Judicial independence — Second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU — Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Fight against corruption — Protection of the European Union’s financial interests — Article 325(1) TFEU — PFI Convention — Criminal proceedings — Decisions of the Curtea Constituțională (Constitutional Court, Romania) concerning the legality of the taking of certain evidence and the composition of judicial panels in cases of serious corruption — Duty on national courts to give full effect to the decisions of the Curtea Constituțională (Constitutional Court) — Disciplinary liability of judges in case of non-compliance with such decisions — Power to disapply decisions of the Curtea Constituțională (Constitutional Court) that conflict with EU law — Principle of primacy of EU law)

3

2022/C 84/04

Joined Cases C-478/19 and C-479/19: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 December 2021 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — UBS Real Estate Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH v Agenzia delle Entrate (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Free movement of capital — Closed-ended mutual investment funds — Open-ended mutual investment funds — Investments in real estate — Mortgage registration tax and land registry fees — Tax advantage granted only to closed-ended real estate investment funds — Difference in treatment — Comparability of situations — Objective criteria of differentiation)

4

2022/C 84/05

Case C-724/19: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against HP (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European Investigation Order (EIO) — Directive 2014/41/EU — Article 2(c)(i) — Concept of issuing authority — Article 6 — Conditions for issuing an EIO — Article 9(1) and (3) — Recognition of an EIO — EIO seeking to obtain traffic and location data associated with telecommunications, issued by a public prosecutor designated as issuing authority by the national measure transposing Directive 2014/41 — Exclusive competence of the judge, in a similar domestic case, to order the investigative measure indicated in that order)

5

2022/C 84/06

Case C-874/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 December 2021 — Aeris Invest Sàrl v Single Resolution Board (SRB) (Appeal — Economic and monetary union — Banking union — Recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms — Single resolution mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) — Single Resolution Board (SRB) — Resolution procedure applicable where an entity is failing or is likely to fail — Adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español SA — Sale of business tool — Write-down and conversion of capital instruments — Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 — Article 20 — Concept of definitive valuation — Consequences — Refusal or failure to proceed with an ex post definitive valuation — Remedies — Action for annulment)

6

2022/C 84/07

Case C-876/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 21 December 2021 — PlasticsEurope AISBL v European Chemicals Agency, French Republic, ClientEarth (Appeal — Establishment of a list of substances subject to authorisation — List of substances identified with a view to their eventual inclusion in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 — Updating of the entry of the substance bisphenol A as a substance of very high concern)

6

2022/C 84/08

Case C-934/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 December 2021 — Algebris (UK) Ltd, Anchorage Capital Group LLC v Single Resolution Board (SRB) (Appeal — Economic and monetary union — Banking union — Recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms — Single resolution mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) — Single Resolution Board (SRB) — Resolution procedure applicable where an entity is failing or is likely to fail — Adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español SA — Sale of business tool — Write-down and conversion of capital instruments — Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 — Article 20 — Concept of definitive valuation — Consequences — Refusal or failure to proceed with an ex post definitive valuation — Remedies — Action for annulment)

7

2022/C 84/09

Case C-124/20: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Bank Melli Iran v Telekom Deutschland GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Commercial policy — Regulation (EC) No 2271/96 — Protection against the effects of the extraterritorial application of legislation adopted by a third country — Restrictive measures taken by the United States of America against Iran — Secondary sanctions adopted by that third country preventing persons from engaging, outside its territory, in commercial relationships with certain Iranian undertakings — Prohibition on complying with such a law — Exercise of the right of ordinary termination)

8

2022/C 84/10

Joined Cases C-146/20, C-188/20, C-196/20 and C-270/20: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 December 2021 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf, Landesgericht Korneuburg — Germany, Austria) — AD, BE, CF v Corendon Airlines (C-146/20), JG, LH, MI, NJ v OP, acting as liquidator of Azurair GmbH (C-188/20), Eurowings GmbH v flightright GmbH (C-196/20), AG, MG, HG v Austrian Airlines AG (C-270/20) (References for a preliminary ruling — Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of cancellation or long delay of flights — Articles 2 and 3 — Concepts of operating air carrier, confirmed reservation and scheduled time of arrival — Articles 5, 7 and 8 — Flight departure time brought forward in relation to the original planned departure time — Classification — Reduction in the amount of compensation — Offer of re-routing — Article 14 — Obligation to inform passengers of their rights — Scope)

9

2022/C 84/11

Case C-203/20: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Bratislava III — Slovakia) — Criminal proceedings against AB and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Scope — Article 51 — Implementation of EU law — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Jurisdiction of the Court — Reference made before the issue of a European arrest warrant — Admissibility — Principle ne bis in idem — Article 50 — Concepts of acquittal and conviction — Amnesty in the issuing Member State — Final decision discontinuing a criminal prosecution — Revocation of the amnesty — Setting-aside of the decision discontinuing the criminal prosecution — Resumption of proceedings — Need for a decision taken after a determination of the criminal liability of the person concerned — Directive 2012/13/EU — Right to information in criminal proceedings — Scope — Concept of criminal proceedings — Legislative procedure for the adoption of a resolution relating to the revocation of an amnesty — Judicial procedure for review of the compliance of that resolution with the national Constitution)

11

2022/C 84/12

Case C-225/20: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Constanţa — Romania) — Euro Delta Danube SRL v Agenţia de Plăţi şi Intervenţie pentru Agricultură — Centrul Judeţean Tulcea (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — Delegated Regulation (EU) No 640/2014 — Area-related aid scheme — Single area payment — Eligibility criteria — Concession agreement for agricultural land — Change of use of that land without the agreement of the grantor — Agricultural use of areas intended for aquaculture use — Difference between the area declared and the area determined — Over-declaration — Administrative penalties)

11

2022/C 84/13

Case C-243/20: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Polymeles Protodikeio Athinon — Greece) — DP, SG v Trapeza Peiraios AE (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms — Article 1(2) — Contractual terms which reflect mandatory statutory or regulatory provisions — Exclusion from the scope of that directive — Loan repayable in a foreign currency — Term which reflects a national provision of non-mandatory law — Relevance of the failure to transpose Article 1(2) — Article 3(1) and Article 4(1) — Review of the unfairness of a term — Article 8 — Adoption or retention of provisions which ensure a higher level of protection for consumers — Interaction between those various provisions of Directive 93/13)

12

2022/C 84/14

Case C-251/20: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Gtflix Tv v DR (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Article 7(2) — Special jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict — Publication on the internet of allegedly disparaging comments concerning a person — Place where the harmful event occurred — Courts of each Member State in which content placed online is or has been accessible)

13

2022/C 84/15

Case C-263/20: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg — Austria) — Airhelp Limited v Laudamotion GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of cancellation or long delay of flights — Article 2(l) — Article 5(1)(c) — Flight booked through an online platform — Flight departure time brought forward by the operating air carrier — Classification — Receipt of notification of the flight being brought forward sent to an electronic address not belonging to the passengers concerned — Directive 2000/31/EC — Electronic commerce — Article 11 — Presumption of receipt — Scope of the operating air carrier’s obligation to provide information)

14

2022/C 84/16

Case C-274/20: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di pace di Massa — Italy) — GN, WX v Prefettura di Massa Carrara — Ufficio Territoriale del Governo di Massa Carrara (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 63 TFEU — Free movement of capital — Road traffic — Registration and taxation of motor vehicles — Driver residing in a Member State — Vehicle registered in another Member State — Vehicle provided free of charge for a short period — National legislation prohibiting persons who have resided in Italy for more than 60 days from driving in that Member State a vehicle registered in another country)

15

2022/C 84/17

Case C-394/20: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — XY v Finanzamt V (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Free movement of capital — Articles 63 and 65 TFEU — National legislation on inheritance tax — Immovable property situated in a Member State — Limited tax liability — Different treatment of residents and non-residents — Right to an allowance on the taxable value — Proportionate reduction in the case of limited tax liability — Liabilities under reserved portions — No deduction in the case of limited tax liability)

15

2022/C 84/18

Case C-395/20: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — EP, GM v Corendon Airlines Turistik Hava Taşımacılık A.Ş. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of cancellation or long delay of flights — Article 2(l) — Article 5(1) — Change in the departure time of a flight — Departure postponed by approximately three hours — Passengers notified nine days before departure — Concepts of cancellation and delay)

16

2022/C 84/19

Case C-428/20: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Apelacyjny w Warszawie — Poland) — A.K. v Skarb Państwa (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles — Second Directive 84/5/EEC — Article 1(2) — Directive 2005/14/EC — Directive 2009/103/EC — Article 9(1) — Obligation to increase the minimum amounts covered by compulsory insurance — Transitional period — New rule applying immediately to the future effects of a situation arising under the old rule — Situation arising prior to the entry into force of an EU rule of substantive law — National legislation excluding insurance contracts concluded before 11 December 2009 from the obligation to increase the minimum amounts covered by compulsory insurance)

17

2022/C 84/20

Case C-490/20: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — V.М.А. v Stolichna obshtina, rayon Pancharevo (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Citizenship of the Union — Articles 20 and 21 TFEU — Right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States — Child born in the host Member State of her parents — Birth certificate issued by that Member State mentioning two mothers in respect of that child — Refusal by the Member State of origin of one of those two mothers to issue a birth certificate for the child in the absence of information as to the identity of the child’s biological mother — Possession of such a certificate being a prerequisite for the issue of an identity card or a passport — Persons of the same sex not recognised as parents under the national legislation of that Member State of origin)

17

2022/C 84/21

Case C-497/20: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Randstad Italia SpA v Umana SpA, Azienda USL Valle d’Aosta, IN. VA SpA, Synergie Italia agenzia per il Lavoro SpA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU — Obligation of Member States to provide remedies sufficient to ensure effective legal protection in the fields covered by Union law — Public procurement — Directive 89/665/EEC — Article 1(1) and (3) — Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Judgment of a Member State’s highest administrative court declaring inadmissible, in breach of the case-law of the Court of Justice, an action brought by a tenderer excluded from a public procurement procedure — No remedy against that judgment before the highest court in that Member State’s judicial order — Principles of effectiveness and equivalence)

18

2022/C 84/22

Case C-524/20: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Městský soud v Praze — Czech Republic) — Vítkovice Steel a.s. v Ministerstvo životního prostředí (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading — Directive 2003/87/EC — Article 11(3) — Decision 2011/278/EU — Article 3(b) and Article 10(2)(a) — Product benchmark sub-installation — Decision 2013/448/EU — Validity — Installation using a basic oxygen furnace — Hot metal — Input from a third-party installation — Refusal to allocate emission allowances — Admissibility — Failure by the applicant in the main proceedings to bring an action for annulment)

19

2022/C 84/23

Case C-575/20: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 16 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Apollo Tyres (Hungary) Kft. v Innovációért és Technológiáért Felelős Miniszter (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Atmospheric pollution — System for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading — Directive 2003/87/EC — Installations for the combustion of fuels — Annex I — Total rated thermal input — Rules for calculation — Aggregation rule)

19

2022/C 84/24

Case C-586/20 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 December 2021 — P. Krücken Organic GmbH v European Commission (Appeal — Law governing the institutions — Action for damages — Conditions governing the non-contractual liability of the European Union — Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 — Organic production and labelling of organic products — Article 33(3) — Concept of appropriate supervision — Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008 — Arrangements for imports of organic products from third countries — Private control body for the purpose of equivalence — Attribution of that body’s conduct to the European Commission)

20

2022/C 84/25

Case C-255/20: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 9 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Regionale del Lazio — Italy) — Agenzia delle dogane e dei monopoli — Ufficio delle dogane di Gaeta v Punto Nautica Srl (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Taxation — Harmonisation of legislation — Excise duty — Directive 92/12/EEC — Article 3(2) — Directive 2008/118/EC — Article 1(2) — Other indirect taxes on excise goods — Regional tax on the sale of fuel for motor vehicles — Specific purposes — Absence)

21

2022/C 84/26

Case C-400/21: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 January 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Arad — Romania) — Asociaţia Naţională de Terapii Complementare din România (ANATECOR) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Interpretation of national law — National insolvency proceedings — Possibility for the insolvency judge to determine his or her substantive jurisdiction and the claim — Purely internal dispute — Lack of connection with EU law — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

21

2022/C 84/27

Case C-476/21 P: Appeal brought on 1 August 2021 by Rezon OOD against the judgment of the General Court delivered on 16 June 2021 in Case T-487/20, Rezon v EUIPO

Rezon

EUIPO

22

2022/C 84/28

Case C-538/21 P: Appeal brought on 26 August 2021 by Republic of Cyprus against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 16 June 2021 in Case T-281/19, Cyprus v EUIPO

22

2022/C 84/29

Case C-661/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie (Belgium) lodged on 4 November 2021 — Verbraeken J. en Zonen BV, PN

22

2022/C 84/30

Case C-671/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 9 November 2021 — Gargždų geležinkelis UAB v Lietuvos transporto saugos administracija

23

2022/C 84/31

Case C-677/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vredegerecht te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 11 November 2021 — Fluvius Antwerpen v MX

24

2022/C 84/32

Case C-681/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 11 November 2021 — Versicherungsanstalt öffentlich Bediensteter, Eisenbahnen und Bergbau

25

2022/C 84/33

Case C-682/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 11 November 2021 — HSC Baltic UAB, Mitnija UAB, Montuotojas UAB v Vilniaus miesto savivaldybės administracija

25

2022/C 84/34

Case C-683/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vilniaus apygardos administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 12 November 2021 — Nacionalinis visuomenės sveikatos centras prie Sveikatos apsaugos ministerijos v Valstybinė duomenų apsaugos inspekcija

26

2022/C 84/35

Case C-684/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 12 November 2021 — Papierfabriek Doetinchem B.V. v Sprick GmbH Bielefelder Papier- und Wellpappenwerk & Co.

27

2022/C 84/36

Case C-685/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 15 November 2021 — YV v Stadtverkehr Lindau (B) GmbH

28

2022/C 84/37

Case C-695/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 19 November 2021 — Recreatieprojecten Zeeland BV, Casino Admiral Zeeland BV, Supergame BV v Belgische Staat

28

2022/C 84/38

Case C-769/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā rajona tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 13 December 2021 — AAS BTA Baltic Insurance Company v Iepirkumu uzraudzības birojs, Tieslietu ministrija

29

2022/C 84/39

Case C-786/21 P: Appeal brought on 16 December 2021 by Nec Corp. against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 29 September 2021 in Case T-341/18, Nec v Commission

29

2022/C 84/40

Case C-789/21: Action brought on 16 December 2021 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria

30

2022/C 84/41

Case C-814/21: Action brought on 21 December 2021 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

31

2022/C 84/42

Case C-815/21 P: Appeal brought on 21 December 2021 by Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon Services LLC, Amazon EU Sàrl, Amazon Europe Core Sàrl against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 14 October 2021 in Case T-19/21, Amazon.com and Others v Commission

31

2022/C 84/43

Case C-824/21 P: Appeal brought on 29 December 2021 by Oriol Junqueras i Vies against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 14 October 2021 in Case T-100/20 Junqueras i Vies v Parliament

32

2022/C 84/44

Case C-206/21: Order of the President of the Court of 29 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Dijon — France) — Mr. X v Préfet de Saône-et-Loire

33

2022/C 84/45

Case C-334/21: Order of the President of the Court of 9 November 2021 — (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Rieti — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against G.B., R.H., interested party: Procura della Repubblica di Rieti

interested party:

33

2022/C 84/46

Case C-456/21: Order of the President of the Court of 26 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats 's-Hertogenbosch — Netherlands) — E, F v Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

34

2022/C 84/47

Case C-489/21: Order of the President of the Court of 12 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad — Bulgaria) — Banka DSK EAD v M. V.

34

General Court

2022/C 84/48

Case T-565/19: Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2021 — Oltchim v Commission (State aid — Measures taken by Romania to support a petrochemical company — Non-enforcement, accumulation and cancellation of public claims — Action for annulment — Period within which proceedings must be brought — Point from which time starts to run — Article 24(1) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 — Interest in bringing proceedings — Existence of one or more measures — State resources — Imputability to the State — Applicability of the private creditor test — Application of the private creditor test — Obligation to state reasons)

35

2022/C 84/49

Case T-159/20: Judgment of the General Court of 21 December 2021 — Hamers v Cedefop (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Investigation conducted by OLAF — Transmission to national judicial authorities of information relating to facts liable to lead to criminal proceedings — National criminal proceedings — Acquittal — Cedefop’s conduct in relation to the national criminal proceedings — Rejection of the claim for compensation — Action for annulment and damages — Conflict of interests — Presumption of innocence — Powers of Cedefop’s Board of Appeal)

35

2022/C 84/50

Case T-224/20: Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2021 — FT and Others v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — Remuneration — Commission staff posted to a third country — Interim update of correction coefficients — Manifest error of assessment — Retroactive effect — Legal certainty — Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials)

36

2022/C 84/51

Case T-225/20: Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2021 — FJ and Others v EEAS (Civil Service — Officials — Remuneration — EEAS staff posted to a third country — Interim update of correction coefficients — Manifest error of assessment — Retroactive effect — Legal certainty — Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials)

37

2022/C 84/52

Case T-409/20: Judgment of the General Court of 21 December 2021 — KS v Frontex (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Fixed-term contract — Termination of the contract — Breakdown in the relationship of trust — Article 47(b)(ii) of the CEOS — Right to be heard — Duty to have regard for the welfare of staff — Requests for assistance and compensation — Action for annulment and compensation)

37

2022/C 84/53

Case T-573/20: Judgment of the General Court of 21 December 2021 — MG v EIB (Civil service — EIB staff — Remuneration — Family allowances — Refusal to grant allowances to non-custodial parent — Conciliation procedure — Reasonable time — Liability)

38

2022/C 84/54

Case T-618/20: Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2021 — FZ and Others v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — Remuneration — Commission staff posted to a third country — Annual and interim update of correction coefficients — Manifest error of assessment)

38

2022/C 84/55

Case T-619/20: Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2021 — FJ and Others v EEAS (Civil Service — Officials — Remuneration — EEAS staff posted to a third country — Annual and interim update of correction coefficients — Manifest error of assessment)

39

2022/C 84/56

Case T-188/21: Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2021 — Lück v EUIPO — R. H. Investment (MALLE) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark MALLE — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Ineffective nature of the single plea in law)

40

2022/C 84/57

Case T-708/21: Action brought on 27 October 2021 — NO v Commission

40

2022/C 84/58

Case T-748/21: Action brought on 25 November 2021 — Hangzhou Dingsheng Industrial Group and Others v Commission

41

2022/C 84/59

Case T-774/21: Action brought on 13 December 2021 — DPG Deutsche Pfandsystem v EUIPO — Užstato sistemos administratorius (Representation of a bottle silhouette and an arrow)

42

2022/C 84/60

Case T-778/21: Action brought on 15 December 2021 — Folkertsma v Commission

42

2022/C 84/61

Case T-788/21: Action brought on 21 December 2021 — TDK Foil Italy v Commission

43

2022/C 84/62

Case T-792/21: Action brought on 21 December 2021 — ClientEarth v Commission

44

2022/C 84/63

Case T-796/21: Action brought on 27 December 2021 — Grupo Eig Multimedia v EUIPO — Globalización de Valores CFC & GCI (FORO16)

44

2022/C 84/64

Case T-799/21: Action brought on 24 December 2021 — European Food v EUIPO — Société des produits Nestlé (FITNESS)

45

2022/C 84/65

Case T-1/22: Action brought on 4 January 2022 — Airoldi Metalli v Commission

46

2022/C 84/66

Case T-2/22: Action brought on 4 January 2022 — Sveza Verkhnyaya Sinyachikha and Others/Commission

46

2022/C 84/67

Case T-3/22: Action brought on 4 January 2022 — ZHPLK/Commission

47

2022/C 84/68

Case T-5/22: Action brought on 5 January 2022 — Puma v EUIPO — Brooks Sports (Representation of a chevron)

49

2022/C 84/69

Case T-7/22: Action brought on 6 January 2022 — FFI Female Financial Invest v EUIPO — MLP Finanzberatung SE (Financery)

49

2022/C 84/70

Case T-8/22: Action brought on 6 January 2022 — Topcart v EUIPO — Carl International (TC CARL)

50

2022/C 84/71

Case T-9/22: Action brought on 7 January 2022 — Olimp Laboratories v EUIPO (VITA-MIN MULTIPLE SPORT)

51

2022/C 84/72

Case T-10/22: Action brought on 7 January 2022 — Wajos v EUIPO (Shape of a bottle)

51

2022/C 84/73

Case T-15/22: Action brought on 10 January 2022 — Motel One v EUIPO — Apartment One (APART MENT ONE SLEEP CLEVER.)

52

2022/C 84/74

Case T-17/22: Action brought on 8 January 2022 — Tóth v Commission

53

2022/C 84/75

Case T-18/22: Action brought on 10 January 2022 — Nemport Liman İşletmeleri Ve Özel Antrepo Nakliye Ticaret v EUIPO — Newport Europe (NEMPORT LİMAN İŞLETMELERİ)

53

---

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/1

---

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

(2022/C 84/01)

Last publication

OJ C 73, 14.2.2022

Past publications

OJ C 64, 7.2.2022

OJ C 51, 31.1.2022

OJ C 37, 24.1.2022

OJ C 24, 17.1.2022

OJ C 11, 10.1.2022

OJ C 2, 3.1.2022

These texts are available on:

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

---

General Court

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/2

---

Taking of the oath by new Members of the General Court

(2022/C 84/02)

Following their appointment as Judges at the General Court for the period from 22 December 2021 to 31 August 2025 by decision of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of the European Union of 21 December 2021 (1), Ms Suzanne Kingston and Mr Damjan Kukovec took the oath before the Court of Justice on 13 January 2022.

Following his appointment as Judge at the General Court for the period from 22 December 2021 to 31 August 2022 by decision of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of the European Union of 21 December 2021 (2), Mr Ioannis Dimitrakopoulos took the oath before the Court of Justice on 13 January 2022.

---

(1)  OJ L 458, 22.12.2021, p. 519.

(2)  OJ L 458, 22.12.2021, p. 519.

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 December 2021 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie, Tribunalul Bihor — Romania) — Criminal proceedings against PM (C-357/19), RO (C-357/19), SP (C-357/19), TQ (C-357/19), KI (C-379/19), LJ (C-379/19), JH (C-379/19), IG (C-379/19), FQ (C-811/19), GP (C-811/19), HO (C-811/19), IN (C-811/19), NC (C-840/19)

(Joined Cases C-357/19, C-379/19, C-547/19, C-811/19 and C-840/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Decision 2006/928/EC - Mechanism for cooperation and verification of progress in Romania to address specific benchmarks in the areas of judicial reform and the fight against corruption - Legal nature and effects - Binding on Romania - Rule of law - Judicial independence - Second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Fight against corruption - Protection of the European Union’s financial interests - Article 325(1) TFEU - ‘PFI’ Convention - Criminal proceedings - Decisions of the Curtea Constituțională (Constitutional Court, Romania) concerning the legality of the taking of certain evidence and the composition of judicial panels in cases of serious corruption - Duty on national courts to give full effect to the decisions of the Curtea Constituțională (Constitutional Court) - Disciplinary liability of judges in case of non-compliance with such decisions - Power to disapply decisions of the Curtea Constituțională (Constitutional Court) that conflict with EU law - Principle of primacy of EU law)

(2022/C 84/03)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie, Tribunalul Bihor

Parties in the main proceedings

PM (C-357/19), RO (C-357/19), SP (C-357/19), TQ (C-357/19), KI (C-379/19), LJ (C-379/19), JH (C-379/19), IG (C-379/19), FQ (C-811/19), GP (C-811/19), HO (C-811/19), IN (C-811/19), NC (C-840/19)

Interested parties: Ministerul Public — Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie — Direcţia Naţională Anticorupţie (C-357/19, C-811/19 and C-840/19), QN (C-357/19), UR (C-357/19), VS (C-357/19), WT (C-357/19), Autoritatea Naţională pentru Turism (C-357/19), Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală (C-357/19), SC Euro Box Promotion SRL (C-357/19), Direcţia Naţională Anticorupţie — Serviciul Teritorial Oradea (C-379/19), JM (C-811/19),

and in the proceedings

CY, Asociaţia ‘Forumul Judecătorilor din România’ v Inspecţia Judiciară, Consiliul Superior al Magistraturii, Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie (C-547/19)

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Commission Decision 2006/928/EC of 13 December 2006 establishing a mechanism for cooperation and verification of progress in Romania to address specific benchmarks in the areas of judicial reform and the fight against corruption is, as long as it has not been repealed, binding in its entirety on Romania. The benchmarks in the annex to that decision are intended to ensure that Romania complies with the value of the rule of law, set out in Article 2 TEU, and are binding on it, to the effect that Romania is required to take the appropriate measures to meet those benchmarks, taking due account, under the principle of sincere cooperation laid down in Article 4(3) TEU, of the reports drawn up by the Commission on the basis of that decision, and in particular the recommendations made in those reports. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Commission Decision 2006/928/EC of 13 December 2006 establishing a mechanism for cooperation and verification of progress in Romania to address specific benchmarks in the areas of judicial reform and the fight against corruption is, as long as it has not been repealed, binding in its entirety on Romania. The benchmarks in the annex to that decision are intended to ensure that Romania complies with the value of the rule of law, set out in Article 2 TEU, and are binding on it, to the effect that Romania is required to take the appropriate measures to meet those benchmarks, taking due account, under the principle of sincere cooperation laid down in Article 4(3) TEU, of the reports drawn up by the Commission on the basis of that decision, and in particular the recommendations made in those reports.

| 2. | Article 325(1) TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 2 of the Convention drawn up on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests, signed in Luxembourg on 26 July 1995, and Decision 2006/298 are to be interpreted as precluding national rules or a national practice under which judgments in matters of corruption and value added tax (VAT) fraud, which were not delivered, at first instance, by panels specialised in such matters or, on appeal, by panels all the members of which were selected by drawing lots, are rendered absolutely null and void, such that the cases of corruption and VAT fraud concerned must, as the case may be further to an extraordinary appeal against final judgments, be re-examined at first and/or second instance, where the application of those national rules or that national practice is capable of giving rise to a systemic risk of acts constituting serious fraud affecting the European Union’s financial interests or corruption in general going unpunished. The obligation to ensure that such offences are subject to criminal penalties that are effective and act as a deterrent does not exempt the referring court from verifying the necessary observance of the fundamental rights guaranteed in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, but does not allow that court to apply a national standard of protection of fundamental rights entailing such a systemic risk of impunity. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 325(1) TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 2 of the Convention drawn up on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests, signed in Luxembourg on 26 July 1995, and Decision 2006/298 are to be interpreted as precluding national rules or a national practice under which judgments in matters of corruption and value added tax (VAT) fraud, which were not delivered, at first instance, by panels specialised in such matters or, on appeal, by panels all the members of which were selected by drawing lots, are rendered absolutely null and void, such that the cases of corruption and VAT fraud concerned must, as the case may be further to an extraordinary appeal against final judgments, be re-examined at first and/or second instance, where the application of those national rules or that national practice is capable of giving rise to a systemic risk of acts constituting serious fraud affecting the European Union’s financial interests or corruption in general going unpunished. The obligation to ensure that such offences are subject to criminal penalties that are effective and act as a deterrent does not exempt the referring court from verifying the necessary observance of the fundamental rights guaranteed in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, but does not allow that court to apply a national standard of protection of fundamental rights entailing such a systemic risk of impunity.

| 3. | Article 2 TEU, the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU and Decision 2006/928 are to be interpreted as not precluding national rules or a national practice under which the decisions of the national constitutional court are binding on the ordinary courts, provided that the national law guarantees the independence of that constitutional court in relation, in particular, to the legislature and the executive, as required by those provisions. However, those provisions of the EU Treaty and that decision are to be interpreted as precluding national rules under which any failure to comply with the decisions of the national constitutional court by national judges of the ordinary courts can trigger their disciplinary liability. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 2 TEU, the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU and Decision 2006/928 are to be interpreted as not precluding national rules or a national practice under which the decisions of the national constitutional court are binding on the ordinary courts, provided that the national law guarantees the independence of that constitutional court in relation, in particular, to the legislature and the executive, as required by those provisions. However, those provisions of the EU Treaty and that decision are to be interpreted as precluding national rules under which any failure to comply with the decisions of the national constitutional court by national judges of the ordinary courts can trigger their disciplinary liability.

| 4. | The principle of primacy of EU law is to be interpreted as precluding national rules or a national practice under which national ordinary courts are bound by decisions of the national constitutional court and cannot, by virtue of that fact and without committing a disciplinary offence, disapply, on their own authority, the case-law established in those decisions, even though they are of the view, in the light of a judgment of the Court of Justice, that that case-law is contrary to the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, Article 325(1) TFEU or Decision 2006/928. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The principle of primacy of EU law is to be interpreted as precluding national rules or a national practice under which national ordinary courts are bound by decisions of the national constitutional court and cannot, by virtue of that fact and without committing a disciplinary offence, disapply, on their own authority, the case-law established in those decisions, even though they are of the view, in the light of a judgment of the Court of Justice, that that case-law is contrary to the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, Article 325(1) TFEU or Decision 2006/928.

---

(1)  OJ C 288, 26.8.2019.

OJ C 246, 22.7.2019.

OJ C 372, 4.11.2019.

OJ C 54, 17.2.2019.

OJ C 201, 15.6.2020.

---

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 December 2021 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — UBS Real Estate Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH v Agenzia delle Entrate

(Joined Cases C-478/19 and C-479/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Free movement of capital - Closed-ended mutual investment funds - Open-ended mutual investment funds - Investments in real estate - Mortgage registration tax and land registry fees - Tax advantage granted only to closed-ended real estate investment funds - Difference in treatment - Comparability of situations - Objective criteria of differentiation)

(2022/C 84/04)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: UBS Real Estate Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH

Defendant: Agenzia delle Entrate

Operative part of the judgment

Article 56 EC (now, after amendment, Article 63 TFEU) must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which restricts the benefit of the reduction in mortgage registration tax and in land registry fees solely to closed-ended real estate funds, to the exclusion of open-ended real estate funds, provided that those two categories of fund are in objectively comparable situations, unless such a difference in treatment is justified by the objective of limiting systemic risks on the real estate market.

---

(1)  OJ C 357, 21.10.2019.

---

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against HP

(Case C-724/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - European Investigation Order (EIO) - Directive 2014/41/EU - Article 2(c)(i) - Concept of ‘issuing authority’ - Article 6 - Conditions for issuing an EIO - Article 9(1) and (3) - Recognition of an EIO - EIO seeking to obtain traffic and location data associated with telecommunications, issued by a public prosecutor designated as ‘issuing authority’ by the national measure transposing Directive 2014/41 - Exclusive competence of the judge, in a similar domestic case, to order the investigative measure indicated in that order)

(2022/C 84/05)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

Party in the main proceedings

HP

Interested party: Spetsializirana prokuratura

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 2(c)(i) of Directive 2014/41/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 regarding the European Investigation Order in criminal matters must be interpreted as precluding a public prosecutor from having competence to issue, during the pre-trial stage of criminal proceedings, an European Investigation Order, within the meaning of that directive, seeking to obtain traffic and location data associated with telecommunications, where, in a similar domestic case, the judge has exclusive competence to adopt an investigative measure seeking access to such data. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 2(c)(i) of Directive 2014/41/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 regarding the European Investigation Order in criminal matters must be interpreted as precluding a public prosecutor from having competence to issue, during the pre-trial stage of criminal proceedings, an European Investigation Order, within the meaning of that directive, seeking to obtain traffic and location data associated with telecommunications, where, in a similar domestic case, the judge has exclusive competence to adopt an investigative measure seeking access to such data.

| 2. | Article 6 and Article 9(1) and (3) of Directive 2014/41 must be interpreted as meaning that recognition, on the part of the executing authority, of an European Investigation Order issued with a view to obtaining traffic and location data associated with telecommunications may not replace the requirements applicable in the issuing State, where that European Investigation Order was improperly issued by a public prosecutor, whereas, in a similar domestic case, the judge has exclusive competence to adopt an investigative measure seeking to obtain such data. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 6 and Article 9(1) and (3) of Directive 2014/41 must be interpreted as meaning that recognition, on the part of the executing authority, of an European Investigation Order issued with a view to obtaining traffic and location data associated with telecommunications may not replace the requirements applicable in the issuing State, where that European Investigation Order was improperly issued by a public prosecutor, whereas, in a similar domestic case, the judge has exclusive competence to adopt an investigative measure seeking to obtain such data.

---

(1)  OJ C 413, 9.12.2019.

---

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 December 2021 — Aeris Invest Sàrl v Single Resolution Board (SRB)

(Case C-874/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Economic and monetary union - Banking union - Recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms - Single resolution mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) - Single Resolution Board (SRB) - Resolution procedure applicable where an entity is failing or is likely to fail - Adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español SA - Sale of business tool - Write-down and conversion of capital instruments - Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 - Article 20 - Concept of ‘definitive valuation’ - Consequences - Refusal or failure to proceed with an ex post definitive valuation - Remedies - Action for annulment)

(2022/C 84/06)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Aeris Invest Sàrl (represented: initially by R. Vallina Hoset and A. Sellés Marco, abogados, and subsequently by R. Vallina Hoset, E. Galán Burgos and M. Varela Suárez, abogados)

Other party to the proceedings: Single Resolution Board (SRB) (represented by: J. King, L. Pogarcic Mataija and E. Muratori, acting as Agents, F. Louis and G. Barthet, avocats, and H. G. Kamann and L. Hesse, Rechtsanwälte)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Aeris Invest Sàrl to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Aeris Invest Sàrl to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 45, 10.2.2020.

---

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 21 December 2021 — PlasticsEurope AISBL v European Chemicals Agency, French Republic, ClientEarth

(Case C-876/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Establishment of a list of substances subject to authorisation - List of substances identified with a view to their eventual inclusion in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 - Updating of the entry of the substance bisphenol A as a substance of very high concern)

(2022/C 84/07)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: PlasticsEurope AISBL (represented: initially by R. Cana, E. Mullier and F. Mattioli, and subsequently by R. Cana and E. Mullier, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: W. Broere, A.K. Hautamäki and M. Heikkilä, acting as Agents, and by S. Raes, advocaat), French Republic (represented by: T. Stehelin and E. Leclerc, acting as Agents), ClientEarth (represented by: P. Kirch, avocat)

Intervener in support of the other parties to the proceedings: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: D. Klebs, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders PlasticsEurope AISBL to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) and ClientEarth; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders PlasticsEurope AISBL to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) and ClientEarth;

| 3. | Orders the French Republic and the Federal Republic of Germany to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the French Republic and the Federal Republic of Germany to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 54, 17.2.2020.

---

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 December 2021 — Algebris (UK) Ltd, Anchorage Capital Group LLC v Single Resolution Board (SRB)

(Case C-934/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Economic and monetary union - Banking union - Recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms - Single resolution mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) - Single Resolution Board (SRB) - Resolution procedure applicable where an entity is failing or is likely to fail - Adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español SA - Sale of business tool - Write-down and conversion of capital instruments - Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 - Article 20 - Concept of ‘definitive valuation’ - Consequences - Refusal or failure to proceed with an ex post definitive valuation - Remedies - Action for annulment)

(2022/C 84/08)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Algebris (UK) Ltd, Anchorage Capital Group LLC (represented by: T. Soames, avocat, R. East, Solicitor, N. Chesaites, advocaat, and D. Mackersie, Barrister)

Other party to the proceedings: Single Resolution Board (SRB) (represented by: J. King, L. Pogarcic Mataija and E. Muratori, acting as Agents, H.-G. Kamann and L. Hesse, Rechstanwälte, and F. Louis, avocat)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Algebris (UK) Ltd and Anchorage Capital Group LLC to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Algebris (UK) Ltd and Anchorage Capital Group LLC to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 87, 16.3.2020.

---

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Bank Melli Iran v Telekom Deutschland GmbH

(Case C-124/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Commercial policy - Regulation (EC) No 2271/96 - Protection against the effects of the extraterritorial application of legislation adopted by a third country - Restrictive measures taken by the United States of America against Iran - Secondary sanctions adopted by that third country preventing persons from engaging, outside its territory, in commercial relationships with certain Iranian undertakings - Prohibition on complying with such a law - Exercise of the right of ordinary termination)

(2022/C 84/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bank Melli Iran

Defendant: Telekom Deutschland GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The first paragraph of Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2271/96 of 22 November 1996 protecting against the effects of the extra-territorial application of legislation adopted by a third country, and actions based thereon or resulting therefrom, as amended by Regulation (EU) No 37/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2014, and by Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/1100 of 6 June 2018, which amended the Annex to Regulation No 2271/96, must be interpreted as prohibiting persons referred to in Article 11 of Regulation No 2271/96, as amended, from complying with the requirements or prohibitions laid down in the laws specified in the annex to that regulation, even in the absence of an order directing compliance issued by the administrative or judicial authorities of the third countries which adopted those laws; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The first paragraph of Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2271/96 of 22 November 1996 protecting against the effects of the extra-territorial application of legislation adopted by a third country, and actions based thereon or resulting therefrom, as amended by Regulation (EU) No 37/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2014, and by Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/1100 of 6 June 2018, which amended the Annex to Regulation No 2271/96, must be interpreted as prohibiting persons referred to in Article 11 of Regulation No 2271/96, as amended, from complying with the requirements or prohibitions laid down in the laws specified in the annex to that regulation, even in the absence of an order directing compliance issued by the administrative or judicial authorities of the third countries which adopted those laws;

| 2. | The first paragraph of Article 5 of Regulation No 2271/96, as amended by Regulation No 37/2014 and Delegated Regulation 2018/1100, must be interpreted as not precluding a person referred to in Article 11 of that regulation, as amended, who does not have an authorisation within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 5 of that regulation, as amended, from terminating contracts concluded with a person on the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List, without providing reasons for that termination. Nevertheless, the first paragraph of Article 5 of the same regulation, as amended, requires that, in civil proceedings relating to the alleged infringement of the prohibition laid down in that provision, where all the evidence available to the national court suggests prima facie that a person referred to in Article 11 of Regulation No 2271/96, as amended, complied with the laws specified in the annex to that regulation, as amended, without having an authorisation in that respect, it is for that same person to establish to the requisite legal standard that his or her conduct was not intended to comply with those laws; |
| --- | --- |

2.

The first paragraph of Article 5 of Regulation No 2271/96, as amended by Regulation No 37/2014 and Delegated Regulation 2018/1100, must be interpreted as not precluding a person referred to in Article 11 of that regulation, as amended, who does not have an authorisation within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 5 of that regulation, as amended, from terminating contracts concluded with a person on the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List, without providing reasons for that termination. Nevertheless, the first paragraph of Article 5 of the same regulation, as amended, requires that, in civil proceedings relating to the alleged infringement of the prohibition laid down in that provision, where all the evidence available to the national court suggests prima facie that a person referred to in Article 11 of Regulation No 2271/96, as amended, complied with the laws specified in the annex to that regulation, as amended, without having an authorisation in that respect, it is for that same person to establish to the requisite legal standard that his or her conduct was not intended to comply with those laws;

| 3. | Regulation No 2271/96, as amended by Regulation No 37/2014 and Delegated Regulation 2018/1100, in particular Articles 5 and 9 thereof, read in the light of Article 16 and Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as not precluding the annulment of the termination of contracts effected by a person referred to in Article 11 of that regulation, as amended, in order to comply with the requirements or prohibitions based on the laws specified in the annex to that regulation, as amended, even though that person does not have an authorisation, within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 5 of the same regulation, as amended, provided that that annulment does not entail disproportionate effects for that person having regard to the objectives of Regulation No 2271/96, as amended, consisting in the protection of the established legal order and the interests of the European Union in general. In that assessment of proportionality, it is necessary to weigh in the balance the pursuit of those objectives served by the annulment of the termination of a contract effected in breach of the prohibition laid down in the first paragraph of Article 5 of that regulation, as amended, and the probability that the person concerned may be exposed to economic loss, as well as the extent of that loss, if that person cannot terminate his or her commercial relationship with a person included in the list of persons covered by the secondary sanctions at issue resulting from the laws specified in the annex to that regulation, as amended. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Regulation No 2271/96, as amended by Regulation No 37/2014 and Delegated Regulation 2018/1100, in particular Articles 5 and 9 thereof, read in the light of Article 16 and Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as not precluding the annulment of the termination of contracts effected by a person referred to in Article 11 of that regulation, as amended, in order to comply with the requirements or prohibitions based on the laws specified in the annex to that regulation, as amended, even though that person does not have an authorisation, within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 5 of the same regulation, as amended, provided that that annulment does not entail disproportionate effects for that person having regard to the objectives of Regulation No 2271/96, as amended, consisting in the protection of the established legal order and the interests of the European Union in general. In that assessment of proportionality, it is necessary to weigh in the balance the pursuit of those objectives served by the annulment of the termination of a contract effected in breach of the prohibition laid down in the first paragraph of Article 5 of that regulation, as amended, and the probability that the person concerned may be exposed to economic loss, as well as the extent of that loss, if that person cannot terminate his or her commercial relationship with a person included in the list of persons covered by the secondary sanctions at issue resulting from the laws specified in the annex to that regulation, as amended.

---

(1)  OJ C 201, 15.6.2020.

---

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/9

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 December 2021 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf, Landesgericht Korneuburg — Germany, Austria) — AD, BE, CF v Corendon Airlines (C-146/20), JG, LH, MI, NJ v OP, acting as liquidator of Azurair GmbH (C-188/20), Eurowings GmbH v flightright GmbH (C-196/20), AG, MG, HG v Austrian Airlines AG (C-270/20)

(Joined Cases C-146/20, C-188/20, C-196/20 and C-270/20) (1)

(References for a preliminary ruling - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of cancellation or long delay of flights - Articles 2 and 3 - Concepts of ‘operating air carrier’, ‘confirmed reservation’ and ‘scheduled time of arrival’ - Articles 5, 7 and 8 - Flight departure time brought forward in relation to the original planned departure time - Classification - Reduction in the amount of compensation - Offer of re-routing - Article 14 - Obligation to inform passengers of their rights - Scope)

(2022/C 84/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht Korneuburg

Parties to the main proceedings

(Case C-146/20)

Applicants: AD, BE, CF

Defendant: Corendon Airlines

(Case C-188/20)

Applicants: JG, LH, MI, NJ

Defendant: OP, acting as liquidator of Azurair GmbH

Interested party: alltours flugreisen GmbH

(Case C-196/20)

Applicant: Eurowings GmbH

Defendant: flightright GmbH

(Case C-270/20)

Applicants: AG, MG, HG

Defendant: Austrian Airlines AG

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 3(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, must be interpreted as meaning that the passenger has a ‘confirmed reservation’, within the meaning of that provision, where the tour operator submits to that passenger, with whom it has a contract, ‘other proof’, within the meaning of Article 2(g) of that regulation, by which he or she is assured transport on a particular flight, individualised by points of departure and destination, times of departure and arrival, and the flight number, even in cases where that tour operator has not received confirmation from the air carrier concerned as to the times of departure and arrival of that flight; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 3(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, must be interpreted as meaning that the passenger has a ‘confirmed reservation’, within the meaning of that provision, where the tour operator submits to that passenger, with whom it has a contract, ‘other proof’, within the meaning of Article 2(g) of that regulation, by which he or she is assured transport on a particular flight, individualised by points of departure and destination, times of departure and arrival, and the flight number, even in cases where that tour operator has not received confirmation from the air carrier concerned as to the times of departure and arrival of that flight;

| 2. | Article 2(b) of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that an air carrier may be classified as an ‘operating air carrier’ within the meaning of that provision in respect of a passenger if that passenger has concluded a contract with a tour operator for a particular flight operated by that air carrier without that air carrier having confirmed the hours of the flight or without that tour operator having made a booking for that passenger with that air carrier; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 2(b) of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that an air carrier may be classified as an ‘operating air carrier’ within the meaning of that provision in respect of a passenger if that passenger has concluded a contract with a tour operator for a particular flight operated by that air carrier without that air carrier having confirmed the hours of the flight or without that tour operator having made a booking for that passenger with that air carrier;

| 3. | Article 2(h), Article 5(1)(c), the second sentence of Article 7(1) and Article 7(2) of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that the scheduled time of arrival of a flight, within the meaning of those provisions, can be determined, for the purposes of the compensation payable under Article 7 of that regulation, from ‘other proof’ within the meaning of Article 2(g) of that regulation, issued to the passenger by the tour operator; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 2(h), Article 5(1)(c), the second sentence of Article 7(1) and Article 7(2) of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that the scheduled time of arrival of a flight, within the meaning of those provisions, can be determined, for the purposes of the compensation payable under Article 7 of that regulation, from ‘other proof’ within the meaning of Article 2(g) of that regulation, issued to the passenger by the tour operator;

| 4. | Article 2(l) and Article 5(1) of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that a flight is regarded as having been ‘cancelled’ in the case where the operating air carrier brings that flight forward by more than one hour; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Article 2(l) and Article 5(1) of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that a flight is regarded as having been ‘cancelled’ in the case where the operating air carrier brings that flight forward by more than one hour;

| 5. | Article 7(2) of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that it is not applicable to a situation in which the amount of time by which the arrival of a flight has been brought forward is within the limits referred to in that provision; |
| --- | --- |

5.

Article 7(2) of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that it is not applicable to a situation in which the amount of time by which the arrival of a flight has been brought forward is within the limits referred to in that provision;

| 6. | Article 5(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that informing a passenger, before the beginning of his or her journey, that his or her flight has been brought forward may constitute an ‘offer of re-routing’ within the meaning of that latter provision; |
| --- | --- |

6.

Article 5(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that informing a passenger, before the beginning of his or her journey, that his or her flight has been brought forward may constitute an ‘offer of re-routing’ within the meaning of that latter provision;

| 7. | Article 14(2) of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as requiring the operating air carrier to inform the air passenger of the precise name and address of the undertaking from which that passenger may claim compensation under Article 7 of that regulation and, where appropriate, to specify the documents which must be attached to his or her claim for compensation, without, however, requiring that carrier to inform the air passenger of the exact amount of compensation which the latter may potentially obtain under Article 7 of that regulation. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Article 14(2) of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as requiring the operating air carrier to inform the air passenger of the precise name and address of the undertaking from which that passenger may claim compensation under Article 7 of that regulation and, where appropriate, to specify the documents which must be attached to his or her claim for compensation, without, however, requiring that carrier to inform the air passenger of the exact amount of compensation which the latter may potentially obtain under Article 7 of that regulation.

---

(1)  OJ C 230, 13.7.2020.

OJ C 271, 17.8.2020.

OJ C 279, 24.8.2020.

---

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Bratislava III — Slovakia) — Criminal proceedings against AB and Others

(Case C-203/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - European arrest warrant - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Scope - Article 51 - Implementation of EU law - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Jurisdiction of the Court - Reference made before the issue of a European arrest warrant - Admissibility - Principle ne bis in idem - Article 50 - Concepts of ‘acquittal’ and ‘conviction’ - Amnesty in the issuing Member State - Final decision discontinuing a criminal prosecution - Revocation of the amnesty - Setting-aside of the decision discontinuing the criminal prosecution - Resumption of proceedings - Need for a decision taken after a determination of the criminal liability of the person concerned - Directive 2012/13/EU - Right to information in criminal proceedings - Scope - Concept of ‘criminal proceedings’ - Legislative procedure for the adoption of a resolution relating to the revocation of an amnesty - Judicial procedure for review of the compliance of that resolution with the national Constitution)

(2022/C 84/11)

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Okresný súd Bratislava III

Parties in the main proceedings

AB, CD, EF, NO, JL, GH, IJ, LM, PR, ST, UV, WZ, BC, DE, FG

Intervening parties: HI, Krajská prokuratúra v Bratislave

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as not precluding the issue of a European arrest warrant against a person who was subject to a criminal prosecution that was initially discontinued by a final judicial decision adopted on the basis of an amnesty, and resumed following the adoption of a law revoking that amnesty and setting aside that judicial decision, in the case where that decision was adopted before any determination as to the criminal liability of the person concerned; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as not precluding the issue of a European arrest warrant against a person who was subject to a criminal prosecution that was initially discontinued by a final judicial decision adopted on the basis of an amnesty, and resumed following the adoption of a law revoking that amnesty and setting aside that judicial decision, in the case where that decision was adopted before any determination as to the criminal liability of the person concerned;

| 2. | Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings must be interpreted as not applying to a legislative procedure for the revocation of an amnesty or to a judicial procedure the purpose of which is to review the compliance of that revocation with the national constitution. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings must be interpreted as not applying to a legislative procedure for the revocation of an amnesty or to a judicial procedure the purpose of which is to review the compliance of that revocation with the national constitution.

---

(1)  OJ C 230, 13.7.2020.

---

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Constanţa — Romania) — Euro Delta Danube SRL v Agenţia de Plăţi şi Intervenţie pentru Agricultură — Centrul Judeţean Tulcea

(Case C-225/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - Common agricultural policy - Delegated Regulation (EU) No 640/2014 - Area-related aid scheme - Single area payment - Eligibility criteria - Concession agreement for agricultural land - Change of use of that land without the agreement of the grantor - Agricultural use of areas intended for aquaculture use - Difference between the area declared and the area determined - Over-declaration - Administrative penalties)

(2022/C 84/12)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Constanţa

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Euro Delta Danube SRL

Respondent: Agenţia de Plăţi şi Intervenţie pentru Agricultură — Centrul Judeţean Tulcea

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(1)(23) and Article 19(1) and (2) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 640/2014 of 11 March 2014, supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the integrated administration and control system and conditions for refusal or withdrawal of payments and administrative penalties applicable to direct payments, rural development support and cross compliance, as amended by Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/1393 of 4 May 2016 must be interpreted as not providing for, in the context of the single area payment scheme, the imposition of administrative penalties for over-declaration on an applicant for agricultural aid, on the ground that he or she uses for agricultural purposes areas which have been granted to him or her for aquaculture use, without the agreement of the grantor to such a change of use of those areas, since that applicant enjoys a degree of autonomy with regard to that area sufficient for the carrying-out of his or her agricultural activity.

---

(1)  OJ C 297, 7.9.2020.

---

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Polymeles Protodikeio Athinon — Greece) — DP, SG v Trapeza Peiraios AE

(Case C-243/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms - Article 1(2) - Contractual terms which reflect mandatory statutory or regulatory provisions - Exclusion from the scope of that directive - Loan repayable in a foreign currency - Term which reflects a national provision of non-mandatory law - Relevance of the failure to transpose Article 1(2) - Article 3(1) and Article 4(1) - Review of the unfairness of a term - Article 8 - Adoption or retention of provisions which ensure a higher level of protection for consumers - Interaction between those various provisions of Directive 93/13)

(2022/C 84/13)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Polymeles Protodikeio Athinon

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: DP, SG

Defendant: Trapeza Peiraios AE

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 1(2) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as precluding from the scope of that directive a term incorporated in a contract concluded between a consumer and a seller or supplier which reflects a national statutory or regulatory provision of non-mandatory law, that is to say, a term which applies by default in the absence of other arrangements established by the parties, even if that term has not been individually negotiated; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 1(2) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as precluding from the scope of that directive a term incorporated in a contract concluded between a consumer and a seller or supplier which reflects a national statutory or regulatory provision of non-mandatory law, that is to say, a term which applies by default in the absence of other arrangements established by the parties, even if that term has not been individually negotiated;

| 2. | Article 1(2) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as precluding the terms referred thereto from the scope of that directive, notwithstanding that Article 1(2) has not been formally transposed into the national law of a Member State, and, in such a case, the courts of that Member State cannot consider that Article 1(2) has been incorporated indirectly into national law through the transposition of Articles 3(1) and 4(1) of that Directive; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 1(2) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as precluding the terms referred thereto from the scope of that directive, notwithstanding that Article 1(2) has not been formally transposed into the national law of a Member State, and, in such a case, the courts of that Member State cannot consider that Article 1(2) has been incorporated indirectly into national law through the transposition of Articles 3(1) and 4(1) of that Directive;

| 3. | Article 8 of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as not precluding the adoption or retention of national legislation which has the effect of applying the system of consumer protection under that directive to terms referred to in Article 1(2) thereof. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 8 of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as not precluding the adoption or retention of national legislation which has the effect of applying the system of consumer protection under that directive to terms referred to in Article 1(2) thereof.

---

(1)  OJ C 271, 17.8.2020.

---

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Gtflix Tv v DR

(Case C-251/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Article 7(2) - Special jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict - Publication on the internet of allegedly disparaging comments concerning a person - Place where the harmful event occurred - Courts of each Member State in which content placed online is or has been accessible)

(2022/C 84/14)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Gtflix Tv

Defendant: DR

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that a person who, considering that his or her rights have been infringed by the dissemination of disparaging comments concerning him or her on the internet, seeks not only the rectification of the information and the removal of the content placed online concerning him or her but also compensation for the damage resulting from that placement may claim, before the courts of each Member State in which those comments are or were accessible, compensation for the damage suffered in the Member State of the court seised, even though those courts do not have jurisdiction to rule on the application for rectification and removal.

---

(1)  OJ C 297, 7.9.2020.

---

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/14

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg — Austria) — Airhelp Limited v Laudamotion GmbH

(Case C-263/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of cancellation or long delay of flights - Article 2(l) - Article 5(1)(c) - Flight booked through an online platform - Flight departure time brought forward by the operating air carrier - Classification - Receipt of notification of the flight being brought forward sent to an electronic address not belonging to the passengers concerned - Directive 2000/31/EC - Electronic commerce - Article 11 - Presumption of receipt - Scope of the operating air carrier’s obligation to provide information)

(2022/C 84/15)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht Korneuburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Airhelp Limited

Defendant: Laudamotion GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 2(l) and Article 5(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, must be interpreted as meaning that a flight is regarded as being ‘cancelled’ in the case where the operating air carrier brings that flight forward by more than one hour; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 2(l) and Article 5(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, must be interpreted as meaning that a flight is regarded as being ‘cancelled’ in the case where the operating air carrier brings that flight forward by more than one hour;

| 2. | Compliance with the requirement to inform the passenger in good time of the cancellation of his or her flight must be assessed solely in accordance with Article 5(1)(c) of Regulation No 261/2004, read in conjunction with Article 5(4) of that regulation; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Compliance with the requirement to inform the passenger in good time of the cancellation of his or her flight must be assessed solely in accordance with Article 5(1)(c) of Regulation No 261/2004, read in conjunction with Article 5(4) of that regulation;

| 3. | Article 5(1)(c)(i) of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that an air passenger who reserved a flight through an intermediary is to be regarded as not having been informed of the cancellation of that flight in the case where, although the operating air carrier transmitted the information relating to that cancellation to that intermediary, through which the contract of carriage by air was concluded with that passenger, at least two weeks before the scheduled time of departure, that intermediary did not inform the passenger of that cancellation within the period referred to in that provision and that passenger did not expressly authorise that intermediary to receive the information transmitted by that operating air carrier. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 5(1)(c)(i) of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that an air passenger who reserved a flight through an intermediary is to be regarded as not having been informed of the cancellation of that flight in the case where, although the operating air carrier transmitted the information relating to that cancellation to that intermediary, through which the contract of carriage by air was concluded with that passenger, at least two weeks before the scheduled time of departure, that intermediary did not inform the passenger of that cancellation within the period referred to in that provision and that passenger did not expressly authorise that intermediary to receive the information transmitted by that operating air carrier.

---

(1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2020.

---

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/15

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di pace di Massa — Italy) — GN, WX v Prefettura di Massa Carrara — Ufficio Territoriale del Governo di Massa Carrara

(Case C-274/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 63 TFEU - Free movement of capital - Road traffic - Registration and taxation of motor vehicles - Driver residing in a Member State - Vehicle registered in another Member State - Vehicle provided free of charge for a short period - National legislation prohibiting persons who have resided in Italy for more than 60 days from driving in that Member State a vehicle registered in another country)

(2022/C 84/16)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Giudice di pace di Massa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: GN, WX

Defendant: Prefettura di Massa Carrara — Ufficio Territoriale del Governo di Massa Carrara

Operative part of the judgment

Article 63(1) TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which prohibits any person who has established his or her residence in that Member State for more than 60 days from driving in that Member State a motor vehicle registered in another Member State, irrespective of the person in whose name that vehicle is registered, without any account being taken of the duration of the use of that vehicle in the first Member State and without the person concerned being able to invoke any right to exemption where that same vehicle is neither intended to be used essentially in the first Member State on a permanent basis nor is, in fact, used in that manner.

---

(1)  OJ C 297, 7.9.2020.

---

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/15

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — XY v Finanzamt V

(Case C-394/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Free movement of capital - Articles 63 and 65 TFEU - National legislation on inheritance tax - Immovable property situated in a Member State - Limited tax liability - Different treatment of residents and non-residents - Right to an allowance on the taxable value - Proportionate reduction in the case of limited tax liability - Liabilities under reserved portions - No deduction in the case of limited tax liability)

(2022/C 84/17)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: XY

Defendant: Finanzamt V

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Articles 63 and 65 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State on the calculation of inheritance tax which provides that, in the event of acquisition of immovable property situated on national territory, where, at the date of death, neither the deceased nor the heir had their place of residence or habitual residence in that Member State, the allowance on the taxable value is to be reduced, in relation to the allowance applied where at least one of them, on that same date, had his or her place of residence or habitual residence in that Member State, by an amount corresponding to the share that represents the value of the estate that is not subject to tax in that same Member State in relation to the value of the whole estate; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Articles 63 and 65 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State on the calculation of inheritance tax which provides that, in the event of acquisition of immovable property situated on national territory, where, at the date of death, neither the deceased nor the heir had their place of residence or habitual residence in that Member State, the allowance on the taxable value is to be reduced, in relation to the allowance applied where at least one of them, on that same date, had his or her place of residence or habitual residence in that Member State, by an amount corresponding to the share that represents the value of the estate that is not subject to tax in that same Member State in relation to the value of the whole estate;

| 2. | Articles 63 and 65 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State on the calculation of inheritance tax which provides that, in the event of acquisition of immovable property situated on national territory, where, at the date of death, neither the deceased nor the heir had their place of residence or their habitual residence in that Member State, the liabilities under the reserved portions are not deductible, as debts under the succession, from the value of the inheritance, although those liabilities may be deducted in full if at least one of them, on that date, had his or her place of residence or habitual residence in that Member State. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Articles 63 and 65 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State on the calculation of inheritance tax which provides that, in the event of acquisition of immovable property situated on national territory, where, at the date of death, neither the deceased nor the heir had their place of residence or their habitual residence in that Member State, the liabilities under the reserved portions are not deductible, as debts under the succession, from the value of the inheritance, although those liabilities may be deducted in full if at least one of them, on that date, had his or her place of residence or habitual residence in that Member State.

---

(1)  OJ C 378, 9.11.2020.

---

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/16

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — EP, GM v Corendon Airlines Turistik Hava Taşımacılık A.Ş.

(Case C-395/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of cancellation or long delay of flights - Article 2(l) - Article 5(1) - Change in the departure time of a flight - Departure postponed by approximately three hours - Passengers notified nine days before departure - Concepts of ‘cancellation’ and ‘delay’)

(2022/C 84/18)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: EP, GM

Defendant: Corendon Airlines Turistik Hava Taşımacılık A.Ş.

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 2(l) and 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, must be interpreted as meaning that a flight is not regarded as ‘cancelled’, within the meaning of those provisions, in the case where the operating air carrier postpones the time of departure of that flight by less than three hours, without making any other change to that flight.

---

(1)  OJ C 399, 23.11.2020.

---

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/17

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Apelacyjny w Warszawie — Poland) — A.K. v Skarb Państwa

(Case C-428/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles - Second Directive 84/5/EEC - Article 1(2) - Directive 2005/14/EC - Directive 2009/103/EC - Article 9(1) - Obligation to increase the minimum amounts covered by compulsory insurance - Transitional period - New rule applying immediately to the future effects of a situation arising under the old rule - Situation arising prior to the entry into force of an EU rule of substantive law - National legislation excluding insurance contracts concluded before 11 December 2009 from the obligation to increase the minimum amounts covered by compulsory insurance)

(2022/C 84/19)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Apelacyjny w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: A.K.

Defendant: Skarb Państwa

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(2) of Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, as amended by Directive 2005/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005, and Article 9(1) of Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability must be interpreted as meaning that Member States which have availed themselves of the option, provided for in those provisions, of laying down a transitional period were obliged to require that, as from 11 December 2009, the minimum amounts guaranteed in insurance contracts against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles concluded before that date but which were still in force on that date comply with the rule laid down in the fourth paragraph of those provisions.

---

(1)  OJ C 278, 12.7.2021.

---

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/17

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — V.М.А. v Stolichna obshtina, rayon ‘Pancharevo’

(Case C-490/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Citizenship of the Union - Articles 20 and 21 TFEU - Right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States - Child born in the host Member State of her parents - Birth certificate issued by that Member State mentioning two mothers in respect of that child - Refusal by the Member State of origin of one of those two mothers to issue a birth certificate for the child in the absence of information as to the identity of the child’s biological mother - Possession of such a certificate being a prerequisite for the issue of an identity card or a passport - Persons of the same sex not recognised as parents under the national legislation of that Member State of origin)

(2022/C 84/20)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Sofia-grad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: V.М.А.

Defendant: Stolichna obshtina, rayon ‘Pancharevo’

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(2) TEU, Articles 20 and 21 TFEU and Articles 7, 24 and 45 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, read in conjunction with Article 4(3) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of a child, being a minor, who is a Union citizen and whose birth certificate, issued by the competent authorities of the host Member State, designates as that child’s parents two persons of the same sex, the Member State of which that child is a national is obliged (i) to issue to that child an identity card or a passport without requiring a birth certificate to be drawn up beforehand by its national authorities, and (ii) to recognise, as is any other Member State, the document from the host Member State that permits that child to exercise, with each of those two persons, the child’s right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States.

---

(1)  OJ C 433, 14.12.2020.

---

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/18

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Randstad Italia SpA v Umana SpA, Azienda USL Valle d’Aosta, IN. VA SpA, Synergie Italia agenzia per il Lavoro SpA

(Case C-497/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU - Obligation of Member States to provide remedies sufficient to ensure effective legal protection in the fields covered by Union law - Public procurement - Directive 89/665/EEC - Article 1(1) and (3) - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Judgment of a Member State’s highest administrative court declaring inadmissible, in breach of the case-law of the Court of Justice, an action brought by a tenderer excluded from a public procurement procedure - No remedy against that judgment before the highest court in that Member State’s judicial order - Principles of effectiveness and equivalence)

(2022/C 84/21)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Randstad Italia SpA

Defendants: Umana SpA, Azienda USL Valle d’Aosta, IN. VA SpA, Synergie Italia agenzia per il Lavoro SpA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(3) and Article 19(1) TEU, and Article 1(1) and (3) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Directive 2014/23/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as not precluding a provision of a Member State’s domestic law which, according to national case-law, has the effect that individual parties, such as tenderers who participated in a procedure for the award of a public contract, cannot challenge the conformity with EU law of a judgment of the highest court in the administrative order of that Member State by means of an appeal before the highest court in that Member State’s judicial order.

---

(1)  OJ C 433, 14.12.2020.

---

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/19

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Městský soud v Praze — Czech Republic) — Vítkovice Steel a.s. v Ministerstvo životního prostředí

(Case C-524/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading - Directive 2003/87/EC - Article 11(3) - Decision 2011/278/EU - Article 3(b) and Article 10(2)(a) - Product benchmark sub-installation - Decision 2013/448/EU - Validity - Installation using a basic oxygen furnace - Hot metal - Input from a third-party installation - Refusal to allocate emission allowances - Admissibility - Failure by the applicant in the main proceedings to bring an action for annulment)

(2022/C 84/22)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Městský soud v Praze

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vítkovice Steel a.s.

Defendant: Ministerstvo životního prostředí

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(1) and the third subparagraph of Article 1(2) of Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 concerning national implementation measures for the transitional free allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances in accordance with Article 11(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council must be interpreted as not permitting the free allocation to the installation at issue in the main proceedings of allowances based on the ‘hot metal’ product benchmark, on the basis of a new application from the Czech Republic, even if double counting of emissions and double allocation of allowances are excluded.

---

(1)  OJ C 443, 21.12.2020.

---

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/19

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 16 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Apollo Tyres (Hungary) Kft. v Innovációért és Technológiáért Felelős Miniszter

(Case C-575/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Atmospheric pollution - System for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading - Directive 2003/87/EC - Installations for the combustion of fuels - Annex I - Total rated thermal input - Rules for calculation - Aggregation rule)

(2022/C 84/23)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Apollo Tyres (Hungary) Kft.

Defendant: Innovációért és Technológiáért Felelős Miniszter

Operative part of the judgment

Paragraph 3 of Annex I to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a system for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Union and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC, as amended by Directive (EU) 2018/410 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2018, must be interpreted as meaning that the total rated thermal input of an installation must be calculated by adding together the maximum rated thermal input of the technical units which are part of that installation, except where the restrictions placed by the operator on that maximum rated thermal input are permanent, and the existence of those restrictions and their permanent nature are in fact verifiable by the national authority competent for the allocation of allowances.

---

(1)  OJ C 28, 25.1.2021.

---

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/20

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 December 2021 — P. Krücken Organic GmbH v European Commission

(Case C-586/20 P) (1)

(Appeal - Law governing the institutions - Action for damages - Conditions governing the non-contractual liability of the European Union - Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 - Organic production and labelling of organic products - Article 33(3) - Concept of ‘appropriate supervision’ - Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008 - Arrangements for imports of organic products from third countries - Private control body for the purpose of equivalence - Attribution of that body’s conduct to the European Commission)

(2022/C 84/24)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: P. Krücken Organic GmbH (represented by: H. Schmidt, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Dawes, B. Hofstötter and B. Eggers, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders P. Krücken Organic GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders P. Krücken Organic GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 9, 11.1.2021.

---

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/21

---

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 9 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Regionale del Lazio — Italy) — Agenzia delle dogane e dei monopoli — Ufficio delle dogane di Gaeta v Punto Nautica Srl

(Case C-255/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Taxation - Harmonisation of legislation - Excise duty - Directive 92/12/EEC - Article 3(2) - Directive 2008/118/EC - Article 1(2) - Other indirect taxes on excise goods - Regional tax on the sale of fuel for motor vehicles - Specific purposes - Absence)

(2022/C 84/25)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione Tributaria Regionale del Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Agenzia delle dogane e dei monopoli — Ufficio delle dogane di Gaeta

Respondent: Punto Nautica Srl

Operative part of the order

Article 1(2) of Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which introduces a regional tax on the sale of petrol for motor vehicles, given that, since the proceeds of that tax are intended solely as a general contribution to the budget of the local authorities, it cannot be regarded as pursuing a ‘specific purpose’ within the meaning of that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2020.

---

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/21

---

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 January 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Arad — Romania) — Asociaţia Naţională de Terapii Complementare din România (ANATECOR)

(Case C-400/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Interpretation of national law - National insolvency proceedings - Possibility for the insolvency judge to determine his or her substantive jurisdiction and the claim - Purely internal dispute - Lack of connection with EU law - Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

(2022/C 84/26)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Arad

Parties to the main proceedings

Insolvency debtor: Asociaţia Naţională de Terapii Complementare din România (ANATECOR)

Intervening parties: Primăria Municipiului Arad — Direcția Venituri, Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Timișoara — Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Arad

Operative part of the order

The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly lacks jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Tribunalul Arad (Regional Court, Arad, Romania) by decision of 31 May 2021.

---

(1)  Date lodged: 28.6.2021.

---

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/22

---

Appeal brought on 1 August 2021 by Rezon OOD against the judgment of the General Court delivered on 16 June 2021 in Case T-487/20, Rezon v EUIPO

(Case C-476/21 P)

(2022/C 84/27)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Appellant: Rezon OOD (represented by: M. Yordanova-Harizanova, advokat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 10 December 2021, the Court (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) ordered as follows:

| 1. | The appeal is not allowed to proceed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is not allowed to proceed.

| 2. | Rezon OOD shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Rezon OOD shall bear its own costs.

---

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/22

---

Appeal brought on 26 August 2021 by Republic of Cyprus against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 16 June 2021 in Case T-281/19, Cyprus v EUIPO

(Case C-538/21 P)

(2022/C 84/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Republic of Cyprus (represented by: S. Malynicz, BL, S. Baran, Barrister, V. Marsland, Solicitor)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 21 December 2021, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal was not allowed to proceed and that the Republic of Cyprus should bear its own costs.

---

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/22

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie (Belgium) lodged on 4 November 2021 — Verbraeken J. en Zonen BV, PN

(Case C-661/21)

(2022/C 84/29)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van Cassatie

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Verbraeken J. en Zonen BV, PN

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 13(1)(b)(i) of Regulation No 883/2004/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, Articles 3(1)(a) and 11(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing common rules concerning the conditions to be complied with to pursue the occupation of road transport operator and repealing Council Directive 96/26/EC, and Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009 (3) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 on common rules for access to the international road haulage market be interpreted as meaning that it follows from the fact that an undertaking which obtains a road transport authorisation in a Member State of the European Union in accordance with Regulations (EC) No 1071/2009 and No 1072/2009 and which therefore must have an effective and stable establishment in that Member State that this constitutes irrefutable proof that its registered office is situated in that Member State within the meaning of Article 13(1) of the aforementioned Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 for the purposes of determining the applicable social security system, and are the authorities of the Member State of employment bound by that finding? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 13(1)(b)(i) of Regulation No 883/2004/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, Articles 3(1)(a) and 11(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing common rules concerning the conditions to be complied with to pursue the occupation of road transport operator and repealing Council Directive 96/26/EC, and Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009 (3) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 on common rules for access to the international road haulage market be interpreted as meaning that it follows from the fact that an undertaking which obtains a road transport authorisation in a Member State of the European Union in accordance with Regulations (EC) No 1071/2009 and No 1072/2009 and which therefore must have an effective and stable establishment in that Member State that this constitutes irrefutable proof that its registered office is situated in that Member State within the meaning of Article 13(1) of the aforementioned Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 for the purposes of determining the applicable social security system, and are the authorities of the Member State of employment bound by that finding?

| 2. | Can the national court of the Member State of employment which determines that the road transport authorisation in question has been obtained by fraud disregard that authorisation, or must the authorities of the Member State of employment, on the basis of the finding of fraud, first request the withdrawal of that authorisation from the authorities which issued the authorisation? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Can the national court of the Member State of employment which determines that the road transport authorisation in question has been obtained by fraud disregard that authorisation, or must the authorities of the Member State of employment, on the basis of the finding of fraud, first request the withdrawal of that authorisation from the authorities which issued the authorisation?

---

(1)  OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1.

(2)  OJ 2009 L 300, p. 51.

(3)  OJ 2009 L 300, p. 72.

---

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/23

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 9 November 2021 — ‘Gargždų geležinkelis’ UAB v Lietuvos transporto saugos administracija

(Case C-671/21)

(2022/C 84/30)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant:‘Gargždų geležinkelis’ UAB

Other parties to the proceedings: Lietuvos transporto saugos administracija

Lietuvos Respublikos ryšių reguliavimo tarnyba

‘LTG Infra’ AB

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the first and second sentences of Article 47(4) of Directive 2012/34/EU (1) be interpreted as unambiguously prohibiting the establishment of a national legal regulation which provides that, in the event of congested infrastructure, the intensity of the use of railway infrastructure can be taken into account at the time of capacity allocation? Does it have a bearing on this assessment whether the railway infrastructure utilisation rate is linked to the actual utilisation of that infrastructure in the past or to the planned utilisation during the period for which the relevant timetable is in force? Do the provisions of Articles 45 and 46 of Directive 2012/34/EU, which confer a broad discretion on the public infrastructure manager or on the entity making decisions on the capacity to coordinate the requested capacity, and the implementation of those provisions in national law have any significance for that assessment? Does the fact that infrastructure is identified as congested in a particular case due to the capacity applied for by two or more railway undertakings in respect of the carriage of the same freight have any significance for that assessment? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must the first and second sentences of Article 47(4) of Directive 2012/34/EU (1) be interpreted as unambiguously prohibiting the establishment of a national legal regulation which provides that, in the event of congested infrastructure, the intensity of the use of railway infrastructure can be taken into account at the time of capacity allocation? Does it have a bearing on this assessment whether the railway infrastructure utilisation rate is linked to the actual utilisation of that infrastructure in the past or to the planned utilisation during the period for which the relevant timetable is in force? Do the provisions of Articles 45 and 46 of Directive 2012/34/EU, which confer a broad discretion on the public infrastructure manager or on the entity making decisions on the capacity to coordinate the requested capacity, and the implementation of those provisions in national law have any significance for that assessment? Does the fact that infrastructure is identified as congested in a particular case due to the capacity applied for by two or more railway undertakings in respect of the carriage of the same freight have any significance for that assessment?

| 2. | Does the provision of Article 45(2) of Directive 2012/34/EU that ‘the infrastructure manager may give priority to specific services within the scheduling and coordination process but only as set out in Articles 47 and 49’ mean that the infrastructure manager may also apply a national priority rule in cases where infrastructure is not identified as congested? To what extent (on the basis of which criteria) must the infrastructure manager, prior to identifying infrastructure as congested, coordinate the requested train paths and consult with applicants on the basis of the first sentence of Article 47[(1)] of Directive 2012/34/EU? Should that consultation with applicants cover the assessment as to whether two or more applicants have submitted competing requests for the carriage of the same freight (goods)? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the provision of Article 45(2) of Directive 2012/34/EU that ‘the infrastructure manager may give priority to specific services within the scheduling and coordination process but only as set out in Articles 47 and 49’ mean that the infrastructure manager may also apply a national priority rule in cases where infrastructure is not identified as congested? To what extent (on the basis of which criteria) must the infrastructure manager, prior to identifying infrastructure as congested, coordinate the requested train paths and consult with applicants on the basis of the first sentence of Article 47[(1)] of Directive 2012/34/EU? Should that consultation with applicants cover the assessment as to whether two or more applicants have submitted competing requests for the carriage of the same freight (goods)?

---

(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).

---

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/24

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vredegerecht te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 11 November 2021 — Fluvius Antwerpen v MX

(Case C-677/21)

(2022/C 84/31)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Vredegerecht te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Fluvius Antwerpen

Defendant: MX

Questions referred

Must Article 2(1)(a), read in conjunction with Article 14(1) of Directive 2006/112/EC, (1) be interpreted as meaning that the unlawful usage of energy is a supply of goods, being the transfer of the right to dispose of tangible property as owner?

If not, must Article 14(2)(a) of Directive 2006/112/EC be interpreted as meaning that the unlawful usage of energy is a supply of goods, being a transfer, by order made by or in the name of a public authority or in pursuance of the law, of the ownership of property against payment of compensation?

Must Article 9(1) of Directive 2006/112/EC be interpreted as meaning that, if Fluvius Antwerpen is entitled to compensation for unlawfully used energy, it is to be regarded as a taxable person since the unlawful usage is the result of an ‘economic activity’ of Fluvius Antwerpen, namely the exploitation of tangible property for the purposes of obtaining income therefrom on a continuing basis?

If Article 9(1) of Directive 2006/112/EC must be interpreted as meaning that the unlawful usage of energy constitutes an economic activity, must the first paragraph of Article 13(1) of Directive 2006/112/EC then be interpreted as meaning that Fluvius Antwerpen is a public authority and, if so, must the third paragraph of Article 13(1) then be interpreted as meaning that the unlawful usage of energy is the result of an activity of Fluvius Antwerpen that is not carried out on such a small scale as to be negligible?

---

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

---

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/25

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 11 November 2021 — Versicherungsanstalt öffentlich Bediensteter, Eisenbahnen und Bergbau

(Case C-681/21)

(2022/C 84/32)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Authority bringing the appeal on a point of law: Versicherungsanstalt öffentlich Bediensteter, Eisenbahnen und Bergbau, represented by the Finanzprokuratur (body providing legal advice to the Austrian Government)

Interested party: B

Question referred

Are Article 2(1) and 2(2)(a) and Article 6(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (1) and the principles of legal certainty, maintenance of established rights and effectiveness of EU law to be interpreted as precluding national legislation — such as that at issue in the main proceedings — under which a previously advantaged category of civil servants is retroactively no longer entitled to pension benefits accruing on the basis of a pension adjustment, and which, in that way (retroactive removal of the previously advantaged category by now placing it on an equal footing with the previously disadvantaged category), has the effect that the previously disadvantaged category of civil servants is also not/no longer entitled to pension benefits accruing on the basis of the pension adjustment to which the latter category would have been entitled because of discrimination on grounds of age which has already been (on several occasions) judicially established — as a result of the non-application of a national provision which is contrary to EU law for the purpose of establishing equal treatment with the previously advantaged category?

---

(1)  OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16.

---

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/25

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 11 November 2021 — ‘HSC Baltic’ UAB, ‘Mitnija’ UAB, ‘Montuotojas’ UAB v Vilniaus miesto savivaldybės administracija

(Case C-682/21)

(2022/C 84/33)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants in cassation:‘HSC Baltic’ UAB

‘Mitnija’ UAB

‘Montuotojas’ UAB

Other parties to the proceedings in cassation: Vilniaus miesto savivaldybės administracija

Bankrutuojanti UAB ‘Active Construction Management’

‘Vilniaus vystymo kompanija’ UAB

Questions referred

| 1. | Are Article 18(1) and Article 57(4)(g) and (6) of Directive 2014/24 (1) and the fourth subparagraph of Article 1(1) and Article 1(3) of Directive 89/665 (2) (together or separately, but without limitation to those provisions) to be interpreted as meaning that a decision of a contracting authority to enter the economic operator concerned on the list of unreliable suppliers and thus restrict for a certain period its ability to participate in procurement procedures announced subsequently on the ground that that economic operator has substantially breached a contract concluded with that contracting authority is a measure which may be challenged before a court? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are Article 18(1) and Article 57(4)(g) and (6) of Directive 2014/24 (1) and the fourth subparagraph of Article 1(1) and Article 1(3) of Directive 89/665 (2) (together or separately, but without limitation to those provisions) to be interpreted as meaning that a decision of a contracting authority to enter the economic operator concerned on the list of unreliable suppliers and thus restrict for a certain period its ability to participate in procurement procedures announced subsequently on the ground that that economic operator has substantially breached a contract concluded with that contracting authority is a measure which may be challenged before a court?

| 2. | If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, are the provisions of EU law cited above (together or separately, but without limitation to those provisions) to be interpreted as precluding national rules and the practice for applying them under which: (a) the contracting authority, when terminating a public procurement contract on the ground of a substantial breach thereof, does not take any formal (separate) decision concerning the entry of economic operators on the list of unreliable suppliers; (b) an economic operator is not informed in advance about forthcoming entry on the list of unreliable suppliers and is therefore unable to submit relevant explanations and subsequently to contest entry effectively; (c) the contracting authority does not carry out any individual examination of the circumstances of improper performance of a contract, and therefore, if the public procurement contract has been lawfully terminated on the ground of a substantial breach thereof, the economic operator de jure responsible for that breach is automatically entered on the list of unreliable suppliers? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, are the provisions of EU law cited above (together or separately, but without limitation to those provisions) to be interpreted as precluding national rules and the practice for applying them under which: (a) the contracting authority, when terminating a public procurement contract on the ground of a substantial breach thereof, does not take any formal (separate) decision concerning the entry of economic operators on the list of unreliable suppliers; (b) an economic operator is not informed in advance about forthcoming entry on the list of unreliable suppliers and is therefore unable to submit relevant explanations and subsequently to contest entry effectively; (c) the contracting authority does not carry out any individual examination of the circumstances of improper performance of a contract, and therefore, if the public procurement contract has been lawfully terminated on the ground of a substantial breach thereof, the economic operator de jure responsible for that breach is automatically entered on the list of unreliable suppliers?

| 3. | If the answers to the first two questions are in the affirmative, are the provisions of EU law cited above (together or separately, but without limitation to those provisions) to be interpreted as meaning that joint-activity partners (entities forming a joint supplier) which performed the public procurement contract lawfully terminated on the ground of a substantial breach may demonstrate their reliability and thus be excluded from the list of unreliable suppliers, inter alia, on the basis of the amount of the share (value) of the contract performed, the insolvency of the lead partner, actions on the part of that partner and the contracting authority’s contribution to non-performance of the contract? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the answers to the first two questions are in the affirmative, are the provisions of EU law cited above (together or separately, but without limitation to those provisions) to be interpreted as meaning that joint-activity partners (entities forming a joint supplier) which performed the public procurement contract lawfully terminated on the ground of a substantial breach may demonstrate their reliability and thus be excluded from the list of unreliable suppliers, inter alia, on the basis of the amount of the share (value) of the contract performed, the insolvency of the lead partner, actions on the part of that partner and the contracting authority’s contribution to non-performance of the contract?

---

(1)  Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65).

(2)  Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33).

---

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/26

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vilniaus apygardos administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 12 November 2021 — Nacionalinis visuomenės sveikatos centras prie Sveikatos apsaugos ministerijos v Valstybinė duomenų apsaugos inspekcija

(Case C-683/21)

(2022/C 84/34)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Vilniaus apygardos administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Nacionalinis visuomenės sveikatos centras prie Sveikatos apsaugos ministerijos

Defendant: Valstybinė duomenų apsaugos inspekcija

Questions referred

| 1. | Can the concept of ‘controller’ set out in Article 4(7) of the GDPR (1) be interpreted as meaning that a person who is planning to acquire a data collection tool (mobile application) by way of public procurement, irrespective of the fact that a public procurement contract has not been concluded and that the created product (mobile application), for the acquisition of which a public procurement procedure had been used, has not been transferred, is also to be regarded as a controller? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can the concept of ‘controller’ set out in Article 4(7) of the GDPR (1) be interpreted as meaning that a person who is planning to acquire a data collection tool (mobile application) by way of public procurement, irrespective of the fact that a public procurement contract has not been concluded and that the created product (mobile application), for the acquisition of which a public procurement procedure had been used, has not been transferred, is also to be regarded as a controller?

| 2. | Can the concept of ‘controller’ set out in Article 4(7) of the GDPR be interpreted as meaning that a contracting authority which has not acquired the right of ownership of the created IT product and has not taken possession of it, but where the final version of the created application provides links or interfaces to that public entity and/or the confidentiality policy, which was not officially approved or recognised by the public entity in question, specified that public entity itself as a controller, is also to be regarded as a controller? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Can the concept of ‘controller’ set out in Article 4(7) of the GDPR be interpreted as meaning that a contracting authority which has not acquired the right of ownership of the created IT product and has not taken possession of it, but where the final version of the created application provides links or interfaces to that public entity and/or the confidentiality policy, which was not officially approved or recognised by the public entity in question, specified that public entity itself as a controller, is also to be regarded as a controller?

| 3. | Can the concept of ‘controller’ set out in Article 4(7) of the GDPR be interpreted as meaning that a person who has not performed any actual data processing operations as defined in Article 4(2) of the GDPR and/or has not provided clear permission/consent to the performance of such operations is also to be regarded as a controller? Is the fact that the IT product used for the processing of personal data was created in accordance with the assignment formulated by the contracting authority significant for the interpretation of the concept of ‘controller’? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Can the concept of ‘controller’ set out in Article 4(7) of the GDPR be interpreted as meaning that a person who has not performed any actual data processing operations as defined in Article 4(2) of the GDPR and/or has not provided clear permission/consent to the performance of such operations is also to be regarded as a controller? Is the fact that the IT product used for the processing of personal data was created in accordance with the assignment formulated by the contracting authority significant for the interpretation of the concept of ‘controller’?

| 4. | If the determination of actual data processing operations is relevant for the interpretation of the concept of ‘controller’, is the definition of ‘processing’ of personal data under Article 4(2) of the GDPR to be interpreted as also covering situations in which copies of personal data have been used for the testing of IT systems in the process for the acquisition of a mobile application? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If the determination of actual data processing operations is relevant for the interpretation of the concept of ‘controller’, is the definition of ‘processing’ of personal data under Article 4(2) of the GDPR to be interpreted as also covering situations in which copies of personal data have been used for the testing of IT systems in the process for the acquisition of a mobile application?

| 5. | Can joint control of data in accordance with Article 4(7) and Article 26(1) of the GDPR be interpreted exclusively as involving deliberately coordinated actions in respect of the determination of the purpose and means of data processing, or can that concept also be interpreted as meaning that joint control also covers situations in which there is no clear ‘arrangement’ in respect of the purpose and means of data processing and/or actions are not coordinated between the entities? Are the circumstance relating to the stage in the creation of the means of personal data processing (IT application) at which personal data were processed and the purpose of the creation of the application legally significant for the interpretation of the concept of joint control of data? Can an ‘arrangement’ between joint controllers be understood exclusively as a clear and defined establishment of terms governing the joint control of data? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Can joint control of data in accordance with Article 4(7) and Article 26(1) of the GDPR be interpreted exclusively as involving deliberately coordinated actions in respect of the determination of the purpose and means of data processing, or can that concept also be interpreted as meaning that joint control also covers situations in which there is no clear ‘arrangement’ in respect of the purpose and means of data processing and/or actions are not coordinated between the entities? Are the circumstance relating to the stage in the creation of the means of personal data processing (IT application) at which personal data were processed and the purpose of the creation of the application legally significant for the interpretation of the concept of joint control of data? Can an ‘arrangement’ between joint controllers be understood exclusively as a clear and defined establishment of terms governing the joint control of data?

| 6. | Is the provision in Article 83(1) of the GDPR to the effect that ‘administrative fines ... shall ... be effective, proportionate and dissuasive’ to be interpreted as also covering cases of imposition of liability on the ‘controller’ when, in the process of the creation of an IT product, the developer also performs personal data processing actions, and do the improper personal data processing actions carried out by the processor always give rise automatically to legal liability on the part of the controller? Is that provision to be interpreted as also covering cases of no-fault liability on the part of the controller? |
| --- | --- |

6.

Is the provision in Article 83(1) of the GDPR to the effect that ‘administrative fines ... shall ... be effective, proportionate and dissuasive’ to be interpreted as also covering cases of imposition of liability on the ‘controller’ when, in the process of the creation of an IT product, the developer also performs personal data processing actions, and do the improper personal data processing actions carried out by the processor always give rise automatically to legal liability on the part of the controller? Is that provision to be interpreted as also covering cases of no-fault liability on the part of the controller?

---

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

---

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/27

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 12 November 2021 — Papierfabriek Doetinchem B.V. v Sprick GmbH Bielefelder Papier- und Wellpappenwerk & Co.

(Case C-684/21)

(2022/C 84/35)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Papierfabriek Doetinchem B.V.

Respondent: Sprick GmbH Bielefelder Papier- und Wellpappenwerk & Co.

Questions referred

| 1. | According to the case-law of the Court of Justice, the assessment as to whether the features of appearance of a product are dictated exclusively by its technical function must be made having regard to the design at issue, (1) the objective circumstances indicative of the reasons which dictated the choice of features of appearance of the product concerned, information on its use or the existence of alternative designs which fulfil the same technical function (Court of Justice of the European Union, judgment of 8 March 2018, DOCERAM, C-395/16, EU:C:2018:172). With regard to the aspect of the existence of other designs, what significance is attached to the fact that the proprietor of the design also holds design rights for numerous alternative designs? |
| --- | --- |

1.

According to the case-law of the Court of Justice, the assessment as to whether the features of appearance of a product are dictated exclusively by its technical function must be made having regard to the design at issue, (1) the objective circumstances indicative of the reasons which dictated the choice of features of appearance of the product concerned, information on its use or the existence of alternative designs which fulfil the same technical function (Court of Justice of the European Union, judgment of 8 March 2018, DOCERAM, C-395/16, EU:C:2018:172). With regard to the aspect of the existence of other designs, what significance is attached to the fact that the proprietor of the design also holds design rights for numerous alternative designs?

| 2. | In the assessment as to whether the appearance is dictated exclusively by the technical function, is it necessary to take into account the fact that the design allows for a multicolour appearance in the case where the colour design is not, as such, apparent from the registration? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the assessment as to whether the appearance is dictated exclusively by the technical function, is it necessary to take into account the fact that the design allows for a multicolour appearance in the case where the colour design is not, as such, apparent from the registration?

| 3. | If Question 2 is answered in the affirmative: Does this affect the scope of protection of the design? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If Question 2 is answered in the affirmative: Does this affect the scope of protection of the design?

---

(1)  Within the meaning of Article 8 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs (OJ 2002 L 3, p. 1).

---

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/28

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 15 November 2021 — YV v Stadtverkehr Lindau (B) GmbH

(Case C-685/21)

(2022/C 84/36)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: YV

Defendant: Stadtverkehr Lindau (B) GmbH

Question referred

Does ‘insurer’ within the meaning of Article 11(1) and Article 13(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (1) include an undertaking which, although not an insurance undertaking, is liable under the applicable law as ‘quasi insurer’ for the motor vehicles kept by it, as if it were an insurer under the provisions of insurance law, due to a derogation from the obligation in respect of compulsory insurance within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Directive 2009/103/EC? (2)

---

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

(2)  Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability (codified version) (OJ 2009 L 263, p. 11).

---

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/28

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 19 November 2021 — Recreatieprojecten Zeeland BV, Casino Admiral Zeeland BV, Supergame BV v Belgische Staat

(Case C-695/21)

(2022/C 84/37)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Recreatieprojecten Zeeland BV, Casino Admiral Zeeland BV, Supergame BV

Respondent: Belgische Staat

Question referred

Must Article 56(1) TFEU be interpreted as precluding the national legislation of a Member State from allowing the operators of a limited and controlled number of licensed games of chance establishments in its territory to benefit from an exception to a generally applicable advertising ban in respect of such establishments, unless it also provides for the possibility of the operators of games of chance establishments located in other Member States also being allowed to benefit from the same exception to the advertising ban in its territory in respect of their establishments?

---

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/29

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā rajona tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 13 December 2021 — AAS BTA Baltic Insurance Company v Iepirkumu uzraudzības birojs, Tieslietu ministrija

(Case C-769/21)

(2022/C 84/38)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Administratīvā rajona tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: AAS BTA Baltic Insurance Company

Defendants: Iepirkumu uzraudzības birojs, Tieslietu ministrija

Question referred

Is national legislation which requires the contracting authority to terminate a procurement procedure in a situation where the originally selected tenderer, which declined to enter into the procurement contract with the contracting authority, must be considered to constitute a single market participant with the next tenderer, whose tender meets the contracting authority’s needs and requirements, compatible with the principles of procurement defined in Article 18(1) of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC, (1) in particular with the requirement for Member States to treat economic operators equally and without discrimination, and with the principle of proportionality?

---

(1)  OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65.

---

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/29

---

Appeal brought on 16 December 2021 by Nec Corp. against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 29 September 2021 in Case T-341/18, Nec v Commission

(Case C-786/21 P)

(2022/C 84/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Nec Corp. (represented by: R. Bachour, Solicitor, A. Pliego Selie, W. Brouwer, R. Warning, advocaten)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The Appellant claims that the Court should:

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

—

set aside the judgment under appeal;

| — | render final judgment in this appeal proceeding and annul the contested decision and/or reduce the fine as requested in this appeal, or, in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court for determination in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice; and |
| --- | --- |

—

render final judgment in this appeal proceeding and annul the contested decision and/or reduce the fine as requested in this appeal, or, in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court for determination in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice; and

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings and of the proceedings before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings and of the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the first ground of appeal, which is divided into three parts, the Appellant claims that the General Court committed an error of law and failed to provide sufficient or adequate reasoning in the review of whether the fine of the Appellant could be increased for recidivism.

First, the General Court erred in holding that the contested decision could impose a separate fine on the Appellant for recidivism despite the fact that its liability constitutes and is qualified as a derivative liability only.

Second, the General Court erred in upholding the increase of the fine for recidivism for a period before 20 May 2010, that is, before the Appellant was held and informed to have committed an infringement. This is neither correct in law nor proportionate, especially given the limited time between the Commission’s adoption of the Commission’s DRAMs Decision (1) and the end of the infringement of Tokin Corporation and the fact that the Appellant cannot, therefore, objectively be held to have accepted or in any way endorsed the infringement by Tokin Corporation.

Third, in any event, the judgment under appeal erred in law through misapplication of the principle of proportionality when reviewing the amount of the fine and establishing the period for which it is applied.

By the second ground of appeal, the Appellant claims that the General Court in the judgment under appeal distorted the contested decision and accepted a manifest inconsistency in the contested decision as regards the participation of the Appellant in the identified infringement by replacing the inconsistency concerning the qualification of Appellant’s liability with its own understanding of the facts and the Commission’s reasoning in the contested decision.

By the third ground of appeal, the Appellant claims that the judgment under appeal erred in law through misapplication of the principles of proportionality, and breached the duty to provide sufficient or adequate reasoning when reviewing the amount of the fine under the exercise of its unlimited jurisdiction.

---

(1)  Commission Decision of 19 May 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.511 — DRAMs).

---

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/30

---

Action brought on 16 December 2021 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria

(Case C-789/21)

(2022/C 84/40)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Braun, L. Malferrari and Iv. Zalogin)

Defendant: Republic of Bulgaria

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by failing to connect the Bulgarian commercial register to the Business Registers Interconnection System (BRIS), the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive (EU) 2017/1132 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 relating to certain aspects of company law (OJ 2017 L 169, p. 46), and in particular Article 166 of Directive 2017/1132 and Annex III thereto, Parts A and B, footnote 2; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to connect the Bulgarian commercial register to the Business Registers Interconnection System (BRIS), the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive (EU) 2017/1132 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 relating to certain aspects of company law (OJ 2017 L 169, p. 46), and in particular Article 166 of Directive 2017/1132 and Annex III thereto, Parts A and B, footnote 2;

| — | order the Republic of Bulgaria to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Republic of Bulgaria to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In breach of the abovementioned provisions of Directive (EU) 2017/1132 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 relating to certain aspects of company law (OJ 2017 L 169, p. 46), the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to connect the Bulgarian commercial register to the Business Registers Interconnection System (BRIS).

---

(1)  OJ 2017 L 169, p. 46.

---

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/31

---

Action brought on 21 December 2021 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

(Case C-814/21)

(2022/C 84/41)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Tomkin and A. Szmytkowska, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Poland

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by denying citizens of the European Union who do not have Polish nationality but who reside in the Republic of Poland the right to become members of a political party, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 22 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by denying citizens of the European Union who do not have Polish nationality but who reside in the Republic of Poland the right to become members of a political party, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 22 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

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

—

order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Under Article 22 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, every citizen of the Union residing in a Member State of which he or she is not a national is to have the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in municipal elections and in elections to the European Parliament in the Member State in which he or she resides, under the same conditions as nationals of that State.

The Commission takes the view that denying citizens of the Union who do not have Polish nationality but who reside in the Republic of Poland the right to become members of a political party prevents them from exercising their political rights as conferred on them by Article 22 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union under the same conditions as Polish nationals.

---

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/31

---

Appeal brought on 21 December 2021 by Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon Services LLC, Amazon EU Sàrl, Amazon Europe Core Sàrl against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 14 October 2021 in Case T-19/21, Amazon.com and Others v Commission

(Case C-815/21 P)

(2022/C 84/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon Services LLC, Amazon EU Sàrl, Amazon Europe Core Sàrl (represented by: A. Komninos, dikigoros, G. Tantulli, abogado)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The Appellants claim that the Court should:

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

—

set aside the order under appeal;

| — | dismiss the plea of inadmissibility in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

dismiss the plea of inadmissibility in its entirety;

| — | refer the case back to the General Court in order for the latter to examine the substance of the Application. |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back to the General Court in order for the latter to examine the substance of the Application.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellants claim that the order under appeal infringed Article 263 TFEU by concluding that the measure contested in the Application did not produce legal effects. Such infringement is the result of an erroneous interpretation of Article 11(6) of Regulation 1/2003 (1), which accords undertakings legal protection from parallel antitrust proceedings as between the Commission and national competition authorities. The order under appeal failed to recognize that the contested measure deprived Amazon of that protection.

---

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

---

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/32

---

Appeal brought on 29 December 2021 by Oriol Junqueras i Vies against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 14 October 2021 in Case T-100/20 Junqueras i Vies v Parliament

(Case C-824/21 P)

(2022/C 84/43)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Oriol Junqueras i Vies (represented by: M. Marsal i Ferret, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

First. — Set aside the order of 14 October 2021 of the Sixth Chamber of the General Court of the European Union in Case T-100/20.

Second. — Declare the action brought by the appellant to be fully admissible.

Third. — Once the action has been declared admissible, remit the proceedings to the Sixth Chamber of the General Court of the European Union so that it may hear the action.

Fourth. — Order the European Parliament to pay the costs of the proceedings relating to the plea of inadmissibility and the present appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on four pleas in law:

First: The order under appeal is contrary to Article 263 TFEU in so far as it finds that Mr Junqueras has no direct interest in bringing proceedings because he was not a Member of the European Parliament at the time the action was brought. The General Court erred in finding that there had been a withdrawal of the mandate in accordance with the European Electoral Act (Article 13) whereas the internal decision of the Kingdom of Spain constitutes a decision of ineligibility that operates as a ground for incompatibility. Given that that decision does not constitute a withdrawal of the mandate pursuant to Article 13 of the European Electoral Act (and does not constitute a ground for incompatibility pursuant to Article 7 of the European Electoral Act), Mr Junqueras continues to have a real and direct interest in bringing proceedings. In the alternative, the order of the General Court distorts the internal decision of the Kingdom of Spain, in so far as it finds that Mr Junqueras has no direct interest in bringing proceedings, and is contrary to Article 263 TFEU.

Second: The order under appeal infringes the right to an effective remedy (Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights) and Article 263 TFEU. The order prejudges the substantive findings to be made in [Cases] C-115/21[P] and T-24/20 (1) and wrongly finds that Mr Junqueras is unable to obtain reinstatement as a Member of the European Parliament by way of the judgments pending before the Courts of the European Union. Mr Junqueras may indeed obtain such reinstatement and therefore has a real and direct interest in bringing proceedings.

Third: The order under appeal infringes the right to an effective remedy (Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights) and Article 263 TFEU. In the Order, the General Court states that it is hypothetical that the actions before the national courts and before the Tribunal Constitucional (Constitutional Court, Spain) may lead to the reinstatement of Mr Junqueras as a Member of the European Parliament and, therefore, finds that he lacks a real and direct interest in bringing proceedings. The order disregards the fact that the Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court, Spain) itself has confirmed that one of the possible effects of the actions brought by Mr Junqueras is the reinstatement of his mandate and, accordingly, the order is wrong to describe his reinstatement as being hypothetical and Mr Junqueras has a real and direct interest in bringing proceedings. Likewise, the order infringes the right to effective judicial protection and to an effective remedy in so far as the General Court did not join the decision regarding admissibility with the substantive decision, which clearly would have upheld those rights more effectively.

Fourth: In the order under appeal, the General Court finds that there are no grounds under which Mr Junqueras may be found to have an interest in the setting aside of the contested act, even if no implementing measures may be adopted in the event of its annulment. That is contrary to Article 263 TFEU because such grounds do exist and have been put forward. In particular, and taking into consideration that the protection of immunity was requested before the delivery of the criminal judgment and the decision concerning the loss of his parliamentary seat, Mr Junqueras’ representatives consider that recognition of Mr Junqueras’ status as a Member of the European Parliament and the processing of the request for the protection of his immunity would have resulted in an obligation (as set out in the judgment of the Court of Justice of 19 December 2019 in Case C-502/19) (2) to suspend all proceedings against Mr Junqueras, and the upholding of his action would establish that those internal decisions were adopted in breach of EU law, which is relevant to all the actions brought by Mr Junqueras before national courts and the Courts of the European Union, and to any future actions he may bring before the European Court of Human Rights, which is why Mr Junqueras does have an interest in the action based on Article 263 TFEU.

---

(1)  Order of 15 December 2020, Junqueras i Vies v Parliament (T-24/20, EU:T:2020:601).

(2)  Judgment of 19 December 2019, Junqueras Vies (C-502/19, EU:C:2019:1115).

---

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/33

---

Order of the President of the Court of 29 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Dijon — France) — Mr. X v Préfet de Saône-et-Loire

(Case C-206/21) (1)

(2022/C 84/44)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 278, 12.7.2021.

---

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/33

---

Order of the President of the Court of 9 November 2021 — (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Rieti — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against G.B., R.H., interested party: Procura della Repubblica di Rieti

(Case C-334/21) (1)

(2022/C 84/45)

Language of the case: Italian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 310, 2.8.2021.

---

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/34

---

Order of the President of the Court of 26 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats 's-Hertogenbosch — Netherlands) — E, F v Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

(Case C-456/21) (1)

(2022/C 84/46)

Language of the case: Dutch

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

---

(1)  OJ C 391, 27.9.2021.

---

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/34

---

Order of the President of the Court of 12 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad — Bulgaria) — Banka DSK EAD v M. V.

(Case C-489/21) (1)

(2022/C 84/47)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 481, 29.11.2021.

---

General Court

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/35

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2021 — Oltchim v Commission

(Case T-565/19) (1)

(State aid - Measures taken by Romania to support a petrochemical company - Non-enforcement, accumulation and cancellation of public claims - Action for annulment - Period within which proceedings must be brought - Point from which time starts to run - Article 24(1) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 - Interest in bringing proceedings - Existence of one or more measures - State resources - Imputability to the State - Applicability of the private creditor test - Application of the private creditor test - Obligation to state reasons)

(2022/C 84/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Oltchim SA (Râmnicu Vâlcea, Romania) (represented by: C. Arhold, L.-A. Bondoc, S.-E. Petrisor and K. Struckmann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka and F. Tomat, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for partial annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2019/1144 of 17 December 2018 on State aid SA.36086 (2016/C) (ex 2016/NN) implemented by Romania for Oltchim (OJ 2019 L 181, p. 13).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Article 1(a) and (c) of Commission Decision (EU) 2019/1144 of 17 December 2018 on State aid SA.36086 (2016/C) (ex 2016/NN) implemented by Romania for Oltchim SA; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Article 1(a) and (c) of Commission Decision (EU) 2019/1144 of 17 December 2018 on State aid SA.36086 (2016/C) (ex 2016/NN) implemented by Romania for Oltchim SA;

| 2. | Annuls Articles 3 to 6 and Article 7(2) of Decision 2019/1144 in so far as they concern the measures referred to in Article 1(a) and (c) of that decision; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Annuls Articles 3 to 6 and Article 7(2) of Decision 2019/1144 in so far as they concern the measures referred to in Article 1(a) and (c) of that decision;

| 3. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 4. | Orders Oltchim to bear one quarter of its own costs; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Oltchim to bear one quarter of its own costs;

| 5. | Orders the European Commission to pay three quarters of the costs incurred by Oltchim and to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Orders the European Commission to pay three quarters of the costs incurred by Oltchim and to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 383, 11.11.2019.

---

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/35

---

Judgment of the General Court of 21 December 2021 — Hamers v Cedefop

(Case T-159/20) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Investigation conducted by OLAF - Transmission to national judicial authorities of information relating to facts liable to lead to criminal proceedings - National criminal proceedings - Acquittal - Cedefop’s conduct in relation to the national criminal proceedings - Rejection of the claim for compensation - Action for annulment and damages - Conflict of interests - Presumption of innocence - Powers of Cedefop’s Board of Appeal)

(2022/C 84/49)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Helene Hamers (Angelochori, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos, A. Politis, M. Rodopoulos and A. Skoulikis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (represented by: J. Siebel and L. Zacheilas, acting as Agents, assisted by B. Wägenbaur and C. Meidanis, lawyers)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of Cedefop’s implied decision of 19 January 2020 rejecting the complaint concerning a claim for compensation for damage allegedly suffered by the applicant and, second, compensation for that damage.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Ms Helene Hamers to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ms Helene Hamers to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 201, 15.6.2020.

---

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/36

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2021 — FT and Others v Commission

(Case T-224/20) (1)

(Civil Service - Officials - Remuneration - Commission staff posted to a third country - Interim update of correction coefficients - Manifest error of assessment - Retroactive effect - Legal certainty - Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials)

(2022/C 84/50)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: FT and 22 other applicants whose names are listed in annex to the judgment (represented by: J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

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

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of the applicants’ salary statements for the month of June 2019 in so far as they apply, for the first time, the correction coefficients fixed, with retroactive effect, on 1 August 2018.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders FT and the other applicants whose names appear in the annex to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders FT and the other applicants whose names appear in the annex to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 247, 27.7.2020.

---

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/37

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2021 — FJ and Others v EEAS

(Case T-225/20) (1)

(Civil Service - Officials - Remuneration - EEAS staff posted to a third country - Interim update of correction coefficients - Manifest error of assessment - Retroactive effect - Legal certainty - Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials)

(2022/C 84/51)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: FJ and seven other applicants whose names are listed in annex to the judgment (represented by: J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

Defendant: European External Action Service (represented by: S. Marquardt and R. Spáč, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of the applicants’ salary statements for the month of June 2019 in so far as they apply, for the first time, the correction coefficients fixed, with retroactive effect, on 1 August 2018.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders FJ and the other applicants whose names are listed in annex to the judgment to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders FJ and the other applicants whose names are listed in annex to the judgment to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 247, 27.7.2020.

---

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/37

---

Judgment of the General Court of 21 December 2021 — KS v Frontex

(Case T-409/20) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Fixed-term contract - Termination of the contract - Breakdown in the relationship of trust - Article 47(b)(ii) of the CEOS - Right to be heard - Duty to have regard for the welfare of staff - Requests for assistance and compensation - Action for annulment and compensation)

(2022/C 84/52)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: KS (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European Border and Coast Guard Agency (represented by: H. Caniard, S. Drew, W. Szmidt and B. Dukay-Zangrando, acting as Agents, and by T. Bontinck, A. Guillerme and L. Burguin, lawyers)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of Frontex’s decision of 30 August 2019 terminating the applicant’s fixed-term contract of employment and of the decision of 13 February 2020 rejecting the applicant’s requests for assistance and compensation and, second, compensation for the non-material damage which the applicant has suffered as a result.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) of 13 February 2020 in so far as it rejected KS’s request for assistance; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) of 13 February 2020 in so far as it rejected KS’s request for assistance;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders KS to bear half of his own costs; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders KS to bear half of his own costs;

| 4. | Orders Frontex to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by KS. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Frontex to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by KS.

---

(1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2020.

---

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/38

---

Judgment of the General Court of 21 December 2021 — MG v EIB

(Case T-573/20) (1)

(Civil service - EIB staff - Remuneration - Family allowances - Refusal to grant allowances to non-custodial parent - Conciliation procedure - Reasonable time - Liability)

(2022/C 84/53)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented by: G. Faedo and K. Carr, acting as Agents, assisted by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU and Article 50a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union seeking, first, annulment of the EIB’s letters of 11 October 2018, 7 January 2019 and 30 July 2020 on the basis of which the applicant was deprived of the entitlement of family allowances and derived financial rights and, second, compensation for the non-material damage which the applicant allegedly suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Orders the European Investment Bank (EIB) to pay the sum of EUR 500 to MG in respect of the non-material damage suffered; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Orders the European Investment Bank (EIB) to pay the sum of EUR 500 to MG in respect of the non-material damage suffered;

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

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the action;

| 3. | Orders MG and the EIB to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders MG and the EIB to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 371, 3.11.2020.

---

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/38

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2021 — FZ and Others v Commission

(Case T-618/20) (1)

(Civil Service - Officials - Remuneration - Commission staff posted to a third country - Annual and interim update of correction coefficients - Manifest error of assessment)

(2022/C 84/54)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: FZ and 17 other applicants whose names are listed in annex to the judgment (represented by: J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: I. Melo Sampaio, B. Mongin and A.-C. Simon, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of the applicants’ salary statements for the month of December 2019 in so far as they apply, for the first time, the correction coefficients fixed, with retroactive effect, on 1 April and 1 July 2019.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders FZ and the other applicants whose names appear in annex to the judgment to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders FZ and the other applicants whose names appear in annex to the judgment to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 433, 14.12.2020.

---

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/39

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2021 — FJ and Others v EEAS

(Case T-619/20) (1)

(Civil Service - Officials - Remuneration - EEAS staff posted to a third country - Annual and interim update of correction coefficients - Manifest error of assessment)

(2022/C 84/55)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: FJ, FL, FM, FN, FP (represented by: J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

Defendant: European External Action Service (represented by: S. Marquardt and R. Spáč, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of the applicants’ salary statements for the month of December 2019 in so far as they apply, for the first time, the correction coefficients fixed, with retroactive effect, on 1 April and 1 July 2019.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders FJ, FL, FM, FN and FP to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders FJ, FL, FM, FN and FP to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 433, 14.12.2020.

---

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/40

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2021 — Lück v EUIPO — R. H. Investment (MALLE)

(Case T-188/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark MALLE - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Ineffective nature of the single plea in law)

(2022/C 84/56)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Jörg Lück (Hilden, Germany) (represented by: L. Becker, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: R. H. Investment UG (haftungsbeschränkt) (Erlangen, Germany) (represented by: M. Metzner and M. Scheiner, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 December 2020 (Case R 1393/2020-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between R. H. Investment and Mr Lück.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Jörg Lück to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Jörg Lück to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 217, 7.6.2021.

---

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/40

---

Action brought on 27 October 2021 — NO v Commission

(Case T-708/21)

(2022/C 84/57)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: NO (represented by: E. Smartt, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that the Commission failed to act, in breach of its obligations under Article 265 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in that it did not define its position in response to the applicant’s complaints on, inter alia, State Aid by Ireland; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the Commission failed to act, in breach of its obligations under Article 265 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in that it did not define its position in response to the applicant’s complaints on, inter alia, State Aid by Ireland;

| — | order the Commission to bear its costs, and; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to bear its costs, and;

| — | order the applicant’s costs to be reimbursed. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the applicant’s costs to be reimbursed.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following plea in law:

In accordance with Article 265 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union the Commission was obliged to define its position in response to the applicant’s complaints on, inter alia, State Aid by Ireland, on or before the expiry of a reasonable period since the applicant’s complaints. In connection with the failure to act within a reasonable period, the applicant called on the Commission to act, by letter of 28 June 2021. In reply to the applicant’s call to act, the Commission failed to define its position within the prescribed period following the applicant’s call to act.

Considering that under these circumstances the Commission’s failure to define its position is beyond dispute, the applicant brought the present action for failure to act under Article 265 TFEU.

---

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/41

---

Action brought on 25 November 2021 — Hangzhou Dingsheng Industrial Group and Others v Commission

(Case T-748/21)

(2022/C 84/58)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Hangzhou Dingsheng Industrial Group Co., Ltd (Hangzhou, China), Dingheng New Materials Co., Ltd (Rayong, Thailand), Thai Ding Li New Materials Co., Ltd (Rayong) (represented by: G. Coppo and G. Pregno, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1474 (1) of 14 September 2021 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2384 and Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/271 on imports of certain aluminium foil originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of certain aluminium foil consigned from Thailand, whether declared as originating in Thailand or not, published in the Official Journal L 325 of 15 September 2021, insofar as it concerns Hangzhou Dingsheng Industrial Group Co., Ltd., Dingheng New Materials Co., Ltd., and Thai Ding Li New Materials Co. Ltd; and, |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1474 (1) of 14 September 2021 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2384 and Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/271 on imports of certain aluminium foil originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of certain aluminium foil consigned from Thailand, whether declared as originating in Thailand or not, published in the Official Journal L 325 of 15 September 2021, insofar as it concerns Hangzhou Dingsheng Industrial Group Co., Ltd., Dingheng New Materials Co., Ltd., and Thai Ding Li New Materials Co. Ltd; and,

| — | order the Commission to bear the costs of these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to bear the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | By their first plea, the applicants claim that the Contested Regulation is vitiated in law insofar as it concludes an investigation which was initiated — by means of the Initiation Regulation — without the Commission having met the standard of evidence required under Article 13(3) of the Basic Regulation (first limb of the first plea). In fact, the Commission blindly relied on the content of the Request, which is, however, incomplete and significantly flawed being based on unreliable information which the Commission did not verify or complement. Additionally, the applicants claim that the Commission failed to properly address the applicants’ comments on the unlawfulness of the initiation (second limb of the first plea). |
| --- | --- |

1.

By their first plea, the applicants claim that the Contested Regulation is vitiated in law insofar as it concludes an investigation which was initiated — by means of the Initiation Regulation — without the Commission having met the standard of evidence required under Article 13(3) of the Basic Regulation (first limb of the first plea). In fact, the Commission blindly relied on the content of the Request, which is, however, incomplete and significantly flawed being based on unreliable information which the Commission did not verify or complement. Additionally, the applicants claim that the Commission failed to properly address the applicants’ comments on the unlawfulness of the initiation (second limb of the first plea).

| 2. | By their second plea, the applicants claim that the Commission did not provide an adequate statement of reason regarding the existence of the substantive elements listed in Article 13(1) of the Basic Regulation, and in particular regarding the requirement relating to the undermining of the remedial effects of the duties, in breach of Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 20(2) of the Basic Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

2.

By their second plea, the applicants claim that the Commission did not provide an adequate statement of reason regarding the existence of the substantive elements listed in Article 13(1) of the Basic Regulation, and in particular regarding the requirement relating to the undermining of the remedial effects of the duties, in breach of Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 20(2) of the Basic Regulation.

---

(1)  OJ 2021, L 325, p. 6

---

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/42

---

Action brought on 13 December 2021 — DPG Deutsche Pfandsystem v EUIPO — Užstato sistemos administratorius (Representation of a bottle silhouette and an arrow)

(Case T-774/21)

(2022/C 84/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: DPG Deutsche Pfandsystem GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: J. Götz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Užstato sistemos administratorius VšĮ (Vilnius, Lithuania)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark (Representation of a bottle silhouette with an arrow) — Application for registration No 14 481 519

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 September 2021 in Case R 117/2020-2

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.

Plea in law

The Board of Appeal wrongly based its ruling on the fact that the applicant failed to prove that its earlier trademark was genuinely used in accordance with its primary function as a sign indicating commercial origin in respect of the goods and services concerned.

---

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/42

---

Action brought on 15 December 2021 — Folkertsma v Commission

(Case T-778/21)

(2022/C 84/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Rommert Folkertsma (Zierikzee, Netherlands) (represented by: L. Levi and P. Baudoux, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | recognise the non-contractual liability of the defendant; |
| --- | --- |

—

recognise the non-contractual liability of the defendant;

| — | grant a compensation for the material and moral prejudice suffered by the applicant due to the defendant’s unlawful conduct; |
| --- | --- |

—

grant a compensation for the material and moral prejudice suffered by the applicant due to the defendant’s unlawful conduct;

| — | if need be, annul the decision of the defendant dated 5 October 2021, rejecting its liability in the applicant’s removal from the SUBRATA Project in the Philippines; and, |
| --- | --- |

—

if need be, annul the decision of the defendant dated 5 October 2021, rejecting its liability in the applicant’s removal from the SUBRATA Project in the Philippines; and,

| — | 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, as to the unlawful conduct of the defendant, on three pleas in law:

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s right to be heard. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s right to be heard.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging the breach of the defendant’s duty to give reasons. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging the breach of the defendant’s duty to give reasons.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging the infringement of the defendant’s duty of diligence. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging the infringement of the defendant’s duty of diligence.

The damage suffered by the applicant is actual, certain and quantifiable. It consists in the loss of income for the duration of the service contract that the applicant had, then in the loss of a serious chance to have the contract renewed for another two years at it initial term and thirdly, to the breach to the applicant’s good name. The applicant searches the compensation of his material prejudice and of his moral prejudice.

---

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/43

---

Action brought on 21 December 2021 — TDK Foil Italy v Commission

(Case T-788/21)

(2022/C 84/61)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: TDK Foil Italy SpA (Rozzano, Italy) (represented by: F. Di Gianni, A. Scalini and G. Pregno, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1784 (1) of 8 October 2021 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of aluminium flat-rolled products originating in the People’s Republic of China, insofar as it includes in the scope of the anti-dumping duty raw aluminium foil used to produce high-voltage anode and tab foils for aluminium electrolytic capacitors; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1784 (1) of 8 October 2021 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of aluminium flat-rolled products originating in the People’s Republic of China, insofar as it includes in the scope of the anti-dumping duty raw aluminium foil used to produce high-voltage anode and tab foils for aluminium electrolytic capacitors;

| — | in the alternative, annul Article 1(1) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1784 of 8 October 2021 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of aluminium flat-rolled products originating in the People’s Republic of China insofar it illegally includes High Purity Aluminium Foil in the scope of the anti-dumping duty, and; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Article 1(1) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1784 of 8 October 2021 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of aluminium flat-rolled products originating in the People’s Republic of China insofar it illegally includes High Purity Aluminium Foil in the scope of the anti-dumping duty, and;

| — | in any event, order the Commission to bear the costs of the proceeding. |
| --- | --- |

—

in any event, order the Commission to bear the costs of the proceeding.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that, by including High Purity Aluminium Foil within the scope of the measures, the Commission had committed a manifest error of assessment of the evidence provided during the investigation and infringed the principle of proportionality. In particular, the applicant submits that there is robust evidence of the absence of Union production of High Purity Aluminium Foil. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that, by including High Purity Aluminium Foil within the scope of the measures, the Commission had committed a manifest error of assessment of the evidence provided during the investigation and infringed the principle of proportionality. In particular, the applicant submits that there is robust evidence of the absence of Union production of High Purity Aluminium Foil.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Contested Regulation violates Article 1(1) of the Basic Regulation insofar as it applied anti-dumping duties against imports of a product which could not have caused injury to the Union industry, as well as in absence of the Union interest. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Contested Regulation violates Article 1(1) of the Basic Regulation insofar as it applied anti-dumping duties against imports of a product which could not have caused injury to the Union industry, as well as in absence of the Union interest.

---

(1)  OJ 2021, L 359, p. 6

---

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/44

---

Action brought on 21 December 2021 — ClientEarth v Commission

(Case T-792/21)

(2022/C 84/62)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ClientEarth AISBL (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: F. Logue, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the implied decision of the European Commission dated 12 October 2021 in case GESTDEM No 2021/4394 refusing the applicant’s request for access to documents; (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the implied decision of the European Commission dated 12 October 2021 in case GESTDEM No 2021/4394 refusing the applicant’s request for access to documents; (1)

| — | order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 133 and 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 133 and 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to state reasons in breach of Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) 1049/2001, (2) Article 41(2)(c), of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 296, paragraph 2, TFEU.

---

(1)  Editorial note: the documents in question concern the EU’s legislative initiative regarding sustainable corporate governance.

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

---

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/44

---

Action brought on 27 December 2021 — Grupo Eig Multimedia v EUIPO — Globalización de Valores CFC & GCI (FORO16)

(Case T-796/21)

(2022/C 84/63)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Grupo Eig Multimedia, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: D. Solana Giménez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Globalización de Valores CFC & GCI, SL (Mairena del Aljarafe, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for the EU figurative mark FORO16 — Application for registration No 18 036 099

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 October 2021 in Case R 1785/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and uphold the applicant’s claims, revoking the initial agreement and in its place, issuing a new decision refusing registration of the trade mark at issue; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and uphold the applicant’s claims, revoking the initial agreement and in its place, issuing a new decision refusing registration of the trade mark at issue;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

---

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/45

---

Action brought on 24 December 2021 — European Food v EUIPO — Société des produits Nestlé (FITNESS)

(Case T-799/21)

(2022/C 84/64)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Food SA (Drăgăneşti, Romania) (represented by: I. Speciac, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Société des produits Nestlé SA (Vevey, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark FITNESS — European Union trade mark No 2 470 326

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 October 2021 in Case R 894/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | as a secondary claim, alter the contested decision and grant the appeal filed against the decision rendered by the Cancellation Division in Cancellation Proceedings No 5 802 C; |
| --- | --- |

—

as a secondary claim, alter the contested decision and grant the appeal filed against the decision rendered by the Cancellation Division in Cancellation Proceedings No 5 802 C;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 65(6) of Regulation (EC) 207/2009 of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 65(6) of Regulation (EC) 207/2009 of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 76 of Regulation (EC) 207/2009 of the Council, and of rules 37 and 50(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 76 of Regulation (EC) 207/2009 of the Council, and of rules 37 and 50(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) 207/2009 of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) 207/2009 of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) in conjunction with Article 52(1)(2) of Regulation (EC) 207/2009 of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) in conjunction with Article 52(1)(2) of Regulation (EC) 207/2009 of the Council.

---

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/46

---

Action brought on 4 January 2022 — Airoldi Metalli v Commission

(Case T-1/22)

(2022/C 84/65)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Airoldi Metalli SpA (Molteno, Italy) (represented by: M. Campa, D. Rovetta, P. Gjørtler and V. Villante, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1784 of 8 October 2021, imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of aluminium flat-rolled products originating in the People’s Republic of China; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1784 of 8 October 2021, imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of aluminium flat-rolled products originating in the People’s Republic of China;

| — | order the European Commission to bear the applicant’s legal costs in the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to bear the applicant’s legal costs in the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action for annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1784, (1) the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment concerning injury analysis and causation analysis as well as concerning lack of proper disclosure. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment concerning injury analysis and causation analysis as well as concerning lack of proper disclosure.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment by the European Commission in the possible existence of significant distortions in a certain country or a certain sector in that country. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment by the European Commission in the possible existence of significant distortions in a certain country or a certain sector in that country.

---

(1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1784, of 8 October 2021, imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of aluminium flat-rolled products originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2021 L 359, p. 6).

---

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/46

---

Action brought on 4 January 2022 — Sveza Verkhnyaya Sinyachikha and Others/Commission

(Case T-2/22)

(2022/C 84/66)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Sveza Verkhnyaya Sinyachikha NAO (Verkhnyaya Sinyachikha, Russia) and 6 others (represented by: P. Vander Schueren and E. Gergondet, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | Declare the action admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the action admissible;

| — | Annul the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2021/1930 of 8 November 2021 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of birch plywood originating in Russia (1) (the ‘Contested Regulation’), as far as it applies to the applicants; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2021/1930 of 8 November 2021 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of birch plywood originating in Russia (1) (the ‘Contested Regulation’), as far as it applies to the applicants; and

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

—

Order the defendant 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 six pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed manifest errors of assessment and acted in breach of Article 2(10)(i) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 (2) (‘basic Regulation’), by failing to consider that the applicants and Sveza-Les form a single economic entity and by adjusting the export price for the amount of commissions paid to Sveza-Les or, in the alternative, the defendant committed manifest errors of assessment and acted in breach of Articles 2(10) and 2(10)(i) of the basic Regulation by failing to adjust the normal value for the mark-up received by Sveza-Les on domestic sales. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed manifest errors of assessment and acted in breach of Article 2(10)(i) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 (2) (‘basic Regulation’), by failing to consider that the applicants and Sveza-Les form a single economic entity and by adjusting the export price for the amount of commissions paid to Sveza-Les or, in the alternative, the defendant committed manifest errors of assessment and acted in breach of Articles 2(10) and 2(10)(i) of the basic Regulation by failing to adjust the normal value for the mark-up received by Sveza-Les on domestic sales.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed manifest errors of assessment and acted in breach of Article 2(6) of the basic Regulation by disregarding the dividend received by Sveza-Les from Sveza Uralskiy when determining SGA for the construction of normal value. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed manifest errors of assessment and acted in breach of Article 2(6) of the basic Regulation by disregarding the dividend received by Sveza-Les from Sveza Uralskiy when determining SGA for the construction of normal value.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed manifest errors of assessment and acted in breach of Article 2(6) of the basic Regulation, by allocating costs incurred by Sveza-Les in relation to management services to the production and sale of Plywood, when determining SGA for the construction of normal value. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed manifest errors of assessment and acted in breach of Article 2(6) of the basic Regulation, by allocating costs incurred by Sveza-Les in relation to management services to the production and sale of Plywood, when determining SGA for the construction of normal value.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed manifest errors of assessment, failed to state reasons and violated the right to sound administration by including square-shaped Plywood in the scope of the product concerned or, in the alternative, committed manifest errors of assessment, failed to state reasons, violated the right to sound administration and acted in breach of Articles 3(2) and 3(6) of the basic Regulation by failing to assess separately square-shaped Plywood for injury and causality purposes. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed manifest errors of assessment, failed to state reasons and violated the right to sound administration by including square-shaped Plywood in the scope of the product concerned or, in the alternative, committed manifest errors of assessment, failed to state reasons, violated the right to sound administration and acted in breach of Articles 3(2) and 3(6) of the basic Regulation by failing to assess separately square-shaped Plywood for injury and causality purposes.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed manifest errors of assessment, acted in breach of Article 3(2) of the basic Regulation and violated the right to sound administration by determining import figures based on unreliable data. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed manifest errors of assessment, acted in breach of Article 3(2) of the basic Regulation and violated the right to sound administration by determining import figures based on unreliable data.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed manifest errors of assessment, acted in breach of Articles 3(6) and 3(7) of the basic Regulation and violated the right to sound administration by failing to consider, in its causality assessment, the existence of different market segments, as well as the impact of other known factors causing injury. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed manifest errors of assessment, acted in breach of Articles 3(6) and 3(7) of the basic Regulation and violated the right to sound administration by failing to consider, in its causality assessment, the existence of different market segments, as well as the impact of other known factors causing injury.

---

(1)  OJ 2021, L 394, p. 7.

(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).

---

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/47

---

Action brought on 4 January 2022 — ZHPLK/Commission

(Case T-3/22)

(2022/C 84/67)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Zheshartsky LPK OOO (Zheshart, Russia) (represented by: P. Vander Schueren and E. Gergondet, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Declare the action admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the action admissible;

| — | Annul the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2021/1930 of 8 November 2021 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of birch plywood originating in Russia (1) (the ‘Contested Regulation’), as far as it applies to the applicant; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2021/1930 of 8 November 2021 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of birch plywood originating in Russia (1) (the ‘Contested Regulation’), as far as it applies to the applicant; and

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in relation to these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in relation to these proceedings.

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 committed manifest errors of assessment and acted in breach of Articles 2(10) and 2(10)(i) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 (2) (‘basic Regulation’), by adjusting the applicant’s export price for commissions paid to Trade House on domestic sales, instead of adjusting the normal value for the full amount of these commissions. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed manifest errors of assessment and acted in breach of Articles 2(10) and 2(10)(i) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 (2) (‘basic Regulation’), by adjusting the applicant’s export price for commissions paid to Trade House on domestic sales, instead of adjusting the normal value for the full amount of these commissions.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed manifest errors of assessment and acted in breach of Article 2(10)(e) or, in the alternative, Article 2(10)(k) of the basic Regulation, by failing to take into account reimbursements of transport costs when adjusting the export price. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed manifest errors of assessment and acted in breach of Article 2(10)(e) or, in the alternative, Article 2(10)(k) of the basic Regulation, by failing to take into account reimbursements of transport costs when adjusting the export price.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging in the alternative, that the defendant committed manifest errors of assessment, acted in breach of Article 2(6) of the basic Regulation and failed to state reasons by not taking into account reimbursements of transport costs when determining the applicant’s selling, general and administrative expenses on the domestic market. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging in the alternative, that the defendant committed manifest errors of assessment, acted in breach of Article 2(6) of the basic Regulation and failed to state reasons by not taking into account reimbursements of transport costs when determining the applicant’s selling, general and administrative expenses on the domestic market.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed manifest errors of assessment, failed to state reasons and violated the right to sound administration by including square-shaped Plywood in the scope of the product concerned or, in the alternative, committed manifest errors of assessment, failed to state reasons, violated the right to sound administration and acted in breach of Articles 3(2) and 3(6) of the basic Regulation by failing to assess separately square-shaped Plywood for injury and causality purposes. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed manifest errors of assessment, failed to state reasons and violated the right to sound administration by including square-shaped Plywood in the scope of the product concerned or, in the alternative, committed manifest errors of assessment, failed to state reasons, violated the right to sound administration and acted in breach of Articles 3(2) and 3(6) of the basic Regulation by failing to assess separately square-shaped Plywood for injury and causality purposes.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed manifest errors of assessment, acted in breach of Article 3(2) of the basic Regulation and violated the right to sound administration by determining import figures based on unreliable data. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed manifest errors of assessment, acted in breach of Article 3(2) of the basic Regulation and violated the right to sound administration by determining import figures based on unreliable data.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed manifest errors of assessment, acted in breach of Articles 3(6) and 3(7) of the basic Regulation and violated the right to sound administration by failing to consider, in its causality assessment, the existence of different market segments, as well as the impact of other known factors causing injury. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed manifest errors of assessment, acted in breach of Articles 3(6) and 3(7) of the basic Regulation and violated the right to sound administration by failing to consider, in its causality assessment, the existence of different market segments, as well as the impact of other known factors causing injury.

---

(1)  OJ 2021, L 394, p. 7.

(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).

---

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/49

---

Action brought on 5 January 2022 — Puma v EUIPO — Brooks Sports (Representation of a chevron)

(Case T-5/22)

(2022/C 84/68)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Brooks Sports, Inc. (Seattle, Washington, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark (Representation of a chevron) — International registration designating the European Union No 1 441 912

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 October 2021 in Case R 910/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

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

—

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

| — | Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/49

---

Action brought on 6 January 2022 — FFI Female Financial Invest v EUIPO — MLP Finanzberatung SE (Financery)

(Case T-7/22)

(2022/C 84/69)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: FFI Female Financial Invest GmbH (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: M. Gramsch, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: MLP Finanzberatung SE (Wiesloch, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Application for registration of EU trade mark Financery — Application No 18 041 007

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 October 2021 in Case R 1820/2020-5.

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.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/50

---

Action brought on 6 January 2022 — Topcart v EUIPO — Carl International (TC CARL)

(Case T-8/22)

(2022/C 84/70)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Topcart GmbH (Wiesbaden, Germany) (represented by: M. Hoffmann, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Carl International (Limonest, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Application for registration of EU trade mark TC CARL — Application No 15 519 283

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 October 2021 in Case R 2561/2018-2

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.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/51

---

Action brought on 7 January 2022 — Olimp Laboratories v EUIPO (VITA-MIN MULTIPLE SPORT)

(Case T-9/22)

(2022/C 84/71)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

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

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark VITA-MIN MULTIPLE SPORT — Application No 18 115 249

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 November 2021 in Case R 771/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and remit the case to EUIPO for further consideration;
  or |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and remit the case to EUIPO for further consideration;

or

| — | amend the contested decision by declaring that, in relation to the mark ‘VITA-MIN MULTIPLE SPORT’ applied for in respect of goods in Class 5 of the Nice Agreement, there is no absolute ground for refusal, pursuant to Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of [Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark], based on the sign’s lack of any distinctive character or its descriptive character; |
| --- | --- |

—

amend the contested decision by declaring that, in relation to the mark ‘VITA-MIN MULTIPLE SPORT’ applied for in respect of goods in Class 5 of the Nice Agreement, there is no absolute ground for refusal, pursuant to Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of [Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark], based on the sign’s lack of any distinctive character or its descriptive character;

| — | make an appropriate order as to costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

make an appropriate order as to costs.

Pleas in law

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

—

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

| — | Infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 103(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 103(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and the principle of legal certainty. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and the principle of legal certainty.

---

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/51

---

Action brought on 7 January 2022 — Wajos v EUIPO (Shape of a bottle)

(Case T-10/22)

(2022/C 84/72)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Wajos GmbH (Dohr, Germany) (represented by: N. Böhmer und J. Schneiders, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU tridimensional mark (Shape of a bottle) — Application for registration No 14 886 097

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 October 2021 in Case R 2958/2019-2

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 binding authority of a judgment which has become final; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the binding authority of a judgment which has become final;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(e) of Regulation (EU) 207/2009 of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(e) of Regulation (EU) 207/2009 of the Council.

---

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/52

---

Action brought on 10 January 2022 — Motel One v EUIPO — Apartment One (APART MENT ONE SLEEP CLEVER.)

(Case T-15/22)

(2022/C 84/73)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Motel One GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: M. Hartmann, S. Fröhlich and H. Lerchl, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Apartment One GbR (Grasbrunn, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark APART MENT ONE SLEEP CLEVER. — Application No 18 009 642

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 October 2021 in Case R 564/2021-5

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.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/53

---

Action brought on 8 January 2022 — Tóth v Commission

(Case T-17/22)

(2022/C 84/74)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: Bertalan Tóth (Pécs, Hungary) (represented by: Á. Baratta and B. Czudar, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) to refuse access to the document entitled ‘Final Report of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) OF/2015/0034/B4 relating to public lighting activities by Élios Innovatív Zrt.’ by not giving a decision, within the time limit laid down in Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1049/2001, (1) on the confirmatory application for access submitted by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) to refuse access to the document entitled ‘Final Report of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) OF/2015/0034/B4 relating to public lighting activities by Élios Innovatív Zrt.’ by not giving a decision, within the time limit laid down in Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1049/2001, (1) on the confirmatory application for access submitted by the applicant.

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

—

order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging an infringement of the obligation to state reasons.






  — | OLAF failed to fulfil its obligation to state reasons by refusing, without providing justification in accordance with the law, access to the document entitled ‘Final Report of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) OF/2015/0034/B4 relating to public lighting activities by Élios Innovatív Zrt.’. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging an infringement of the obligation to state reasons.

—

OLAF failed to fulfil its obligation to state reasons by refusing, without providing justification in accordance with the law, access to the document entitled ‘Final Report of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) OF/2015/0034/B4 relating to public lighting activities by Élios Innovatív Zrt.’.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the refusal to grant the request for access is unlawful.






  — | OLAF refused to grant the request for access without satisfying any of the exceptions provided for in Article 4 of Regulation No 1049/2001 that would justify the refusal of the requests for access. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the refusal to grant the request for access is unlawful.

—

OLAF refused to grant the request for access without satisfying any of the exceptions provided for in Article 4 of Regulation No 1049/2001 that would justify the refusal of the requests for access.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

---

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/53

---

Action brought on 10 January 2022 — Nemport Liman İşletmeleri Ve Özel Antrepo Nakliye Ticaret v EUIPO — Newport Europe (NEMPORT LİMAN İŞLETMELERİ)

(Case T-18/22)

(2022/C 84/75)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Nemport Liman İşletmeleri Ve Özel Antrepo Nakliye Ticaret AŞ (Izmir, Turkey) (represented by: V. Martín Santos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Newport Europe BV (Moerdijk, Netherlands)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark NEMPORT LİMAN İŞLETMELERİ — Application for registration No 18 101 775

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 November 2021 in Case R 562/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision so that the trade mark at issue is granted in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision so that the trade mark at issue is granted in its entirety;

| — | order the applicant/intervener and/or the EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in connection with this appeal, and all procedural costs generated by EUIPO decisions. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the applicant/intervener and/or the EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in connection with this appeal, and all procedural costs generated by EUIPO decisions.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---