# Official Journal C 304/28 A

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 304 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6628 August 2023 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 304

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6628 August 2023

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2023/C 304/01 | Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union | 1 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

2023/C 304/01

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

Official Journal of the European Union

1

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2023/C 304/02 | Case C-145/23 P: Appeal brought on 10 March 2023 by Puma SE against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 21 December 2022 in Case T-4/22, Puma v EUIPO — DN Solutions (PUMA) | 2 |
| 2023/C 304/03 | Case C-196/23: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña (Spain) lodged on 24 March 2023 — CL and Others v DB, sole successor to FC, and Fondo de Garantía Salarial (FOGASA) | 2 |
| 2023/C 304/04 | Case C-258/23, Imagens Médicas Integradas: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Concorrência, Regulação e Supervisão (Portugal) lodged on 24 April 2023 — IMI — Imagens Médicas Integradas SA v Autoridade da Concorrência | 3 |
| 2023/C 304/05 | Case C-259/23, Synlabhealth II: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Concorrência, Regulação e Supervisão (Portugal) lodged on 24 April 2023 — Synlabhealth II SA v Autoridade da Concorrência | 3 |
| 2023/C 304/06 | Case C-260/23, SIBS — Sociedade Gestora de Participações Sociais and Others: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Concorrência, Regulação e Supervisão (Portugal) lodged on 24 April 2023 — SIBS — Sociedade Gestora de Participações Sociais SA and Others v Autoridade da Concorrência | 4 |
| 2023/C 304/07 | Case C-292/23: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Central de Instrucción No 6 de la Audiencia Nacional (Spain) lodged on 3 May 2023 — European Public Prosecutor’s Office v I.R.O., F.J.L.R | 5 |
| 2023/C 304/08 | Case C-296/23, dm-drogerie markt: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 10 May 2023 — Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs e. V v dm-drogerie markt Gmbh + Co. KG | 6 |
| 2023/C 304/09 | Case C-313/23, Inspektorat kam Visshia sadeben savet: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 22 May 2023 — Inspektorat kam Visshia sadeben savet | 6 |
| 2023/C 304/10 | Case C-316/23, Inspektorat kam Visshia sadeben savet: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 23 May 2023 — Inspektorat kam Visshia sadeben savet | 7 |
| 2023/C 304/11 | Case C-322/23, Lufoni: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Lecce (Italy) lodged on 24 May 2023 — ED v Ministero dell’Istruzione e del Merito, Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale (INPS) | 9 |
| 2023/C 304/12 | Case C-332/23, Inspektorat kam Visshia sadeben savet: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 25 May 2023 — Inspektorat kam Visshia sadeben savet | 9 |
| 2023/C 304/13 | Case C-338/23, Brachev: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 30 May 2023 — Criminal proceedings against M.S.S. and Others | 10 |
| 2023/C 304/14 | Case C-374/23, Adoreikė: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vilniaus apygardos administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 13 June 2023 — SR, RB v Lietuvos Respublika | 11 |
| 2023/C 304/15 | Case C-376/23, BALTIC CONTAINER TERMINAL: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) (Latvia) lodged on 15 June 2023 — SIA BALTIC CONTAINER TERMINAL v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests | 12 |
| 2023/C 304/16 | Case C-383/23, ILVA: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 21 June 2023 — Anklagemyndigheden v ILVA A/S | 13 |
| 2023/C 304/17 | Case C-442/23: Action brought on 14 July 2023 — Republic of Poland v European Parliament and Council of the European Union | 13 |
| 2023/C 304/18 | Case C-444/23: Action brought on 17 July 2023 — Republic of Poland v European Parliament and Council of the European Union | 15 |
| 2023/C 304/19 | Case C-445/23: Action brought on 17 July 2023 — Republic of Poland v European Parliament and Council of the European Union | 16 |
| 2023/C 304/20 | Case C-448/23: Action brought on 17 July 2023 — European Commission v Republic of Poland | 17 |
| 2023/C 304/21 | Case C-451/23: Action brought on 18 July 2023 — Republic of Poland v European Parliament and Council of the European Union | 18 |
| | General Court |
| 2023/C 304/22 | Case T-358/20: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2023 — Net Technologies Finland v REA (Arbitration clause — Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) — Personnel costs — Reimbursement of sums paid — Eligibility of costs relating to in-house consultants — Burden of proof) | 20 |
| 2023/C 304/23 | Case T-491/21: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2023 — Hungary v Commission (EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Expenditure incurred by Hungary — No double funding — Article 30 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 — Article 28(1)(b) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 809/2014 — Aid for afforestation — Article 22 of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 — Aid for greening — Article 43 of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 — Cumulation of aid) | 20 |
| 2023/C 304/24 | Case T-27/22: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2023 — Innovaciones Cosmético Farmacéuticas v EUIPO — Benito Oliver (th pharma) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark TH PHARMA — Earlier national figurative mark TH — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001) | 21 |
| 2023/C 304/25 | Case T-34/22: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2023 — Cunsorziu di i Salamaghji Corsi — Consortium des Charcutiers Corses and Others v Commission (Protected geographical indication — Protected designation of origin — Applications for protection of the geographical indications Jambon sec de l’Île de Beauté, Lonzo de l’Île de Beauté and Coppa de l’Île de Beauté — Earlier protected designations of origin Jambon sec de Corse — Prisuttu, Lonzo de Corse — Lonzu and Coppa de Corse — Coppa di Corsica — Eligibility of names — Evocation — Article 7(1)(a) and Article 13(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 — Scope of the Commission’s control of the applications for registration — Article 50(1) and Article 52(1) of Regulation No 1151/2012 — Error of assessment) | 22 |
| 2023/C 304/26 | Case T-318/21: Judgment of the General Court of 29 June 2023 — KF v EIB (Civil service — EIB Staff — Invalidity Committee — Refusal to recognise incapacity — Rejection of a request for an administrative review — Lis pendens — Inadmissibility) | 22 |
| 2023/C 304/27 | Case T-112/23: Order of the General Court of 27 June 2023 — Konings v EUIPO — Manuel Busto Amandi (MAY GOLD) (European Union trade mark — Cancellation proceedings — Withdrawal of the application for revocation — No need to adjudicate) | 23 |
| 2023/C 304/28 | Case T-361/23: Action brought on 5 July 2023 — Väderstad v EUIPO (Position of a combination of presentational features) | 24 |
| 2023/C 304/29 | Case T-362/23: Action brought on 5 July 2023 — Väderstad v EUIPO (Position of a combination of presentational features) | 24 |
| 2023/C 304/30 | Case T-363/23: Action brought on 5 July 2023 — Väderstad v EUIPO (Position of a combination of presentational features) | 25 |
| 2023/C 304/31 | Case T-364/23: Action brought on 5 July 2023 — Väderstad v EUIPO (Position of a combination of presentational features) | 25 |
| 2023/C 304/32 | Case T-365/23: Action brought on 6 July 2023 — Habitat Barcelona Unión Constructora v EUIPO — Acomodeo Marketplace (ACOMODEO) | 26 |
| 2023/C 304/33 | Case T-378/23: Action brought on 10 July 2023 — Marcegaglia Specialties v Commission | 27 |
| 2023/C 304/34 | Case T-379/23: Action brought on 10 July 2023 — Çolakoğlu Metalurji v Commission | 27 |
| 2023/C 304/35 | Case T-383/23: Action brought on 11 July 2023 — Essilor International v EUIPO — Carl Zeiss Vision (MYOLUX) | 28 |
| 2023/C 304/36 | Case T-384/23: Action brought on 10 July 2023 — OQ v Commission | 29 |
| 2023/C 304/37 | Case T-395/23: Action brought on 13 July 2023 — Eckes-Granini Group and International Beer Breweries v EUIPO — Capri Sun (PRISUN) | 30 |
| 2023/C 304/38 | Case T-397/23: Action brought on 11 July 2023 — Ausnit, Olariu și Asociații v Commission | 31 |
| 2023/C 304/39 | Case T-730/22: Order of the General Court of 12 July 2023 — LG and Others v Commission | 31 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2023/C 304/02

Case C-145/23 P: Appeal brought on 10 March 2023 by Puma SE against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 21 December 2022 in Case T-4/22, Puma v EUIPO — DN Solutions (PUMA)

2

2023/C 304/03

Case C-196/23: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña (Spain) lodged on 24 March 2023 — CL and Others v DB, sole successor to FC, and Fondo de Garantía Salarial (FOGASA)

2

2023/C 304/04

Case C-258/23, Imagens Médicas Integradas: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Concorrência, Regulação e Supervisão (Portugal) lodged on 24 April 2023 — IMI — Imagens Médicas Integradas SA v Autoridade da Concorrência

3

2023/C 304/05

Case C-259/23, Synlabhealth II: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Concorrência, Regulação e Supervisão (Portugal) lodged on 24 April 2023 — Synlabhealth II SA v Autoridade da Concorrência

3

2023/C 304/06

Case C-260/23, SIBS — Sociedade Gestora de Participações Sociais and Others: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Concorrência, Regulação e Supervisão (Portugal) lodged on 24 April 2023 — SIBS — Sociedade Gestora de Participações Sociais SA and Others v Autoridade da Concorrência

4

2023/C 304/07

Case C-292/23: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Central de Instrucción No 6 de la Audiencia Nacional (Spain) lodged on 3 May 2023 — European Public Prosecutor’s Office v I.R.O., F.J.L.R

5

2023/C 304/08

Case C-296/23, dm-drogerie markt: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 10 May 2023 — Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs e. V v dm-drogerie markt Gmbh + Co. KG

6

2023/C 304/09

Case C-313/23, Inspektorat kam Visshia sadeben savet: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 22 May 2023 — Inspektorat kam Visshia sadeben savet

6

2023/C 304/10

Case C-316/23, Inspektorat kam Visshia sadeben savet: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 23 May 2023 — Inspektorat kam Visshia sadeben savet

7

2023/C 304/11

Case C-322/23, Lufoni: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Lecce (Italy) lodged on 24 May 2023 — ED v Ministero dell’Istruzione e del Merito, Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale (INPS)

Lufoni

9

2023/C 304/12

Case C-332/23, Inspektorat kam Visshia sadeben savet: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 25 May 2023 — Inspektorat kam Visshia sadeben savet

9

2023/C 304/13

Case C-338/23, Brachev: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 30 May 2023 — Criminal proceedings against M.S.S. and Others

10

2023/C 304/14

Case C-374/23, Adoreikė: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vilniaus apygardos administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 13 June 2023 — SR, RB v Lietuvos Respublika

11

2023/C 304/15

Case C-376/23, BALTIC CONTAINER TERMINAL: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) (Latvia) lodged on 15 June 2023 — SIA BALTIC CONTAINER TERMINAL v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

12

2023/C 304/16

Case C-383/23, ILVA: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 21 June 2023 — Anklagemyndigheden v ILVA A/S

13

2023/C 304/17

Case C-442/23: Action brought on 14 July 2023 — Republic of Poland v European Parliament and Council of the European Union

13

2023/C 304/18

Case C-444/23: Action brought on 17 July 2023 — Republic of Poland v European Parliament and Council of the European Union

15

2023/C 304/19

Case C-445/23: Action brought on 17 July 2023 — Republic of Poland v European Parliament and Council of the European Union

16

2023/C 304/20

Case C-448/23: Action brought on 17 July 2023 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

17

2023/C 304/21

Case C-451/23: Action brought on 18 July 2023 — Republic of Poland v European Parliament and Council of the European Union

18

General Court

2023/C 304/22

Case T-358/20: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2023 — Net Technologies Finland v REA (Arbitration clause — Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) — Personnel costs — Reimbursement of sums paid — Eligibility of costs relating to in-house consultants — Burden of proof)

20

2023/C 304/23

Case T-491/21: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2023 — Hungary v Commission (EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Expenditure incurred by Hungary — No double funding — Article 30 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 — Article 28(1)(b) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 809/2014 — Aid for afforestation — Article 22 of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 — Aid for greening — Article 43 of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 — Cumulation of aid)

20

2023/C 304/24

Case T-27/22: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2023 — Innovaciones Cosmético Farmacéuticas v EUIPO — Benito Oliver (th pharma) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark TH PHARMA — Earlier national figurative mark TH — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001)

21

2023/C 304/25

Case T-34/22: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2023 — Cunsorziu di i Salamaghji Corsi — Consortium des Charcutiers Corses and Others v Commission (Protected geographical indication — Protected designation of origin — Applications for protection of the geographical indications Jambon sec de l’Île de Beauté, Lonzo de l’Île de Beauté and Coppa de l’Île de Beauté — Earlier protected designations of origin Jambon sec de Corse — Prisuttu, Lonzo de Corse — Lonzu and Coppa de Corse — Coppa di Corsica — Eligibility of names — Evocation — Article 7(1)(a) and Article 13(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 — Scope of the Commission’s control of the applications for registration — Article 50(1) and Article 52(1) of Regulation No 1151/2012 — Error of assessment)

22

2023/C 304/26

Case T-318/21: Judgment of the General Court of 29 June 2023 — KF v EIB (Civil service — EIB Staff — Invalidity Committee — Refusal to recognise incapacity — Rejection of a request for an administrative review — Lis pendens — Inadmissibility)

22

2023/C 304/27

Case T-112/23: Order of the General Court of 27 June 2023 — Konings v EUIPO — Manuel Busto Amandi (MAY GOLD) (European Union trade mark — Cancellation proceedings — Withdrawal of the application for revocation — No need to adjudicate)

23

2023/C 304/28

Case T-361/23: Action brought on 5 July 2023 — Väderstad v EUIPO (Position of a combination of presentational features)

24

2023/C 304/29

Case T-362/23: Action brought on 5 July 2023 — Väderstad v EUIPO (Position of a combination of presentational features)

24

2023/C 304/30

Case T-363/23: Action brought on 5 July 2023 — Väderstad v EUIPO (Position of a combination of presentational features)

25

2023/C 304/31

Case T-364/23: Action brought on 5 July 2023 — Väderstad v EUIPO (Position of a combination of presentational features)

25

2023/C 304/32

Case T-365/23: Action brought on 6 July 2023 — Habitat Barcelona Unión Constructora v EUIPO — Acomodeo Marketplace (ACOMODEO)

26

2023/C 304/33

Case T-378/23: Action brought on 10 July 2023 — Marcegaglia Specialties v Commission

27

2023/C 304/34

Case T-379/23: Action brought on 10 July 2023 — Çolakoğlu Metalurji v Commission

27

2023/C 304/35

Case T-383/23: Action brought on 11 July 2023 — Essilor International v EUIPO — Carl Zeiss Vision (MYOLUX)

28

2023/C 304/36

Case T-384/23: Action brought on 10 July 2023 — OQ v Commission

29

2023/C 304/37

Case T-395/23: Action brought on 13 July 2023 — Eckes-Granini Group and International Beer Breweries v EUIPO — Capri Sun (PRISUN)

30

2023/C 304/38

Case T-397/23: Action brought on 11 July 2023 — Ausnit, Olariu și Asociații v Commission

31

2023/C 304/39

Case T-730/22: Order of the General Court of 12 July 2023 — LG and Others v Commission

31

---

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 28.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/1

---

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

(2023/C 304/01)

Last publication

OJ C 296, 21.8.2023

Past publications

OJ C 286, 14.8.2023

OJ C 278, 7.8.2023

OJ C 271, 31.7.2023

OJ C 261, 24.7.2023

OJ C 252, 17.7.2023

OJ C 235, 3.7.2023

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 28.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/2

---

Appeal brought on 10 March 2023 by Puma SE against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 21 December 2022 in Case T-4/22, Puma v EUIPO — DN Solutions (PUMA)

(Case C-145/23 P)

(2023/C 304/02)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Puma SE (represented by: M. Schunke and P. Trieb, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), DN Solutions Co. Ltd., formerly Doosan Machine Tools Co. Ltd.

By order of 17 July 2023, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal was not allowed to proceed and that Puma SE should bear its own costs.

---

| 28.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/2

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña (Spain) lodged on 24 March 2023 — CL and Others v DB, sole successor to FC, and Fondo de Garantía Salarial (FOGASA)

(Case C-196/23)

(2023/C 304/03)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: CL and Others

Defendant: DB, sole successor to FC, and Fondo de Garantía Salarial (FOGASA)

Questions referred

| 1. | Is legislation such as the Spanish legislation (1) (Article 49(1)(e) of Real Decreto Legislativo 2/2015 por el que se aprueba el texto refundido de la Ley del Estatuto de los Trabajadores (Royal Legislative Decree 2/2015 approving the consolidated text of the Law on the Workers’ Statute) of 23 October 2015), which does not establish a period of consultation in situations where contracts of employment in excess of the number laid down in Article 1 of that directive are terminated as a result of the retirement of the natural person employer, compatible with Article 2 of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is legislation such as the Spanish legislation (1) (Article 49(1)(e) of Real Decreto Legislativo 2/2015 por el que se aprueba el texto refundido de la Ley del Estatuto de los Trabajadores (Royal Legislative Decree 2/2015 approving the consolidated text of the Law on the Workers’ Statute) of 23 October 2015), which does not establish a period of consultation in situations where contracts of employment in excess of the number laid down in Article 1 of that directive are terminated as a result of the retirement of the natural person employer, compatible with Article 2 of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies?

| 2. | If the answer to the preceding question is in the negative, does Directive 98/59 have direct horizontal effect between individuals? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the preceding question is in the negative, does Directive 98/59 have direct horizontal effect between individuals?

---

(1)  OJ 1998 L 225. p. 16.

---

| 28.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/3

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Concorrência, Regulação e Supervisão (Portugal) lodged on 24 April 2023 — IMI — Imagens Médicas Integradas SA v Autoridade da Concorrência

(Case C-258/23, Imagens Médicas Integradas)

(2023/C 304/04)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal da Concorrência, Regulação e Supervisão

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: IMI — Imagens Médicas Integradas SA

Defendant: Autoridade da Concorrência

Questions referred

| I. | Do the business records at issue in this case, which are transmitted by e-mail, constitute ‘correspondence’ for the purposes of Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union? |
| --- | --- |

I.

Do the business records at issue in this case, which are transmitted by e-mail, constitute ‘correspondence’ for the purposes of Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?

| II. | Does Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union preclude business records arising from e-mail communications between managers and employees of undertakings from being seized in the course of an investigation into agreements and practices prohibited under Article 101 TFEU (ex Article 81 TEC)? |
| --- | --- |

II.

Does Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union preclude business records arising from e-mail communications between managers and employees of undertakings from being seized in the course of an investigation into agreements and practices prohibited under Article 101 TFEU (ex Article 81 TEC)?

| III. | Does Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union preclude such business records from being seized on the prior authorisation of a judicial authority, in this case the Public Prosecutor’s Office, which is responsible for representing the State, defending the interests determined by law, bringing criminal prosecutions on the basis of the principle of legality and defending democratic legality in accordance with the Constitution, and which operates independently of the other central, regional and local authorities? |
| --- | --- |

III.

Does Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union preclude such business records from being seized on the prior authorisation of a judicial authority, in this case the Public Prosecutor’s Office, which is responsible for representing the State, defending the interests determined by law, bringing criminal prosecutions on the basis of the principle of legality and defending democratic legality in accordance with the Constitution, and which operates independently of the other central, regional and local authorities?

---

| 28.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/3

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Concorrência, Regulação e Supervisão (Portugal) lodged on 24 April 2023 — Synlabhealth II SA v Autoridade da Concorrência

(Case C-259/23, Synlabhealth II)

(2023/C 304/05)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal da Concorrência, Regulação e Supervisão

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Synlabhealth II SA

Defendant: Autoridade da Concorrência

Questions referred

| I. | Do the business records at issue in this case, which are transmitted by e-mail, constitute ‘correspondence’ for the purposes of Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union? |
| --- | --- |

I.

Do the business records at issue in this case, which are transmitted by e-mail, constitute ‘correspondence’ for the purposes of Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?

| II. | Does Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union preclude business records arising from e-mail communications between managers and employees of undertakings from being seized in the course of an investigation into agreements and practices prohibited under Article 101 TFEU (ex Article 81 TEC)? |
| --- | --- |

II.

Does Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union preclude business records arising from e-mail communications between managers and employees of undertakings from being seized in the course of an investigation into agreements and practices prohibited under Article 101 TFEU (ex Article 81 TEC)?

| III. | Does Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union preclude such business records from being seized on the prior authorisation of a judicial authority, in this case the Public Prosecutor’s Office, which is responsible for representing the State, defending the interests determined by law, bringing criminal prosecutions on the basis of the principle of legality and defending democratic legality in accordance with the Constitution, and which operates independently of the other central, regional and local authorities? |
| --- | --- |

III.

Does Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union preclude such business records from being seized on the prior authorisation of a judicial authority, in this case the Public Prosecutor’s Office, which is responsible for representing the State, defending the interests determined by law, bringing criminal prosecutions on the basis of the principle of legality and defending democratic legality in accordance with the Constitution, and which operates independently of the other central, regional and local authorities?

---

| 28.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/4

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Concorrência, Regulação e Supervisão (Portugal) lodged on 24 April 2023 — SIBS — Sociedade Gestora de Participações Sociais SA and Others v Autoridade da Concorrência

(Case C-260/23, SIBS — Sociedade Gestora de Participações Sociais and Others)

(2023/C 304/06)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal da Concorrência, Regulação e Supervisão

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: SIBS — Sociedade Gestora de Participações Sociais SA, SIBS, Cartões — Produção e Processamento de Cartões SA, SIBS Processos — Serviços Interbancários de Processamento SA, SIBS International SA, SIBS Pagamentos SA, SIBS Gest SA, SIBS — Forward Payment Solutions SA, SIBS MB SA

Defendant: Autoridade da Concorrência

Questions referred

| I. | Do the business records at issue in this case, which are transmitted by e-mail, constitute ‘correspondence’ for the purposes of Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union? |
| --- | --- |

I.

Do the business records at issue in this case, which are transmitted by e-mail, constitute ‘correspondence’ for the purposes of Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?

| II. | Does Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union preclude business records arising from e-mail communications between managers and employees of undertakings from being seized in the course of an investigation into agreements and practices prohibited under Article 102 TFEU (ex Article 82 TEC)? |
| --- | --- |

II.

Does Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union preclude business records arising from e-mail communications between managers and employees of undertakings from being seized in the course of an investigation into agreements and practices prohibited under Article 102 TFEU (ex Article 82 TEC)?

| III. | Does Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union preclude such business records from being seized on the prior authorisation of a judicial authority, in this case the Public Prosecutor’s Office, which is responsible for representing the State, defending the interests determined by law, bringing criminal prosecutions on the basis of the principle of legality and defending democratic legality in accordance with the Constitution, and which operates independently of the other central, regional and local authorities? |
| --- | --- |

III.

Does Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union preclude such business records from being seized on the prior authorisation of a judicial authority, in this case the Public Prosecutor’s Office, which is responsible for representing the State, defending the interests determined by law, bringing criminal prosecutions on the basis of the principle of legality and defending democratic legality in accordance with the Constitution, and which operates independently of the other central, regional and local authorities?

---

| 28.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/5

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Central de Instrucción No 6 de la Audiencia Nacional (Spain) lodged on 3 May 2023 — European Public Prosecutor’s Office v I.R.O., F.J.L.R

(Case C-292/23)

(2023/C 304/07)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado Central de Instrucción No 6 de la Audiencia Nacional

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: European Public Prosecutor’s Office

Defendants: I.R.O. and F.J.L.R

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 42(1) of Regulation 2017/1939 (1) to be interpreted as precluding a national provision, like Article 90 of L[ey]O[rgánica] (Framework Law) 9/2021 of 1 July 2021, which excludes from judicial review a procedural act of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office which produces legal effects vis-à-vis third parties (in the sense described), such as the decision of the European Delegated Prosecutor to summon witnesses in the Decree of 2 February 2023? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 42(1) of Regulation 2017/1939 (1) to be interpreted as precluding a national provision, like Article 90 of L[ey]O[rgánica] (Framework Law) 9/2021 of 1 July 2021, which excludes from judicial review a procedural act of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office which produces legal effects vis-à-vis third parties (in the sense described), such as the decision of the European Delegated Prosecutor to summon witnesses in the Decree of 2 February 2023?

| 2. | Are Articles 6 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and Article 7 of Directive (EU) 2016/343 (2) to be interpreted as precluding a national provision, like Article 90, in conjunction with Articles 42(1) and (3) and 43, of LO 9/2021 of 1 July 2021, which excludes from judicial review a procedural act of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office such as the decision of the European Delegated Prosecutor to summon as a witness a third party in respect of whom a reasonable expectation of involvement in the offences under investigation has been identified? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Are Articles 6 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and Article 7 of Directive (EU) 2016/343 (2) to be interpreted as precluding a national provision, like Article 90, in conjunction with Articles 42(1) and (3) and 43, of LO 9/2021 of 1 July 2021, which excludes from judicial review a procedural act of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office such as the decision of the European Delegated Prosecutor to summon as a witness a third party in respect of whom a reasonable expectation of involvement in the offences under investigation has been identified?

| 3. | Are the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU and Article 86(3) TFEU to be interpreted as precluding a system of judicial review, of the kind laid down in Articles 90 and 91 of LO 9/2021 in relation to acts of European Delegated Prosecutors adopted under Articles 42(1) and 43 of LO 9/2021, which excludes from judicial review a measure adopted by the European Delegated Prosecutor in the exercise of his or her investigative powers and which has no equivalent in the national procedural provisions governing the right to contest decisions adopted by investigating judges in the exercise of their investigative powers? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Are the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU and Article 86(3) TFEU to be interpreted as precluding a system of judicial review, of the kind laid down in Articles 90 and 91 of LO 9/2021 in relation to acts of European Delegated Prosecutors adopted under Articles 42(1) and 43 of LO 9/2021, which excludes from judicial review a measure adopted by the European Delegated Prosecutor in the exercise of his or her investigative powers and which has no equivalent in the national procedural provisions governing the right to contest decisions adopted by investigating judges in the exercise of their investigative powers?

| 4. | Is Article 2 of the TEU, which enshrines the values inherent in the rule of law on which the Union is founded, in conjunction with the right to an effective remedy and the right to a fair trial laid down in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and the principle of effectiveness laid down in the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the TEU, to be interpreted as precluding a system of judicial review of acts of European Delegated Prosecutors which limits the situations in which there is a right to contest decisions to a closed number of situations such as that provided for in Spanish law in Articles 90 and 91 of LO 9/2021? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is Article 2 of the TEU, which enshrines the values inherent in the rule of law on which the Union is founded, in conjunction with the right to an effective remedy and the right to a fair trial laid down in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and the principle of effectiveness laid down in the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the TEU, to be interpreted as precluding a system of judicial review of acts of European Delegated Prosecutors which limits the situations in which there is a right to contest decisions to a closed number of situations such as that provided for in Spanish law in Articles 90 and 91 of LO 9/2021?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 of 12 October 2017 implementing enhanced cooperation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor's Office (OJ 2017 L 283, p. 1).

(2)  Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings (OJ 2016, L 65, p. 1).

---

| 28.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/6

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 10 May 2023 — Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs e. V v dm-drogerie markt Gmbh + Co. KG

(Case C-296/23, dm-drogerie markt)

(2023/C 304/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law: Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs e. V

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: dm-drogerie markt Gmbh + Co. KG

Question referred

Is a ‘similar indication’ within the meaning of the second sentence of Article 72(3) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 (1) only such an indication contained in an advertisement which, in the same manner as the terms expressly listed in that provision, downplays properties of the biocide as regards the risks from the product to human health, animal health or the environment or its efficacy by means of a blanket statement, or does a ‘similar indication’ include all terms which, in respect of the risks from the product to human health, animal health or the environment or its efficacy, downplay the risks in a manner comparable to the terms expressly listed but are not necessarily also general in nature like those terms?

---

(1)  Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products (OJ 2012 L 167, p. 1).

---

| 28.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/6

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 22 May 2023 — Inspektorat kam Visshia sadeben savet

(Case C-313/23, Inspektorat kam Visshia sadeben savet)

(2023/C 304/09)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski rayonen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Inspektorat kam Visshia sadeben savet

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) [TEU], read in conjunction with the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as meaning that it is per se or under certain conditions an infringement of the obligation incumbent on Member States to provide effective remedies sufficient to ensure independent judicial review for the functions of an authority which can impose disciplinary penalties on judges and has powers to collect data relating to their assets and liabilities to be indefinitely extended after the constitutionally stipulated term of office of that body comes to an end? If such an extension is permissible, under what conditions is that the case? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) [TEU], read in conjunction with the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as meaning that it is per se or under certain conditions an infringement of the obligation incumbent on Member States to provide effective remedies sufficient to ensure independent judicial review for the functions of an authority which can impose disciplinary penalties on judges and has powers to collect data relating to their assets and liabilities to be indefinitely extended after the constitutionally stipulated term of office of that body comes to an end? If such an extension is permissible, under what conditions is that the case?

| 2. | Must Article 2(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (1) (General Data Protection Regulation) be interpreted as meaning that the disclosure of data covered by banking secrecy for the purposes of verifying assets and liabilities of judges and public prosecutors which are subsequently made public constitutes an activity which falls outside the scope of Union law? Is the answer different where that activity also includes the disclosure of data relating to family members of those judges and public prosecutors who are not judges or public prosecutors themselves? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must Article 2(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (1) (General Data Protection Regulation) be interpreted as meaning that the disclosure of data covered by banking secrecy for the purposes of verifying assets and liabilities of judges and public prosecutors which are subsequently made public constitutes an activity which falls outside the scope of Union law? Is the answer different where that activity also includes the disclosure of data relating to family members of those judges and public prosecutors who are not judges or public prosecutors themselves?

| 3. | If the answer to the second question is that Union law is applicable, must Article 4(7) of the General Data Protection Regulation be interpreted as meaning that a judicial authority which allows another State authority to access data concerning the account balances of judges and public prosecutors and their family members determines the purposes or means of the processing of personal data and is therefore a ‘controller’ for the purposes of the processing of personal data? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the answer to the second question is that Union law is applicable, must Article 4(7) of the General Data Protection Regulation be interpreted as meaning that a judicial authority which allows another State authority to access data concerning the account balances of judges and public prosecutors and their family members determines the purposes or means of the processing of personal data and is therefore a ‘controller’ for the purposes of the processing of personal data?

| 4. | If the answer to the second question is that Union law is applicable and the third question is answered in the negative, must Article 51 of the General Data Protection Regulation be interpreted as meaning that a judicial authority which allows another State authority to access data concerning the account balances of judges and public prosecutors and their family members is responsible for monitoring [the application of] that regulation and must therefore be classified as a ‘supervisory authority’ in relation to those data? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If the answer to the second question is that Union law is applicable and the third question is answered in the negative, must Article 51 of the General Data Protection Regulation be interpreted as meaning that a judicial authority which allows another State authority to access data concerning the account balances of judges and public prosecutors and their family members is responsible for monitoring [the application of] that regulation and must therefore be classified as a ‘supervisory authority’ in relation to those data?

| 5. | If the answer to the second question is that Union law is applicable and either the third or the fourth questions are answered in the affirmative, must Article 32(1)(b) of the General Data Protection Regulation and Article 57(1)(a) of that regulation be interpreted as meaning that a judicial authority which allows another State authority to access data concerning the account balances of judges and public prosecutors and their families, is obliged, in the presence of data concerning a personal data breach committed in the past by the authority to which such access is to be granted, to obtain information on the data protection measures taken and to take into account the appropriateness of those measures in its decision to permit access? |
| --- | --- |

5.

If the answer to the second question is that Union law is applicable and either the third or the fourth questions are answered in the affirmative, must Article 32(1)(b) of the General Data Protection Regulation and Article 57(1)(a) of that regulation be interpreted as meaning that a judicial authority which allows another State authority to access data concerning the account balances of judges and public prosecutors and their families, is obliged, in the presence of data concerning a personal data breach committed in the past by the authority to which such access is to be granted, to obtain information on the data protection measures taken and to take into account the appropriateness of those measures in its decision to permit access?

| 6. | If the answer to the second question is that Union law is applicable, and irrespective of the answers to the third and fourth questions, must Article 79(1) of the General Data Protection Regulation, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to be interpreted as meaning that, where the national law of a Member State provides that certain categories of data may be disclosed only after permission to do so has been granted by a court, the court so competent must of its own motion grant legal protection to the persons whose data are to be disclosed, by requiring the authority which has applied for access to the data in question and which is known to have committed a personal data breach in the past to provide information on the measures taken pursuant to Article 33(3)(d) of the General Data Protection Regulation and their effective application? |
| --- | --- |

6.

If the answer to the second question is that Union law is applicable, and irrespective of the answers to the third and fourth questions, must Article 79(1) of the General Data Protection Regulation, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to be interpreted as meaning that, where the national law of a Member State provides that certain categories of data may be disclosed only after permission to do so has been granted by a court, the court so competent must of its own motion grant legal protection to the persons whose data are to be disclosed, by requiring the authority which has applied for access to the data in question and which is known to have committed a personal data breach in the past to provide information on the measures taken pursuant to Article 33(3)(d) of the General Data Protection Regulation and their effective application?

---

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

---

| 28.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/7

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 23 May 2023 — Inspektorat kam Visshia sadeben savet

(Case C-316/23, Inspektorat kam Visshia sadeben savet)

(2023/C 304/10)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski rayonen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Inspektorat kam Visshia sadeben savet

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) [TEU], read in conjunction with the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as meaning that it is per se or under certain conditions an infringement of the obligation incumbent on Member States to provide effective remedies sufficient to ensure independent judicial review for the functions of an authority which can impose disciplinary penalties on judges and has powers to collect data relating to their assets and liabilities to be indefinitely extended after the constitutionally stipulated term of office of that body comes to an end? If such an extension is permissible, under what conditions is that the case? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) [TEU], read in conjunction with the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as meaning that it is per se or under certain conditions an infringement of the obligation incumbent on Member States to provide effective remedies sufficient to ensure independent judicial review for the functions of an authority which can impose disciplinary penalties on judges and has powers to collect data relating to their assets and liabilities to be indefinitely extended after the constitutionally stipulated term of office of that body comes to an end? If such an extension is permissible, under what conditions is that the case?

| 2. | Must Article 2(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (1) (General Data Protection Regulation) be interpreted as meaning that the disclosure of data covered by banking secrecy for the purposes of verifying assets and liabilities of judges and public prosecutors which are subsequently made public constitutes an activity which falls outside the scope of Union law? Is the answer different where that activity also includes the disclosure of data relating to family members of those judges and public prosecutors who are not judges or public prosecutors themselves? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must Article 2(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (1) (General Data Protection Regulation) be interpreted as meaning that the disclosure of data covered by banking secrecy for the purposes of verifying assets and liabilities of judges and public prosecutors which are subsequently made public constitutes an activity which falls outside the scope of Union law? Is the answer different where that activity also includes the disclosure of data relating to family members of those judges and public prosecutors who are not judges or public prosecutors themselves?

| 3. | If the answer to the second question is that Union law is applicable, must Article 4(7) of the General Data Protection Regulation be interpreted as meaning that a judicial authority which allows another State authority to access data concerning the account balances of judges and public prosecutors and their family members determines the purposes or means of the processing of personal data and is therefore a ‘controller’ for the purposes of the processing of personal data? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the answer to the second question is that Union law is applicable, must Article 4(7) of the General Data Protection Regulation be interpreted as meaning that a judicial authority which allows another State authority to access data concerning the account balances of judges and public prosecutors and their family members determines the purposes or means of the processing of personal data and is therefore a ‘controller’ for the purposes of the processing of personal data?

| 4. | If the answer to the second question is that Union law is applicable and the third question is answered in the negative, must Article 51 of the General Data Protection Regulation be interpreted as meaning that a judicial authority which allows another State authority to access data concerning the account balances of judges and public prosecutors and their family members is responsible for monitoring [the application of] that regulation and must therefore be classified as a ‘supervisory authority’ in relation to those data? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If the answer to the second question is that Union law is applicable and the third question is answered in the negative, must Article 51 of the General Data Protection Regulation be interpreted as meaning that a judicial authority which allows another State authority to access data concerning the account balances of judges and public prosecutors and their family members is responsible for monitoring [the application of] that regulation and must therefore be classified as a ‘supervisory authority’ in relation to those data?

| 5. | If the answer to the second question is that Union law is applicable and either the third or the fourth questions are answered in the affirmative, must Article 32(1)(b) of the General Data Protection Regulation and Article 57(1)(a) of that regulation be interpreted as meaning that a judicial authority which allows another State authority to access data concerning the account balances of judges and public prosecutors and their families, is obliged, in the presence of data concerning a personal data breach committed in the past by the authority to which such access is to be granted, to obtain information on the data protection measures taken and to take into account the appropriateness of those measures in its decision to permit access? |
| --- | --- |

5.

If the answer to the second question is that Union law is applicable and either the third or the fourth questions are answered in the affirmative, must Article 32(1)(b) of the General Data Protection Regulation and Article 57(1)(a) of that regulation be interpreted as meaning that a judicial authority which allows another State authority to access data concerning the account balances of judges and public prosecutors and their families, is obliged, in the presence of data concerning a personal data breach committed in the past by the authority to which such access is to be granted, to obtain information on the data protection measures taken and to take into account the appropriateness of those measures in its decision to permit access?

| 6. | If the answer to the second question is that Union law is applicable, and irrespective of the answers to the third and fourth questions, must Article 79(1) of the General Data Protection Regulation, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to be interpreted as meaning that, where the national law of a Member State provides that certain categories of data may be disclosed only after permission to do so has been granted by a court, the court so competent must of its own motion grant legal protection to the persons whose data are to be disclosed, by requiring the authority which has applied for access to the data in question and which is known to have committed a personal data breach in the past to provide information on the measures taken pursuant to Article 33(3)(d) of the General Data Protection Regulation and their effective application? |
| --- | --- |

6.

If the answer to the second question is that Union law is applicable, and irrespective of the answers to the third and fourth questions, must Article 79(1) of the General Data Protection Regulation, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to be interpreted as meaning that, where the national law of a Member State provides that certain categories of data may be disclosed only after permission to do so has been granted by a court, the court so competent must of its own motion grant legal protection to the persons whose data are to be disclosed, by requiring the authority which has applied for access to the data in question and which is known to have committed a personal data breach in the past to provide information on the measures taken pursuant to Article 33(3)(d) of the General Data Protection Regulation and their effective application?

---

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

---

| 28.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/9

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Lecce (Italy) lodged on 24 May 2023 — ED v Ministero dell’Istruzione e del Merito, Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale (INPS)

(Case C-322/23, Lufoni (1))

(2023/C 304/11)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Lecce

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ED

Defendants: Ministero dell’Istruzione e del Merito, Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale (INPS)

Questions referred

| 1. | Does clause 4 (of the Framework Agreement) of Directive 99/70 (2) preclude national legislation such as Articles 485 and 489 of Legislative Decree No 297/1994, Article 11(14) of Law No 124/99 and Article 4(3) of Presidential Decree No 399/88, which provide for the length of service prior to becoming a permanent member of staff, taking into account the aforementioned Article 11(14), to be counted in full only for the first four years and, for the subsequent years, at a rate of two thirds for legal and salary purposes and of the remaining one-third solely for salary purposes and after reaching a certain length of service as provided for by Article 4(3) of Presidential Decree No 399/88? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does clause 4 (of the Framework Agreement) of Directive 99/70 (2) preclude national legislation such as Articles 485 and 489 of Legislative Decree No 297/1994, Article 11(14) of Law No 124/99 and Article 4(3) of Presidential Decree No 399/88, which provide for the length of service prior to becoming a permanent member of staff, taking into account the aforementioned Article 11(14), to be counted in full only for the first four years and, for the subsequent years, at a rate of two thirds for legal and salary purposes and of the remaining one-third solely for salary purposes and after reaching a certain length of service as provided for by Article 4(3) of Presidential Decree No 399/88?

| 2. | In any event, for the purposes of assessing whether there is discrimination under clause 4 (of the Framework Agreement) of Directive 99/70, must the national court take account only of the length of service prior to becoming a permanent member of staff recognised at the time of admittance to the permanent staff, or, on the contrary, must it take account of the entire body of rules concerning the treatment of that length of service and thus also of the rules which provide, in periods following admittance to the permanent staff, for full recovery of length of service for salary purposes only? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In any event, for the purposes of assessing whether there is discrimination under clause 4 (of the Framework Agreement) of Directive 99/70, must the national court take account only of the length of service prior to becoming a permanent member of staff recognised at the time of admittance to the permanent staff, or, on the contrary, must it take account of the entire body of rules concerning the treatment of that length of service and thus also of the rules which provide, in periods following admittance to the permanent staff, for full recovery of length of service for salary purposes only?

---

(1)  The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.

(2)  Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43).

---

| 28.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/9

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 25 May 2023 — Inspektorat kam Visshia sadeben savet

(Case C-332/23, Inspektorat kam Visshia sadeben savet)

(2023/C 304/12)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski rayonen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Inspektorat kam Visshia sadeben savet

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) [TEU], read in conjunction with the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as meaning that it is per se or under certain conditions an infringement of the obligation incumbent on Member States to provide effective remedies sufficient to ensure independent judicial review for the functions of an authority which can impose disciplinary penalties on judges and has powers to collect data relating to their assets and liabilities to be indefinitely extended after the constitutionally stipulated term of office of that body comes to an end? If such an extension is permissible, under what conditions is that the case? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) [TEU], read in conjunction with the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as meaning that it is per se or under certain conditions an infringement of the obligation incumbent on Member States to provide effective remedies sufficient to ensure independent judicial review for the functions of an authority which can impose disciplinary penalties on judges and has powers to collect data relating to their assets and liabilities to be indefinitely extended after the constitutionally stipulated term of office of that body comes to an end? If such an extension is permissible, under what conditions is that the case?

| 2. | Must Article 2(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (1)... (General Data Protection Regulation) be interpreted as meaning that the disclosure of data covered by banking secrecy for the purposes of verifying assets and liabilities of judges and public prosecutors which are subsequently made public constitutes an activity which falls outside the scope of Union law? Is the answer different where that activity also includes the disclosure of data relating to family members of those judges and public prosecutors who are not judges or public prosecutors themselves? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must Article 2(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (1)... (General Data Protection Regulation) be interpreted as meaning that the disclosure of data covered by banking secrecy for the purposes of verifying assets and liabilities of judges and public prosecutors which are subsequently made public constitutes an activity which falls outside the scope of Union law? Is the answer different where that activity also includes the disclosure of data relating to family members of those judges and public prosecutors who are not judges or public prosecutors themselves?

| 3. | If the answer to the second question is that Union law is applicable, must Article 4(7) of the General Data Protection Regulation be interpreted as meaning that a judicial authority which allows another State authority to access data concerning the account balances of judges and public prosecutors and their family members determines the purposes or means of the processing of personal data and is therefore a ‘controller’ for the purposes of the processing of personal data? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the answer to the second question is that Union law is applicable, must Article 4(7) of the General Data Protection Regulation be interpreted as meaning that a judicial authority which allows another State authority to access data concerning the account balances of judges and public prosecutors and their family members determines the purposes or means of the processing of personal data and is therefore a ‘controller’ for the purposes of the processing of personal data?

| 4. | If the answer to the second question is that Union law is applicable and the third question is answered in the negative, must Article 51 of the General Data Protection Regulation be interpreted as meaning that a judicial authority which allows another State authority to access data concerning the account balances of judges and public prosecutors and their family members is responsible for monitoring [the application of] that regulation and must therefore be classified as a ‘supervisory authority’ in relation to those data? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If the answer to the second question is that Union law is applicable and the third question is answered in the negative, must Article 51 of the General Data Protection Regulation be interpreted as meaning that a judicial authority which allows another State authority to access data concerning the account balances of judges and public prosecutors and their family members is responsible for monitoring [the application of] that regulation and must therefore be classified as a ‘supervisory authority’ in relation to those data?

| 5. | If the answer to the second question is that Union law is applicable and either the third or the fourth questions are answered in the affirmative, must Article 32(1)(b) of the General Data Protection Regulation and Article 57(1)(a) of that regulation be interpreted as meaning that a judicial authority which allows another State authority to access data concerning the account balances of judges and public prosecutors and their families, is obliged, in the presence of data concerning a personal data breach committed in the past by the authority to which such access is to be granted, to obtain information on the data protection measures taken and to take into account the appropriateness of those measures in its decision to permit access? |
| --- | --- |

5.

If the answer to the second question is that Union law is applicable and either the third or the fourth questions are answered in the affirmative, must Article 32(1)(b) of the General Data Protection Regulation and Article 57(1)(a) of that regulation be interpreted as meaning that a judicial authority which allows another State authority to access data concerning the account balances of judges and public prosecutors and their families, is obliged, in the presence of data concerning a personal data breach committed in the past by the authority to which such access is to be granted, to obtain information on the data protection measures taken and to take into account the appropriateness of those measures in its decision to permit access?

| 6. | If the answer to the second question is that Union law is applicable, and irrespective of the answers to the third and fourth questions, must Article 79(1) of the General Data Protection Regulation, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to be interpreted as meaning that, where the national law of a Member State provides that certain categories of data may be disclosed only after permission to do so has been granted by a court, the court so competent must of its own motion grant legal protection to the persons whose data are to be disclosed, by requiring the authority which has applied for access to the data in question and which is known to have committed a personal data breach in the past to provide information on the measures taken pursuant to Article 33(3)(d) of the General Data Protection Regulation and their effective application? |
| --- | --- |

6.

If the answer to the second question is that Union law is applicable, and irrespective of the answers to the third and fourth questions, must Article 79(1) of the General Data Protection Regulation, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to be interpreted as meaning that, where the national law of a Member State provides that certain categories of data may be disclosed only after permission to do so has been granted by a court, the court so competent must of its own motion grant legal protection to the persons whose data are to be disclosed, by requiring the authority which has applied for access to the data in question and which is known to have committed a personal data breach in the past to provide information on the measures taken pursuant to Article 33(3)(d) of the General Data Protection Regulation and their effective application?

---

(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 (OJ 2016 L 119, p. 1).

---

| 28.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 30 May 2023 — Criminal proceedings against M.S.S. and Others

(Case C-338/23, Brachev (1))

(2023/C 304/13)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski gradski sad

Parties to the main proceedings

M.S.S. and Others

Questions referred

| 1. | Are the actions of a defendant’s lawyer, who carries out, during the criminal proceedings as the legal of representative of the defendant’s commercial company, transactions (in the civil field) intentionally aimed at creating the conditions for recusal and for a ‘conflict of interests’ between the defendant and the judge hearing the pending criminal case, compatible with EU law and the corresponding Bulgarian law?
  If that question is answered by the relevant court (the Court of Justice) in the negative, an answer is requested to the question whether the lawyer representing the defendant, who has officially legitimised his or her participation as the legal representative of a commercial company owned by the defendant in other extra-judicial civil law proceedings which were of a nature to deliberately and knowingly create artificial conditions for recusal and a conflict of interests between the defendant and the judge in the criminal proceedings and during the period in which the criminal proceedings are ongoing, is to continue to defend the defendant in those criminal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are the actions of a defendant’s lawyer, who carries out, during the criminal proceedings as the legal of representative of the defendant’s commercial company, transactions (in the civil field) intentionally aimed at creating the conditions for recusal and for a ‘conflict of interests’ between the defendant and the judge hearing the pending criminal case, compatible with EU law and the corresponding Bulgarian law?

If that question is answered by the relevant court (the Court of Justice) in the negative, an answer is requested to the question whether the lawyer representing the defendant, who has officially legitimised his or her participation as the legal representative of a commercial company owned by the defendant in other extra-judicial civil law proceedings which were of a nature to deliberately and knowingly create artificial conditions for recusal and a conflict of interests between the defendant and the judge in the criminal proceedings and during the period in which the criminal proceedings are ongoing, is to continue to defend the defendant in those criminal proceedings.

| 2. | In so far as the assessment of whether there are real grounds for recusal falls within the jurisdiction of the national court, how is the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings, which is laid down by Directive 2013/48/EU, (2) to be understood, and is it an absolute right and unconditionally linked to a particular lawyer personally? How is the contradiction to be resolved between (i) the right of access to a lawyer, laid down by the European directive, reflected in national law, which fully entitles the defendant to select and engage a lawyer, and (ii) the action of that same lawyer who has aided the defendant to create artificial conditions for the reporting judge’s recusal? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In so far as the assessment of whether there are real grounds for recusal falls within the jurisdiction of the national court, how is the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings, which is laid down by Directive 2013/48/EU, (2) to be understood, and is it an absolute right and unconditionally linked to a particular lawyer personally? How is the contradiction to be resolved between (i) the right of access to a lawyer, laid down by the European directive, reflected in national law, which fully entitles the defendant to select and engage a lawyer, and (ii) the action of that same lawyer who has aided the defendant to create artificial conditions for the reporting judge’s recusal?

| 3. | How should the right of the other 13 defendants to information in criminal proceedings and the right of access to the materials of the case, laid down in Article 7(2) and (3) of Directive 2012/13/EU, (3) to be interpreted and regulated with regard to the request for recusal submitted by the lawyer in question and the documents with that request? How should these actions of that lawyer be assessed having regard to the right of judges, as EU citizens, to respect for private and family life? |
| --- | --- |

3.

How should the right of the other 13 defendants to information in criminal proceedings and the right of access to the materials of the case, laid down in Article 7(2) and (3) of Directive 2012/13/EU, (3) to be interpreted and regulated with regard to the request for recusal submitted by the lawyer in question and the documents with that request? How should these actions of that lawyer be assessed having regard to the right of judges, as EU citizens, to respect for private and family life?

| 4. | If a defendant succeeds, either personally or through his or her commercial company, by means of deliberate and active conduct, in artificially creating conditions for a conflict of interest, are those conditions to be considered as a ‘conflict of interest’, and constitute a means of hidden pressure to avoid criminal proceedings? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If a defendant succeeds, either personally or through his or her commercial company, by means of deliberate and active conduct, in artificially creating conditions for a conflict of interest, are those conditions to be considered as a ‘conflict of interest’, and constitute a means of hidden pressure to avoid criminal proceedings?

| 5. | Does the request for a preliminary ruling on the above questions constitute a ground for the lawyer of the defendant in question to initiate and conduct disciplinary proceedings against the judge of the referring national court, knowing that that judge lodged a complaint with the competent national authorities immediately after the defence lawyer’s actions had been discovered? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Does the request for a preliminary ruling on the above questions constitute a ground for the lawyer of the defendant in question to initiate and conduct disciplinary proceedings against the judge of the referring national court, knowing that that judge lodged a complaint with the competent national authorities immediately after the defence lawyer’s actions had been discovered?

---

(1)  The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.

(2)  Directive 2013/48/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 on the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and in European arrest warrant proceedings, and on the right to have a third party informed upon deprivation of liberty and to communicate with third persons and with consular authorities while deprived of liberty (OJ 2013, L 294, p. 1).

(3)  Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings (OJ 2012 L 142, p. 1).

---

| 28.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/11

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vilniaus apygardos administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 13 June 2023 — SR, RB v Lietuvos Respublika

(Case C-374/23, Adoreikė (1))

(2023/C 304/14)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Vilniaus apygardos administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: SR, RB

Defendant: Lietuvos Respublika

Questions referred

| 1. | Are the values of democracy, the rule of law, respect for human rights and justice, enshrined in Article 2 TEU, and the provisions of the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, to be interpreted as conferring on the legislative and executive powers of the Member States the unrestricted and exclusive discretion to set, by means of national legislation, the remuneration of judges at a rate that depends solely on the will of the legislative and executive powers? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are the values of democracy, the rule of law, respect for human rights and justice, enshrined in Article 2 TEU, and the provisions of the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, to be interpreted as conferring on the legislative and executive powers of the Member States the unrestricted and exclusive discretion to set, by means of national legislation, the remuneration of judges at a rate that depends solely on the will of the legislative and executive powers?

| 2. | Are the provisions of the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, as well as those of Article 47 of the Charter [of Fundamental Rights of the European Union], which covers, inter alia, the independence of the judiciary, to be interpreted as permitting the Member States to introduce, by means of national legislation, rules which set the remuneration of judges below the remuneration or fees set by the State in respect of members of other legal professions? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Are the provisions of the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, as well as those of Article 47 of the Charter [of Fundamental Rights of the European Union], which covers, inter alia, the independence of the judiciary, to be interpreted as permitting the Member States to introduce, by means of national legislation, rules which set the remuneration of judges below the remuneration or fees set by the State in respect of members of other legal professions?

---

(1)  The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.

---

| 28.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/12

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) (Latvia) lodged on 15 June 2023 — SIA BALTIC CONTAINER TERMINAL v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

(Case C-376/23, BALTIC CONTAINER TERMINAL)

(2023/C 304/15)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa (Senāts)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant and appellant in cassation: SIA BALTIC CONTAINER TERMINAL

Defendant and respondent in cassation: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Questions referred

| 1. | Under Article 178(1)(b) and (c) of Delegated Regulation 2015/2446, (1) in conjunction with Article 214(1) of the Union Customs Code, (2) is it possible to discharge the ‘free zone’ special procedure without having included in the electronic records system the master reference number (MRN) which identifies the customs declaration by which the goods are placed under the subsequent customs procedure? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Under Article 178(1)(b) and (c) of Delegated Regulation 2015/2446, (1) in conjunction with Article 214(1) of the Union Customs Code, (2) is it possible to discharge the ‘free zone’ special procedure without having included in the electronic records system the master reference number (MRN) which identifies the customs declaration by which the goods are placed under the subsequent customs procedure?

| 2. | Under Articles 214(1) and 215(1) of the Union Customs Code and Article 178(1)(b) and (c) of Delegated Regulation 2015/2446, is it possible for the holder of the ‘free zone’ special procedure to discharge that procedure relying solely on a note concerning the customs status of the goods made by a customs authority official on the transport document for the goods (CMR), without checking for itself the validity of the customs status of those goods? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Under Articles 214(1) and 215(1) of the Union Customs Code and Article 178(1)(b) and (c) of Delegated Regulation 2015/2446, is it possible for the holder of the ‘free zone’ special procedure to discharge that procedure relying solely on a note concerning the customs status of the goods made by a customs authority official on the transport document for the goods (CMR), without checking for itself the validity of the customs status of those goods?

| 3. | If the answer to question 2 is negative, what level of verification in accordance with Articles 214(1) and 215(1) of the Union Customs Code and Article 178(1)(b) and (c) of Delegated Regulation 2015/2446 is sufficient in order to consider the ‘free zone’ special procedure to have been correctly discharged? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the answer to question 2 is negative, what level of verification in accordance with Articles 214(1) and 215(1) of the Union Customs Code and Article 178(1)(b) and (c) of Delegated Regulation 2015/2446 is sufficient in order to consider the ‘free zone’ special procedure to have been correctly discharged?

| 4. | Was the holder of the ‘free zone’ special procedure entitled to have a legitimate expectation as a result of the confirmation by the customs authorities that the customs status of the goods had changed from ‘non-Union goods’ to ‘Union goods’, even though that confirmation did not indicate the reason for that change of status of the goods or any information which allowed that reason to be verified? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Was the holder of the ‘free zone’ special procedure entitled to have a legitimate expectation as a result of the confirmation by the customs authorities that the customs status of the goods had changed from ‘non-Union goods’ to ‘Union goods’, even though that confirmation did not indicate the reason for that change of status of the goods or any information which allowed that reason to be verified?

| 5. | If the answer to question 4 is negative, may the fact that, in other proceedings brought before a national court, it was ruled, by final judgment, that, in accordance with the procedures laid down by the customs authorities, the holder of the customs procedure had not committed any infringement with regard to the ‘free zone’ customs procedure constitute a ground for exemption from the customs debt arising under Article 79(1)(a) and 3(a) of the Union Customs Code, in the light of the principle of res judicata laid down in national law and EU law? |
| --- | --- |

5.

If the answer to question 4 is negative, may the fact that, in other proceedings brought before a national court, it was ruled, by final judgment, that, in accordance with the procedures laid down by the customs authorities, the holder of the customs procedure had not committed any infringement with regard to the ‘free zone’ customs procedure constitute a ground for exemption from the customs debt arising under Article 79(1)(a) and 3(a) of the Union Customs Code, in the light of the principle of res judicata laid down in national law and EU law?

---

(1)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 of 28 July 2015 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards detailed rules concerning certain provisions of the Union Customs Code (OJ 2015 L 343, p. 1).

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

---

| 28.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/13

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 21 June 2023 — Anklagemyndigheden v ILVA A/S

(Case C-383/23, ILVA)

(2023/C 304/16)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Vestre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Anklagemyndigheden

Respondent: ILVA A/S

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the term ‘undertaking’ in Article 83(4) to (6) of the General Data Protection Regulation (1) be understood as an undertaking within the meaning of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, in conjunction with recital 150 of that regulation, and the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning EU competition law, so that the term ‘undertaking’ covers any entity engaged in an economic activity, regardless of that entity’s legal status and the way in which it is financed? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must the term ‘undertaking’ in Article 83(4) to (6) of the General Data Protection Regulation (1) be understood as an undertaking within the meaning of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, in conjunction with recital 150 of that regulation, and the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning EU competition law, so that the term ‘undertaking’ covers any entity engaged in an economic activity, regardless of that entity’s legal status and the way in which it is financed?

| 2. | If the answer to the Question 1 is in the affirmative, must Article 83(4) to (6) of the General Data Protection Regulation be interpreted as meaning that, when imposing a fine on an undertaking, regard must be had to the total worldwide annual turnover of the economic entity of which the undertaking forms part, or only the total worldwide annual turnover of the undertaking itself? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the Question 1 is in the affirmative, must Article 83(4) to (6) of the General Data Protection Regulation be interpreted as meaning that, when imposing a fine on an undertaking, regard must be had to the total worldwide annual turnover of the economic entity of which the undertaking forms part, or only the total worldwide annual turnover of the undertaking itself?

---

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

---

| 28.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/13

---

Action brought on 14 July 2023 — Republic of Poland v European Parliament and Council of the European Union

(Case C-442/23)

(2023/C 304/17)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

Defendants: European Parliament and Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul, in its entirety, Regulation (EU) 2023/839 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 April 2023 amending Regulation (EU) 2018/841 as regards the scope, simplifying the reporting and compliance rules, and setting out the targets of the Member States for 2030, and Regulation (EU) 2018/1999 as regards improvement in monitoring, reporting, tracking of progress and review; (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, in its entirety, Regulation (EU) 2023/839 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 April 2023 amending Regulation (EU) 2018/841 as regards the scope, simplifying the reporting and compliance rules, and setting out the targets of the Member States for 2030, and Regulation (EU) 2018/1999 as regards improvement in monitoring, reporting, tracking of progress and review; (1)

| — | order the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In respect of Regulation 2023/839 (‘the contested regulation’), Poland raises the following pleas in law:

| 1. | Plea alleging infringement of Article 192(2)(c) TFEU
  In Poland’s view, the defendant institutions have infringed Article 192(2)(c) TFEU by failing to adopt the contested regulation on the basis of that Treaty provision, which requires unanimity in the Council, despite the fact that the contested regulation significantly affects a Member State’s choice between different energy sources and the general structure of its energy supply. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Plea alleging infringement of Article 192(2)(c) TFEU

In Poland’s view, the defendant institutions have infringed Article 192(2)(c) TFEU by failing to adopt the contested regulation on the basis of that Treaty provision, which requires unanimity in the Council, despite the fact that the contested regulation significantly affects a Member State’s choice between different energy sources and the general structure of its energy supply.

| 2. | Plea alleging infringement of the third indent of Article 192(2)(b) TFEU
  In Poland’s view, the defendant institutions have infringed the third indent of Article 192(2)(b) TFEU by failing to adopt the contested regulation on the basis of that Treaty provision, which requires unanimity in the Council, despite the fact that the contested regulation affects land use in the Member States. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Plea alleging infringement of the third indent of Article 192(2)(b) TFEU

In Poland’s view, the defendant institutions have infringed the third indent of Article 192(2)(b) TFEU by failing to adopt the contested regulation on the basis of that Treaty provision, which requires unanimity in the Council, despite the fact that the contested regulation affects land use in the Member States.

| 3. | Plea alleging infringement of Article 4(1) and Article 5(2) TEU
  Poland is of the view that the defendant institutions have acted in breach of the principle of the conferral of powers, since the contested regulation establishes commitments and targets which significantly interfere with the way in which forest management is carried out in the Member States, despite the fact that the Treaties do not confer powers on the European Union in forestry matters. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Plea alleging infringement of Article 4(1) and Article 5(2) TEU

Poland is of the view that the defendant institutions have acted in breach of the principle of the conferral of powers, since the contested regulation establishes commitments and targets which significantly interfere with the way in which forest management is carried out in the Member States, despite the fact that the Treaties do not confer powers on the European Union in forestry matters.

| 4. | Plea alleging breach of the principle of proportionality (Article 5(4) TEU) and the principle of equality of Member States (Article 4(2) TEU), as well as infringement of Article 191(2) TFEU
  Poland considers that, by adopting the contested regulation, the defendant institutions have acted in breach of the principle of proportionality and the principle of equality of Member States and have not taken sufficient account of the diversity of situations in the various regions of the Union. Compliance by Poland with the commitments and targets in respect of greenhouse gas emissions and removals in the LULUCF (Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry) sector is liable to have serious negative socio-economic and financial consequences. In addition, the contested regulation establishes an unjustified imbalance between individual Member States in terms of levels of commitments and targets. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Plea alleging breach of the principle of proportionality (Article 5(4) TEU) and the principle of equality of Member States (Article 4(2) TEU), as well as infringement of Article 191(2) TFEU

Poland considers that, by adopting the contested regulation, the defendant institutions have acted in breach of the principle of proportionality and the principle of equality of Member States and have not taken sufficient account of the diversity of situations in the various regions of the Union. Compliance by Poland with the commitments and targets in respect of greenhouse gas emissions and removals in the LULUCF (Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry) sector is liable to have serious negative socio-economic and financial consequences. In addition, the contested regulation establishes an unjustified imbalance between individual Member States in terms of levels of commitments and targets.

| 5. | Plea alleging failure to fulfil the obligation to carry out a proper analysis of the effect of the contested regulation, as well as infringement of Article 191(3) TFEU
  In Poland’s view, the defendant institutions have failed to fulfil the obligation to provide an adequate impact assessment, since the impact assessment accompanying the proposed regulation contains fundamental shortcomings as regards the effect on individual Member States of the commitments and targets set out in that regulation. At the same time, insufficient account has been taken of the available scientific and technical data, the environmental conditions in the various regions of the Union, and the potential benefits and costs connected with action or lack of action, as well as the economic and social development of the Union as a whole and the balanced development of its regions. This constitutes an infringement of Article 191(3) TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Plea alleging failure to fulfil the obligation to carry out a proper analysis of the effect of the contested regulation, as well as infringement of Article 191(3) TFEU

In Poland’s view, the defendant institutions have failed to fulfil the obligation to provide an adequate impact assessment, since the impact assessment accompanying the proposed regulation contains fundamental shortcomings as regards the effect on individual Member States of the commitments and targets set out in that regulation. At the same time, insufficient account has been taken of the available scientific and technical data, the environmental conditions in the various regions of the Union, and the potential benefits and costs connected with action or lack of action, as well as the economic and social development of the Union as a whole and the balanced development of its regions. This constitutes an infringement of Article 191(3) TFEU.

---

(1)  OJ 2023 L 107, p. 1.

---

| 28.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/15

---

Action brought on 17 July 2023 — Republic of Poland v European Parliament and Council of the European Union

(Case C-444/23)

(2023/C 304/18)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

Defendants: European Parliament and Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul, in its entirety, Regulation (EU) 2023/851 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 April 2023 amending Regulation (EU) 2019/631 as regards strengthening the CO2 emission performance standards for new passenger cars and new light commercial vehicles in line with the Union’s increased climate ambition; (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, in its entirety, Regulation (EU) 2023/851 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 April 2023 amending Regulation (EU) 2019/631 as regards strengthening the CO2 emission performance standards for new passenger cars and new light commercial vehicles in line with the Union’s increased climate ambition; (1)

| — | in the alternative, if the Court of Justice finds that the pleas in law raised are not such as to justify the head of claim seeking annulment of that regulation in its entirety, annul Regulation 2023/851 in part, in so far as it concerns the establishment of the emissions targets, applicable from 1 January 2035, for new passenger cars and new light commercial vehicles set out in Article 1(1)(b) of that regulation; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, if the Court of Justice finds that the pleas in law raised are not such as to justify the head of claim seeking annulment of that regulation in its entirety, annul Regulation 2023/851 in part, in so far as it concerns the establishment of the emissions targets, applicable from 1 January 2035, for new passenger cars and new light commercial vehicles set out in Article 1(1)(b) of that regulation;

| — | order the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

| 1. | Plea alleging infringement of Article 192(2)(c) TFEU
  In Poland’s view, the defendant institutions have infringed Article 192(2)(c) TFEU by failing to adopt the contested regulation on the basis of that Treaty provision, which requires unanimity in the Council, despite the fact that the contested regulation significantly affects a Member State’s choice between different energy sources and the general structure of its energy supply. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Plea alleging infringement of Article 192(2)(c) TFEU

In Poland’s view, the defendant institutions have infringed Article 192(2)(c) TFEU by failing to adopt the contested regulation on the basis of that Treaty provision, which requires unanimity in the Council, despite the fact that the contested regulation significantly affects a Member State’s choice between different energy sources and the general structure of its energy supply.

| 2. | Plea alleging infringement of Article 3(1) and (3) TEU, Article 9 TFEU, and Article 6(1) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union
  Poland considers that, by establishing the emissions targets for new passenger cars and new light commercial vehicles laid down in Article 1(1)(b) of the contested regulation, which will give rise to serious consequences for the European automotive industry and the economic sectors relating thereto, as well as for society, the EU legislature has failed to fulfil the obligation to promote the well-being of the peoples of the Union (Article 3(1) TEU), the obligation to promote social justice, the obligation to work for balanced economic growth and to promote economic, social and territorial cohesion, as well as solidarity among Member States (Article 3(3) TEU), and the obligation to take into account requirements linked to the promotion of a high level of employment and the fight against social exclusion (Article 9 TFEU), and has acted in breach of the prohibition on discrimination on grounds of property resulting from the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Article 21(1)). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Plea alleging infringement of Article 3(1) and (3) TEU, Article 9 TFEU, and Article 6(1) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

Poland considers that, by establishing the emissions targets for new passenger cars and new light commercial vehicles laid down in Article 1(1)(b) of the contested regulation, which will give rise to serious consequences for the European automotive industry and the economic sectors relating thereto, as well as for society, the EU legislature has failed to fulfil the obligation to promote the well-being of the peoples of the Union (Article 3(1) TEU), the obligation to promote social justice, the obligation to work for balanced economic growth and to promote economic, social and territorial cohesion, as well as solidarity among Member States (Article 3(3) TEU), and the obligation to take into account requirements linked to the promotion of a high level of employment and the fight against social exclusion (Article 9 TFEU), and has acted in breach of the prohibition on discrimination on grounds of property resulting from the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Article 21(1)).

| 3. | Plea alleging breach of the principle of proportionality (Article 5(4) TEU) and infringement of Article 191(2) TFEU
  Poland takes the view that the provisions of the contested regulation are at odds with the principle of proportionality because, first, they are not suitable for attaining the objectives of Article 191(2) TFEU and, second, the disadvantages resulting from those provisions, including costs, are manifestly excessive in relation to the objectives pursued. In Poland’s view, the costs of aligning the economies and societies in the Union with the strengthened CO2 emissions reduction standards set out in the contested regulation significantly exceed the benefits resulting therefrom. The contested regulation imposes excessive burdens connected with the transition towards zero-emission mobility on European citizens, especially those who are less well off, as well as on the European automotive companies sector. The contested regulation risks giving rise to serious negative consequences for the European automotive industry, social exclusion, transport exclusion of poorer persons, and increased disparity between citizens as regards the standard of living. In addition, the contested regulation does not take sufficient account of the diversity of situations in the various regions of the Union, which constitutes an infringement of Article 191(2) TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Plea alleging breach of the principle of proportionality (Article 5(4) TEU) and infringement of Article 191(2) TFEU

Poland takes the view that the provisions of the contested regulation are at odds with the principle of proportionality because, first, they are not suitable for attaining the objectives of Article 191(2) TFEU and, second, the disadvantages resulting from those provisions, including costs, are manifestly excessive in relation to the objectives pursued. In Poland’s view, the costs of aligning the economies and societies in the Union with the strengthened CO2 emissions reduction standards set out in the contested regulation significantly exceed the benefits resulting therefrom. The contested regulation imposes excessive burdens connected with the transition towards zero-emission mobility on European citizens, especially those who are less well off, as well as on the European automotive companies sector. The contested regulation risks giving rise to serious negative consequences for the European automotive industry, social exclusion, transport exclusion of poorer persons, and increased disparity between citizens as regards the standard of living. In addition, the contested regulation does not take sufficient account of the diversity of situations in the various regions of the Union, which constitutes an infringement of Article 191(2) TFEU.

| 4. | Plea alleging failure to fulfil the obligation to carry out a proper analysis of the effect of the contested regulation, as well as infringement of Article 191(3) TFEU
  In Poland’s view, the defendant institutions have failed to fulfil the obligation to provide an adequate impact assessment, since the impact assessment accompanying the proposed regulation contains fundamental shortcomings as regards the effect on individual Member States of the commitments and targets set out in that regulation. At the same time, insufficient account has been taken of the available scientific and technical data, the potential benefits and costs connected with action or lack of action, and the economic and social development of the Union as a whole and the balanced development of its regions. This constitutes an infringement of Article 191(3) TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Plea alleging failure to fulfil the obligation to carry out a proper analysis of the effect of the contested regulation, as well as infringement of Article 191(3) TFEU

In Poland’s view, the defendant institutions have failed to fulfil the obligation to provide an adequate impact assessment, since the impact assessment accompanying the proposed regulation contains fundamental shortcomings as regards the effect on individual Member States of the commitments and targets set out in that regulation. At the same time, insufficient account has been taken of the available scientific and technical data, the potential benefits and costs connected with action or lack of action, and the economic and social development of the Union as a whole and the balanced development of its regions. This constitutes an infringement of Article 191(3) TFEU.

---

(1)  OJ 2023 L 110, p. 5.

---

| 28.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/16

---

Action brought on 17 July 2023 — Republic of Poland v European Parliament and Council of the European Union

(Case C-445/23)

(2023/C 304/19)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

Defendants: European Parliament and Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul, in its entirety, Decision (EU) 2023/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 April 2023 amending Decision (EU) 2015/1814 as regards the number of allowances to be placed in the market stability reserve for the Union greenhouse gas emission trading system until 2030; (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, in its entirety, Decision (EU) 2023/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 April 2023 amending Decision (EU) 2015/1814 as regards the number of allowances to be placed in the market stability reserve for the Union greenhouse gas emission trading system until 2030; (1)

| — | order the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

| 1. | Plea alleging infringement of Article 192(2)(c) TFEU
  In Poland’s view, the defendant institutions have infringed Article 192(2)(c) TFEU by failing to adopt the contested decision on the basis of that Treaty provision, which requires unanimity in the Council, despite the fact that the contested decision significantly affects a Member State’s choice between different energy sources and the general structure of its energy supply. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Plea alleging infringement of Article 192(2)(c) TFEU

In Poland’s view, the defendant institutions have infringed Article 192(2)(c) TFEU by failing to adopt the contested decision on the basis of that Treaty provision, which requires unanimity in the Council, despite the fact that the contested decision significantly affects a Member State’s choice between different energy sources and the general structure of its energy supply.

| 2. | Plea alleging breach of the principle of energy solidarity laid down in Article 194(1)(b) TFEU
  In Poland’s view, the defendant institutions have infringed Article 194(1)(b) TFEU by maintaining, for the years 2024-2030, the values indicated in Article 1(5) of Decision 2015/1814 — an act which threatens Poland’s energy security — without taking into account the interests of individual Member States that are liable to be affected and without weighing their interests against the interests of the Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Plea alleging breach of the principle of energy solidarity laid down in Article 194(1)(b) TFEU

In Poland’s view, the defendant institutions have infringed Article 194(1)(b) TFEU by maintaining, for the years 2024-2030, the values indicated in Article 1(5) of Decision 2015/1814 — an act which threatens Poland’s energy security — without taking into account the interests of individual Member States that are liable to be affected and without weighing their interests against the interests of the Union.

| 3. | Plea alleging infringement of Article 3(1) and (3) TEU through the adoption of Decision 2023/852, which decreases the well-being of the peoples of the European Union and social cohesion among Member States
  In Poland’s view, the defendant institutions have infringed Article 3(1) and (3) TEU by adopting Decision 2023/852, which may lead to a decrease in mining employment and a rise in unemployment and, as a result, to greater social inequality between Member States and increased social exclusion. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Plea alleging infringement of Article 3(1) and (3) TEU through the adoption of Decision 2023/852, which decreases the well-being of the peoples of the European Union and social cohesion among Member States

In Poland’s view, the defendant institutions have infringed Article 3(1) and (3) TEU by adopting Decision 2023/852, which may lead to a decrease in mining employment and a rise in unemployment and, as a result, to greater social inequality between Member States and increased social exclusion.

| 4. | Plea alleging infringement of Article 13(2) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 3 of Decision 2015/1814, through an inadequate impact assessment, as well as breach of the principle of proportionality (Article 5(4) TEU)
  In Poland’s view, the defendant institutions have infringed Article 13(2) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 3 of Decision 2015/1814, by adopting Decision 2023/852 on the basis of an incomplete, out-of-date and incorrectly carried out impact assessment which was prepared using data which did not take account of Russia’s armed attack on Ukraine and the energy crisis resulting therefrom. The defendant institutions have also acted in breach of the principle of proportionality (Article 5(4) TEU) by maintaining, for the years 2024-2030, the values indicated in Article 1(5) of Decision 2015/1814, without conducting reliable analyses justifying such a decision. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Plea alleging infringement of Article 13(2) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 3 of Decision 2015/1814, through an inadequate impact assessment, as well as breach of the principle of proportionality (Article 5(4) TEU)

In Poland’s view, the defendant institutions have infringed Article 13(2) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 3 of Decision 2015/1814, by adopting Decision 2023/852 on the basis of an incomplete, out-of-date and incorrectly carried out impact assessment which was prepared using data which did not take account of Russia’s armed attack on Ukraine and the energy crisis resulting therefrom. The defendant institutions have also acted in breach of the principle of proportionality (Article 5(4) TEU) by maintaining, for the years 2024-2030, the values indicated in Article 1(5) of Decision 2015/1814, without conducting reliable analyses justifying such a decision.

---

(1)  OJ 2023 L 110, p. 21.

---

| 28.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/17

---

Action brought on 17 July 2023 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

(Case C-448/23)

(2023/C 304/20)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: C. Ladenburger, P.J.O. Van Nuffel and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Poland

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, in the light of the interpretation of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland made by the Trybunał Konstytucyjny (Constitutional Court, Poland) in its judgments of 14 July (Case P 7/20) and of 7 October 2021 (Case K 3/21), the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, in the light of the interpretation of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland made by the Trybunał Konstytucyjny (Constitutional Court, Poland) in its judgments of 14 July (Case P 7/20) and of 7 October 2021 (Case K 3/21), the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union;

| — | declare that, in the light of the interpretation of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland made by the Trybunał Konstytucyjny (Constitutional Court) in its judgments of 14 July (Case P 7/20) and of 7 October 2021 (Case K 3/21), the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the general principles of autonomy, primacy, effectiveness and uniform application of EU law and the principle of the binding effect of judgments of the Court of Justice; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, in the light of the interpretation of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland made by the Trybunał Konstytucyjny (Constitutional Court) in its judgments of 14 July (Case P 7/20) and of 7 October 2021 (Case K 3/21), the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the general principles of autonomy, primacy, effectiveness and uniform application of EU law and the principle of the binding effect of judgments of the Court of Justice;

| — | declare that, since the Trybunał Konstytucyjny (Constitutional Court) does not satisfy the requirements of an independent and impartial tribunal previously established by law as a result of irregularities in the procedures for the appointment of three judges to that court in December 2015 and in the procedure for the appointment of its President in December 2016, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, since the Trybunał Konstytucyjny (Constitutional Court) does not satisfy the requirements of an independent and impartial tribunal previously established by law as a result of irregularities in the procedures for the appointment of three judges to that court in December 2015 and in the procedure for the appointment of its President in December 2016, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU;

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

—

order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the first and second pleas in law, the Commission challenges two judgments of the Trybunał Konstytucyjny (Constitutional Court) of the Republic of Poland (‘the Constitutional Court’) of 7 October 2021 (Case K 3/21) and of 14 July 2021 (Case P 7/20). Those judicial decisions result in an infringement of different, but not unrelated obligations imposed on Poland by the EU treaties. The first plea concerns the infringement by the aforementioned judgments of the Constitutional Court of the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Union, in particular in the judgments of 2 March 2021, A.B. and Others (Appointment of Judges to the Supreme Court — Actions), C-824/18, EU:C:2021:153, and of 6 October 2021, W.Ż. (Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs of the Supreme Court — Appointment), C-487/19, EU:C:2021:798, because the Constitutional Court interpreted the Constitution of the Republic of Poland in relation to the EU law requirements of effective judicial protection by an independent and impartial tribunal previously established by law too narrowly, incorrectly, and in a manner that manifestly disregards the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. The second plea concerns the infringement by those judgments of the Constitutional Court of the principles of primacy, autonomy, effectiveness and uniform application of EU law and the binding effect of judicial decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union, as the Constitutional Court, in those judgments, unilaterally disregarded the principles of primacy and effectiveness of Articles 2, 4(3) and 19(1) TEU and Article 279 TFEU, as consistently interpreted and applied by the Court of Justice of the European Union, and ordered all Polish authorities to disapply those Treaty provisions.

By the third plea, the Commission argues that the Constitutional Court no longer offers the guarantees of an independent and impartial tribunal previously established by law for the purposes of the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, (i) as a result of manifest irregularities in the appointments to judicial positions at the Constitutional Court in December 2015 in flagrant breach of Polish constitutional law and (ii) as a result of irregularities in the procedure for the election of the President of the Constitutional Court in December 2016. Each of those irregularities gives rise, in the light of the activities of the Constitutional Court composed of persons appointed in this way, to reasonable doubts in the minds of individuals as to the impartiality of the Constitutional Court and its imperviousness to external factors.

---

| 28.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/18

---

Action brought on 18 July 2023 — Republic of Poland v European Parliament and Council of the European Union

(Case C-451/23)

(2023/C 304/21)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

Defendants: European Parliament and Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should

| — | annul, in its entirety, Regulation (EU) 2023/857 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 April 2023 amending Regulation (EU) 2018/842 on binding annual greenhouse gas emission reductions by Member States from 2021 to 2030 contributing to climate action to meet commitments under the Paris Agreement, and Regulation (EU) 2018/1999; (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, in its entirety, Regulation (EU) 2023/857 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 April 2023 amending Regulation (EU) 2018/842 on binding annual greenhouse gas emission reductions by Member States from 2021 to 2030 contributing to climate action to meet commitments under the Paris Agreement, and Regulation (EU) 2018/1999; (1)

| — | order the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

| 1. | Plea alleging infringement of Article 192(2)(c) TFEU
  In Poland’s view, the defendant institutions have infringed Article 192(2)(c) TFEU by failing to adopt the contested regulation on the basis of that Treaty provision, which requires unanimity in the Council, despite the fact that the contested regulation significantly affects a Member State’s choice between different energy sources and the general structure of its energy supply. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Plea alleging infringement of Article 192(2)(c) TFEU

In Poland’s view, the defendant institutions have infringed Article 192(2)(c) TFEU by failing to adopt the contested regulation on the basis of that Treaty provision, which requires unanimity in the Council, despite the fact that the contested regulation significantly affects a Member State’s choice between different energy sources and the general structure of its energy supply.

| 2. | Plea alleging breach of the principle of energy solidarity laid down in Article 194(1)(b) TFEU
  In Poland’s view, the defendant institutions have infringed Article 194(1)(b) TFEU by increasing to 40 % the Union greenhouse gas emission reduction target and the Member States’ individual reduction targets — an act which threatens Poland’s energy security — in view of the fact that no account has been taken of the interests of individual Member States that are liable to be affected and the fact that their interests have not been weighed against the interests of the Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Plea alleging breach of the principle of energy solidarity laid down in Article 194(1)(b) TFEU

In Poland’s view, the defendant institutions have infringed Article 194(1)(b) TFEU by increasing to 40 % the Union greenhouse gas emission reduction target and the Member States’ individual reduction targets — an act which threatens Poland’s energy security — in view of the fact that no account has been taken of the interests of individual Member States that are liable to be affected and the fact that their interests have not been weighed against the interests of the Union.

| 3. | Plea alleging breach of the principle of proportionality laid down in Article 5(4) TEU
  In Poland’s view, the defendant institutions have acted in breach of the principle of proportionality by increasing to 40 % the Union greenhouse gas emission reduction target and the Member States’ individual reduction targets on the basis of the incorrect analysis contained in the impact assessment, which was incomplete, contained errors, and was based on obsolete data. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Plea alleging breach of the principle of proportionality laid down in Article 5(4) TEU

In Poland’s view, the defendant institutions have acted in breach of the principle of proportionality by increasing to 40 % the Union greenhouse gas emission reduction target and the Member States’ individual reduction targets on the basis of the incorrect analysis contained in the impact assessment, which was incomplete, contained errors, and was based on obsolete data.

| 4. | Plea alleging breach of the principle of sincere cooperation laid down in Article 4(3) TEU
  In Poland’s view, the defendant institutions have acted in breach of the principle of sincere cooperation by setting out, in Regulation 2023/857, reduction targets (i) based on a social, economic and political situation not reflecting the current reality and (ii) disconnected from the actual capacities of the Member States. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Plea alleging breach of the principle of sincere cooperation laid down in Article 4(3) TEU

In Poland’s view, the defendant institutions have acted in breach of the principle of sincere cooperation by setting out, in Regulation 2023/857, reduction targets (i) based on a social, economic and political situation not reflecting the current reality and (ii) disconnected from the actual capacities of the Member States.

---

(1)  OJ 2023 L 111, p. 1.

---

General Court

| 28.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/20

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2023 — Net Technologies Finland v REA

(Case T-358/20) (1)

(Arbitration clause - Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) - Personnel costs - Reimbursement of sums paid - Eligibility of costs relating to in-house consultants - Burden of proof)

(2023/C 304/22)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Net Technologies Finland Oy, (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Research Executive Agency (REA), (represented by: S. Payan-Lagrou and V. Canetti, acting as Agents, and by M. Le Berre, lawyer,)

Re:

By its action based on Article 272 TFEU, the applicant seeks a declaration that, first, the costs for in-house consultants are eligible and, secondly, that the claim for reimbursement of the amounts of EUR 171 342,97 and EUR 17 134,30 in respect of an unjustified contribution and liquidated damages, respectively, is unfounded.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that the costs for internal consultants, rejected by the Research Executive Agency (REA) in the amount of EUR 184 642,84, constitute eligible costs under the grant agreement, bearing the reference FP7SEC2012312484, concluded with a view to carrying out the project ‘Inter System Interoperability for Tetra — TetraPol Networks’; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that the costs for internal consultants, rejected by the Research Executive Agency (REA) in the amount of EUR 184 642,84, constitute eligible costs under the grant agreement, bearing the reference FP7SEC2012312484, concluded with a view to carrying out the project ‘Inter System Interoperability for Tetra — TetraPol Networks’;

| 2. | Declares that debit notes No 3242005825 concerning the recovery of the sum of EUR 171 342,97 in respect of an unjustified contribution and EUR 17 134,30 in respect of liquidated damages, issued by the REA are unfounded; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that debit notes No 3242005825 concerning the recovery of the sum of EUR 171 342,97 in respect of an unjustified contribution and EUR 17 134,30 in respect of liquidated damages, issued by the REA are unfounded;

| 3. | Orders the REA to pay the costs, including those relating to the interim proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the REA to pay the costs, including those relating to the interim proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2020.

---

| 28.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/20

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2023 — Hungary v Commission

(Case T-491/21) (1)

(EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Expenditure incurred by Hungary - No double funding - Article 30 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 - Article 28(1)(b) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 809/2014 - Aid for afforestation - Article 22 of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 - Aid for greening - Article 43 of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 - Cumulation of aid)

(2023/C 304/23)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: Hungary (represented by: M. Fehér and G. Koós, acting as Agents)

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

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, Hungary seeks annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/988 of 16 June 2021 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2021 L 218, p. 9), in so far as it imposed a one-off financial correction of EUR 1 887 692,57 in respect of the financial years 2016 to 2019.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

Orders Hungary to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 401, 4.10.2021.

---

| 28.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/21

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2023 — Innovaciones Cosmético Farmacéuticas v EUIPO — Benito Oliver (th pharma)

(Case T-27/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark TH PHARMA - Earlier national figurative mark TH - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2023/C 304/24)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Innovaciones Cosmético Farmacéuticas SL (Alhama de Murcia, Spain) (represented by: I. Temiño Ceniceros and F. Ortega Sánchez, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Miguel Ángel Benito Oliver (Pont D’Inca-Marratxi, Spain) (represented by: J. Mora Cortés, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 9 November 2021 (Case R 1605/2020-1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Innovaciones Cosmético Farmacéuticas SL to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Innovaciones Cosmético Farmacéuticas SL to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 109, 7.3.2022.

---

| 28.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/22

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2023 — Cunsorziu di i Salamaghji Corsi — Consortium des Charcutiers Corses and Others v Commission

(Case T-34/22) (1)

(Protected geographical indication - Protected designation of origin - Applications for protection of the geographical indications ‘Jambon sec de l’Île de Beauté’, ‘Lonzo de l’Île de Beauté’ and ‘Coppa de l’Île de Beauté’ - Earlier protected designations of origin ‘Jambon sec de Corse — Prisuttu’, ‘Lonzo de Corse — Lonzu’ and ‘Coppa de Corse — Coppa di Corsica’ - Eligibility of names - Evocation - Article 7(1)(a) and Article 13(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 - Scope of the Commission’s control of the applications for registration - Article 50(1) and Article 52(1) of Regulation No 1151/2012 - Error of assessment)

(2023/C 304/25)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Cunsorziu di i Salamaghji Corsi — Consortium des Charcutiers Corses (Borgo, France) and the 9 other applicants whose names are set out in the annex to the judgment (represented by: T. de Haan and V. Le Meur-Baudry, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Konstantinidis, C. Perrin and B. Rechena, acting as Agents)

Re:

By their action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicants seek the annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/1879 of 26 October 2021 rejecting three applications for protection of a geographical indication in accordance with Article 52(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council ‘Jambon sec de l’Île de Beauté’ (PGI), ‘Lonzo de l’Île de Beauté’ (PGI), ‘Coppa de l’Île de Beauté’) (PGI) (OJ 2021 L 383, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Cunsorziu di i Salamaghji Corsi — Consortium des Charcutiers Corses and the other applicants whose names are set out in the annex to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Cunsorziu di i Salamaghji Corsi — Consortium des Charcutiers Corses and the other applicants whose names are set out in the annex to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 109, 7.3.2022.

---

| 28.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/22

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 June 2023 — KF v EIB

(Case T-318/21) (1)

(Civil service - EIB Staff - Invalidity Committee - Refusal to recognise incapacity - Rejection of a request for an administrative review - Lis pendens - Inadmissibility)

(2023/C 304/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: KF (represented by L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented by: K. Carr, G. Faedo and J. Pawlowicz, acting as Agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

By her action under Article 270 TFEU and Article 50a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the applicant seeks, primarily, annulment of the decision of the European Investment Bank (EIB) of 13 October 2020 by which the EIB informed her that she was not incapacitated (‘the decision of 13 October 2020’) and of the EIB’s decision of 9 March 2021 rejecting her request for an administrative review of the decision of 13 October 2020 (‘the decision rejecting the request for administrative review’) and, in the alternative, compensation for the damage that she claims to have suffered as a result of those decisions.

Operative part of the judgment

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | The European Investment Bank (EIB) shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Investment Bank (EIB) shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 297, 26.7.2021.

---

| 28.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/23

---

Order of the General Court of 27 June 2023 — Konings v EUIPO — Manuel Busto Amandi (MAY GOLD)

(Case T-112/23) (1)

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

(2023/C 304/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Konings NV (Zonhoven, Belgium) (represented by: K. Neefs, S. de Potter and T. Baetens, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: P.-F. Karamolegkou and E. Markakis, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Manuel Busto Amandi, SA (Villaviciosa, Spain) (represented by: J. Vicente Martínez, lawyer)

Re:

By its action based Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 November 2022 (Case R 1778/2021-4).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

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

| 2. | Konings NV and Manuel Busto Amandi, SA shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Konings NV and Manuel Busto Amandi, SA shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 134, 17.4.2023.

---

| 28.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/24

---

Action brought on 5 July 2023 — Väderstad v EUIPO (Position of a combination of presentational features)

(Case T-361/23)

(2023/C 304/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Väderstad Holding AB (Väderstad, Sweden) (represented by: A. Rasmussen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union mark representing the position of a combination of presentational features — Application for registration No 18 131 019

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 April 2023 in Case R 58/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | as a subsidiary claim, annul the contested decision in relation to the goods in class 7; |
| --- | --- |

—

as a subsidiary claim, annul the contested decision in relation to the goods in class 7;

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

—

order EUIPO to bear the costs.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 28.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/24

---

Action brought on 5 July 2023 — Väderstad v EUIPO (Position of a combination of presentational features)

(Case T-362/23)

(2023/C 304/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Väderstad Holding AB (Väderstad, Sweden) (represented by: A. Rasmussen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union mark representing the position of a combination of presentational features — Application for registration No 18 131 026

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 April 2023 in Case R 59/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | as a subsidiary claim, annul the contested decision in relation to the goods in class 7; |
| --- | --- |

—

as a subsidiary claim, annul the contested decision in relation to the goods in class 7;

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

—

order EUIPO to bear the costs.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 28.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/25

---

Action brought on 5 July 2023 — Väderstad v EUIPO (Position of a combination of presentational features)

(Case T-363/23)

(2023/C 304/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Väderstad Holding AB (Väderstad, Sweden) (represented by: A. Rasmussen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union mark representing the position of a combination of presentational features — Application for registration No 18 131 034

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 April 2023 in Case R 61/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | as a subsidiary claim, annul the contested decision in relation to the goods in class 7; |
| --- | --- |

—

as a subsidiary claim, annul the contested decision in relation to the goods in class 7;

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

—

order EUIPO to bear the costs.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 28.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/25

---

Action brought on 5 July 2023 — Väderstad v EUIPO (Position of a combination of presentational features)

(Case T-364/23)

(2023/C 304/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Väderstad Holding AB (Väderstad, Sweden) (represented by: A. Rasmussen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union position mark representing the position of a combination of presentational features — Application for registration No 18 131 030

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 April 2023 in Case R 60/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | as a subsidiary claim, annul the contested decision in relation to the goods in class 7; |
| --- | --- |

—

as a subsidiary claim, annul the contested decision in relation to the goods in class 7;

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

—

order EUIPO to bear the costs.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 28.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/26

---

Action brought on 6 July 2023 — Habitat Barcelona Unión Constructora v EUIPO — Acomodeo Marketplace (ACOMODEO)

(Case T-365/23)

(2023/C 304/32)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Habitat Barcelona Unión Constructora SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: R. Guerras Mazón, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Acomodeo Marketplace GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany)

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 ACOMODEO — European Union trade mark No 15 523 863

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 March 2023 in Case R 713/2022-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and reject the trade mark at issue for all services in Classes 35, 38 and 42; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and reject the trade mark at issue for all services in Classes 35, 38 and 42;

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

—

order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, should it intervene, to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Articles 60(1)(a) and of 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 60(1)(a) and of 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 28.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/27

---

Action brought on 10 July 2023 — Marcegaglia Specialties v Commission

(Case T-378/23)

(2023/C 304/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Marcegaglia Specialties SpA (Gazoldo degli Ippoliti, 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) 2023/825 of 17 April 2023 extending the anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1408 on imports of certain hot rolled stainless steel sheets and coils originating in Indonesia to imports of certain hot rolled stainless steel sheets and coils consigned from Türkiye, whether declared as originating in Türkiye or not (OJ 2023, L 103, p. 12; the Contested Regulation), insofar as the applicant is concerned; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/825 of 17 April 2023 extending the anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1408 on imports of certain hot rolled stainless steel sheets and coils originating in Indonesia to imports of certain hot rolled stainless steel sheets and coils consigned from Türkiye, whether declared as originating in Türkiye or not (OJ 2023, L 103, p. 12; the Contested Regulation), insofar as the applicant is concerned; and

| — | order the Commission to bear the costs of the proceeding. |
| --- | --- |

—

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 three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Contested Regulation violated Article 13(1) and 13(2) of the Basic Regulation, insofar as the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment by concluding that the manufacturing process carried out in Türkiye constitutes an ‘assembly/completion operation’. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Contested Regulation violated Article 13(1) and 13(2) of the Basic Regulation, insofar as the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment by concluding that the manufacturing process carried out in Türkiye constitutes an ‘assembly/completion operation’.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Contested Regulation violated Article 13(1) of the Basic Regulation, insofar as the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment by considering that there was no sufficient due cause or economic justification for the processing operation carried out in Türkiye. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Contested Regulation violated Article 13(1) of the Basic Regulation, insofar as the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment by considering that there was no sufficient due cause or economic justification for the processing operation carried out in Türkiye.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Contested Regulation is unlawful insofar as it extended the duty in force against imports of certain hot rolled stainless steel sheets and coils (SSHR) originating in Indonesia to imports of SSHR manufactured in Türkiye from stainless steel slabs of origin other than Indonesian. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Contested Regulation is unlawful insofar as it extended the duty in force against imports of certain hot rolled stainless steel sheets and coils (SSHR) originating in Indonesia to imports of SSHR manufactured in Türkiye from stainless steel slabs of origin other than Indonesian.

---

| 28.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/27

---

Action brought on 10 July 2023 — Çolakoğlu Metalurji v Commission

(Case T-379/23)

(2023/C 304/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Çolakoğlu Metalurji AŞ (İstanbul, Türkiye) (represented by: J. Cornelis and F. Graafsma, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/825 of 17 April 2023 extending the anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1408 on imports of certain hot rolled stainless steel sheets and coils originating in Indonesia to imports of certain hot rolled stainless steel sheets and coils consigned from Türkiye, whether declared as originating in Türkiye or not (OJ 2023, L 103, p. 12; the Contested Regulation); and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/825 of 17 April 2023 extending the anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1408 on imports of certain hot rolled stainless steel sheets and coils originating in Indonesia to imports of certain hot rolled stainless steel sheets and coils consigned from Türkiye, whether declared as originating in Türkiye or not (OJ 2023, L 103, p. 12; the Contested Regulation); and

| — | order the Commission to bear the costs of the proceeding. |
| --- | --- |

—

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 violation of Article 13(1) and 13(2) of the Basic Regulation, insofar as the Commission has concluded that the processing of stainless steel slabs into hot rolled stainless steel sheets and coils (SSHR) constituted an ‘assembly operation’ within the meaning of Article 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Basic Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging violation of Article 13(1) and 13(2) of the Basic Regulation, insofar as the Commission has concluded that the processing of stainless steel slabs into hot rolled stainless steel sheets and coils (SSHR) constituted an ‘assembly operation’ within the meaning of Article 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Basic Regulation.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that, by imposing anti-circumvention measures on imports of SSHR produced in Türkiye from stainless steel slabs of Turkish origin, products which fell outsider the scope of the investigation and which are agreed not to circumvent the original measure, the Commission:






  — | violated Article 13(1) of the Basic Regulation; misinterpreted Article 13(4) of the Basic Regulation, and committed an error of assessment by not excluding these products or, alternatively, by not granting the applicant an exemption for these products; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that, by imposing anti-circumvention measures on imports of SSHR produced in Türkiye from stainless steel slabs of Turkish origin, products which fell outsider the scope of the investigation and which are agreed not to circumvent the original measure, the Commission:

—

violated Article 13(1) of the Basic Regulation; misinterpreted Article 13(4) of the Basic Regulation, and committed an error of assessment by not excluding these products or, alternatively, by not granting the applicant an exemption for these products;

| — | violated the principle of proportionality; and |
| --- | --- |

—

violated the principle of proportionality; and

| — | violated the applicant’s fundamental procedural rights and misused its powers by extending/imposing measures on these products through the anti-circumvention instrument, instead of conducting a ‘regular’ anti-dumping investigation. |
| --- | --- |

—

violated the applicant’s fundamental procedural rights and misused its powers by extending/imposing measures on these products through the anti-circumvention instrument, instead of conducting a ‘regular’ anti-dumping investigation.

---

| 28.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/28

---

Action brought on 11 July 2023 — Essilor International v EUIPO — Carl Zeiss Vision (MYOLUX)

(Case T-383/23)

(2023/C 304/35)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Essilor International (Charenton-le-Pont, France) (represented by: A. Parassina and A. Giovannardi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Carl Zeiss Vision GmbH (Aalen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark MYOLUX — Application for registration No 18 215 110

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 May 2023 in Case R 267/2022-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | declare the registrability of the trade mark at issue; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the registrability of the trade mark at issue;

| — | order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings born by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings born by the applicant.

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.

---

| 28.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/29

---

Action brought on 10 July 2023 — OQ v Commission

(Case T-384/23)

(2023/C 304/36)

Language of the case: Croatian

Parties

Applicant: OQ (represented by: R. Štaba, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the European Personnel Selection Office of 15 May 2023 in competition EPSO/AD/378/20, and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the European Personnel Selection Office of 15 May 2023 in competition EPSO/AD/378/20, and

| — | order the defendant, the European Commission, to pay OQ the costs of the present proceedings, together with default interest accrued as from the moment the applicant took each course of action until payment. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant, the European Commission, to pay OQ the costs of the present proceedings, together with default interest accrued as from the moment the applicant took each course of action until payment.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 45 TFEU on the ground that, in the decision of 15 May 2023, the selection board refused to admit the applicant to competition EPSO/AD/378/20 with the reasoning that his French diploma in law did not satisfy the conditions of that competition, even though, in Case T-713/20, which concerned proceedings between the same parties and based on the same facts, the General Court had expressly held that the applicant’s application could not be rejected on the sole ground that the he did not have one of the diplomas requested in the competition and that, in that regard, the competition was unlawful vis-à-vis the applicant. Thus, the applicant’s fundamental freedom under Article 45 TFEU was infringed, as that non-recognition resulted in a serious obstacle to the freedom of movement of persons on account of the fact that the selection board failed to assess the applicant’s diploma in accordance with the Court’s settled case-law in that regard. The second part of the first plea in law relates to the failure to take account of the rest of the applicant’s experience and certificates evidencing that he has the requisite knowledge and experience. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 45 TFEU on the ground that, in the decision of 15 May 2023, the selection board refused to admit the applicant to competition EPSO/AD/378/20 with the reasoning that his French diploma in law did not satisfy the conditions of that competition, even though, in Case T-713/20, which concerned proceedings between the same parties and based on the same facts, the General Court had expressly held that the applicant’s application could not be rejected on the sole ground that the he did not have one of the diplomas requested in the competition and that, in that regard, the competition was unlawful vis-à-vis the applicant. Thus, the applicant’s fundamental freedom under Article 45 TFEU was infringed, as that non-recognition resulted in a serious obstacle to the freedom of movement of persons on account of the fact that the selection board failed to assess the applicant’s diploma in accordance with the Court’s settled case-law in that regard. The second part of the first plea in law relates to the failure to take account of the rest of the applicant’s experience and certificates evidencing that he has the requisite knowledge and experience.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment and of law on the ground that the selection board failed to take account of the applicant’s experience in translating legal texts that he had acquired working in the European Parliament. The manifest error consists in the fact that the experience in question is in translating legal texts, which was, inter alia, what was sought in the text of the notice of competition. The selection board also committed an error of law since it classified the applicant’s experience in the context of similar positions in other EU institutions, whereas, in accordance with the relevant practice, it should have evaluated it exclusively in the context of the competition at issue. Thereby, the selection board departed from the text of the notice of competition, to which it was strictly bound. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment and of law on the ground that the selection board failed to take account of the applicant’s experience in translating legal texts that he had acquired working in the European Parliament. The manifest error consists in the fact that the experience in question is in translating legal texts, which was, inter alia, what was sought in the text of the notice of competition. The selection board also committed an error of law since it classified the applicant’s experience in the context of similar positions in other EU institutions, whereas, in accordance with the relevant practice, it should have evaluated it exclusively in the context of the competition at issue. Thereby, the selection board departed from the text of the notice of competition, to which it was strictly bound.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging failure to take account of the translation experience acquired in the context of the interinstitutional exchange between the Court and the Parliament. Even though the applicant was formally a translator at the European Parliament at the time, the knowledge that he acquired working at the Court of Justice of the European Union in the context of the exchange could in no way be disregarded, since, in any event, the experience in question is relevant, despite the fact that it was acquired in the context of an exchange. By classifying the experience as irrelevant, the selection board committed a manifest error of law. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging failure to take account of the translation experience acquired in the context of the interinstitutional exchange between the Court and the Parliament. Even though the applicant was formally a translator at the European Parliament at the time, the knowledge that he acquired working at the Court of Justice of the European Union in the context of the exchange could in no way be disregarded, since, in any event, the experience in question is relevant, despite the fact that it was acquired in the context of an exchange. By classifying the experience as irrelevant, the selection board committed a manifest error of law.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging failure to take account, in its entirety, of the legal work experience acquired in the Republic of Croatia. The selection board committed a manifest error in the assessment of the facts, since it failed to regard as relevant experience approximately 45 days of work in a law firm in the Republic of Croatia. Only approximately one month of work in that firm was recognised in respect of the applicant, after his name had been included on the list of trainee lawyers. In support of his argument that the contested period should have also been taken into account, the applicant submits that the subsequent inclusion on the list was the result of the fact that the applicant holds a foreign diploma which was examined at a session of the Croatian Bar Association almost a month after the applicant had applied to be included on the list maintained by that body. Nevertheless, until his inclusion on the list, the applicant carried out strictly legal tasks and duties, as is apparent also from the documents submitted, which show that the employer intended, from the very start of the employment relationship, for the applicant to perform the legal duties of a trainee lawyer. Moreover, nowhere in the competition was it stated that it was a condition for the recognition of relevant experience that the candidate be included on the list of trainee lawyers, but only that the candidate should have worked in a law firm. Accordingly, the selection board departed from the text of the notice of competition, to which it was strictly bound. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging failure to take account, in its entirety, of the legal work experience acquired in the Republic of Croatia. The selection board committed a manifest error in the assessment of the facts, since it failed to regard as relevant experience approximately 45 days of work in a law firm in the Republic of Croatia. Only approximately one month of work in that firm was recognised in respect of the applicant, after his name had been included on the list of trainee lawyers. In support of his argument that the contested period should have also been taken into account, the applicant submits that the subsequent inclusion on the list was the result of the fact that the applicant holds a foreign diploma which was examined at a session of the Croatian Bar Association almost a month after the applicant had applied to be included on the list maintained by that body. Nevertheless, until his inclusion on the list, the applicant carried out strictly legal tasks and duties, as is apparent also from the documents submitted, which show that the employer intended, from the very start of the employment relationship, for the applicant to perform the legal duties of a trainee lawyer. Moreover, nowhere in the competition was it stated that it was a condition for the recognition of relevant experience that the candidate be included on the list of trainee lawyers, but only that the candidate should have worked in a law firm. Accordingly, the selection board departed from the text of the notice of competition, to which it was strictly bound.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging failure to state reasons in the decision of 15 May 2023 refusing to admit the applicant to the competition at issue, on the ground that that decision does not state any clear criteria on the basis of which the selection board reached its decision, and that the reasons given are contradictory and it is not possible to infer from them what precise criterion the applicant failed to fulfil. Thereby, the selection board failed to observe the principle of equal treatment, since all the other candidates knew from the very beginning whether they satisfied the conditions of the competition, whereas the applicant, on account of the failure to state reasons, still does not know whether he satisfies the conditions of the competition and on the basis of what criteria that is determined by the board. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging failure to state reasons in the decision of 15 May 2023 refusing to admit the applicant to the competition at issue, on the ground that that decision does not state any clear criteria on the basis of which the selection board reached its decision, and that the reasons given are contradictory and it is not possible to infer from them what precise criterion the applicant failed to fulfil. Thereby, the selection board failed to observe the principle of equal treatment, since all the other candidates knew from the very beginning whether they satisfied the conditions of the competition, whereas the applicant, on account of the failure to state reasons, still does not know whether he satisfies the conditions of the competition and on the basis of what criteria that is determined by the board.

---

| 28.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/30

---

Action brought on 13 July 2023 — Eckes-Granini Group and International Beer Breweries v EUIPO — Capri Sun (PRISUN)

(Case T-395/23)

(2023/C 304/37)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicants: Eckes-Granini Group GmbH (Nieder-Olm, Germany), International Beer Breweries Ltd (Ashkelon, Israel) (represented by: J. Wachsmuth, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Capri Sun AG (Zug, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicants for the trade mark at issue: Applicants

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘PRISUN’ — Application No 18 228 012

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 April 2023 in Case R 1057/2022-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | reject the opposition of Capri Sun AG; |
| --- | --- |

—

reject the opposition of Capri Sun AG;

| — | 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.

---

| 28.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/31

---

Action brought on 11 July 2023 — Ausnit, Olariu și Asociații v Commission

(Case T-397/23)

(2023/C 304/38)

Language of the case: Romanian

Parties

Applicant: Ausnit, Olariu și Asociații SRL (Lugoj, Romania) (represented by: F. Irimia, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul European Commission Decision C(2023) 3232 final of 10 May 2023. |
| --- | --- |

—

annul European Commission Decision C(2023) 3232 final of 10 May 2023.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | The decision has no legal basis, having been adopted on the basis of an erroneous interpretation and application of the provisions of Article II.19.1.(f) of the grant agreement, in conjunction with Article 30 of Regulation No 966/2012 applicable to the agreement in accordance with Article 279(3) of Regulation No 1046/2018. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The decision has no legal basis, having been adopted on the basis of an erroneous interpretation and application of the provisions of Article II.19.1.(f) of the grant agreement, in conjunction with Article 30 of Regulation No 966/2012 applicable to the agreement in accordance with Article 279(3) of Regulation No 1046/2018.

| 2. | The contested decision was adopted in breach of the principle of proportionality enshrined in Article 135 of Regulation No 966/2012, following the provisions of Article II.27.6 of the grant agreement, in breach of Article II.25.4 of that agreement and in breach of Article 5 TFEU and the provisions of Additional Protocol No 2. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The contested decision was adopted in breach of the principle of proportionality enshrined in Article 135 of Regulation No 966/2012, following the provisions of Article II.27.6 of the grant agreement, in breach of Article II.25.4 of that agreement and in breach of Article 5 TFEU and the provisions of Additional Protocol No 2.

| 3. | The contested decision is contrary to the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The contested decision is contrary to the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.

---

| 28.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/31

---

Order of the General Court of 12 July 2023 — LG and Others v Commission

(Case T-730/22) (1)

(2023/C 304/39)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 35, 30.1.2023.

---