# Official Journal C 127/11 A

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 127 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6611 April 2023 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 127

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6611 April 2023

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2023/C 127/01 | 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 127/01

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 127/02 | Case C-623/20 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 February 2023 — European Commission v Italian Republic, Kingdom of Spain (Appeal — Rules on languages — Notice of open competition for the recruitment of administrators in the field of audit — Knowledge of languages — Restriction of the choice of the second competition language to English, French and German — Language of communication with the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) — Regulation No 1 — Staff Regulations — Article 1d(1) — Difference in treatment based on language — Justification — Interests of the service — Requirement to recruit administrators who are immediately operational — Judicial review — Standard of proof required) | 2 |
| 2023/C 127/03 | Case C-635/20 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 February 2023 — European Commission v Italian Republic, Kingdom of Spain (Appeal — Rules on languages — Notice of open competitions for the recruitment of administrators’ functions as investigators and team leaders — Knowledge of languages — Restriction of the choice of the second competition language to English, French and German — Language of communication with the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) — Regulation No 1 — Staff Regulations — Article 1d(1) — Difference in treatment based on language — Justification — Interests of the service — Requirement to recruit administrators who are immediately operational — Judicial review — Standard of proof required) | 3 |
| 2023/C 127/04 | Case C-707/20, Gallaher: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) -United Kingdom) — Gallaher Limited v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Direct taxation — Corporate income tax — Articles 49, 63 and 64 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Free movement of capital — Disposal of assets within a group of companies — Company resident for tax purposes in one Member State having a parent company resident for tax purposes in another Member State and a sister company resident for tax purposes in a third country — Disposal of intellectual property rights of the company resident for tax purposes in a Member State to its sister company resident for tax purposes in a third country — Disposal by the company resident for tax purposes in a Member State of shares in one of its subsidiaries to its parent company resident for tax purposes in another Member State — Consideration equal to the market value of the assets transferred — Exemption from tax or imposition of tax depending on the State in which the beneficiary company has its seat) | 3 |
| 2023/C 127/05 | Case C-312/21, Tráficos Manuel Ferrer: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil no 3 de Valencia — Spain) — Tráficos Manuel Ferrer S.L., Ignacio v Daimler AG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Competition — Compensation for harm caused by a practice prohibited under Article 101(1) TFEU — Decision of the Commission finding the existence of collusive arrangements on pricing and gross price increases for trucks in the European Economic Area (EEA) — National rule of civil procedure under which, in the event that the claim is upheld in part, costs are to be borne by each party, except in cases of wrongful conduct — Procedural autonomy of the Member States — Principles of effectiveness and equivalence — Directive 2014/104/EU — Objectives and overall balance — Article 3 — Right to full compensation for the harm suffered — Article 11(1) — Joint and several liability of the undertakings that infringe competition law — Article 17(1) — Possibility for national courts to estimate the harm — Conditions — Impossibility or unreasonable difficulties in quantifying harm — Article 22 — Temporal application) | 4 |
| 2023/C 127/06 | Case C-343/21, Zamestnik izpalnitelen direktor na Darzhaven fond Zemedelie: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — PV v Zamestnik izpalnitelen direktor na Darzhaven fond Zemedelie (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common agricultural policy — Support measures for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development — Agri-environmental payments — Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 — Inability of the beneficiaries to continue to comply with the commitments given — Concepts of reparcelling and land-consolidation measures — Absence of measures necessary to adapt the obligations of the beneficiary to the new situation of the holding — Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 — Concept of force majeure and exceptional circumstances) | 5 |
| 2023/C 127/07 | Case C-349/21, HYA and Others (Grounds for authorising telephone tapping): Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — HYA, IP, DD, ZI, SS (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Telecommunications sector — Processing of personal data and the protection of privacy — Directive 2002/58/EC — Article 15(1) — Restriction of the confidentiality of electronic communications — Judicial decision authorising the interception, recording and storage of telephone conversations of persons suspected of having committed a serious intentional offence — Practice whereby the decision is drawn up in accordance with a pre-drafted template text that does not contain individualised reasons — Second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Obligation to state reasons) | 6 |
| 2023/C 127/08 | Case C-393/21, Lufthansa Technik AERO Alzey: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas — Lithuania) — Proceedings brought by Lufthansa Technik AERO Alzey GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 — European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims — Article 23(c) — Stay of enforcement of a judgment certified as a European Enforcement Order — Exceptional circumstances — Concept) | 7 |
| 2023/C 127/09 | Case C-472/21, Monz Handelsgesellschaft International: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Monz Handelsgesellschaft International mbH & Co. KG v Büchel GmbH & Co. Fahrzeugtechnik KG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual property — Design — Directive 98/71/EC — Article 3(3) and (4) — Conditions for obtaining protection for a component part of a complex product — Concepts of visibility and normal use — Visibility of a component part of a complex product during normal use of that product by the end user) | 8 |
| 2023/C 127/10 | Case C-519/21, DGRFP Cluj: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj — Romania) — ASA v DGRFP Cluj (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Construction of a building complex by an association without legal personality — Association contract — Sale of the apartments of that building complex by certain members — Determination of the taxable person liable for the tax — Principle of fiscal neutrality — Right to deduct VAT) | 9 |
| 2023/C 127/11 | Joined Cases C-524/21 and C-525/21, Agenţia Judeţeană de Ocupare a Forţei de Muncă Ilfov and Others: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 February 2023 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti — Romania) — IG v Agenţia Judeţeană de Ocupare a Forţei de Muncă Ilfov (C-524/21), and Agenţia Municipală pentru Ocuparea Forţei de Muncă Bucureşti v IM (C-525/21) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Protection of employees in the event of their employer’s insolvency — Directive 2008/94/EC — Employees’ salary claims borne by guarantee institutions — Limitation of the liability of guarantee institutions to employees’ salary claims relating to the three months prior or subsequent to the date on which insolvency proceedings are opened — Application of a limitation period — Recovery of payments unduly made by the guarantee institution — Conditions) | 10 |
| 2023/C 127/12 | Case C-633/21: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 16 February 2023 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environment — Directive 2008/50/EC — Ambient air quality — Article 13(1) and Annex XI — Systematic and persistent exceedance of the limit values for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) in the agglomeration of Athens (Greece) — Article 23(1) — Annex XV — Exceedance period to be as short as possible — Appropriate measures) | 11 |
| 2023/C 127/13 | Case C-675/21, Strong Charon: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça — Portugal) — Strong Charon, Soluções de Segurança, S.A. v 2045-Empresa de de Segurança, S.A., FL (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Transfers of undertakings — Safeguarding of employees’ rights — Directive 2001/23/EC — Scope — Refusal by the transferee to recognise the transfer of the employment contract — Definition of transfer — Definition of economic unit — Absence of a contractual link between the transferor and the transferee) | 12 |
| 2023/C 127/14 | Case C-710/21, IEF Service: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — IEF Service GmbH v HB (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer — Directive 2008/94/EC — Article 9(1) — Undertaking that has its registered office in one Member State and offers its services in another Member State — Worker whose place of residence is in that other Member State — Work performed in the Member State in which the worker’s employer has its registered office and, one week out of two, in the Member State in which the worker resides — Determining which Member State’s guarantee institution is responsible for meeting outstanding wage claims) | 13 |
| 2023/C 127/15 | Case C-745/21, Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid (Unborn child at the time of the asylum application): Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 16 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag zittingsplaats Zwolle — Netherlands) — L.G. v Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Asylum policy — Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 — Criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection — Article 6(1) — Best interests of the child — Article 16(1) — Dependent person — Article 17(1) — Discretionary clauses — Implementation by a Member State — Third-country national pregnant at the time of lodging her application for international protection — Marriage — Spouse beneficiary of international protection in the Member State concerned — Decision refusing to process the application and to transfer the applicant to another Member State deemed to be responsible for the application) | 13 |
| 2023/C 127/16 | Case C-638/22 PPU, Rzecznik Praw Dziecka and Others (Suspension of the return decision): Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Apelacyjny w Warszawie — Poland) — T.C., Rzecznik Praw Dziecka, Prokurator Generalny (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Area of freedom, security and justice — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and in the matters of parental responsibility — International child abduction — 1980 Hague Convention — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Article 11 — Application for return of a child — Final decision ordering the return of a child — Legislation of a Member State providing for automatic suspension of the enforcement of that decision in the event that a request is made by certain national authorities) | 14 |
| 2023/C 127/17 | Case C-586/22 P: Appeal brought on 6 September 2022 by Gabriel Pombo da Silva against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 27 June 2022 in Case T-292/22, Pombo da Silva v Commission | 15 |
| 2023/C 127/18 | Case C-702/22 P: Appeal brought on 15 November 2022 by Okan Balaban against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 14 September 2022 in Case T-705/21, Okan Balaban v European Union Intellectual Property Office | 15 |
| 2023/C 127/19 | Case C-784/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 30 December 2022 — Solvay Sodi AD v Zamestnik-predsedatel na Darzhavna agentsia Darzhaven rezerv i voennovremenni zapasi | 15 |
| 2023/C 127/20 | Case C-2/23, FL und KM Baugesellschaft and S: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 3 January 2023 — FL und KM Baugesellschaft m.b.H. & Co. KG, S AG | 17 |
| 2023/C 127/21 | Case C-8/23, Conseil national de l’ordre des médecins: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 12 January 2023 — FH v Conseil national de l’ordre des médecins | 18 |
| 2023/C 127/22 | Case C-13/23, cdVet Naturprodukte: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Osnabrück (Germany) lodged on 16 January 2023 — cdVet Naturprodukte GmbH v Niedersächsisches Landesamt für Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit (LA-VES) | 19 |
| 2023/C 127/23 | Case C-22/23, Citadeles nekustamie īpašumi: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā rajona tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 19 January 2023 — SIA Citadeles nekustamie īpašumi v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests | 19 |
| 2023/C 127/24 | Case C-41/23, Peigli: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 26 January 2023 — AV, BT, CV, DW v Ministero della Giustizia | 20 |
| 2023/C 127/25 | Case C-46/23, Újpesti Polgármesteri Hivatal: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 31 January 2023 — Budapest Főváros IV. Kerület Újpest Önkormányzat Polgármesteri Hivatala v Nemzeti Adatvédelmi és Információszabadság Hatóság | 21 |
| 2023/C 127/26 | Case C-48/23, Alajärven Sähkö and Others: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Markkinaoikeus (Finland) lodged on 1 February 2023 — Alajärven Sähkö Oy and Others, Elenia Verkko Oyj v Energiavirasto | 21 |
| 2023/C 127/27 | Case C-49/23, 1Dream and Others: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Satversmes tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 1 February 2023 — AZ, 1Dream OÜ, Produktech Engineering AG, BBP, Polaris Consulting Ltd v Latvijas Republikas Saeima | 22 |
| 2023/C 127/28 | Case C-50/23, B.E. and Play Game: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 31 January 2023 — B.E. Srl, Play Game Srl, Coral Srl v Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli | 23 |
| 2023/C 127/29 | Case C-60/23, Digital Charging Solutions: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 6 February 2023 — Skatteverket v Digital Charging Solutions GmbH | 23 |
| 2023/C 127/30 | Case C-71/23 P: Appeal brought on 8 February 2023 by the French Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 23 November 2022 in Joined Cases T-279/20 and T-288/20, CWS Powder Coatings and Others v Commission, and Case T-283/20, Billions Europe and Others v Commission | 24 |
| 2023/C 127/31 | Case C-72/23 P: Appeal brought on 10 February 2023 by Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 14 December 2022 in Case T-182/21, PKK v Council | 25 |
| 2023/C 127/32 | Case C-82/23 P: Appeal brought on 14 February 2023 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 23 November 2022 in joined Cases T-279/20 and T-288/20, CWS Powder Coatings and Others v Commission, and in Case T-283/20, Billions Europe and Others v Commission | 26 |
| 2023/C 127/33 | Case C-95/23 P: Appeal brought on 17 February 2023 by the European Association of Non-Integrated Metal Importers & distributors (Euranimi) against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 8 December 2022 in Case T-769/21, Euranimi v Commission | 27 |
| 2023/C 127/34 | Case C-112/23 P: Appeal brought on 24 February 2023 by PT Pelita Agung Agrindustri, PT Permata Hijau Palm Oleo against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 14 December 2022 in Case T-143/20, PT Pelita Agung Agrindustri and PT Permata Hijau Palm Oleo v Commission | 28 |
| 2023/C 127/35 | Case C-121/23 P: Appeal brought on 28 February 2023 by Swissgrid AG against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 21 December 2022 in Case T-127/21, Swissgrid v Commission | 29 |
| | General Court |
| 2023/C 127/36 | Case T-606/20: Judgment of the General Court of 15 February 2023 — Austrian Power Grid and Others v ACER (Energy — Internal market in electricity — Framework for the European platform for the exchange of balancing energy from frequency restoration reserves with automatic activation — Procedure for the adoption of terms, conditions and methodologies — Rejection of the joint proposal of the system operators — Competence of ACER — Error of law — Rights of the defence — Obligation to state reasons) | 30 |
| 2023/C 127/37 | Case T-607/20: Judgment of the General Court of 15 February 2023 — Austrian Power Grid and Others v ACER (Energy — Internal market in electricity — Framework for the European platform for the exchange of balancing energy from frequency restoration reserves with manual activation — Procedure for the adoption of terms, conditions and methodologies — Rejection of the joint proposal of the system operators — Competence of ACER — Error of law — Rights of the defence — Obligation to state reasons) | 31 |
| 2023/C 127/38 | Case T-742/20: Judgment of the General Court of 15 February 2023 — UPL Europe and Indofil Industries (Netherlands) v Commission (Plant protection products — Active substance mancozeb — Non-renewal of approval — Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 844/2012 — Procedure for assessing the application for renewal of approval of an active substance — Designation of a new rapporteur Member State due to the withdrawal of the previous rapporteur Member State from the European Union — Rights of the defence — Principle of sound administration — Manifest error of assessment — Procedure for harmonised classification and labelling — Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 — Legitimate expectations) | 31 |
| 2023/C 127/39 | Case T-492/21: Judgment of the General Court of 15 February 2023 — Aquind and Others v ACER (Energy — Competence of the ACER — Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union — Error of law — Article 2(1) of Regulation (EU) 2019/943 — Article 92 of the Withdrawal Agreement — Ad hoc exemption regime under Article 308 of and Annex 28 to the Trade and Cooperation Agreement) | 32 |
| 2023/C 127/40 | Case T-536/21: Judgment of the General Court of 15 February 2023 — Belaeronavigatsia v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Belarus — Lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Inclusion and maintenance of the applicant’s name on the lists — Concept of person responsible for repression — Error of assessment — Proportionality) | 33 |
| 2023/C 127/41 | Case T-684/21: Judgment of the General Court of 15 February 2023 — Mostostal v EUIPO — Polimex — Mostostal (MOSTOSTAL) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark MOSTOSTAL — Obligation to state reasons — Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001) | 34 |
| 2023/C 127/42 | Case T-741/21: Judgment of the General Court of 15 February 2023 — LG Electronics v EUIPO — ZTE Deutschland (V10) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark V10 — Absolute ground for refusal — Alphanumeric sign — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 34 |
| 2023/C 127/43 | Case T-8/22: Judgment of the General Court of 15 February 2023 — Topcart v EUIPO — Carl International (TC CARL) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark TC CARL — Earlier national figurative mark carl touch — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 35 |
| 2023/C 127/44 | Case T-77/22: Judgment of the General Court of 15 February 2023 — Asesores Comunitarios v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to the recovery and resilience plan submitted by a Member State to the Commission — Documents originating from a Member State — Refusal to grant access — Exception relating to the financial, monetary or economic policy of the European Union or of a Member State) | 36 |
| 2023/C 127/45 | Case T-82/22: Judgment of the General Court of 15 February 2023 — Bambu Sales v EUIPO (BAMBU) (EU trade mark — Application for European Union word mark BAMBU — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 36 |
| 2023/C 127/46 | Case T-204/22: Judgment of the General Court of 15 February 2023 — Rimini Street v EUIPO (OTHER COMPANIES DO SOFTWARE WE DO SUPPORT) (EU trade mark — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark OTHER COMPANIES DO SOFTWARE WE DO SUPPORT — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 37 |
| 2023/C 127/47 | Case T-260/22: Judgment of the General Court of 15 February 2023 — Freixas Montplet and Others v Committee of the Regions (Civil service — Officials — Promotion — 2021 promotion exercise — Decision not to place the applicant’s name on the list of officials eligible for promotion — Date of assessment of seniority in grade — Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations — Equal treatment) | 38 |
| 2023/C 127/48 | Case T-357/22: Judgment of the General Court of 15 February 2023 — Das Neves v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Disciplinary proceedings — Warning — Article 21 of the Staff Regulations — Rights of the defence — Liability) | 38 |
| 2023/C 127/49 | Case T-266/22: Order of the General Court of 9 February 2023 — Aziz v Commission (Action for annulment — Protection of personal data — Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 — Article 76(d) of the Rules of Procedure — Failure to comply with procedural requirements — Inadmissibility) | 39 |
| 2023/C 127/50 | Case T-286/22: Order of the General Court of 9 February 2023 — Aziz v Commission (Action for annulment — Protection of personal data — Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 — Article 76(d) of the Rules of Procedure — Failure to comply with procedural requirements — Inadmissibility) | 39 |
| 2023/C 127/51 | Case T-428/22: Order of the General Court of 14 February 2023 — Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals (TRiM) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark TRiM — Earlier national word marks RYM — Expiry of the international registration — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate) | 40 |
| 2023/C 127/52 | Case T-595/22 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 14 February 2023 — Ferreira de Macedo Silva v Frontex (Interim relief — Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Dismissal before the end of the probationary period — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency) | 40 |
| 2023/C 127/53 | Case T-4/23: Action brought on 6 January 2023 — PS v SEAE | 41 |
| 2023/C 127/54 | Case T-14/23: Action brought on 17 January 2023 — UI v Commission | 42 |
| 2023/C 127/55 | Case T-39/23: Action brought on 2 February 2023 — Acqua & Sole v Commission | 43 |
| 2023/C 127/56 | Case T-40/23: Action brought on 30 January 2023 — Hatherly v EUAA | 45 |
| 2023/C 127/57 | Case T-45/23: Action brought on 6 February 2023 — UG v ERCEA | 46 |
| 2023/C 127/58 | Case T-49/23: Action brought on 16 February 2023 — Angelidis v Parliament | 47 |
| 2023/C 127/59 | Case T-69/23: Action brought on 13 February 2023 — Alan and Others v Commission | 47 |
| 2023/C 127/60 | Case T-70/23: Action brought on 14 February 2023 — Data Protection Commission v European Data Protection Board | 49 |
| 2023/C 127/61 | Case T-75/23: Action brought on 15 February 2023 — RT France v Council | 50 |
| 2023/C 127/62 | Case T-80/23: Action brought on 17 February 2023 — Beauty Biosciences v EUIPO — Société de Recherche Cosmétique (BEAUTYBIO) | 51 |
| 2023/C 127/63 | Case T-81/23: Action brought on 17 February 2023 — Beauty Biosciences v EUIPO — Société de Recherche Cosmétique (BEAUTYBIO SCIENCE) | 52 |
| 2023/C 127/64 | Case T-84/23: Action brought on 17 February 2023 — Data Protection Commission v European Data Protection Board | 53 |
| 2023/C 127/65 | Case T-85/23: Action brought on 20 February 2023 — DGC Switzerland v EUIPO (cyberscan) | 53 |
| 2023/C 127/66 | Case T-88/23: Action brought on 20 February 2023 — Kande Mupompa v Council | 54 |
| 2023/C 127/67 | Case T-89/23: Action brought on 20 February 2023 — Boshab v Council | 55 |
| 2023/C 127/68 | Case T-93/23: Action brought on 21 February 2023 — Court of Auditors v Allianz Insurance Luxembourg | 56 |
| 2023/C 127/69 | Case T-97/23: Action brought on 23 February 2023 — Medela v EUIPO (THE SCIENCE OF CARE) | 56 |
| 2023/C 127/70 | Case T-98/23: Action brought on 23 February 2023 — Atomico Investment v EUIPO — Gomes Tominaga (atomic fund) | 57 |
| 2023/C 127/71 | Case T-101/23: Action brought on 24 February 2023 — Darila v EUIPO — Original Buff (Buffet) | 58 |
| 2023/C 127/72 | Case T-111/23: Action brought on 24 February 2023 — Data Protection Commission v EDPB | 58 |
| 2023/C 127/73 | Case T-113/23: Action brought on 2 March 2023 — Papier-Mettler v EUIPO (Shape of a carrier bag) | 59 |
| 2023/C 127/74 | Case T-114/23: Action brought on 2 March 2023 — Papier-Mettler v EUIPO (Shape of a carrier bag) | 60 |
| 2023/C 127/75 | Case T-653/20: Order of the General Court of 17 February 2023 — Mylan Ireland v EMA | 60 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2023/C 127/02

Case C-623/20 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 February 2023 — European Commission v Italian Republic, Kingdom of Spain (Appeal — Rules on languages — Notice of open competition for the recruitment of administrators in the field of audit — Knowledge of languages — Restriction of the choice of the second competition language to English, French and German — Language of communication with the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) — Regulation No 1 — Staff Regulations — Article 1d(1) — Difference in treatment based on language — Justification — Interests of the service — Requirement to recruit administrators who are immediately operational — Judicial review — Standard of proof required)

2

2023/C 127/03

Case C-635/20 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 February 2023 — European Commission v Italian Republic, Kingdom of Spain (Appeal — Rules on languages — Notice of open competitions for the recruitment of administrators’ functions as investigators and team leaders — Knowledge of languages — Restriction of the choice of the second competition language to English, French and German — Language of communication with the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) — Regulation No 1 — Staff Regulations — Article 1d(1) — Difference in treatment based on language — Justification — Interests of the service — Requirement to recruit administrators who are immediately operational — Judicial review — Standard of proof required)

3

2023/C 127/04

Case C-707/20, Gallaher: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) -United Kingdom) — Gallaher Limited v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Direct taxation — Corporate income tax — Articles 49, 63 and 64 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Free movement of capital — Disposal of assets within a group of companies — Company resident for tax purposes in one Member State having a parent company resident for tax purposes in another Member State and a sister company resident for tax purposes in a third country — Disposal of intellectual property rights of the company resident for tax purposes in a Member State to its sister company resident for tax purposes in a third country — Disposal by the company resident for tax purposes in a Member State of shares in one of its subsidiaries to its parent company resident for tax purposes in another Member State — Consideration equal to the market value of the assets transferred — Exemption from tax or imposition of tax depending on the State in which the beneficiary company has its seat)

3

2023/C 127/05

Case C-312/21, Tráficos Manuel Ferrer: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil no 3 de Valencia — Spain) — Tráficos Manuel Ferrer S.L., Ignacio v Daimler AG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Competition — Compensation for harm caused by a practice prohibited under Article 101(1) TFEU — Decision of the Commission finding the existence of collusive arrangements on pricing and gross price increases for trucks in the European Economic Area (EEA) — National rule of civil procedure under which, in the event that the claim is upheld in part, costs are to be borne by each party, except in cases of wrongful conduct — Procedural autonomy of the Member States — Principles of effectiveness and equivalence — Directive 2014/104/EU — Objectives and overall balance — Article 3 — Right to full compensation for the harm suffered — Article 11(1) — Joint and several liability of the undertakings that infringe competition law — Article 17(1) — Possibility for national courts to estimate the harm — Conditions — Impossibility or unreasonable difficulties in quantifying harm — Article 22 — Temporal application)

o

4

2023/C 127/06

Case C-343/21, Zamestnik izpalnitelen direktor na Darzhaven fond Zemedelie: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — PV v Zamestnik izpalnitelen direktor na Darzhaven fond Zemedelie (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common agricultural policy — Support measures for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development — Agri-environmental payments — Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 — Inability of the beneficiaries to continue to comply with the commitments given — Concepts of reparcelling and land-consolidation measures — Absence of measures necessary to adapt the obligations of the beneficiary to the new situation of the holding — Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 — Concept of force majeure and exceptional circumstances)

5

2023/C 127/07

Case C-349/21, HYA and Others (Grounds for authorising telephone tapping): Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — HYA, IP, DD, ZI, SS (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Telecommunications sector — Processing of personal data and the protection of privacy — Directive 2002/58/EC — Article 15(1) — Restriction of the confidentiality of electronic communications — Judicial decision authorising the interception, recording and storage of telephone conversations of persons suspected of having committed a serious intentional offence — Practice whereby the decision is drawn up in accordance with a pre-drafted template text that does not contain individualised reasons — Second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Obligation to state reasons)

6

2023/C 127/08

Case C-393/21, Lufthansa Technik AERO Alzey: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas — Lithuania) — Proceedings brought by Lufthansa Technik AERO Alzey GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 — European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims — Article 23(c) — Stay of enforcement of a judgment certified as a European Enforcement Order — Exceptional circumstances — Concept)

7

2023/C 127/09

Case C-472/21, Monz Handelsgesellschaft International: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Monz Handelsgesellschaft International mbH & Co. KG v Büchel GmbH & Co. Fahrzeugtechnik KG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual property — Design — Directive 98/71/EC — Article 3(3) and (4) — Conditions for obtaining protection for a component part of a complex product — Concepts of visibility and normal use — Visibility of a component part of a complex product during normal use of that product by the end user)

8

2023/C 127/10

Case C-519/21, DGRFP Cluj: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj — Romania) — ASA v DGRFP Cluj (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Construction of a building complex by an association without legal personality — Association contract — Sale of the apartments of that building complex by certain members — Determination of the taxable person liable for the tax — Principle of fiscal neutrality — Right to deduct VAT)

9

2023/C 127/11

Joined Cases C-524/21 and C-525/21, Agenţia Judeţeană de Ocupare a Forţei de Muncă Ilfov and Others: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 February 2023 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti — Romania) — IG v Agenţia Judeţeană de Ocupare a Forţei de Muncă Ilfov (C-524/21), and Agenţia Municipală pentru Ocuparea Forţei de Muncă Bucureşti v IM (C-525/21) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Protection of employees in the event of their employer’s insolvency — Directive 2008/94/EC — Employees’ salary claims borne by guarantee institutions — Limitation of the liability of guarantee institutions to employees’ salary claims relating to the three months prior or subsequent to the date on which insolvency proceedings are opened — Application of a limitation period — Recovery of payments unduly made by the guarantee institution — Conditions)

10

2023/C 127/12

Case C-633/21: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 16 February 2023 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environment — Directive 2008/50/EC — Ambient air quality — Article 13(1) and Annex XI — Systematic and persistent exceedance of the limit values for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) in the agglomeration of Athens (Greece) — Article 23(1) — Annex XV — Exceedance period to be as short as possible — Appropriate measures)

11

2023/C 127/13

Case C-675/21, Strong Charon: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça — Portugal) — Strong Charon, Soluções de Segurança, S.A. v 2045-Empresa de de Segurança, S.A., FL (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Transfers of undertakings — Safeguarding of employees’ rights — Directive 2001/23/EC — Scope — Refusal by the transferee to recognise the transfer of the employment contract — Definition of transfer — Definition of economic unit — Absence of a contractual link between the transferor and the transferee)

12

2023/C 127/14

Case C-710/21, IEF Service: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — IEF Service GmbH v HB (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer — Directive 2008/94/EC — Article 9(1) — Undertaking that has its registered office in one Member State and offers its services in another Member State — Worker whose place of residence is in that other Member State — Work performed in the Member State in which the worker’s employer has its registered office and, one week out of two, in the Member State in which the worker resides — Determining which Member State’s guarantee institution is responsible for meeting outstanding wage claims)

13

2023/C 127/15

Case C-745/21, Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid (Unborn child at the time of the asylum application): Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 16 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag zittingsplaats Zwolle — Netherlands) — L.G. v Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Asylum policy — Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 — Criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection — Article 6(1) — Best interests of the child — Article 16(1) — Dependent person — Article 17(1) — Discretionary clauses — Implementation by a Member State — Third-country national pregnant at the time of lodging her application for international protection — Marriage — Spouse beneficiary of international protection in the Member State concerned — Decision refusing to process the application and to transfer the applicant to another Member State deemed to be responsible for the application)

13

2023/C 127/16

Case C-638/22 PPU, Rzecznik Praw Dziecka and Others (Suspension of the return decision): Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Apelacyjny w Warszawie — Poland) — T.C., Rzecznik Praw Dziecka, Prokurator Generalny (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Area of freedom, security and justice — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and in the matters of parental responsibility — International child abduction — 1980 Hague Convention — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Article 11 — Application for return of a child — Final decision ordering the return of a child — Legislation of a Member State providing for automatic suspension of the enforcement of that decision in the event that a request is made by certain national authorities)

14

2023/C 127/17

Case C-586/22 P: Appeal brought on 6 September 2022 by Gabriel Pombo da Silva against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 27 June 2022 in Case T-292/22, Pombo da Silva v Commission

15

2023/C 127/18

Case C-702/22 P: Appeal brought on 15 November 2022 by Okan Balaban against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 14 September 2022 in Case T-705/21, Okan Balaban v European Union Intellectual Property Office

15

2023/C 127/19

Case C-784/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 30 December 2022 — Solvay Sodi AD v Zamestnik-predsedatel na Darzhavna agentsia Darzhaven rezerv i voennovremenni zapasi

15

2023/C 127/20

Case C-2/23, FL und KM Baugesellschaft and S: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 3 January 2023 — FL und KM Baugesellschaft m.b.H. & Co. KG, S AG

17

2023/C 127/21

Case C-8/23, Conseil national de l’ordre des médecins: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 12 January 2023 — FH v Conseil national de l’ordre des médecins

18

2023/C 127/22

Case C-13/23, cdVet Naturprodukte: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Osnabrück (Germany) lodged on 16 January 2023 — cdVet Naturprodukte GmbH v Niedersächsisches Landesamt für Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit (LA-VES)

19

2023/C 127/23

Case C-22/23, Citadeles nekustamie īpašumi: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā rajona tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 19 January 2023 — SIA Citadeles nekustamie īpašumi v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

19

2023/C 127/24

Case C-41/23, Peigli: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 26 January 2023 — AV, BT, CV, DW v Ministero della Giustizia

20

2023/C 127/25

Case C-46/23, Újpesti Polgármesteri Hivatal: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 31 January 2023 — Budapest Főváros IV. Kerület Újpest Önkormányzat Polgármesteri Hivatala v Nemzeti Adatvédelmi és Információszabadság Hatóság

21

2023/C 127/26

Case C-48/23, Alajärven Sähkö and Others: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Markkinaoikeus (Finland) lodged on 1 February 2023 — Alajärven Sähkö Oy and Others, Elenia Verkko Oyj v Energiavirasto

21

2023/C 127/27

Case C-49/23, 1Dream and Others: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Satversmes tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 1 February 2023 — AZ, 1Dream OÜ, Produktech Engineering AG, BBP, Polaris Consulting Ltd v Latvijas Republikas Saeima

22

2023/C 127/28

Case C-50/23, B.E. and Play Game: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 31 January 2023 — B.E. Srl, Play Game Srl, Coral Srl v Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli

23

2023/C 127/29

Case C-60/23, Digital Charging Solutions: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 6 February 2023 — Skatteverket v Digital Charging Solutions GmbH

23

2023/C 127/30

Case C-71/23 P: Appeal brought on 8 February 2023 by the French Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 23 November 2022 in Joined Cases T-279/20 and T-288/20, CWS Powder Coatings and Others v Commission, and Case T-283/20, Billions Europe and Others v Commission

24

2023/C 127/31

Case C-72/23 P: Appeal brought on 10 February 2023 by Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 14 December 2022 in Case T-182/21, PKK v Council

25

2023/C 127/32

Case C-82/23 P: Appeal brought on 14 February 2023 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 23 November 2022 in joined Cases T-279/20 and T-288/20, CWS Powder Coatings and Others v Commission, and in Case T-283/20, Billions Europe and Others v Commission

26

2023/C 127/33

Case C-95/23 P: Appeal brought on 17 February 2023 by the European Association of Non-Integrated Metal Importers & distributors (Euranimi) against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 8 December 2022 in Case T-769/21, Euranimi v Commission

27

2023/C 127/34

Case C-112/23 P: Appeal brought on 24 February 2023 by PT Pelita Agung Agrindustri, PT Permata Hijau Palm Oleo against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 14 December 2022 in Case T-143/20, PT Pelita Agung Agrindustri and PT Permata Hijau Palm Oleo v Commission

28

2023/C 127/35

Case C-121/23 P: Appeal brought on 28 February 2023 by Swissgrid AG against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 21 December 2022 in Case T-127/21, Swissgrid v Commission

29

General Court

2023/C 127/36

Case T-606/20: Judgment of the General Court of 15 February 2023 — Austrian Power Grid and Others v ACER (Energy — Internal market in electricity — Framework for the European platform for the exchange of balancing energy from frequency restoration reserves with automatic activation — Procedure for the adoption of terms, conditions and methodologies — Rejection of the joint proposal of the system operators — Competence of ACER — Error of law — Rights of the defence — Obligation to state reasons)

30

2023/C 127/37

Case T-607/20: Judgment of the General Court of 15 February 2023 — Austrian Power Grid and Others v ACER (Energy — Internal market in electricity — Framework for the European platform for the exchange of balancing energy from frequency restoration reserves with manual activation — Procedure for the adoption of terms, conditions and methodologies — Rejection of the joint proposal of the system operators — Competence of ACER — Error of law — Rights of the defence — Obligation to state reasons)

31

2023/C 127/38

Case T-742/20: Judgment of the General Court of 15 February 2023 — UPL Europe and Indofil Industries (Netherlands) v Commission (Plant protection products — Active substance mancozeb — Non-renewal of approval — Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 844/2012 — Procedure for assessing the application for renewal of approval of an active substance — Designation of a new rapporteur Member State due to the withdrawal of the previous rapporteur Member State from the European Union — Rights of the defence — Principle of sound administration — Manifest error of assessment — Procedure for harmonised classification and labelling — Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 — Legitimate expectations)

31

2023/C 127/39

Case T-492/21: Judgment of the General Court of 15 February 2023 — Aquind and Others v ACER (Energy — Competence of the ACER — Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union — Error of law — Article 2(1) of Regulation (EU) 2019/943 — Article 92 of the Withdrawal Agreement — Ad hoc exemption regime under Article 308 of and Annex 28 to the Trade and Cooperation Agreement)

32

2023/C 127/40

Case T-536/21: Judgment of the General Court of 15 February 2023 — Belaeronavigatsia v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Belarus — Lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Inclusion and maintenance of the applicant’s name on the lists — Concept of person responsible for repression — Error of assessment — Proportionality)

33

2023/C 127/41

Case T-684/21: Judgment of the General Court of 15 February 2023 — Mostostal v EUIPO — Polimex — Mostostal (MOSTOSTAL) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark MOSTOSTAL — Obligation to state reasons — Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)

34

2023/C 127/42

Case T-741/21: Judgment of the General Court of 15 February 2023 — LG Electronics v EUIPO — ZTE Deutschland (V10) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark V10 — Absolute ground for refusal — Alphanumeric sign — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

34

2023/C 127/43

Case T-8/22: Judgment of the General Court of 15 February 2023 — Topcart v EUIPO — Carl International (TC CARL) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark TC CARL — Earlier national figurative mark carl touch — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

35

2023/C 127/44

Case T-77/22: Judgment of the General Court of 15 February 2023 — Asesores Comunitarios v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to the recovery and resilience plan submitted by a Member State to the Commission — Documents originating from a Member State — Refusal to grant access — Exception relating to the financial, monetary or economic policy of the European Union or of a Member State)

36

2023/C 127/45

Case T-82/22: Judgment of the General Court of 15 February 2023 — Bambu Sales v EUIPO (BAMBU) (EU trade mark — Application for European Union word mark BAMBU — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

36

2023/C 127/46

Case T-204/22: Judgment of the General Court of 15 February 2023 — Rimini Street v EUIPO (OTHER COMPANIES DO SOFTWARE WE DO SUPPORT) (EU trade mark — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark OTHER COMPANIES DO SOFTWARE WE DO SUPPORT — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

37

2023/C 127/47

Case T-260/22: Judgment of the General Court of 15 February 2023 — Freixas Montplet and Others v Committee of the Regions (Civil service — Officials — Promotion — 2021 promotion exercise — Decision not to place the applicant’s name on the list of officials eligible for promotion — Date of assessment of seniority in grade — Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations — Equal treatment)

38

2023/C 127/48

Case T-357/22: Judgment of the General Court of 15 February 2023 — Das Neves v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Disciplinary proceedings — Warning — Article 21 of the Staff Regulations — Rights of the defence — Liability)

38

2023/C 127/49

Case T-266/22: Order of the General Court of 9 February 2023 — Aziz v Commission (Action for annulment — Protection of personal data — Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 — Article 76(d) of the Rules of Procedure — Failure to comply with procedural requirements — Inadmissibility)

39

2023/C 127/50

Case T-286/22: Order of the General Court of 9 February 2023 — Aziz v Commission (Action for annulment — Protection of personal data — Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 — Article 76(d) of the Rules of Procedure — Failure to comply with procedural requirements — Inadmissibility)

39

2023/C 127/51

Case T-428/22: Order of the General Court of 14 February 2023 — Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals (TRiM) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark TRiM — Earlier national word marks RYM — Expiry of the international registration — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)

40

2023/C 127/52

Case T-595/22 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 14 February 2023 — Ferreira de Macedo Silva v Frontex (Interim relief — Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Dismissal before the end of the probationary period — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency)

40

2023/C 127/53

Case T-4/23: Action brought on 6 January 2023 — PS v SEAE

41

2023/C 127/54

Case T-14/23: Action brought on 17 January 2023 — UI v Commission

42

2023/C 127/55

Case T-39/23: Action brought on 2 February 2023 — Acqua & Sole v Commission

43

2023/C 127/56

Case T-40/23: Action brought on 30 January 2023 — Hatherly v EUAA

45

2023/C 127/57

Case T-45/23: Action brought on 6 February 2023 — UG v ERCEA

46

2023/C 127/58

Case T-49/23: Action brought on 16 February 2023 — Angelidis v Parliament

47

2023/C 127/59

Case T-69/23: Action brought on 13 February 2023 — Alan and Others v Commission

47

2023/C 127/60

Case T-70/23: Action brought on 14 February 2023 — Data Protection Commission v European Data Protection Board

49

2023/C 127/61

Case T-75/23: Action brought on 15 February 2023 — RT France v Council

50

2023/C 127/62

Case T-80/23: Action brought on 17 February 2023 — Beauty Biosciences v EUIPO — Société de Recherche Cosmétique (BEAUTYBIO)

51

2023/C 127/63

Case T-81/23: Action brought on 17 February 2023 — Beauty Biosciences v EUIPO — Société de Recherche Cosmétique (BEAUTYBIO SCIENCE)

52

2023/C 127/64

Case T-84/23: Action brought on 17 February 2023 — Data Protection Commission v European Data Protection Board

53

2023/C 127/65

Case T-85/23: Action brought on 20 February 2023 — DGC Switzerland v EUIPO (cyberscan)

53

2023/C 127/66

Case T-88/23: Action brought on 20 February 2023 — Kande Mupompa v Council

54

2023/C 127/67

Case T-89/23: Action brought on 20 February 2023 — Boshab v Council

55

2023/C 127/68

Case T-93/23: Action brought on 21 February 2023 — Court of Auditors v Allianz Insurance Luxembourg

56

2023/C 127/69

Case T-97/23: Action brought on 23 February 2023 — Medela v EUIPO (THE SCIENCE OF CARE)

56

2023/C 127/70

Case T-98/23: Action brought on 23 February 2023 — Atomico Investment v EUIPO — Gomes Tominaga (atomic fund)

57

2023/C 127/71

Case T-101/23: Action brought on 24 February 2023 — Darila v EUIPO — Original Buff (Buffet)

58

2023/C 127/72

Case T-111/23: Action brought on 24 February 2023 — Data Protection Commission v EDPB

58

2023/C 127/73

Case T-113/23: Action brought on 2 March 2023 — Papier-Mettler v EUIPO (Shape of a carrier bag)

59

2023/C 127/74

Case T-114/23: Action brought on 2 March 2023 — Papier-Mettler v EUIPO (Shape of a carrier bag)

60

2023/C 127/75

Case T-653/20: Order of the General Court of 17 February 2023 — Mylan Ireland v EMA

60

---

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 11.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/1

---

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

(2023/C 127/01)

Last publication

OJ C 121, 3.4.2023

Past publications

OJ C 112, 27.3.2023

OJ C 104, 20.3.2023

OJ C 94, 13.3.2023

OJ C 83, 6.3.2023

OJ C 71, 27.2.2023

OJ C 63, 20.2.2023

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 11.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/2

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 February 2023 — European Commission v Italian Republic, Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-623/20 P) (1)

(Appeal - Rules on languages - Notice of open competition for the recruitment of administrators in the field of audit - Knowledge of languages - Restriction of the choice of the second competition language to English, French and German - Language of communication with the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) - Regulation No 1 - Staff Regulations - Article 1d(1) - Difference in treatment based on language - Justification - Interests of the service - Requirement to recruit administrators who are ‘immediately operational’ - Judicial review - Standard of proof required)

(2023/C 127/02)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: and D. Milanowska, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and by P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato), Kingdom of Spain (represented by: L. Aguilera Ruiz and A. Gavela Llopis, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

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

2.

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

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

3.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 28, 25.1.2021.

---

| 11.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/3

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 February 2023 — European Commission v Italian Republic, Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-635/20 P) (1)

(Appeal - Rules on languages - Notice of open competitions for the recruitment of administrators’ functions as investigators and team leaders - Knowledge of languages - Restriction of the choice of the second competition language to English, French and German - Language of communication with the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) - Regulation No 1 - Staff Regulations - Article 1d(1) - Difference in treatment based on language - Justification - Interests of the service - Requirement to recruit administrators who are ‘immediately operational’ - Judicial review - Standard of proof required)

(2023/C 127/03)

Languages of the case: Spanish and Italian

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara, T. Lilamand, D. Milanowska and N. Ruiz García, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: L. Aguilera Ruiz and A. Gavela Llopis, acting as Agents), Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and by P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

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

2.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Kingdom of Spain and the Italian Republic.

---

(1)  OJ C 28, 25.1.2021.

---

| 11.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) -United Kingdom) — Gallaher Limited v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

(Case C-707/20, (1) Gallaher)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Direct taxation - Corporate income tax - Articles 49, 63 and 64 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Free movement of capital - Disposal of assets within a group of companies - Company resident for tax purposes in one Member State having a parent company resident for tax purposes in another Member State and a sister company resident for tax purposes in a third country - Disposal of intellectual property rights of the company resident for tax purposes in a Member State to its sister company resident for tax purposes in a third country - Disposal by the company resident for tax purposes in a Member State of shares in one of its subsidiaries to its parent company resident for tax purposes in another Member State - Consideration equal to the market value of the assets transferred - Exemption from tax or imposition of tax depending on the State in which the beneficiary company has its seat)

(2023/C 127/04)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Gallaher Limited

Defendant: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 63 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that national legislation which applies only to groups of companies does not fall within its scope. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 63 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that national legislation which applies only to groups of companies does not fall within its scope.

| 2. | Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that national legislation which imposes an immediate tax charge on a disposal of assets from a company which is resident for tax purposes in a Member State to a sister company which is resident for tax purposes in a third country and which does not carry on a trade in that Member State through a permanent establishment, where both of those companies are subsidiaries wholly owned by a common parent which is resident for tax purposes in another Member State, does not constitute a restriction on the freedom of establishment, within the meaning of Article 49 TFEU, of that parent company, in circumstances where such a disposal would be made on a tax-neutral basis if the sister company were also resident in the first Member State or carried on a trade there through a permanent establishment. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that national legislation which imposes an immediate tax charge on a disposal of assets from a company which is resident for tax purposes in a Member State to a sister company which is resident for tax purposes in a third country and which does not carry on a trade in that Member State through a permanent establishment, where both of those companies are subsidiaries wholly owned by a common parent which is resident for tax purposes in another Member State, does not constitute a restriction on the freedom of establishment, within the meaning of Article 49 TFEU, of that parent company, in circumstances where such a disposal would be made on a tax-neutral basis if the sister company were also resident in the first Member State or carried on a trade there through a permanent establishment.

| 3. | Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that a restriction of the right to freedom of establishment resulting from the difference in treatment between national and cross-border disposals of assets for consideration within a group of companies under national legislation which imposes an immediate tax charge on a disposal of assets by a company resident for tax purposes in a Member State may, in principle, be justified by the need to maintain a balanced allocation of the power to impose taxes between the Member States, without it being necessary to provide for the possibility of deferring payment of the charge in order to guarantee the proportionality of that restriction, where the taxpayer concerned has obtained, by way of consideration for the disposal of the assets, an amount equal to the full market value of those assets. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that a restriction of the right to freedom of establishment resulting from the difference in treatment between national and cross-border disposals of assets for consideration within a group of companies under national legislation which imposes an immediate tax charge on a disposal of assets by a company resident for tax purposes in a Member State may, in principle, be justified by the need to maintain a balanced allocation of the power to impose taxes between the Member States, without it being necessary to provide for the possibility of deferring payment of the charge in order to guarantee the proportionality of that restriction, where the taxpayer concerned has obtained, by way of consideration for the disposal of the assets, an amount equal to the full market value of those assets.

---

(1)  OJ C 110, 29.3.2021.

---

| 11.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil no 3 de Valencia — Spain) — Tráficos Manuel Ferrer S.L., Ignacio v Daimler AG

(Case C-312/21, (1) Tráficos Manuel Ferrer)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Competition - Compensation for harm caused by a practice prohibited under Article 101(1) TFEU - Decision of the Commission finding the existence of collusive arrangements on pricing and gross price increases for trucks in the European Economic Area (EEA) - National rule of civil procedure under which, in the event that the claim is upheld in part, costs are to be borne by each party, except in cases of wrongful conduct - Procedural autonomy of the Member States - Principles of effectiveness and equivalence - Directive 2014/104/EU - Objectives and overall balance - Article 3 - Right to full compensation for the harm suffered - Article 11(1) - Joint and several liability of the undertakings that infringe competition law - Article 17(1) - Possibility for national courts to estimate the harm - Conditions - Impossibility or unreasonable difficulties in quantifying harm - Article 22 - Temporal application)

(2023/C 127/05)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Mercantil no 3 de Valencia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Tráficos Manuel Ferrer S.L., Ignacio

Defendant: Daimler AG

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 101 TFEU and Article 3(1) and (2) of Directive 2014/104/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 November 2014 on certain rules governing actions for damages under national law for infringements of the competition law provisions of the Member States and of the European Union
  must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude a national rule of civil procedure under which, in the event that the claim is upheld in part, costs are to be borne by each party and each party bears half of the common costs, except in cases of wrongful conduct. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 101 TFEU and Article 3(1) and (2) of Directive 2014/104/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 November 2014 on certain rules governing actions for damages under national law for infringements of the competition law provisions of the Member States and of the European Union

must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude a national rule of civil procedure under which, in the event that the claim is upheld in part, costs are to be borne by each party and each party bears half of the common costs, except in cases of wrongful conduct.

| 2. | Article 17(1) of Directive 2014/104
  must be interpreted as meaning that neither the fact that the defendant in an action falling within the scope of that directive has made available to the claimant the data on which it relied in order to refute the expert report of the latter nor the fact that the claimant has addressed its request to merely one of the infringers are not, in themselves, relevant for the purposes of assessing whether it is permissible for the national courts to undertake an estimation of the harm, that estimation being based on the premiss, first, that the existence of that harm has been established and, second, that it is practically impossible or excessively difficult to quantify it with precision, which involves taking into consideration all the parameters leading to such a finding and, in particular, the unsuccessful nature of steps such as the request to disclose evidence laid down in Article 5 of that directive. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 17(1) of Directive 2014/104

must be interpreted as meaning that neither the fact that the defendant in an action falling within the scope of that directive has made available to the claimant the data on which it relied in order to refute the expert report of the latter nor the fact that the claimant has addressed its request to merely one of the infringers are not, in themselves, relevant for the purposes of assessing whether it is permissible for the national courts to undertake an estimation of the harm, that estimation being based on the premiss, first, that the existence of that harm has been established and, second, that it is practically impossible or excessively difficult to quantify it with precision, which involves taking into consideration all the parameters leading to such a finding and, in particular, the unsuccessful nature of steps such as the request to disclose evidence laid down in Article 5 of that directive.

---

(1)  OJ C 382, 20.9.2021.

---

| 11.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — PV v Zamestnik izpalnitelen direktor na Darzhaven fond ‘Zemedelie’

(Case C-343/21, (1) Zamestnik izpalnitelen direktor na Darzhaven fond ‘Zemedelie’)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common agricultural policy - Support measures for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development - Agri-environmental payments - Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 - Inability of the beneficiaries to continue to comply with the commitments given - Concepts of ‘reparcelling’ and ‘land-consolidation measures’ - Absence of measures necessary to adapt the obligations of the beneficiary to the new situation of the holding - Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 - Concept of ‘force majeure and exceptional circumstances’)

(2023/C 127/06)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven administrativen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: PV

Defendant: Zamestnik izpalnitelen direktor na Darzhaven fond ‘Zemedelie’

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 45(4) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 of 15 December 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD)
  must be interpreted as meaning that it is applicable where a farmer is unable to continue to comply with the agri-environmental commitments which he or she has made for the final year of performance of those commitments and where that inability results directly from a reparcelling operation or a land-consolidation measure affecting the structure of the agricultural holding which is the subject of those commitments, decided upon or approved by a competent public authority. By contrast, that provision is not applicable where that inability results from the disappearance of the right to use part of the area of that holding during the performance of those commitments. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 45(4) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 of 15 December 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD)

must be interpreted as meaning that it is applicable where a farmer is unable to continue to comply with the agri-environmental commitments which he or she has made for the final year of performance of those commitments and where that inability results directly from a reparcelling operation or a land-consolidation measure affecting the structure of the agricultural holding which is the subject of those commitments, decided upon or approved by a competent public authority. By contrast, that provision is not applicable where that inability results from the disappearance of the right to use part of the area of that holding during the performance of those commitments.

| 2. | Article 45(4) of Regulation No 1974/2006
  must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State’s failure to adopt the measures necessary to allow the agri-environmental commitments of a beneficiary to be adapted to the new situation of his or her agricultural holding resulting from a reparcelling or land-consolidation measure, within the meaning of that provision, precludes a requirement for that beneficiary to reimburse the funds received in respect of the period in which those commitments were complied with. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 45(4) of Regulation No 1974/2006

must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State’s failure to adopt the measures necessary to allow the agri-environmental commitments of a beneficiary to be adapted to the new situation of his or her agricultural holding resulting from a reparcelling or land-consolidation measure, within the meaning of that provision, precludes a requirement for that beneficiary to reimburse the funds received in respect of the period in which those commitments were complied with.

| 3. | Article 31 of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003,
  must be interpreted as meaning that, although the fact that a beneficiary is unable to continue to comply with an agri-environmental commitment because of the absence of agreements concluded with other owners or users of agricultural land for the use of that land may, in principle, constitute a case of force majeure, that is the case only if that inability results from abnormal and unforeseeable circumstances outside the control of that beneficiary, the consequences of which, in spite of the exercise of all due care, could not have been avoided, which it is for the referring court to ascertain. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 31 of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003,

must be interpreted as meaning that, although the fact that a beneficiary is unable to continue to comply with an agri-environmental commitment because of the absence of agreements concluded with other owners or users of agricultural land for the use of that land may, in principle, constitute a case of force majeure, that is the case only if that inability results from abnormal and unforeseeable circumstances outside the control of that beneficiary, the consequences of which, in spite of the exercise of all due care, could not have been avoided, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.

---

(1)  OJ C 320, 9.8.2021.

---

| 11.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — HYA, IP, DD, ZI, SS

(Case C-349/21, (1) HYA and Others (Grounds for authorising telephone tapping))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Telecommunications sector - Processing of personal data and the protection of privacy - Directive 2002/58/EC - Article 15(1) - Restriction of the confidentiality of electronic communications - Judicial decision authorising the interception, recording and storage of telephone conversations of persons suspected of having committed a serious intentional offence - Practice whereby the decision is drawn up in accordance with a pre-drafted template text that does not contain individualised reasons - Second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Obligation to state reasons)

(2023/C 127/07)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: HYA, IP, DD, ZI, SS

Other party to the proceedings: Spetsializirana prokuratura

Operative part of the judgment

Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications) read in the light of the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

is to be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude a national practice under which judicial decisions authorising the use of special investigative methods, following a reasoned and detailed application from the criminal authorities, are drawn up by means of a pre-drafted text which does not contain individualised reasons, but which merely states, in addition to the validity period of the authorisation, that the requirements laid down by the legislation to which those decisions refer have been complied with, provided that the precise reasons why the court with jurisdiction considered that the legal requirements had been complied with, in the light of the factual and legal circumstances characterising the case in question, can be easily and unambiguously inferred from a cross-reading of the decision and the application for authorisation, the latter of which must be made accessible, after the authorisation has been given, to the person against whom the use of special investigative methods has been authorised.

---

(1)  OJ C 338, 23.8.2021.

---

| 11.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas — Lithuania) — Proceedings brought by Lufthansa Technik AERO Alzey GmbH

(Case C-393/21, (1) Lufthansa Technik AERO Alzey)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 - European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims - Article 23(c) - Stay of enforcement of a judgment certified as a European Enforcement Order - Exceptional circumstances - Concept)

(2023/C 127/08)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Lufthansa Technik AERO Alzey GmbH

Intervening parties: Arik Air Limited, Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON), antstolis Marekas Petrovskis

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 23(c) of Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims
  must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘exceptional circumstances’ contained in that provision covers a situation in which continued enforcement proceedings in respect of a judgment certified as a European Enforcement Order, where the debtor has challenged that judgment or has brought an application for the rectification or withdrawal of the European Enforcement Order certificate in the Member State of origin, would expose the debtor to a real risk of particularly serious harm, the reparation of which would prove impossible or extremely difficult if that judgment were to be annulled or the European Enforcement Order certificate were to be rectified or withdrawn. That concept does not refer to circumstances connected with the judicial proceedings brought in the Member State of origin against the judgment certified as a European Enforcement Order or against the European Enforcement Order certificate. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 23(c) of Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims

must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘exceptional circumstances’ contained in that provision covers a situation in which continued enforcement proceedings in respect of a judgment certified as a European Enforcement Order, where the debtor has challenged that judgment or has brought an application for the rectification or withdrawal of the European Enforcement Order certificate in the Member State of origin, would expose the debtor to a real risk of particularly serious harm, the reparation of which would prove impossible or extremely difficult if that judgment were to be annulled or the European Enforcement Order certificate were to be rectified or withdrawn. That concept does not refer to circumstances connected with the judicial proceedings brought in the Member State of origin against the judgment certified as a European Enforcement Order or against the European Enforcement Order certificate.

| 2. | Article 23 of Regulation No 805/2004
  must be interpreted as permitting the simultaneous application of the measures limiting the enforcement proceedings and requiring the provision of security laid down in subparagraphs (a) and (b), but not the simultaneous application of either one of those two measures and that staying the enforcement proceedings under subparagraph (c). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 23 of Regulation No 805/2004

must be interpreted as permitting the simultaneous application of the measures limiting the enforcement proceedings and requiring the provision of security laid down in subparagraphs (a) and (b), but not the simultaneous application of either one of those two measures and that staying the enforcement proceedings under subparagraph (c).

| 3. | Article 6(2) of Regulation No 805/2004, read in conjunction with Article 11,
  must be interpreted as meaning that, where the enforceability of a judgment certified as a European Enforcement Order has been suspended in the Member State of origin and the certificate referred to in Article 6(2) has been produced before the court of the Member State of enforcement, that court is required to stay, on the basis of that judgment, the enforcement proceedings initiated in the latter State. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 6(2) of Regulation No 805/2004, read in conjunction with Article 11,

must be interpreted as meaning that, where the enforceability of a judgment certified as a European Enforcement Order has been suspended in the Member State of origin and the certificate referred to in Article 6(2) has been produced before the court of the Member State of enforcement, that court is required to stay, on the basis of that judgment, the enforcement proceedings initiated in the latter State.

---

(1)  OJ C 368, 13.9.2021.

---

| 11.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Monz Handelsgesellschaft International mbH & Co. KG v Büchel GmbH & Co. Fahrzeugtechnik KG

(Case C-472/21, (1) Monz Handelsgesellschaft International)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual property - Design - Directive 98/71/EC - Article 3(3) and (4) - Conditions for obtaining protection for a component part of a complex product - Concepts of ‘visibility’ and ‘normal use’ - Visibility of a component part of a complex product during normal use of that product by the end user)

(2023/C 127/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Monz Handelsgesellschaft International mbH & Co. KG

Respondent: Büchel GmbH & Co. Fahrzeugtechnik KG

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(3) and (4) of Directive 98/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 on the legal protection of designs

must be interpreted as meaning that the requirement of ‘visibility’, laid down in that provision, that is to be met in order for a design applied to or incorporated in a product which constitutes a component part of a complex product to be eligible to benefit from the legal protection of designs, must be assessed in the light of a situation of normal use of that complex product, so that the component part concerned, once it has been incorporated into that product, remains visible during such use. To that end, the visibility of a component part of a complex product during its ‘normal use’ by the end user must be assessed from the perspective of that user as well as from the perspective of an external observer, and that normal use must cover acts performed during the principal use of a complex product as well as acts which must customarily be carried out by the end user in connection with such use, with the exception of maintenance, servicing and repair work.

---

(1)  OJ C 471, 22.11.2021.

---

| 11.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj — Romania) — ASA v DGRFP Cluj

(Case C-519/21, (1) DGRFP Cluj)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Construction of a building complex by an association without legal personality - Association contract - Sale of the apartments of that building complex by certain members - Determination of the taxable person liable for the tax - Principle of fiscal neutrality - Right to deduct VAT)

(2023/C 127/10)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ASA

Defendant: DGRFP Cluj

Joined parties: BP, MB

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Articles 9 and 11 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax
  must be interpreted as meaning that the parties to a contract relating to an association without legal personality, which was not registered with the competent tax authorities before the economic activity concerned commenced, cannot be regarded as ‘taxable persons’ along with the taxable person which is liable for tax on the taxable transaction. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Articles 9 and 11 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax

must be interpreted as meaning that the parties to a contract relating to an association without legal personality, which was not registered with the competent tax authorities before the economic activity concerned commenced, cannot be regarded as ‘taxable persons’ along with the taxable person which is liable for tax on the taxable transaction.

| 2. | Directive 2006/112, the principle of proportionality and the principle of fiscal neutrality
  must be interpreted as meaning that a taxable person, where it does not hold an invoice issued in its name, must be granted the right to deduct the input value added tax paid by another party to an association without legal personality with a view to carrying out that association’s economic activity, even if the taxable person is liable in respect of that activity, where there is no objective evidence that the goods and services at issue in the main proceedings were actually provided as inputs by taxable persons for the purposes of its own transactions subject to value added tax. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Directive 2006/112, the principle of proportionality and the principle of fiscal neutrality

must be interpreted as meaning that a taxable person, where it does not hold an invoice issued in its name, must be granted the right to deduct the input value added tax paid by another party to an association without legal personality with a view to carrying out that association’s economic activity, even if the taxable person is liable in respect of that activity, where there is no objective evidence that the goods and services at issue in the main proceedings were actually provided as inputs by taxable persons for the purposes of its own transactions subject to value added tax.

---

(1)  OJ C 513, 20.12.2021.

---

| 11.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 February 2023 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti — Romania) — IG v Agenţia Judeţeană de Ocupare a Forţei de Muncă Ilfov (C-524/21), and Agenţia Municipală pentru Ocuparea Forţei de Muncă Bucureşti v IM (C-525/21)

(Joined Cases C-524/21 and C-525/21, (1) Agenţia Judeţeană de Ocupare a Forţei de Muncă Ilfov and Others)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Protection of employees in the event of their employer’s insolvency - Directive 2008/94/EC - Employees’ salary claims borne by guarantee institutions - Limitation of the liability of guarantee institutions to employees’ salary claims relating to the three months prior or subsequent to the date on which insolvency proceedings are opened - Application of a limitation period - Recovery of payments unduly made by the guarantee institution - Conditions)

(2023/C 127/11)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Bucureşti

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: IG (C-524/21), Agenţia Municipală pentru Ocuparea Forţei de Muncă Bucureşti (C-525/21)

Defendants: Agenţia Judeţeană de Ocupare a Forţei de Muncă Ilfov (C-524/21), IM (C-525/21)

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 1(1) and Article 2(1) of Directive 2008/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer
  must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which provides that the reference date for determining the period for which employees’ outstanding salary claims are to be met by a guarantee institution is the date on which the collective proceedings based on their employer’s insolvency are opened. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 1(1) and Article 2(1) of Directive 2008/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer

must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which provides that the reference date for determining the period for which employees’ outstanding salary claims are to be met by a guarantee institution is the date on which the collective proceedings based on their employer’s insolvency are opened.

| 2. | The second paragraph of Article 3 and Article 4(2) of Directive 2008/94
  must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which limits the payment of employees’ outstanding salary claims by a guarantee institution to a period of three months falling within a reference period comprising the three months immediately preceding, and the three months immediately following, the date on which the collective insolvency proceedings based on the employer’s insolvency are opened. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The second paragraph of Article 3 and Article 4(2) of Directive 2008/94

must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which limits the payment of employees’ outstanding salary claims by a guarantee institution to a period of three months falling within a reference period comprising the three months immediately preceding, and the three months immediately following, the date on which the collective insolvency proceedings based on the employer’s insolvency are opened.

| 3. | Article 12(a) of Directive 2008/94
  must be interpreted as meaning that rules adopted by a Member State which provide for the recovery from an employee, by a guarantee institution, of the sums paid to such an employee outside the general limitation period, in respect of outstanding salary claims, in the absence of any action or omission attributable to the employee concerned cannot constitute measures necessary to avoid abuses within the meaning of that provision. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 12(a) of Directive 2008/94

must be interpreted as meaning that rules adopted by a Member State which provide for the recovery from an employee, by a guarantee institution, of the sums paid to such an employee outside the general limitation period, in respect of outstanding salary claims, in the absence of any action or omission attributable to the employee concerned cannot constitute measures necessary to avoid abuses within the meaning of that provision.

| 4. | Directive 2008/94, read in the light of the principles of equivalence and effectiveness,
  must be interpreted as precluding the application of tax legislation of a Member State for the purposes of recovering, together with interest and late-payment penalties, from employees, sums unduly paid by a guarantee institution in respect of employees’ outstanding salary claims for periods not included in the reference period laid down in the legislation of that State, referred to in the first and second questions, or claimed outside the general limitation period, where:






  — | the conditions for recovery laid down by that national legislation are less favourable to employees than the conditions for recovering benefits payable under the national provisions falling within the scope of the law on social protection; or |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

Directive 2008/94, read in the light of the principles of equivalence and effectiveness,

must be interpreted as precluding the application of tax legislation of a Member State for the purposes of recovering, together with interest and late-payment penalties, from employees, sums unduly paid by a guarantee institution in respect of employees’ outstanding salary claims for periods not included in the reference period laid down in the legislation of that State, referred to in the first and second questions, or claimed outside the general limitation period, where:

—

the conditions for recovery laid down by that national legislation are less favourable to employees than the conditions for recovering benefits payable under the national provisions falling within the scope of the law on social protection; or

| — | the application of the national legislation at issue makes it impossible or excessively difficult for the employees concerned to claim payment of sums due in respect of outstanding salary claims from the guarantee institution, or the payment of interest and late-payment penalties, provided for by that national legislation, affects the protection granted to employees both by Directive 2008/94 and by the national provisions implementing that directive, in particular by undermining the minimum level of protection provided for in accordance with Article 4(2) of that directive. |
| --- | --- |

—

the application of the national legislation at issue makes it impossible or excessively difficult for the employees concerned to claim payment of sums due in respect of outstanding salary claims from the guarantee institution, or the payment of interest and late-payment penalties, provided for by that national legislation, affects the protection granted to employees both by Directive 2008/94 and by the national provisions implementing that directive, in particular by undermining the minimum level of protection provided for in accordance with Article 4(2) of that directive.

---

(1)  OJ C 513, 20.12.2021.

---

| 11.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 16 February 2023 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-633/21) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Directive 2008/50/EC - Ambient air quality - Article 13(1) and Annex XI - Systematic and persistent exceedance of the limit values for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) in the agglomeration of Athens (Greece) - Article 23(1) - Annex XV - Exceedance period to be ‘as short as possible’ - Appropriate measures)

(2023/C 127/12)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Konstantinidis and M. Noll-Ehlers, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: E. Skandalou, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that:






  — | by systematically and persistently exceeding, from 2010 to 2020 inclusive, the annual limit value for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) in the agglomeration of Athens (EL 0003), the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the combined provisions of Article 13 of, and Annex XI to, Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe, and |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Declares that:

—

by systematically and persistently exceeding, from 2010 to 2020 inclusive, the annual limit value for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) in the agglomeration of Athens (EL 0003), the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the combined provisions of Article 13 of, and Annex XI to, Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe, and

| — | by failing to adopt, as from 11 June 2010, appropriate measures to ensure compliance with the annual limit value for ΝΟ2 in that agglomeration, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 23(1) of Directive 2008/50, read in conjunction with Section A of Annex XV to that directive, and in particular the obligation to ensure that the air quality plans set out appropriate measures so that the exceedance period of that limit value can be kept as short as possible; |
| --- | --- |

—

by failing to adopt, as from 11 June 2010, appropriate measures to ensure compliance with the annual limit value for ΝΟ2 in that agglomeration, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 23(1) of Directive 2008/50, read in conjunction with Section A of Annex XV to that directive, and in particular the obligation to ensure that the air quality plans set out appropriate measures so that the exceedance period of that limit value can be kept as short as possible;

| 2. | Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 513, 20.12.2021.

---

| 11.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça — Portugal) — Strong Charon, Soluções de Segurança, S.A. v 2045-Empresa de de Segurança, S.A., FL

(Case C-675/21, (1) Strong Charon)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Transfers of undertakings - Safeguarding of employees’ rights - Directive 2001/23/EC - Scope - Refusal by the transferee to recognise the transfer of the employment contract - Definition of ‘transfer’ - Definition of ‘economic unit’ - Absence of a contractual link between the transferor and the transferee)

(2023/C 127/13)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal de Justiça

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Strong Charon, Soluções de Segurança, S.A.

Defendant: 2045-Empresa de Segurança, S.A., FL

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses,
  must be interpreted as meaning that the absence of a contractual link between the transferor and the transferee of an undertaking or a business, or part of an undertaking or a business, is irrelevant to establishing the existence of a transfer, for the purposes of that directive. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses,

must be interpreted as meaning that the absence of a contractual link between the transferor and the transferee of an undertaking or a business, or part of an undertaking or a business, is irrelevant to establishing the existence of a transfer, for the purposes of that directive.

| 2. | Article 1(1) of Directive 2001/23 |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 1(1) of Directive 2001/23

| 3. | must be interpreted as meaning that a situation in which a service provider which, in order to meet the needs of one of its customers, had assigned to the latter a team composed of a certain number of workers, and is replaced, by that customer, by a new service provider to supply the same services, and (i) the latter service provider takes on only a very small number of the workers in that team, without those workers having the specific skills and knowledge essential to the performance of those services for that customer, and (ii) the new service provider does not take over such tangible or intangible property as would have been necessary for the continuity of those services, cannot fall within the scope of that directive. |
| --- | --- |

3.

must be interpreted as meaning that a situation in which a service provider which, in order to meet the needs of one of its customers, had assigned to the latter a team composed of a certain number of workers, and is replaced, by that customer, by a new service provider to supply the same services, and (i) the latter service provider takes on only a very small number of the workers in that team, without those workers having the specific skills and knowledge essential to the performance of those services for that customer, and (ii) the new service provider does not take over such tangible or intangible property as would have been necessary for the continuity of those services, cannot fall within the scope of that directive.

---

(1)  OJ C 148, 4.4.2022.

---

| 11.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — IEF Service GmbH v HB

(Case C-710/21, (1) IEF Service)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer - Directive 2008/94/EC - Article 9(1) - Undertaking that has its registered office in one Member State and offers its services in another Member State - Worker whose place of residence is in that other Member State - Work performed in the Member State in which the worker’s employer has its registered office and, one week out of two, in the Member State in which the worker resides - Determining which Member State’s guarantee institution is responsible for meeting outstanding wage claims)

(2023/C 127/14)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: IEF Service GmbH

Defendant: HB

Operative part of the judgment

Article 9(1) of Directive 2008/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer

must be interpreted as meaning that in order to determine which Member State’s guarantee institution is responsible for meeting employees’ outstanding claims, it must be considered that an employer in a state of insolvency does not carry out activities in the territories of at least two Member States, within the meaning of that provision, where the employment contract of the worker in question provides that his or her primary and habitual place of employment is in the territory of the Member State in which the employer has its registered office, but during an equal proportion of his or her working time that worker performs his or her duties remotely from another Member State where his or her main place of residence is situated.

---

(1)  OJ C 165, 19.4.2022.

---

| 11.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 16 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag zittingsplaats Zwolle — Netherlands) — L.G. v Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

(Case C-745/21, (1) Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid (Unborn child at the time of the asylum application))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Asylum policy - Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 - Criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection - Article 6(1) - Best interests of the child - Article 16(1) - Dependent person - Article 17(1) - Discretionary clauses - Implementation by a Member State - Third-country national pregnant at the time of lodging her application for international protection - Marriage - Spouse beneficiary of international protection in the Member State concerned - Decision refusing to process the application and to transfer the applicant to another Member State deemed to be responsible for the application)

(2023/C 127/15)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Den Haag zittingsplaats Zwolle

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: L.G.

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 16(1) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person
  must be interpreted as not applying where there is a dependency link either between an applicant for international protection and that applicant’s spouse who is legally resident in the Member State in which the application for such protection was lodged, or between the unborn child of that applicant and that spouse who is also the father of that child. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 16(1) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person

must be interpreted as not applying where there is a dependency link either between an applicant for international protection and that applicant’s spouse who is legally resident in the Member State in which the application for such protection was lodged, or between the unborn child of that applicant and that spouse who is also the father of that child.

| 2. | Article 17(1) of Directive 604/2013
  must be interpreted as not precluding the legislation of a Member State from requiring the competent national authorities, on the sole ground of the best interests of the child, to examine an application for international protection lodged by a third-country national where she was pregnant at the time her application was lodged, even though the criteria set out in Articles 7 to 15 of that regulation indicate that another Member State is responsible for that application. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 17(1) of Directive 604/2013

must be interpreted as not precluding the legislation of a Member State from requiring the competent national authorities, on the sole ground of the best interests of the child, to examine an application for international protection lodged by a third-country national where she was pregnant at the time her application was lodged, even though the criteria set out in Articles 7 to 15 of that regulation indicate that another Member State is responsible for that application.

---

(1)  OJ C 138, 28.3.2022.

---

| 11.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Apelacyjny w Warszawie — Poland) — T.C., Rzecznik Praw Dziecka, Prokurator Generalny

(Case C-638/22 PPU, (1) Rzecznik Praw Dziecka and Others (Suspension of the return decision))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Area of freedom, security and justice - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and in the matters of parental responsibility - International child abduction - 1980 Hague Convention - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Article 11 - Application for return of a child - Final decision ordering the return of a child - Legislation of a Member State providing for automatic suspension of the enforcement of that decision in the event that a request is made by certain national authorities)

(2023/C 127/16)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Apelacyjny w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: T.C., Rzecznik Praw Dziecka, Prokurator Generalny

Interested parties: M.C., Prokurator Prokuratury Okręgowej we Wrocławiu

Operative part of the judgment

Article 11(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

must be interpreted as precluding a piece of national legislation which confers on authorities that are not courts the power to obtain automatic suspension, for a period of at least two months, of the enforcement of a return decision handed down on the basis of the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, concluded at the Hague on 25 October 1980, without having to provide reasons for their request for suspension.

---

(1)  OJ C 482, 19.12.2022.

---

| 11.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/15

---

Appeal brought on 6 September 2022 by Gabriel Pombo da Silva against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 27 June 2022 in Case T-292/22, Pombo da Silva v Commission

(Case C-586/22 P)

(2023/C 127/17)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Gabriel Pombo da Silva (represented by: M. Chao Dobarro, abogado)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

By order of 17 February 2023, the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as manifestly unfounded and ordered the appellant to bear his own costs.

---

| 11.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/15

---

Appeal brought on 15 November 2022 by Okan Balaban against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 14 September 2022 in Case T-705/21, Okan Balaban v European Union Intellectual Property Office

(Case C-702/22 P)

(2023/C 127/18)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Okan Balaban (represented by T. Schaaf, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 1 February 2023, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) decided that the appeal should not be allowed to proceed and ordered the appellant to bear his own costs.

---

| 11.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/15

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 30 December 2022 — Solvay Sodi AD v Zamestnik-predsedatel na Darzhavna agentsia ‘Darzhaven rezerv i voennovremenni zapasi’

(Case C-784/22)

(2023/C 127/19)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Varna

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Solvay Sodi AD

Defendant: Zamestnik-predsedatel na Darzhavna agentsia ‘Darzhaven rezerv i voennovremenni zapasi’

Questions referred

| 1) | In a case such as that in the main proceedings, in which a Member State opts to impose stockholding obligations on economic operators in order to comply with its obligation under Article 3 of Directive 2009/119, (1) must the concept of ‘economic operator’ in Article 8 of Directive 2009/119 be interpreted as including a company established in the national territory which, during the preceding calendar year, imported one of the energy products listed in Chapter 3.4 of Annex A to Regulation (EC) No 1099/2008 (2)
  (in the present case: petroleum coke) into the territory of the Member State, if it uses that energy product solely as a fuel and not as a raw material for manufacturing petroleum products and does not offer it for sale on the market for crude oil and petroleum products? |
| --- | --- |

1)

In a case such as that in the main proceedings, in which a Member State opts to impose stockholding obligations on economic operators in order to comply with its obligation under Article 3 of Directive 2009/119, (1) must the concept of ‘economic operator’ in Article 8 of Directive 2009/119 be interpreted as including a company established in the national territory which, during the preceding calendar year, imported one of the energy products listed in Chapter 3.4 of Annex A to Regulation (EC) No 1099/2008 (2)
  (in the present case: petroleum coke) into the territory of the Member State, if it uses that energy product solely as a fuel and not as a raw material for manufacturing petroleum products and does not offer it for sale on the market for crude oil and petroleum products?

| 2) | What circumstances must a Member State take into account in its legislation when determining the status of a person as an ‘economic operator’ which is subject to the stockholding obligations? In determining what constitutes an ‘economic operator’ within the meaning of Article 8 of Directive 2009/119, must the Member State take into account, in particular, the economic activity of a company in the sense that it must include the importation, trade or use of the petroleum product concerned in order for it to be possible to oblige the company to maintain emergency stocks of that product? |
| --- | --- |

2)

What circumstances must a Member State take into account in its legislation when determining the status of a person as an ‘economic operator’ which is subject to the stockholding obligations? In determining what constitutes an ‘economic operator’ within the meaning of Article 8 of Directive 2009/119, must the Member State take into account, in particular, the economic activity of a company in the sense that it must include the importation, trade or use of the petroleum product concerned in order for it to be possible to oblige the company to maintain emergency stocks of that product?

| 3) | In a case such as that in the main proceedings — in which a Member State expressly limits, by means of a statutory provision (Article 2(1) of the Zakon za zapasite ot neft i neftoprodukti (Law on stocks of crude oil and petroleum products; ‘the ZZNN’)), the types of petroleum products to be stocked, maintained, replaced, used, replenished and inspected to the following four categories: 1. motor gasoline; 2. gas oils, kerosene-type jet fuels and diesel fuel; 3. heavy fuel oil; 4. liquefied petroleum gas — is it permissible for that Member State, in determining the group of economic operators which are required to maintain stocks and in determining the quantities of stocks which those economic operators are required to maintain, also to include importers of (all the) other petroleum products referred to in Chapter 3.4 of Annex A to Regulation (EC) No 1099/2008? |
| --- | --- |

3)

In a case such as that in the main proceedings — in which a Member State expressly limits, by means of a statutory provision (Article 2(1) of the Zakon za zapasite ot neft i neftoprodukti (Law on stocks of crude oil and petroleum products; ‘the ZZNN’)), the types of petroleum products to be stocked, maintained, replaced, used, replenished and inspected to the following four categories: 1. motor gasoline; 2. gas oils, kerosene-type jet fuels and diesel fuel; 3. heavy fuel oil; 4. liquefied petroleum gas — is it permissible for that Member State, in determining the group of economic operators which are required to maintain stocks and in determining the quantities of stocks which those economic operators are required to maintain, also to include importers of (all the) other petroleum products referred to in Chapter 3.4 of Annex A to Regulation (EC) No 1099/2008?

| 4) | Is national legislation compatible with the objective of Directive 2009/119 referred to in Article 1 and recitals 3, 17 and 33 of that directive and with Article 20(1) of that directive (under which Member States are required to ensure that some or all of their emergency stocks can be released quickly, effectively and transparently) and with Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘freedom to conduct a business’) where, under that national legislation, an economic operator which does not import, buy, sell, use for processing purposes or otherwise use in its own production processes a particular petroleum product of which the Member State wishes to maintain emergency stocks in order to comply with its obligation under Article 3 of Directive 2009/119 (in the present case: heavy fuel oil) is obliged to establish stocks of that very petroleum product (heavy fuel oil), whereby, in order to comply with its obligation, the economic operator must operate on a market for petroleum products (in the present case: for heavy fuel oils) which is alien to its economic activity and must establish stocks of products for which it has no use and which it does not use for its activities? |
| --- | --- |

4)

Is national legislation compatible with the objective of Directive 2009/119 referred to in Article 1 and recitals 3, 17 and 33 of that directive and with Article 20(1) of that directive (under which Member States are required to ensure that some or all of their emergency stocks can be released quickly, effectively and transparently) and with Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘freedom to conduct a business’) where, under that national legislation, an economic operator which does not import, buy, sell, use for processing purposes or otherwise use in its own production processes a particular petroleum product of which the Member State wishes to maintain emergency stocks in order to comply with its obligation under Article 3 of Directive 2009/119 (in the present case: heavy fuel oil) is obliged to establish stocks of that very petroleum product (heavy fuel oil), whereby, in order to comply with its obligation, the economic operator must operate on a market for petroleum products (in the present case: for heavy fuel oils) which is alien to its economic activity and must establish stocks of products for which it has no use and which it does not use for its activities?

| 5) | Is national legislation such as that at issue in the present case compatible with the fundamental freedom of free movement of goods under EU law, and in particular with Articles 30 and 34 TFEU, where it imposes on persons who import energy products other than liquid fuels (in the present case: petroleum coke) onto the Bulgarian market the obligation to establish and maintain emergency stocks of petroleum products (liquid fuels such as fuel oil/heavy fuel oil, gasoline, gas/diesel oil) which are not the object of their economic activity (which they neither import nor process nor trade in), for which they have no storage capacity and which, in order to fulfil their stockholding obligations, they must borrow or purchase from other private undertakings operating in the oil industry, with the result that they are required to enter and operate on the market for petroleum products[?] |
| --- | --- |

5)

Is national legislation such as that at issue in the present case compatible with the fundamental freedom of free movement of goods under EU law, and in particular with Articles 30 and 34 TFEU, where it imposes on persons who import energy products other than liquid fuels (in the present case: petroleum coke) onto the Bulgarian market the obligation to establish and maintain emergency stocks of petroleum products (liquid fuels such as fuel oil/heavy fuel oil, gasoline, gas/diesel oil) which are not the object of their economic activity (which they neither import nor process nor trade in), for which they have no storage capacity and which, in order to fulfil their stockholding obligations, they must borrow or purchase from other private undertakings operating in the oil industry, with the result that they are required to enter and operate on the market for petroleum products[?]

| 6) | Is the principle of proportionality respected and, in particular, is the necessary balance between the public interest and the individual interest achieved where an economic operator which does not import, purchase, sell, process or otherwise use for its production processes the petroleum product designated in respect of that economic operator (in the present case: heavy fuel oil) is subject to the obligation to establish and maintain emergency stocks of that petroleum product in a substantial quantity which exceeds the Member State’s average annual consumption of that product (heavy fuel oil) and, in order to comply with that obligation, the economic operator is required to incur substantial expenditure which jeopardises its economic and financial stability and exposes it to a significant risk of enforcement proceedings against its assets? |
| --- | --- |

6)

Is the principle of proportionality respected and, in particular, is the necessary balance between the public interest and the individual interest achieved where an economic operator which does not import, purchase, sell, process or otherwise use for its production processes the petroleum product designated in respect of that economic operator (in the present case: heavy fuel oil) is subject to the obligation to establish and maintain emergency stocks of that petroleum product in a substantial quantity which exceeds the Member State’s average annual consumption of that product (heavy fuel oil) and, in order to comply with that obligation, the economic operator is required to incur substantial expenditure which jeopardises its economic and financial stability and exposes it to a significant risk of enforcement proceedings against its assets?

| 7) | Is national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings compatible with Article 1 of Directive 2009/119, in conjunction with Article 2(i) and (j), Article 3(1) and Article 20(1), (3) and (5) thereof, where it provides that emergency stocks are to be established in respect only of certain liquid petroleum products (gasoline, kerosene, gas/diesel oil, fuel oil and liquefied petroleum gas), but economic operators are also obliged to establish and maintain such stocks where they use other types of energy products within the meaning of Chapter 3.4 of Annex A to Regulation (EC) No 1099/2008 by way of importation or intra-Community acquisition (in the present case: petroleum coke), with the result that those economic operators are obliged to hold stocks of the types of product referred to in the national law but would have no possibility in the future of using those emergency stocks because they do not use the energy products concerned? |
| --- | --- |

7)

Is national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings compatible with Article 1 of Directive 2009/119, in conjunction with Article 2(i) and (j), Article 3(1) and Article 20(1), (3) and (5) thereof, where it provides that emergency stocks are to be established in respect only of certain liquid petroleum products (gasoline, kerosene, gas/diesel oil, fuel oil and liquefied petroleum gas), but economic operators are also obliged to establish and maintain such stocks where they use other types of energy products within the meaning of Chapter 3.4 of Annex A to Regulation (EC) No 1099/2008 by way of importation or intra-Community acquisition (in the present case: petroleum coke), with the result that those economic operators are obliged to hold stocks of the types of product referred to in the national law but would have no possibility in the future of using those emergency stocks because they do not use the energy products concerned?

| 8) | Is a system of penalties for breaches of the national rules on the obligation to establish emergency stocks which provides that economic operators which breach the obligation to establish emergency stocks are to be subject to a fine in a significant amount per tonne of the quantities to be stocked which are the subject of the breach, before a court has ruled on the lawfulness of the administrative act imposing the obligation to maintain emergency stocks, consistent with the principles of effectiveness, proportionality and dissuasiveness in accordance with recital 11 and Article 21 of Directive 2009/119?
  Is a Member State required to provide, in its national system of penalties, for the duty of the competent authority to examine each separate breach individually and, in determining the amount of the specific fine, to take into account all the facts and circumstances relevant to the breach and the possible consequences of the breach in the light of the objective of the law, including the circumstance that the failure to comply with the obligation to establish and maintain emergency stocks is due to the fact that the Member State does not have the storage capacity needed to stock the stipulated quantities of the product concerned (heavy fuel oil) and that, in order to comply with the obligation imposed on it, the economic operator is required to incur substantial expenditure which jeopardises its financial stability and exposes it to the risk of enforcement proceedings? |
| --- | --- |

8)

Is a system of penalties for breaches of the national rules on the obligation to establish emergency stocks which provides that economic operators which breach the obligation to establish emergency stocks are to be subject to a fine in a significant amount per tonne of the quantities to be stocked which are the subject of the breach, before a court has ruled on the lawfulness of the administrative act imposing the obligation to maintain emergency stocks, consistent with the principles of effectiveness, proportionality and dissuasiveness in accordance with recital 11 and Article 21 of Directive 2009/119?

Is a Member State required to provide, in its national system of penalties, for the duty of the competent authority to examine each separate breach individually and, in determining the amount of the specific fine, to take into account all the facts and circumstances relevant to the breach and the possible consequences of the breach in the light of the objective of the law, including the circumstance that the failure to comply with the obligation to establish and maintain emergency stocks is due to the fact that the Member State does not have the storage capacity needed to stock the stipulated quantities of the product concerned (heavy fuel oil) and that, in order to comply with the obligation imposed on it, the economic operator is required to incur substantial expenditure which jeopardises its financial stability and exposes it to the risk of enforcement proceedings?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2009/119/EC of 14 September 2009 imposing an obligation on Member States to maintain minimum stocks of crude oil and/or petroleum products (OJ 2009 L 265, p. 9).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 1099/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on energy statistics (OJ 2008 L 304, p. 1).

---

| 11.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/17

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 3 January 2023 — FL und KM Baugesellschaft m.b.H. & Co. KG, S AG

(Case C-2/23, FL und KM Baugesellschaft and S)

(2023/C 127/20)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Wien

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: FL und KM Baugesellschaft m.b.H. & Co. KG, S AG

Other party: Zentrale Staatsanwaltschaft zur Verfolgung von Wirtschaftsstrafsachen und Korruption

Questions referred

Question 1:

Are the provisions of EU competition law — in particular Directive 2014/104/EU (1) and Article 6(6) and (7) and Article 7(1) thereof, as well as Directive 2019/1/EU (2) and Article 31(3) thereof — to be interpreted as meaning that the protection laid down therein of leniency statements and settlement submissions and information obtained from them has absolute effect, applying also to prosecution authorities (public prosecutors and criminal courts), so that leniency statements and settlement submissions may not be added to the file in criminal proceedings and used as the basis for further enquiries?

Question 2:

Are the provisions of EU competition law — in particular Directive 2014/104 and Article 6(6) and (7) and Article 7(1) thereof, as well as Directive 2019/1 and Article 31(3) thereof — to be interpreted as meaning that the absolute protection of leniency statements and settlement submissions (within the meaning of Question 1) also covers documents and information obtained therefrom which the person lodging a leniency statement or settlement submission has presented in order to explain, specify in detail and prove the content of the leniency statement or settlement submission?

Question 3:

Are the provisions of EU competition law — in particular Directive 2014/104 and Article 6(6) and (7) and Article 7(1) thereof, as well as Directive 2019/1 and Article 31(3) thereof — to be interpreted as meaning that the protection laid down therein of leniency statements, settlement submissions (and documents within the meaning of Question 2) and information obtained therefrom has absolute effect, applying in criminal proceedings, on the one hand, also against accused persons who are not the authors of the respective leniency statement or settlement submission and, on the other hand, against other participants in the criminal proceedings (in particular injured parties asserting claims under civil law), so that accused persons and injured parties are not to be permitted to inspect leniency statements, settlement submissions and the documents presented in that connection and information obtained therefrom?

---

(1)  Directive 2014/104/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 November 2014 on certain rules governing actions for damages under national law for infringements of the competition law provisions of the Member States and of the European Union (OJ 2014 L 349, p. 1).

(2)  Directive (EU) 2019/1 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 to empower the competition authorities of the Member States to be more effective enforcers and to ensure the proper functioning of the internal market (OJ 2019 L 11, p. 3).

---

| 11.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/18

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 12 January 2023 — FH v Conseil national de l’ordre des médecins

(Case C-8/23, Conseil national de l’ordre des médecins)

(2023/C 127/21)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: FH

Defendant: Conseil national de l’ordre des médecins

Other parties to the proceedings: Ministère de la Santé et de la Prévention, Ministère de l'Économie, des Finances et de la Souveraineté industrielle et numérique

Question referred

May a doctor who is a national of one of the Member States of the European Union and who holds evidence of a formal qualification as a specialised doctor issued in a Member State as referred to in point 5.1.2 of Annex V to Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, (1) rely, in another Member State, on the basis of that qualification alone, on the system for the automatic recognition of formal qualifications set out in Article 21 of that directive, even though he or she holds evidence of a formal qualification in basic medical training issued by a third State which has been recognised only by the Member State in which he or she obtained the diploma as a specialised doctor and which is not among those referred to in point 5.1.1 of Annex V to that directive, and Article 25(4) of the directive makes the issuance of evidence of a formal qualification as a specialised doctor contingent on possession of evidence of one of those formal qualifications in basic medical training?

---

(1)  OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22.

---

| 11.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/19

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Osnabrück (Germany) lodged on 16 January 2023 — cdVet Naturprodukte GmbH v Niedersächsisches Landesamt für Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit (LA-VES)

(Case C-13/23, cdVet Naturprodukte)

(2023/C 127/22)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Osnabrück

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: cdVet Naturprodukte GmbH

Defendant: Niedersächsisches Landesamt für Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit (LA-VES)

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, (1) in particular Article 3(1)(a), Article 4(1), Article 7(1) and Article 10(1)(a), (2) and (5) thereof, which provide that, in the case where no authorisation has been granted, a blanket ban on placing on the market, using and processing feed additives is to be ordered, with no account taken of the circumstances of the particular case in question, compatible with the principle of proportionality enshrined in Article 52(1) of the Charter [of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’)], in the light of the freedom to conduct a business protected by Article 16 of the Charter and the right to property provided for in Article 17(1) of the Charter? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, (1) in particular Article 3(1)(a), Article 4(1), Article 7(1) and Article 10(1)(a), (2) and (5) thereof, which provide that, in the case where no authorisation has been granted, a blanket ban on placing on the market, using and processing feed additives is to be ordered, with no account taken of the circumstances of the particular case in question, compatible with the principle of proportionality enshrined in Article 52(1) of the Charter [of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’)], in the light of the freedom to conduct a business protected by Article 16 of the Charter and the right to property provided for in Article 17(1) of the Charter?

| 2. | In the event that the Court answers the first question in the affirmative, with the result that Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, in particular Article 3(1)(a), Article 4(1), Article 7(1) and Article 10(1)(a), (2) and (5) thereof, is to be interpreted without restriction, does the extract used by the applicant as a feed additive, which, according to the distributor’s product specification sheet, is produced from grapefruit seeds and grapefruit peel and is described in that sheet as grapefruit seed extract (more specifically, grapefruit seed extract S), (also) constitute (in any event) the substance listed in Article 2, point 3, of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2021/758, (2) in conjunction with Part 1 of Chapter I.A of Annex I thereto, as ‘Grapefruit extract CoE 140’? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the event that the Court answers the first question in the affirmative, with the result that Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, in particular Article 3(1)(a), Article 4(1), Article 7(1) and Article 10(1)(a), (2) and (5) thereof, is to be interpreted without restriction, does the extract used by the applicant as a feed additive, which, according to the distributor’s product specification sheet, is produced from grapefruit seeds and grapefruit peel and is described in that sheet as grapefruit seed extract (more specifically, grapefruit seed extract S), (also) constitute (in any event) the substance listed in Article 2, point 3, of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2021/758, (2) in conjunction with Part 1 of Chapter I.A of Annex I thereto, as ‘Grapefruit extract CoE 140’?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition (OJ 2003 L 268, p. 29).

(2)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/758 of 7 May 2021 on the status of certain products as feed additives within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council and on the withdrawal from the market of certain feed additives (OJ 2021 L 162, p. 5).

---

| 11.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/19

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā rajona tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 19 January 2023 — SIA Citadeles nekustamie īpašumi v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

(Case C-22/23, Citadeles nekustamie īpašumi)

(2023/C 127/23)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Administratīvā rajona tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SIA Citadeles nekustamie īpašumi

Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the concept of ‘company service provider’ set out in Article [3](7)(c) of Directive 2015/849 (1) to be interpreted as referring to a discrete service which does not arise from a transaction involving the letting of self-owned real estate and is not linked to such a transaction, irrespective of whether or not the [lessor] has consented to the lessee registering its registered office at the leased property and carrying out transactions there? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the concept of ‘company service provider’ set out in Article [3](7)(c) of Directive 2015/849 (1) to be interpreted as referring to a discrete service which does not arise from a transaction involving the letting of self-owned real estate and is not linked to such a transaction, irrespective of whether or not the [lessor] has consented to the lessee registering its registered office at the leased property and carrying out transactions there?

| 2. | If the answer to the first question is in the negative, is the concept of ‘company service provider’ set out in Article [3](7)(c) of Directive 2015/849 to be interpreted as meaning that, where a natural person lets a property, that person should be subject to the same requirements as a legal person or legal arrangement, regardless of the factual circumstances, for example, the number of properties which the natural person owns and lets, whether the letting of the property is unrelated to the business, or other circumstances? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the first question is in the negative, is the concept of ‘company service provider’ set out in Article [3](7)(c) of Directive 2015/849 to be interpreted as meaning that, where a natural person lets a property, that person should be subject to the same requirements as a legal person or legal arrangement, regardless of the factual circumstances, for example, the number of properties which the natural person owns and lets, whether the letting of the property is unrelated to the business, or other circumstances?

---

(1)  Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Directive 2006/70/EC (OJ 2015 L 141, p. 73).

---

| 11.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/20

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 26 January 2023 — AV, BT, CV, DW v Ministero della Giustizia

(Case C-41/23, Peigli (1))

(2023/C 127/24)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: AV, BT, CV, DW

Defendant: Ministero della Giustizia

Questions referred

| 1. | Should Article 7 of Directive 2003/88 (2) and Clause 4 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work be interpreted as precluding national legislation which does not provide, in respect of giudici onorari di Tribunale (lay district court judges) and vice procuratori onorari della Repubblica (lay deputy public prosecutors), any entitlement to remuneration during the non-working holiday period, or to compulsory social security and insurance protection against workplace accidents and illnesses? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Should Article 7 of Directive 2003/88 (2) and Clause 4 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work be interpreted as precluding national legislation which does not provide, in respect of giudici onorari di Tribunale (lay district court judges) and vice procuratori onorari della Repubblica (lay deputy public prosecutors), any entitlement to remuneration during the non-working holiday period, or to compulsory social security and insurance protection against workplace accidents and illnesses?

| 2. | Should Clause 5 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which the fixed-term employment relationship of giudici onorari (lay judges) — which can be classified as a service relationship and not as an employment relationship with a public authority, and which is based on an initial appointment and a single subsequent reappointment — may be extended several times by means of laws at State level, in the absence of effective and dissuasive penalties and without the possibility of transforming those relationships into employment contracts of indefinite duration with a public authority, in a factual situation which could have produced compensatory favourable legal effects for the individuals concerned, as their appointments have been extended in an essentially automatic manner for a further period of time? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Should Clause 5 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which the fixed-term employment relationship of giudici onorari (lay judges) — which can be classified as a service relationship and not as an employment relationship with a public authority, and which is based on an initial appointment and a single subsequent reappointment — may be extended several times by means of laws at State level, in the absence of effective and dissuasive penalties and without the possibility of transforming those relationships into employment contracts of indefinite duration with a public authority, in a factual situation which could have produced compensatory favourable legal effects for the individuals concerned, as their appointments have been extended in an essentially automatic manner for a further period of time?

---

(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 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9).

---

| 11.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/21

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 31 January 2023 — Budapest Főváros IV. Kerület Újpest Önkormányzat Polgármesteri Hivatala v Nemzeti Adatvédelmi és Információszabadság Hatóság

(Case C-46/23, Újpesti Polgármesteri Hivatal)

(2023/C 127/25)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Budapest Főváros IV. Kerület Újpest Önkormányzat Polgármesteri Hivatala

Defendant: Nemzeti Adatvédelmi és Információszabadság Hatóság

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 58(2), in particular subparagraphs (c), (d) and (g), of the General Data Protection Regulation (1) (‘GDPR’) be interpreted as meaning that the national supervisory authority, in exercise of its corrective powers, may order the data controller or processor to erase unlawfully processed personal data even in the absence of an express request by the data subject under Article 17(1) of the GDPR? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 58(2), in particular subparagraphs (c), (d) and (g), of the General Data Protection Regulation (1) (‘GDPR’) be interpreted as meaning that the national supervisory authority, in exercise of its corrective powers, may order the data controller or processor to erase unlawfully processed personal data even in the absence of an express request by the data subject under Article 17(1) of the GDPR?

| 2. | In the event that the answer to the first question is that the supervisory authority may order the data controller or processor to erase unlawfully processed personal data even in the absence of a request by the data subject, is that so irrespective of whether or not the personal data were obtained from the data subject? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the event that the answer to the first question is that the supervisory authority may order the data controller or processor to erase unlawfully processed personal data even in the absence of a request by the data subject, is that so irrespective of whether or not the personal data were obtained from the data subject?

---

(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).

---

| 11.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/21

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Markkinaoikeus (Finland) lodged on 1 February 2023 — Alajärven Sähkö Oy and Others, Elenia Verkko Oyj v Energiavirasto

(Case C-48/23, Alajärven Sähkö and Others)

(2023/C 127/26)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Markkinaoikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Alajärven Sähkö Oy and Others, Elenia Verkko Oyj

Defendant: Energiavirasto

Questions referred

| 1. | What factors must be taken into account and considered in assessing what constitutes interference with the core regulatory duties and powers of the national regulatory authority in a way that undermines the independence of the national regulatory authority in accordance with Article 57(4) and (5) of the Electricity Directive, (1) and what constitutes general guidelines not related to the regulatory duties and powers within the meaning of Article 59 of the Electricity Directive? |
| --- | --- |

1.

What factors must be taken into account and considered in assessing what constitutes interference with the core regulatory duties and powers of the national regulatory authority in a way that undermines the independence of the national regulatory authority in accordance with Article 57(4) and (5) of the Electricity Directive, (1) and what constitutes general guidelines not related to the regulatory duties and powers within the meaning of Article 59 of the Electricity Directive?

| 2. | Is an amendment to national legislation in the manner described above (paragraphs 13, 14, 16 and 17 and, in particular, paragraphs 36 to 41 of this request for a preliminary ruling), the purpose of which was to influence electricity distribution prices in the manner set out in the travaux préparatoires relating to the legislative amendment by making amendments to the national Law on the electricity market which affect the regulatory environment of system operators and which did not, in themselves, directly interfere with transmission or distribution tariffs or with the methods for calculating them, but as a consequence of which the national regulatory authority was forced to change its monitoring methods in the middle of the monitoring period, considered to be compatible with Article 57(4) and (5) of the Electricity Directive with regard to the requirement of independence of the regulatory authority? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is an amendment to national legislation in the manner described above (paragraphs 13, 14, 16 and 17 and, in particular, paragraphs 36 to 41 of this request for a preliminary ruling), the purpose of which was to influence electricity distribution prices in the manner set out in the travaux préparatoires relating to the legislative amendment by making amendments to the national Law on the electricity market which affect the regulatory environment of system operators and which did not, in themselves, directly interfere with transmission or distribution tariffs or with the methods for calculating them, but as a consequence of which the national regulatory authority was forced to change its monitoring methods in the middle of the monitoring period, considered to be compatible with Article 57(4) and (5) of the Electricity Directive with regard to the requirement of independence of the regulatory authority?

---

(1)  Directive (EU) 2019/944 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019 on common rules for the internal market for electricity and amending Directive 2012/27/EU (OJ 2019 L 158, p. 125).

---

| 11.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/22

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Satversmes tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 1 February 2023 — AZ, 1Dream OÜ, Produktech Engineering AG, BBP, Polaris Consulting Ltd v Latvijas Republikas Saeima

(Case C-49/23, 1Dream and Others)

(2023/C 127/27)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Satversmes tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: AZ, 1Dream OÜ, Produktech Engineering AG, BBP, Polaris Consulting Ltd

Respondent: Latvijas Republikas Saeima

Questions referred

| 1. | Does national legislation pursuant to which a national court rules on the confiscation of the proceeds of crime in separate proceedings relating to the illegally obtained assets, which are separated from the main criminal proceedings before it is established that a criminal offence has been committed and before anyone has been found guilty of the offence concerned, which also provides for confiscation based on materials taken from the criminal case file, fall within the scope of Directive 2014/42, (1) in particular Article 4 thereof, and of Framework Decision 2005/212, (2) in particular Article 2 thereof? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does national legislation pursuant to which a national court rules on the confiscation of the proceeds of crime in separate proceedings relating to the illegally obtained assets, which are separated from the main criminal proceedings before it is established that a criminal offence has been committed and before anyone has been found guilty of the offence concerned, which also provides for confiscation based on materials taken from the criminal case file, fall within the scope of Directive 2014/42, (1) in particular Article 4 thereof, and of Framework Decision 2005/212, (2) in particular Article 2 thereof?

| 2. | If the first question is answered in the affirmative, must the concept of ‘confiscation order’ within the meaning of Directive 2014/42, and in particular the second sentence of Article 8(6) thereof, be found to include not only the judicial decisions declaring that assets have been obtained illegally and ordering their confiscation but also judicial decisions discontinuing proceedings relating to the illegally obtained assets? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the first question is answered in the affirmative, must the concept of ‘confiscation order’ within the meaning of Directive 2014/42, and in particular the second sentence of Article 8(6) thereof, be found to include not only the judicial decisions declaring that assets have been obtained illegally and ordering their confiscation but also judicial decisions discontinuing proceedings relating to the illegally obtained assets?

| 3. | If the second question is answered in the negative, is legislation compatible with Article 47 of the Charter and with the second sentence of Article 8(6) of Directive 2014/42 in so far as it provides no right for persons connected to the assets to challenge confiscation orders? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the second question is answered in the negative, is legislation compatible with Article 47 of the Charter and with the second sentence of Article 8(6) of Directive 2014/42 in so far as it provides no right for persons connected to the assets to challenge confiscation orders?

| 4. | Is the principle of the primacy of European Union law to be interpreted as precluding the constitutional court of a Member State, which is seised of an action for a declaration of unconstitutionality brought against national legislation which has been held to be incompatible with European Union law, from ruling that the principle of legal certainty is applicable and that the legal effects of that legislation are to be maintained temporarily until the time set in the decision of that court as the point at which the provision at issue will cease to have effect? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is the principle of the primacy of European Union law to be interpreted as precluding the constitutional court of a Member State, which is seised of an action for a declaration of unconstitutionality brought against national legislation which has been held to be incompatible with European Union law, from ruling that the principle of legal certainty is applicable and that the legal effects of that legislation are to be maintained temporarily until the time set in the decision of that court as the point at which the provision at issue will cease to have effect?

---

(1)  Directive 2014/42/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the freezing and confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime in the European Union (OJ 2014 L 127, p. 39).

(2)  Council Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA of 24 February 2005 on Confiscation of Crime-Related Proceeds, Instrumentalities and Property (OJ 2005 L 68, p. 49).

---

| 11.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/23

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 31 January 2023 — B.E. Srl, Play Game Srl, Coral Srl v Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli

(Case C-50/23, B.E. and Play Game)

(2023/C 127/28)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: B.E. Srl, Play Game Srl, Coral Srl

Respondents: Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli

Questions referred

| (1) | Does the aforementioned national legislation infringe the European freedom of establishment and the freedom to conduct a business in so far as: (i) it entails an increase in the fee irrespective of the size of the business; (ii) it imposes the acceptance of the extension and of the aforementioned fee increase, exacerbated by the prohibition on transferring the premises, as an unreasonable condition for participating in subsequent tenders which are also indefinitely postponed? |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Does the aforementioned national legislation infringe the European freedom of establishment and the freedom to conduct a business in so far as: (i) it entails an increase in the fee irrespective of the size of the business; (ii) it imposes the acceptance of the extension and of the aforementioned fee increase, exacerbated by the prohibition on transferring the premises, as an unreasonable condition for participating in subsequent tenders which are also indefinitely postponed?

| (2) | If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, can that restriction be regarded as justified by the alleged existence of an overriding reason in the public interest, namely the need to align the timing of the launch of tender procedures? |
| --- | --- |

(2)

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, can that restriction be regarded as justified by the alleged existence of an overriding reason in the public interest, namely the need to align the timing of the launch of tender procedures?

| (3) | If, nevertheless, an overriding reason in the public interest is deemed to exist, have the following also been infringed: (i) the principle of proportionality, because the restrictive measure is not appropriate, suitable and proportionate, in the strictest sense, to the formally indicated public objective; (ii) the principle of competition for the market, because the choice to extend the concessions and postpone the launch of the calls for tenders prevents operators in the sector from exercising the freedom to conduct a business, at least in terms of the business planning and scheduling that is required? |
| --- | --- |

(3)

If, nevertheless, an overriding reason in the public interest is deemed to exist, have the following also been infringed: (i) the principle of proportionality, because the restrictive measure is not appropriate, suitable and proportionate, in the strictest sense, to the formally indicated public objective; (ii) the principle of competition for the market, because the choice to extend the concessions and postpone the launch of the calls for tenders prevents operators in the sector from exercising the freedom to conduct a business, at least in terms of the business planning and scheduling that is required?

---

| 11.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/23

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 6 February 2023 — Skatteverket v Digital Charging Solutions GmbH

(Case C-60/23, Digital Charging Solutions)

(2023/C 127/29)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Skatteverket

Respondent: Digital Charging Solutions GmbH

Questions referred

| 1. | Does a supply to the user of an electric vehicle consisting of the charging of the vehicle at a charging point constitute a supply of goods under Articles 14(1) and 15(1) of the VAT Directive? (1) |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does a supply to the user of an electric vehicle consisting of the charging of the vehicle at a charging point constitute a supply of goods under Articles 14(1) and 15(1) of the VAT Directive? (1)

| 2. | If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, is such a supply then to be deemed to be present at all stages of a chain of transactions which include an intermediary company, where the chain of transactions is accompanied by a contract at every stage, but only the user of the vehicle has the right to decide on matters such as quantity, time of purchase and charging location, as well as how the electricity is to be used? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, is such a supply then to be deemed to be present at all stages of a chain of transactions which include an intermediary company, where the chain of transactions is accompanied by a contract at every stage, but only the user of the vehicle has the right to decide on matters such as quantity, time of purchase and charging location, as well as how the electricity is to be used?

---

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

---

| 11.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/24

---

Appeal brought on 8 February 2023 by the French Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 23 November 2022 in Joined Cases T-279/20 and T-288/20, CWS Powder Coatings and Others v Commission, and Case T-283/20, Billions Europe and Others v Commission

(Case C-71/23 P)

(2023/C 127/30)

Languages of the case: German and English

Parties

Appellant: French Republic (represented by: B. Fodda, J.-L. Carré, G. Bain, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, CWS Powder Coatings GmbH, Billions Europe Ltd, Cinkarna Metalurško-kemična Industrija Celje d.d. (Cinkarna Celje d.d.), Evonik Operations GmbH, Kronos Titan GmbH, Precheza a.s., Tayca Corp., Tronox Pigments (Holland) BV, Venator Germany GmbH, Brillux GmbH & Co. KG, Daw SE, Ettengruber GmbH Abbruch und Tiefbau, Ettengruber GmbH Recycling und Verwertung, TIGER Coatings GmbH & Co. KG, Conseil Européen de l’Industrie Chimique — European Chemical Industry Council (Cefic), Conseil Européen de l’Industrie des Peintures, des Encres d’Imprimerie et des Couleurs d’Art (CEPE), British Coatings Federation Ltd (BCF), American Coatings Association, Inc. (ACA), Mytilineos SA, Delfi-Distomon Anonymos Metalleytiki Etaireia, Sto SE & Co. KGaA, Rembrandtin Coatings GmbH, Kingdom of Denmark, Kingdom of the Netherlands, Kingdom of Sweden, European Chemicals Agency, Republic of Slovenia, European Parliament, Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 23 November 2022 in Joined Cases T-279/20 and T-288/20, CWS Powder Coatings and Others v Commission and Case T-283/20 Billions Europe and Others v Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 23 November 2022 in Joined Cases T-279/20 and T-288/20, CWS Powder Coatings and Others v Commission and Case T-283/20 Billions Europe and Others v Commission;

| — | give judgment itself on the matter and dismiss the actions brought at first instance by CWS Powder Coatings GmbH, Billions Europe Ltd, Brillux GmbH & Co. KG and Daw SE in Cases T-279/20, T-283/20 and T-288/20 or, if the Court considers that the state of the proceedings does not permit final judgment to be given, refer the cases back to the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

give judgment itself on the matter and dismiss the actions brought at first instance by CWS Powder Coatings GmbH, Billions Europe Ltd, Brillux GmbH & Co. KG and Daw SE in Cases T-279/20, T-283/20 and T-288/20 or, if the Court considers that the state of the proceedings does not permit final judgment to be given, refer the cases back to the General Court;

| — | order CWS Powder Coatings GmbH, Billions Europe Ltd, Brillux GmbH & Co KG and Daw SE to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order CWS Powder Coatings GmbH, Billions Europe Ltd, Brillux GmbH & Co KG and Daw SE to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the French Government relies on four grounds of appeal:

First ground of appeal: in classifying the Heinrich study as a ‘decisive study’, the General Court, first, distorted the evidence submitted to it and, secondly, erred in law by disregarding the principles laid down in Regulation No 1272/2008 concerning the classification of substances as carcinogenic, namely, the principle of evaluation of strength of evidence and consideration of all other relevant information to place substances with human cancer potential into various hazard categories.

Second ground of appeal: the General Court exceeded the limits of judicial review by going beyond an assessment of manifest error and by substituting its own assessment for that of the Committee for Risk Assessment of the European Chemicals Agency.

Third ground of appeal: the General Court failed to fulfil its duty to state reasons.

Fourth ground of appeal: the General Court erred in law in holding that Section 3.6.2.2.1 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 (1) had to be interpreted as precluding a substance from being regarded as having the intrinsic property to cause cancer if the carcinogenicity of that substance arises where there is a certain quantity of particles.

---

(1)  Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures, amending and repealing Directives 67/548/EEC and 1999/45/EC, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (OJ 2008 L 353, p. 1).

---

| 11.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/25

---

Appeal brought on 10 February 2023 by Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 14 December 2022 in Case T-182/21, PKK v Council

(Case C-72/23 P)

(2023/C 127/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) (represented by: A.M. van Eik, T. Buruma, advocates)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | join this appeal with the appeal lodged under registration number C-44/23 P; |
| --- | --- |

—

join this appeal with the appeal lodged under registration number C-44/23 P;

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2022 in Case T-182/21; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2022 in Case T-182/21;

| — | give final judgment in the matters that are the subject of this appeal and annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/142 (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2021/138 (2) of 5 February 2021; Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/1192 (3) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1188 (4) of 19 July 2021; and Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/152 (5) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/147 (6) of 3 February 2022, insofar as they concern the PKK (a.k.a. KADEK a.k.a. KONGRA-GEL); |
| --- | --- |

—

give final judgment in the matters that are the subject of this appeal and annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/142 (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2021/138 (2) of 5 February 2021; Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/1192 (3) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1188 (4) of 19 July 2021; and Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/152 (5) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/147 (6) of 3 February 2022, insofar as they concern the PKK (a.k.a. KADEK a.k.a. KONGRA-GEL);

| — | order the Council to pay the costs of litigation of the Appellant arising from the present appeal and from Case T-182/21 with interest. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay the costs of litigation of the Appellant arising from the present appeal and from Case T-182/21 with interest.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellant submits that the General Court erred in the contested judgment on the following points:

| 1. | The General Court erred in law regarding the first subparagraph of Article 1(3) of Common Position 2001/931 (7) (hereafter: ‘CP 931’) in regards in particular to the interpretation given to the ‘aims’ therein and its application to the case. The General Court wrongfully concluded that the plea alleging infringement of article 1(3) CP 931 must be rejected. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The General Court erred in law regarding the first subparagraph of Article 1(3) of Common Position 2001/931 (7) (hereafter: ‘CP 931’) in regards in particular to the interpretation given to the ‘aims’ therein and its application to the case. The General Court wrongfully concluded that the plea alleging infringement of article 1(3) CP 931 must be rejected.

| 2. | The General Court wrongly held that the Council could rely on the order of the UK Home Secretary of 29 March 2001 (hereafter: ‘the UK 2001 decision’) as the 1(4) CP 931 decision, since it is not clear whether the events mentioned in the Statements of Reasons in connection to the UK 2001 decision underly the UK 2001 decision, those events are outdated and do not support the conclusion that the appellant was a terrorist group within the meaning of article. The General Court wrongfully concluded that the plea alleging infringement of article 1(3) and article 1(4) CP 931 in so far as the contested measures are based on the UK 2001 decision must be rejected. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The General Court wrongly held that the Council could rely on the order of the UK Home Secretary of 29 March 2001 (hereafter: ‘the UK 2001 decision’) as the 1(4) CP 931 decision, since it is not clear whether the events mentioned in the Statements of Reasons in connection to the UK 2001 decision underly the UK 2001 decision, those events are outdated and do not support the conclusion that the appellant was a terrorist group within the meaning of article. The General Court wrongfully concluded that the plea alleging infringement of article 1(3) and article 1(4) CP 931 in so far as the contested measures are based on the UK 2001 decision must be rejected.

| 3. | The General Court wrongly held that the Council’s review fulfilled the obligations under Article 1(6) CP 931, and that the Appellant’s plea that Article 1(6) was infringed upon by Council should be rejected. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The General Court wrongly held that the Council’s review fulfilled the obligations under Article 1(6) CP 931, and that the Appellant’s plea that Article 1(6) was infringed upon by Council should be rejected.

| 4. | The General Court erred in law regarding the principle of proportionality and applied it wrongly to the case at hand. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The General Court erred in law regarding the principle of proportionality and applied it wrongly to the case at hand.

| 5. | The General Court wrongly considered the Council to have fulfilled the obligation to state reasons. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The General Court wrongly considered the Council to have fulfilled the obligation to state reasons.

---

(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/142 of 5 February 2021 updating the list of persons, groups and entities subject to Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism, and repealing Decision (CFSP) 2020/1132 (OJ 2021, L 43, p. 14).

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/138 of 5 February 2021 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism, and repealing Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1128 (OJ 2021, L 43, p. 1).

(3)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/1192 of 19 July 2021 updating the list of persons, groups and entities subject to Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism, and repealing Decision (CFSP) 2021/142 (OJ 2021, L 258, p. 42).

(4)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1188 of 19 July 2021 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism, and repealing Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/138 (OJ 2021, L 258, p. 14).

(5)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/152 of 3 February 2022 updating the list of persons, groups and entities subject to Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism, and repealing Decision (CFSP) 2021/1192 (OJ 2022, L 25, p. 13).

(6)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/147 of 3 February 2022 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism, and repealing Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1188 (OJ 2022, L 25, p. 1).

(7)  Council Common Position of 27 December 2001 on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism (OJ 2001, L 344, p. 93).

---

| 11.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/26

---

Appeal brought on 14 February 2023 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 23 November 2022 in joined Cases T-279/20 and T-288/20, CWS Powder Coatings and Others v Commission, and in Case T-283/20, Billions Europe and Others v Commission

(Case C-82/23 P)

(2023/C 127/32)

Languages of the cases: German and English

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: S. Delaude, A. Dawes, R. Lindenthal and M. Noll-Ehlers, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: CWS Powder Coatings GmbH, Billions Europe Ltd, Cinkarna Metalurško-kemična Industrija Celje d.d. (Cinkarna Celje d.d.), Evonik Operations GmbH, Kronos Titan GmbH, Precheza a.s., Tayca Corp., Tronox Pigments (Holland) BV, Venator Germany GmbH, Brillux GmbH & Co. KG, Daw SE, Ettengruber GmbH Abbruch und Tiefbau, Ettengruber GmbH Recycling und Verwertung, TIGER Coatings GmbH & Co. KG, Conseil Européen de l’Industrie Chimique — European Chemical Industry Council (Cefic), Conseil Européen de l’Industrie des Peintures, des Encres d’Imprimerie et des Couleurs d’Art (CEPE), British Coatings Federation Ltd (BCF), American Coatings Association, Inc. (ACA), Mytilineos SA, Delfi-Distomon Anonymos Metalleytiki Etaireia, Sto SE & Co. KGaA, Rembrandtin Coatings GmbH, Kingdom of Denmark, French Republic, Kingdom of the Netherlands, Kingdom of Sweden, European Chemicals Agency, Republic of Slovenia, European Parliament, Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court of 23 November 2022 in Joined Cases T-279/20 and T-288/20, CWS Powder Coatings and Others v Commission and in Case T-283/20, Billions Europe and Others v Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of 23 November 2022 in Joined Cases T-279/20 and T-288/20, CWS Powder Coatings and Others v Commission and in Case T-283/20, Billions Europe and Others v Commission;

| — | reject the second plea, the first and fifth parts of the seventh plea and the eighth plea in Joined Cases T-279/20 and T-288/20 and the first plea in Case T-283/20; |
| --- | --- |

—

reject the second plea, the first and fifth parts of the seventh plea and the eighth plea in Joined Cases T-279/20 and T-288/20 and the first plea in Case T-283/20;

| — | refer the case back to the General Court for consideration of the pleas not already assessed; and |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back to the General Court for consideration of the pleas not already assessed; and

| — | reserve the costs of the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

reserve the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the European Commission raises three grounds of appeal.

The first ground of appeal alleges that the General Court erred in law by distorting the evidence before it when concluding that the Committee for Risk Assessment (‘RAC’) of the European Chemicals Agency and the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment as regards the reliability and acceptability of the 1995 animal study by Heinrich et al. (‘Heinrich study’).

The second ground of appeal alleges that the General Court erred in law when it substituted its own assessment for that of the RAC and the Commission when it concluded that the RAC failed to take into account all the relevant factors in order to calculate the lung overload in the Heinrich study.

The third ground of appeal alleges that the General Court erred in law when concluding that the contested classification and labelling did not relate to a substance that has the intrinsic property to cause cancer.

---

| 11.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/27

---

Appeal brought on 17 February 2023 by the European Association of Non-Integrated Metal Importers & distributors (Euranimi) against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 8 December 2022 in Case T-769/21, Euranimi v Commission

(Case C-95/23 P)

(2023/C 127/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Association of Non-Integrated Metal Importers & distributors (Euranimi) (represented by: V. Villante, D. Rovetta, M. Campa, avvocati, P. Gjørtler, advokat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The Appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the present appeal admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the present appeal admissible;

| — | set aside the order under appeal and declare the action brought by EURANIMI admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the order under appeal and declare the action brought by EURANIMI admissible;

| — | send the case back to the General Court for examination of the substance of EURANIMI’s action; |
| --- | --- |

—

send the case back to the General Court for examination of the substance of EURANIMI’s action;

| — | order the European Commission to bear the legal cost of the present appeal and of the procedure at first instance. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to bear the legal cost of the present appeal and of the procedure at first instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellant relies on three main grounds of appeals:

First ground of appeal: Error in law in interpreting the Article 263 (4) TFEU and in particular the requisite of ‘direct and individual concern’. Wrong qualification of facts.

Second ground of appeal: Error in law in interpreting the final limb of Article 263 (4) TFEU and the requisite and notion of regulatory act which does not entail implementing measures. Wrong qualification of facts and distortion of evidence.

Third ground of appeal: Wrong qualification of facts and distortion of evidence.

---

| 11.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/28

---

Appeal brought on 24 February 2023 by PT Pelita Agung Agrindustri, PT Permata Hijau Palm Oleo against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 14 December 2022 in Case T-143/20, PT Pelita Agung Agrindustri and PT Permata Hijau Palm Oleo v Commission

(Case C-112/23 P)

(2023/C 127/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: PT Pelita Agung Agrindustri, PT Permata Hijau Palm Oleo (represented by: F. Graafsma and J. Cornelis, advocaten)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, European Biodiesel Board (EBB)

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

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

—

set aside the judgment under appeal;

| — | annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2092 of 28 November 2019 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of biodiesel originating in Indonesia (1); and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2092 of 28 November 2019 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of biodiesel originating in Indonesia (1); and

| — | order the European Commission to pay the appellants’ costs of this appeal as well as those of the proceedings before the General Court; or alternatively |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay the appellants’ costs of this appeal as well as those of the proceedings before the General Court; or alternatively

| — | refer the case back to the General Court; and |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back to the General Court; and

| — | reserve the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and on appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

reserve the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellants rely on six pleas in law.

First, the judgment under appeal misinterpreted Article 8(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Union (2) (‘the basic regulation’) and distorted the evidence in finding the existence of significant price suppression.

Second, the judgment under appeal misinterpreted the findings of the World Trade Organization (WTO) Panel report entitled ‘European Union — Anti-dumping measures on biodiesel from Indonesia’, adopted on 25 January 2018 (WT/DS 480/R), or, alternatively, failed to take into account these findings.

Third, the judgment under appeal misinterpreted the findings of the WTO Panel report entitled ‘China — Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duty Measures on Broiler Products from the United States’, adopted on 2 August 2013 (WT/DS 427/R), and other relevant WTO and EU case law.

Fourth, the judgment under appeal misinterpreted Article 8(1) of the basic regulation in finding that an undercutting calculation that disregards 45 % of Union industry sales complies with the legal requirement of an analysis based on an objective examination and positive evidence.

Fifth, the judgment under appeal distorted the evidence by concluding that the subsidies under the Oil Palm Plantation Fund scheme were not granted by reference to the quantities manufactured, produced, exported or transported.

Sixth, the judgment under appeal misconstrued the argument by the appellants and incorrectly interpreted Article 7(2) of the basic regulation.

---

(1)  OJ 2019 L 317, p. 42.

(2)  OJ 2016 L 176, p. 55.

---

| 11.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/29

---

Appeal brought on 28 February 2023 by Swissgrid AG against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 21 December 2022 in Case T-127/21, Swissgrid v Commission

(Case C-121/23 P)

(2023/C 127/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Swissgrid AG (represented by: P. De Baere, P. L'Ecluse, K. T'Syen and V. Lefever, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claim that the Court should:

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

—

set aside the order under appeal;

| — | dismiss the Commission’s plea of inadmissibility and declare the action for annulment admissible, and refer the case back to the General Court for judgment on the merits of the action; |
| --- | --- |

—

dismiss the Commission’s plea of inadmissibility and declare the action for annulment admissible, and refer the case back to the General Court for judgment on the merits of the action;

| — | reserve judgment as to the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

reserve judgment as to the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea: the General Court erred in law by applying an incorrect legal test for deciding whether the decision contained in a letter of 17 December 2020 signed by the Director of the Commission’s Directorate-General for Energy (‘the contested decision’) constitutes a challengeable act under Article 263 TFEU.

Second plea: the General Court erred in in law by asserting that Articles 1(6) and 1(7) of Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/2195 of 23 November 2017 establishing a guideline on electricity balancing (1) do not confer rights upon the appellant, which are capable of being affected by the contested decision.

Third plea: the order under appeal lacks an adequate statement of reasons to support the determinative finding that Article 1(7) of Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/2195 does not confer any rights on the appellant.

---

(1)  OJ 2017 L 312, p. 6.

---

General Court

| 11.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 February 2023 — Austrian Power Grid and Others v ACER

(Case T-606/20) (1)

(Energy - Internal market in electricity - Framework for the European platform for the exchange of balancing energy from frequency restoration reserves with automatic activation - Procedure for the adoption of terms, conditions and methodologies - Rejection of the joint proposal of the system operators - Competence of ACER - Error of law - Rights of the defence - Obligation to state reasons)

(2023/C 127/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Austrian Power Grid AG (Vienna, Austria), and the 7 other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the judgment (represented by: M. Levitt, lawyer, B. Byrne and D. Jubrail, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (represented by: E. Ameye, lawyer, A. Tellidou and E. Tremmel, acting as Agents)

Re:

By their action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicants seek the annulment of the decision of the Board of Appeal of the European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) of 16 July 2020 confirming ACER Decision No 02/2020 of 24 January 2020 on the Implementation framework for the European platform for the exchange of balancing energy from frequency restoration reserves with automatic activation (‘the aFRR platform’) and rejecting their appeals in Case A-001-2020 (consolidated) (‘the contested decision’), in so far as that decision concerns them, and the annulment of Article 1 of Decision No 02/2020 and Article 3(3) and (4)(b), Article 4(6), Article 6, Article 11(1)(c) and Article 12 of the aFRR platform implementation framework, as set out in Annex I to Decision No 02/2020.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Austrian Power Grid AG and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to pay the cost. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Austrian Power Grid AG and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to pay the cost.

---

(1)  OJ C 414, 30.11.2020.

---

| 11.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 February 2023 — Austrian Power Grid and Others v ACER

(Case T-607/20) (1)

(Energy - Internal market in electricity - Framework for the European platform for the exchange of balancing energy from frequency restoration reserves with manual activation - Procedure for the adoption of terms, conditions and methodologies - Rejection of the joint proposal of the system operators - Competence of ACER - Error of law - Rights of the defence - Obligation to state reasons)

(2023/C 127/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Austrian Power Grid AG (Vienna, Austria), and the 7 other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the judgment (represented by: M. Levitt, lawyer, B. Byrne and D. Jubrail, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (represented by: E. Ameye, lawyer, A. Tellidou and E. Tremmel, acting as Agents)

Re:

By their action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicants seek the annulment of the decision of the Board of Appeal of the European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) of 16 July 2020 confirming ACER Decision No 03/2020 of 24 January 2020 on the Implementation framework for the European platform for the exchange of balancing energy from frequency restoration reserves with manual activation (‘the mFRR platform’) and rejecting their appeals in Case A-002-2020 (consolidated), in so far as that decision concerns them, and the annulment of Article 1 of Decision No 03/2020 and Article 3(3) and (5)(b), Article 4(6), Article 6, Article 11(1)(c) and (2)(c) and Article 12 of the mFRR platform implementation framework, as set out in Annex I to Decision No 03/2020.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Austrian Power Grid AG and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Austrian Power Grid AG and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 414, 30.11.2020.

---

| 11.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 February 2023 — UPL Europe and Indofil Industries (Netherlands) v Commission

(Case T-742/20) (1)

(Plant protection products - Active substance mancozeb - Non-renewal of approval - Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 844/2012 - Procedure for assessing the application for renewal of approval of an active substance - Designation of a new rapporteur Member State due to the withdrawal of the previous rapporteur Member State from the European Union - Rights of the defence - Principle of sound administration - Manifest error of assessment - Procedure for harmonised classification and labelling - Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 - Legitimate expectations)

(2023/C 127/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: UPL Europe Ltd (Warrington, United Kingdom), Indofil Industries (Netherlands) BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: C. Mereu and P. Sellar, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Dawes, G. Koleva and F. Castilla Contreras, acting as Agents)

Re:

By their action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicants seek annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2087 of 14 December 2020 concerning the non-renewal of approval of the active substance mancozeb, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 (OJ 2020 L 423, p. 50).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders UPL Europe Ltd and Indofil Industries (Netherlands) BV to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in the present action; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders UPL Europe Ltd and Indofil Industries (Netherlands) BV to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in the present action;

| 3. | Orders Indofil Industries (Netherlands) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission in the proceedings for interim measures. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Indofil Industries (Netherlands) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission in the proceedings for interim measures.

---

(1)  OJ C 53, 15.2.2021.

---

| 11.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 February 2023 — Aquind and Others v ACER

(Case T-492/21) (1)

(Energy - Competence of the ACER - Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union - Error of law - Article 2(1) of Regulation (EU) 2019/943 - Article 92 of the Withdrawal Agreement - Ad hoc exemption regime under Article 308 of and Annex 28 to the Trade and Cooperation Agreement)

(2023/C 127/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Aquind Ltd (London, United Kingdom), Aquind Energy Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), Aquind SAS (Rouen, France) (represented by: S. Goldberg, Solicitor, and E. White, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) (represented by: P. Martinet and E. Tremmel, acting as Agents, and by B. Creve, lawyer)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Parliament (represented by: A. Tamás and O. Denkov, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Lo Monaco, L. Vétillard and M.É. Sitbon, acting as Agents)

Re:

By their application based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicants seek the annulment of the decision of the Board of Appeal of the European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) of 4 June 2021 concerning a request for an exemption relating to an electrical interconnector connecting the electricity transmission systems in the United Kingdom and France.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Aquind Ltd, Aquind SAS, Aquind Energy Sàrl and the European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) to bear their own costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Aquind Ltd, Aquind SAS, Aquind Energy Sàrl and the European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) to bear their own costs;

| 3. | Orders the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 391, 27.9.2021.

---

| 11.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 February 2023 — Belaeronavigatsia v Council

(Case T-536/21) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Belarus - Lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Inclusion and maintenance of the applicant’s name on the lists - Concept of ‘person responsible for repression’ - Error of assessment - Proportionality)

(2023/C 127/40)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Belaeronavigatsia (Minsk, Belarus) (represented by: M. Michalauskas, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: R. Meyer and S. Van Overmeire, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Giolito and M. Carpus Carcea, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/1001 of 21 June 2021 amending Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus (OJ 2021 L 219 I, p. 67), of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/999 of 21 June 2021 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ 2021 L 219 I, p. 55), of Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/307 of 24 February 2022 amending Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus (OJ 2022 L 46, p. 97), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/300 of 24 February 2022 implementing Article 8a of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus (OJ 2022 L 46, p. 3), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Belaeronavigatsia to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Belaeronavigatsia to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 422, 18.10.2021.

---

| 11.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 February 2023 — Mostostal v EUIPO — Polimex — Mostostal (MOSTOSTAL)

(Case T-684/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark MOSTOSTAL - Obligation to state reasons - Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2023/C 127/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Mostostal S.A. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: C. Saettel and K. Krawczyk, 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: Polimex — Mostostal S.A. (Warsaw) (represented by: J. Kubalski, K. Szczudlik and M. Hyży, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 30 July 2021 (Case R 2508/2019-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 30 July 2021 (Case R 2508/2019-5); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 30 July 2021 (Case R 2508/2019-5);

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mostostal S.A.; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mostostal S.A.;

| 3. | Orders Polimex — Mostostal S.A. to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Polimex — Mostostal S.A. to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 2, 3.1.2022.

---

| 11.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 February 2023 — LG Electronics v EUIPO — ZTE Deutschland (V10)

(Case T-741/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark V10 - Absolute ground for refusal - Alphanumeric sign - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2023/C 127/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: LG Electronics, Inc. (Seoul, South Korea) (represented by: M. Bölling, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: ZTE Deutschland GmbH (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: T.M. Müller and C. Sauerborn, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 14 September 2021 (Case R 2101/2020-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders LG Electronics, Inc. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders LG Electronics, Inc. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 37, 24.1.2022.

---

| 11.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/35

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 February 2023 — Topcart v EUIPO — Carl International (TC CARL)

(Case T-8/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark TC CARL - Earlier national figurative mark carl touch - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2023/C 127/43)

Language of the case: German

Parties

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

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

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

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 8 October 2021 (Case R 2561/2018-2).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Topcart GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Topcart GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 84, 21.2.2022.

---

| 11.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/36

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 February 2023 — Asesores Comunitarios v Commission

(Case T-77/22) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to the recovery and resilience plan submitted by a Member State to the Commission - Documents originating from a Member State - Refusal to grant access - Exception relating to the financial, monetary or economic policy of the European Union or of a Member State)

(2023/C 127/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Asesores Comunitarios, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Monrabà Bagan, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Spina, T. Adamopoulos and M. Burón Pérez, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Gavela Llopis and L. Aguilera Ruiz, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the European Commission of 3 December 2021 refusing it access to certain documents originating from the Kingdom of Spain, requested under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Asesores Comunitarios, SL to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Asesores Comunitarios, SL to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

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

3.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 138, 28.3.2022.

---

| 11.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/36

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 February 2023 — Bambu Sales v EUIPO (BAMBU)

(Case T-82/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for European Union word mark BAMBU - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2023/C 127/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Bambu Sales, Inc. (Secaucus, New Jersey, United States) (represented by: T. Stein, lawyer)

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

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 16 December 2021 (Case R 1702/2020-1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 16 December 2021 (Case R 1702/2020-1) in so far as it concerns the following goods: vaporisers for the ingestion and inhalation of tobacco and other herbal matter; electronic smoking vaporisers, namely electronic cigarettes, and electronic smoking vaporisers for use as an alternative to traditional cigarettes; smoker’s vaporiser pipe cartridge sold empty; cigar cutters; electric cigarettes; electric cigars; electronic cigarettes; electronic cigarette refill cartridges sold empty; electronic cigars; hookah parts, namely hoses; liquefied gas cylinders for cigarette lighters; smoker’s articles, namely metal pocket-sized receptacles with lids for cigarette butts; smoking pipe cleaners; tobacco pipe cleaners; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 16 December 2021 (Case R 1702/2020-1) in so far as it concerns the following goods: vaporisers for the ingestion and inhalation of tobacco and other herbal matter; electronic smoking vaporisers, namely electronic cigarettes, and electronic smoking vaporisers for use as an alternative to traditional cigarettes; smoker’s vaporiser pipe cartridge sold empty; cigar cutters; electric cigarettes; electric cigars; electronic cigarettes; electronic cigarette refill cartridges sold empty; electronic cigars; hookah parts, namely hoses; liquefied gas cylinders for cigarette lighters; smoker’s articles, namely metal pocket-sized receptacles with lids for cigarette butts; smoking pipe cleaners; tobacco pipe cleaners;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders Bambu Sales, Inc. and EUIPO to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Bambu Sales, Inc. and EUIPO to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 148, 4.4.2022.

---

| 11.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/37

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 February 2023 — Rimini Street v EUIPO (OTHER COMPANIES DO SOFTWARE WE DO SUPPORT)

(Case T-204/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark OTHER COMPANIES DO SOFTWARE WE DO SUPPORT - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2023/C 127/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Rimini Street, Inc. (Las Vegas, Nevada, United States) (represented by: E. Ratjen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Śliwińska and T. Frydendahl, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 14 February 2022 (Case R 1389/2021-4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Rimini Street, Inc. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Rimini Street, Inc. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 222, 7.6.2022.

---

| 11.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/38

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 February 2023 — Freixas Montplet and Others v Committee of the Regions

(Case T-260/22) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Promotion - 2021 promotion exercise - Decision not to place the applicant’s name on the list of officials eligible for promotion - Date of assessment of seniority in grade - Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations - Equal treatment)

(2023/C 127/47)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: David Freixas Montplet (Berchem-Sainte-Agathe, Belgium), Gustavo López Cutillas (Woluwe-Saint-Pierre, Belgium), Valeria Schirru (Brussels, Belgium), Svetlozar Andreev (Brussels) (represented by: L. Levi and P. Baudoux, lawyers)

Defendant: Committee of the Regions (represented by: B. Rentmeister, acting as Agent)

Re:

By their action under Article 270 TFEU, the applicants seek annulment of the list, drafted by the Committee of the Regions, of officials eligible for promotion in the 2021 promotion exercise, in so far as that list does not include their names.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Mr David Freixas Montplet, Mr Gustavo López Cutillas, Ms Valeria Schirru and Mr Svetlozar Andreev shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the Committee of the Regions. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr David Freixas Montplet, Mr Gustavo López Cutillas, Ms Valeria Schirru and Mr Svetlozar Andreev shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the Committee of the Regions.

---

(1)  OJ C 244, 27.6.2022.

---

| 11.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/38

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 February 2023 — Das Neves v Commission

(Case T-357/22) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Disciplinary proceedings - Warning - Article 21 of the Staff Regulations - Rights of the defence - Liability)

(2023/C 127/48)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: José Das Neves (La Hulpe, Belgium) (represented by: J.-P. Vandersteen, lawyer)

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

Re:

By his action under Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks, first, annulment of the European Commission’s decision of 12 October 2021 by which it issued him with a warning under Article 3(1)(b) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and, second, compensation for the damage which he claims to have suffered as a result of that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr José Das Neves to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr José Das Neves to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 294, 1.8.2022.

---

| 11.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/39

---

Order of the General Court of 9 February 2023 — Aziz v Commission

(Case T-266/22) (1)

(Action for annulment - Protection of personal data - Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 - Article 76(d) of the Rules of Procedure - Failure to comply with procedural requirements - Inadmissibility)

(2023/C 127/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ahmad Aziz (Pietà, Malta) (represented by: L. Cuschieri, lawyer)

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

Re:

By his action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks, in essence, annulment of Commission Decision Ares(2022) 2457760 of 1 April 2022 and of Commission Decision Ares(2022) 3227480 of 26 April 2022 concerning his requests for access to his personal data and for rectification of those data.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Mr Ahmad Aziz shall bear his own costs and pay those of the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Ahmad Aziz shall bear his own costs and pay those of the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 359, 19.9.2022.

---

| 11.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/39

---

Order of the General Court of 9 February 2023 — Aziz v Commission

(Case T-286/22) (1)

(Action for annulment - Protection of personal data - Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 - Article 76(d) of the Rules of Procedure - Failure to comply with procedural requirements - Inadmissibility)

(2023/C 127/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ahmad Aziz (Pietà, Malta) (represented by: L. Cuschieri, lawyer)

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

Re:

By his action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks, in essence, annulment of the European Commission’s implied decision of 16 May 2022 not to provide him with his personal data within the prescribed period.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Mr Ahmad Aziz shall bear his own costs and pay those of the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Ahmad Aziz shall bear his own costs and pay those of the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 359, 19.9.2022.

---

| 11.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/40

---

Order of the General Court of 14 February 2023 — Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals (TRiM)

(Case T-428/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark TRiM - Earlier national word marks RYM - Expiry of the international registration - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)

(2023/C 127/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Laboratorios Ern, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: S. Correa Rodríguez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Ringelhann and T. Frydendahl, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Pasadena, California, United States)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant, proprietor of the earlier Spanish word marks RYM, seeks annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 12 April 2022 (Case R 1158/2021-2), which rejected its opposition brought against protection within the European Union of international registration No 1411062, relating to the word sign TRiM of the other party to the proceedings before EUIPO, Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

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. | Each party shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Each party shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 326, 29.8.2022.

---

| 11.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/40

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 14 February 2023 — Ferreira de Macedo Silva v Frontex

(Case T-595/22 R)

(Interim relief - Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Dismissal before the end of the probationary period - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency)

(2023/C 127/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Carlos Miguel Ferreira de Macedo Silva (Cercal do Alentejo, Portugal) (represented by: L. Rolo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Border and Coast Guard Agency (represented by: S. Karkala, acting as Agent, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

By his application based on Articles 278 and 279 TFEU, the applicant seeks suspension of the operation of the decision of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) of 29 August 2022 terminating his contract as a member of the temporary staff before the end of the probationary period.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

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

2.

The costs are reserved.

---

| 11.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/41

---

Action brought on 6 January 2023 — PS v SEAE

(Case T-4/23)

(2023/C 127/53)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: PS (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: European External Action Service

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul decision Ares (2022)6765407 of the European External Action Service of 30 September 2022 rejecting his complaint of 20 May 2022 and, insofar as necessary, annul the decision of 22 February 2022 rejecting his request of 20 October 2021 to be awarded damages; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul decision Ares (2022)6765407 of the European External Action Service of 30 September 2022 rejecting his complaint of 20 May 2022 and, insofar as necessary, annul the decision of 22 February 2022 rejecting his request of 20 October 2021 to be awarded damages;

| — | order the payment of the sum of 65 000 euros as financial compensation for his professional prejudice, of the sum of 75 000 euros as financial compensation for his health prejudice and of the sum of 3 289 200 euros as financial compensation for his material prejudice; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the payment of the sum of 65 000 euros as financial compensation for his professional prejudice, of the sum of 75 000 euros as financial compensation for his health prejudice and of the sum of 3 289 200 euros as financial compensation for his material prejudice;

| — | order the reimbursement of all the costs incurred for the present appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the reimbursement of all the costs incurred for the present appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed faults and adopted an illegal behaviour in that:






  — | the transfer of the applicant to another post led to a clear downgrading of his professional level, in comparison with the professional level corresponding to the duties and functions he was hired for in the EU delegation in the third country concerned; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed faults and adopted an illegal behaviour in that:

—

the transfer of the applicant to another post led to a clear downgrading of his professional level, in comparison with the professional level corresponding to the duties and functions he was hired for in the EU delegation in the third country concerned;

| — | it violated its duty of care which is normally incumbent on the administration, by not taking into account the serious consequences the sudden decision of the termination of the applicant’s contract and of his transfer involved for the applicant’s wellbeing and his family. |
| --- | --- |

—

it violated its duty of care which is normally incumbent on the administration, by not taking into account the serious consequences the sudden decision of the termination of the applicant’s contract and of his transfer involved for the applicant’s wellbeing and his family.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the applicant suffered a prejudice, as the faulty behaviour of the defendant had severe consequences for the applicant, leading to two series of damages, successively of professional and moral nature:






  — | first, the applicant is suffering a professional and reputational damage; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the applicant suffered a prejudice, as the faulty behaviour of the defendant had severe consequences for the applicant, leading to two series of damages, successively of professional and moral nature:

—

first, the applicant is suffering a professional and reputational damage;

| — | secondly, the applicant suffered a health and moral damage. |
| --- | --- |

—

secondly, the applicant suffered a health and moral damage.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging the existence of a flagrant link of causality between the fault committed by the defendant and the applicant’s harm. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging the existence of a flagrant link of causality between the fault committed by the defendant and the applicant’s harm.

---

| 11.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/42

---

Action brought on 17 January 2023 — UI v Commission

(Case T-14/23)

(2023/C 127/54)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: UI (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Selection Board of 2 May 2022 (‘first contested decision’) rejecting the request for review of its decision to exclude the applicant from the next stage of open competition EPSO/AST-SC/10/20 — Secretaries (SC 1/SC 2) (‘the competition’); the implied rejection decision of the Appointing Authority of 7 October 2022 regarding the complaint lodged by the applicant on 7 June 2022 under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘second contested decision’); and the explicit decision ARES (2022)s. 8274712 of the Appointing Authority of 27 October 2022 rejecting the above-mentioned complaint (‘third contested decision’); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Selection Board of 2 May 2022 (‘first contested decision’) rejecting the request for review of its decision to exclude the applicant from the next stage of open competition EPSO/AST-SC/10/20 — Secretaries (SC 1/SC 2) (‘the competition’); the implied rejection decision of the Appointing Authority of 7 October 2022 regarding the complaint lodged by the applicant on 7 June 2022 under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘second contested decision’); and the explicit decision ARES (2022)s. 8274712 of the Appointing Authority of 27 October 2022 rejecting the above-mentioned complaint (‘third contested decision’);

| — | order the defendant to bear its costs as well as the applicant’s costs for the current proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to bear its costs as well as the applicant’s costs for the current proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging, as regards the first and second contested decisions, an infringement of the competition notice EPSO/AST-SC/10/20 — Secretaries (SC 1/SC 2) (‘the competition notice’) in that the Selection Board unlawfully defined and applied new eligibility criteria, which are not envisaged in the competition notice. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging, as regards the first and second contested decisions, an infringement of the competition notice EPSO/AST-SC/10/20 — Secretaries (SC 1/SC 2) (‘the competition notice’) in that the Selection Board unlawfully defined and applied new eligibility criteria, which are not envisaged in the competition notice.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging, as regards the first and second contested decisions, a manifest error in the application of the rules of the competition notice. The applicant submits that, as the eligibility criteria adopted by the Selection Board infringe the competition notice, they should be set aside. The only lawful and applicable rule of eligibility of candidates in the present competition is the one set in the competition notice. The Selection Board committed a manifest error in the application of that rule. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging, as regards the first and second contested decisions, a manifest error in the application of the rules of the competition notice. The applicant submits that, as the eligibility criteria adopted by the Selection Board infringe the competition notice, they should be set aside. The only lawful and applicable rule of eligibility of candidates in the present competition is the one set in the competition notice. The Selection Board committed a manifest error in the application of that rule.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging, as regards the first and second contested decisions, a lack of sufficient and adequate reasoning. The applicant submits that, in its decision of 7 March 2022, the Selection Board stated its conclusion that the applicant was not eligible for qualification to the next phase of the competition, as it did not have 7 years’ professional experience directly related to the nature of the duties. The Selection Board reached that conclusion solely on the basis of the new criteria. The decision provided only a summary of reasons included in the decision as a hyperlink. In its reply of 2 May 2022 to the request for review, the Selection Board further confirmed that decision by merely repeating the reasoning of the initial decision of 7 March 2022. No precise explanation allowing the applicant to understand the reason for the Selection Board’s decision was provided. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging, as regards the first and second contested decisions, a lack of sufficient and adequate reasoning. The applicant submits that, in its decision of 7 March 2022, the Selection Board stated its conclusion that the applicant was not eligible for qualification to the next phase of the competition, as it did not have 7 years’ professional experience directly related to the nature of the duties. The Selection Board reached that conclusion solely on the basis of the new criteria. The decision provided only a summary of reasons included in the decision as a hyperlink. In its reply of 2 May 2022 to the request for review, the Selection Board further confirmed that decision by merely repeating the reasoning of the initial decision of 7 March 2022. No precise explanation allowing the applicant to understand the reason for the Selection Board’s decision was provided.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging, in the alternative and as regards the third contested decision, an infringement of the competition notice rule on the eligibility of the candidates. The applicant submits that the third contested decision is also unlawful since it confirms the application of criteria that infringe the notice of competition. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging, in the alternative and as regards the third contested decision, an infringement of the competition notice rule on the eligibility of the candidates. The applicant submits that the third contested decision is also unlawful since it confirms the application of criteria that infringe the notice of competition.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging, in the alternative and as regards the third contested decision, a manifest error in the application of the new criteria established by the Selection Board. The applicant submits that even if it were to be accepted that the Selection Board correctly defined new eligibility criteria (quod non), it should still be noted that the Selection Board committed a manifest error of assessment in their application. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging, in the alternative and as regards the third contested decision, a manifest error in the application of the new criteria established by the Selection Board. The applicant submits that even if it were to be accepted that the Selection Board correctly defined new eligibility criteria (quod non), it should still be noted that the Selection Board committed a manifest error of assessment in their application.

---

| 11.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/43

---

Action brought on 2 February 2023 — Acqua & Sole v Commission

(Case T-39/23)

(2023/C 127/55)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Acqua & Sole Srl (Milan, Italy) (represented by: P. Ferraris, E. Robaldo and F. Trolli, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | Annul the implementing decision of the European Commission of 2 December 2022 C(2022) 8645 final approving the 2023-2027 CAP Strategic Plan of Italy, in so far as, in the statements concerning interventions in the field of environmental and climate commitments, the plan establishes, as a commitment which must be observed in order for contributions to be paid, a prohibition on the agricultural use of activated sludges or any other waste recovered in R10 operations within the meaning of Part IV of Decreto legislativo n. 152/2006 (Legislative Decree No 152/2006) and requires that only fertilisers approved under Regulation (EU) No 2019/1009 and/or organic fertilisers whose constituent matrices are included therein be used. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the implementing decision of the European Commission of 2 December 2022 C(2022) 8645 final approving the 2023-2027 CAP Strategic Plan of Italy, in so far as, in the statements concerning interventions in the field of environmental and climate commitments, the plan establishes, as a commitment which must be observed in order for contributions to be paid, a prohibition on the agricultural use of activated sludges or any other waste recovered in R10 operations within the meaning of Part IV of Decreto legislativo n. 152/2006 (Legislative Decree No 152/2006) and requires that only fertilisers approved under Regulation (EU) No 2019/1009 and/or organic fertilisers whose constituent matrices are included therein be used.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea, alleging infringement of Regulation (EU) No 2021/2115 (1) and of the communication of the European Commission titled ‘Ensuring availability and affordability of fertilizers — COM (2022) 590 final’ of 9 November 2022.






  — | Regulation (EU) No 2021 2115, in governing the allocation of agricultural contributions, contains no provision precluding the use of activated sludges and products derived therefrom, the use of which is in fact incentivised, in the context of the CAP, by the European Commission itself, which has expressed clearly that it is in favour of the use of sludges in agriculture, most recently in the communication ‘Ensuring availability and affordability of fertilizers — COM (2022) 590 final’ of 9 November 2022. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea, alleging infringement of Regulation (EU) No 2021/2115 (1) and of the communication of the European Commission titled ‘Ensuring availability and affordability of fertilizers — COM (2022) 590 final’ of 9 November 2022.

—

Regulation (EU) No 2021 2115, in governing the allocation of agricultural contributions, contains no provision precluding the use of activated sludges and products derived therefrom, the use of which is in fact incentivised, in the context of the CAP, by the European Commission itself, which has expressed clearly that it is in favour of the use of sludges in agriculture, most recently in the communication ‘Ensuring availability and affordability of fertilizers — COM (2022) 590 final’ of 9 November 2022.

| 2. | Second plea, alleging infringement of Directive 2008/98/EC (2) and of Directive EU 2018/851, (3) the principles of a circular economy and Directive EEC 86/278. (4)







  — | The general prohibition on using activated sludges recovered from agriculture established in the national 2023-2027 CAP Strategic Plan approved by the Commission and, therefore, the burden associated with that activity as compared with fertilisers under Regulation (EU) No 2019/1009, (5) contrasts clearly with the current development model selected at Community level, which is based on the so-called ‘circular economy’ and on using waste to produce energy, with the aim of preserving natural resources. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea, alleging infringement of Directive 2008/98/EC (2) and of Directive EU 2018/851, (3) the principles of a circular economy and Directive EEC 86/278. (4)

—

The general prohibition on using activated sludges recovered from agriculture established in the national 2023-2027 CAP Strategic Plan approved by the Commission and, therefore, the burden associated with that activity as compared with fertilisers under Regulation (EU) No 2019/1009, (5) contrasts clearly with the current development model selected at Community level, which is based on the so-called ‘circular economy’ and on using waste to produce energy, with the aim of preserving natural resources.

| 3. | Third plea, alleging infringement of Directive EEC 86/278 and distortion of the market and competition which is detrimental to operators in the activated sludge recovery sector.






  — | The general prohibition on using activated sludges recovered from agriculture causes impermissible and unjustified distortive effects on competition which, in addition to being contrary to Directive EEC 86/278, undermine the market position of other operators active in the activated sludge recovery sector, disadvantaging them as compared with producers of other organic and chemical fertilisers. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea, alleging infringement of Directive EEC 86/278 and distortion of the market and competition which is detrimental to operators in the activated sludge recovery sector.

—

The general prohibition on using activated sludges recovered from agriculture causes impermissible and unjustified distortive effects on competition which, in addition to being contrary to Directive EEC 86/278, undermine the market position of other operators active in the activated sludge recovery sector, disadvantaging them as compared with producers of other organic and chemical fertilisers.

| 4. | Fourth plea, alleging infringement of Article 296(2) TFEU, Regulation (EU) No 2021/2115 and Directive EEC 86/278. Failure to investigate, misrepresentation of the facts, conditions not satisfied, contradiction, manifest lack of logic, difference in treatment and serious failure to state reasons.






  — | The national strategic plan approved by the Commission, in so far as it prohibits the use of activated sludges and other waste recovered in R10 operations and fertilisers not covered by Regulation (EU) No 2019/1009, is entirely unjustified — a circumstance which makes it clear that the relevant conditions have not been met and that the legislation on the recovery of activated sludges in agriculture is being infringed — and establishes an impermissible difference in treatment compared to other fertilisers. |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea, alleging infringement of Article 296(2) TFEU, Regulation (EU) No 2021/2115 and Directive EEC 86/278. Failure to investigate, misrepresentation of the facts, conditions not satisfied, contradiction, manifest lack of logic, difference in treatment and serious failure to state reasons.

—

The national strategic plan approved by the Commission, in so far as it prohibits the use of activated sludges and other waste recovered in R10 operations and fertilisers not covered by Regulation (EU) No 2019/1009, is entirely unjustified — a circumstance which makes it clear that the relevant conditions have not been met and that the legislation on the recovery of activated sludges in agriculture is being infringed — and establishes an impermissible difference in treatment compared to other fertilisers.

| 5. | Fifth plea, alleging infringement of Regulation (EU) No 2021/2115 and failure to observe the principle of proportionality.






  — | The establishment of the objectives pursued by the contested environmental and climate interventions is in no way subject to or prejudiced by the use of activated sludges in agriculture, the use of which is, in fact, entirely irrelevant for the purpose of protecting the environment and improving agricultural practices, and therefore the burden imposed on the applicant, besides being unjustified, is disproportionate and excessively onerous as compared with the alleged protective benefit. |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea, alleging infringement of Regulation (EU) No 2021/2115 and failure to observe the principle of proportionality.

—

The establishment of the objectives pursued by the contested environmental and climate interventions is in no way subject to or prejudiced by the use of activated sludges in agriculture, the use of which is, in fact, entirely irrelevant for the purpose of protecting the environment and improving agricultural practices, and therefore the burden imposed on the applicant, besides being unjustified, is disproportionate and excessively onerous as compared with the alleged protective benefit.

| 6. | Sixth plea, alleging a misuse of powers on the basis that they have been used for improper purposes. Conditions for the adoption of a prohibition on the use of sludges and derivatives thereof have not been satisfied.






  — | The choice to prohibit, in the context of the contested environmental and climate interventions, the use of sludges — which has no specific justification from a technical scientific perspective and in respect of which virtually no technical reasons have been provided — reflects the actual, distorted objective pursued, namely to preclude the agricultural re-use of activated sludges, which disadvantages, at a financial level, agricultural businesses wishing to fertilise their land in that way. |
| --- | --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea, alleging a misuse of powers on the basis that they have been used for improper purposes. Conditions for the adoption of a prohibition on the use of sludges and derivatives thereof have not been satisfied.

—

The choice to prohibit, in the context of the contested environmental and climate interventions, the use of sludges — which has no specific justification from a technical scientific perspective and in respect of which virtually no technical reasons have been provided — reflects the actual, distorted objective pursued, namely to preclude the agricultural re-use of activated sludges, which disadvantages, at a financial level, agricultural businesses wishing to fertilise their land in that way.

| 7. | Seventh plea, alleging infringement of Article 70 of Regulation (EU) No 2021/2115 of 2 December 2021 and failure to obverse the principle of proportionality.






  — | The national strategic plan approved by the Commission established a commitment period of 5 years for the contested environmental and climate interventions, whereas Article 70(3) of Regulation (EU) No 2021/2115 provides that the maximum duration is 24 months. |
| --- | --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea, alleging infringement of Article 70 of Regulation (EU) No 2021/2115 of 2 December 2021 and failure to obverse the principle of proportionality.

—

The national strategic plan approved by the Commission established a commitment period of 5 years for the contested environmental and climate interventions, whereas Article 70(3) of Regulation (EU) No 2021/2115 provides that the maximum duration is 24 months.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) 2021/2115 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 2 December 2021 establishing rules on support for strategic plans to be drawn up by Member States under the common agricultural policy (CAP Strategic Plans) and financed by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Regulations (EU) No 1305/2013 and (EU) No 1307/2013 (OJ 2021 L 435, p. 1).

(2)  Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives (OJ 2008 L 312, p. 3).

(3)  Directive (EU) 2018/851 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 amending Directive 2008/98/EC on waste (OJ 2018 L 150, p. 109).

(4)  Council Directive 86/278/EEC of 12 June 1986 on the protection of the environment, and in particular of the soil, when sewage sludge is used in agriculture (OJ 1986 L 181, p. 6).

(5)  Regulation (EU) 2019/1009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019 laying down rules on the making available on the market of EU fertilising products and amending Regulations (EC) No 1069/2009 and (EC) No 1107/2009 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2003/2003 (OJ 2019 L 170, p. 1).

---

| 11.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/45

---

Action brought on 30 January 2023 — Hatherly v EUAA

(Case T-40/23)

(2023/C 127/56)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Xavier James Hatherly (Hamrun, Malta) (represented by: A. Grima, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Agency for Asylum (EUAA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Management Board Decision No 121 of 3 November 2022; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Management Board Decision No 121 of 3 November 2022;

| — | annul the letter of withdrawal of the job offer, dated 8 April 2022, pursuant to the Selection Procedure with reference number EASO/2021/TA/007 for the post of Administrative Assistant (Profile D: Procurement Assistant); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the letter of withdrawal of the job offer, dated 8 April 2022, pursuant to the Selection Procedure with reference number EASO/2021/TA/007 for the post of Administrative Assistant (Profile D: Procurement Assistant);

| — | order the Management Board of the EUAA to confirm the job offer in question and integrate the applicant in his position as at 22 March 2022; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Management Board of the EUAA to confirm the job offer in question and integrate the applicant in his position as at 22 March 2022;

| — | order the EUAA to compensate the applicant for the loss of earnings to date. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the EUAA to compensate the applicant for the loss of earnings to date.

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 erroneous interpretation of the ‘qualification’ required for the post in question.






  — | The Management Board’s decision states that ‘the reference to the award of “a diploma” in the relevant vacancy notice is deemed to correspond to the reference to the award of a “qualification certifying the completion of the level of studies”, given that the completion of the required level of studies by candidates is attested by the diplomas they possess’; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging erroneous interpretation of the ‘qualification’ required for the post in question.

—

The Management Board’s decision states that ‘the reference to the award of “a diploma” in the relevant vacancy notice is deemed to correspond to the reference to the award of a “qualification certifying the completion of the level of studies”, given that the completion of the required level of studies by candidates is attested by the diplomas they possess’;

| — | The Staff Regulations, which prevail over any Management Board decision, do not define ‘qualification’ strictly as a diploma but merely state, in Article 28(d) thereof, that an official may be appointed only on condition that:
  ‘he has, subject to Article 29(2), passed a competition based on either qualifications or tests, or both qualifications and tests, as provided in Annex III’; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Staff Regulations, which prevail over any Management Board decision, do not define ‘qualification’ strictly as a diploma but merely state, in Article 28(d) thereof, that an official may be appointed only on condition that:

‘he has, subject to Article 29(2), passed a competition based on either qualifications or tests, or both qualifications and tests, as provided in Annex III’;

| — | The word ‘qualification’ is being considered as necessarily a diploma, when had it been intended to mean as such, it would have been specified. In fact, both the Staff Regulations and the European Glossary on Education (cited by the Management Board in its decision) seem to claim that there is a difference between the two. In this respect, a qualification might be attained merely by examination grades which certify a particular level of academic achievement. |
| --- | --- |

—

The word ‘qualification’ is being considered as necessarily a diploma, when had it been intended to mean as such, it would have been specified. In fact, both the Staff Regulations and the European Glossary on Education (cited by the Management Board in its decision) seem to claim that there is a difference between the two. In this respect, a qualification might be attained merely by examination grades which certify a particular level of academic achievement.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging non-recognition of the applicant’s qualifications in the Official Diploma Supplement provided by the University of Malta.






  — | The Europass Diploma Supplement, issued by the University of Malta in 2016, clearly outlines that the equivalent level required was attained in 2013; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging non-recognition of the applicant’s qualifications in the Official Diploma Supplement provided by the University of Malta.

—

The Europass Diploma Supplement, issued by the University of Malta in 2016, clearly outlines that the equivalent level required was attained in 2013;

| — | This document has been developed by the European Commission, Council of Europe and UNESCO/CEPES. As the document itself claims, its purpose is to provide sufficient independent data to improve the international ‘transparency’ and fair academic and professional recognition of qualifications. Therefore, there is no legitimate reason why the equivalent level required which, as the Official Diploma Supplement proves, was attained in 2013, is not being recognised. The view that qualifications are necessarily attested by diplomas, excluding official documentation which is developed, inter alia, by the European Commission, is unjustified, as otherwise the Europass Diploma Supplement would be futile. |
| --- | --- |

—

This document has been developed by the European Commission, Council of Europe and UNESCO/CEPES. As the document itself claims, its purpose is to provide sufficient independent data to improve the international ‘transparency’ and fair academic and professional recognition of qualifications. Therefore, there is no legitimate reason why the equivalent level required which, as the Official Diploma Supplement proves, was attained in 2013, is not being recognised. The view that qualifications are necessarily attested by diplomas, excluding official documentation which is developed, inter alia, by the European Commission, is unjustified, as otherwise the Europass Diploma Supplement would be futile.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that such non-recognition of the applicant’s qualifications is discriminatory and that the subsequent withdrawal of the job offer is disproportionate.






  — | Candidates who withdraw from their Bachelor’s degree after two years or more are eligible for diploma equivalent to the educational component required in the vacancy; |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that such non-recognition of the applicant’s qualifications is discriminatory and that the subsequent withdrawal of the job offer is disproportionate.

—

Candidates who withdraw from their Bachelor’s degree after two years or more are eligible for diploma equivalent to the educational component required in the vacancy;

| — | Therefore, the applicant considers the same time of two years to fulfil the purpose equally. Otherwise, the seemingly discriminatory situation would arise whereby candidates might have more educational attainment than required for the post, but be considered ineligible merely because the final diploma was issued after the year at which the required level was reached, even if they possessed official certification from a university of an EU Member State as part of such diploma provided for such purposes. Therefore, to withdraw a job offer merely on the basis that the diploma was issued later only by virtue of it covering another level is discriminatory and disproportionate due to a simplistic and rigid interpretation that is unjustified. |
| --- | --- |

—

Therefore, the applicant considers the same time of two years to fulfil the purpose equally. Otherwise, the seemingly discriminatory situation would arise whereby candidates might have more educational attainment than required for the post, but be considered ineligible merely because the final diploma was issued after the year at which the required level was reached, even if they possessed official certification from a university of an EU Member State as part of such diploma provided for such purposes. Therefore, to withdraw a job offer merely on the basis that the diploma was issued later only by virtue of it covering another level is discriminatory and disproportionate due to a simplistic and rigid interpretation that is unjustified.

---

| 11.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/46

---

Action brought on 6 February 2023 — UG v ERCEA

(Case T-45/23)

(2023/C 127/57)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: UG (represented by: N. Flandin, lawyer)

Defendant: European Research Council Executive Agency

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

declare the present action admissible and well founded;

consequently,

| — | annul the applicant’s 2021 appraisal report; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the applicant’s 2021 appraisal report;

| — | alternatively, annul the 2021 appraisal report in so far as it contains the contested comments; |
| --- | --- |

—

alternatively, annul the 2021 appraisal report in so far as it contains the contested comments;

| — | as well as, and in so far as necessary, annul the ERCEA decision of 26 October 2022 in that it rejects the applicant’s complaint against her 2021 appraisal report; |
| --- | --- |

—

as well as, and in so far as necessary, annul the ERCEA decision of 26 October 2022 in that it rejects the applicant’s complaint against her 2021 appraisal report;

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

—

order the defendant to pay all of the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the reasons for the contested decision are vitiated by a manifest error of assessment, a failure properly to take into account the previous appraisal reports, an infringement of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations of Officials the European Union and an infringement of the principle of the annual nature of the appraisal. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the reasons for the contested decision are vitiated by a manifest error of assessment, a failure properly to take into account the previous appraisal reports, an infringement of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations of Officials the European Union and an infringement of the principle of the annual nature of the appraisal.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision and comments are vitiated by manifest errors of assessment, a breach of the principle of care, a failure to take into account the particular professional context, which was disrupted by the Covid pandemic in 2021 and the disproportionate nature of the comments as against the reality of the situation. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision and comments are vitiated by manifest errors of assessment, a breach of the principle of care, a failure to take into account the particular professional context, which was disrupted by the Covid pandemic in 2021 and the disproportionate nature of the comments as against the reality of the situation.

---

| 11.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/47

---

Action brought on 16 February 2023 — Angelidis v Parliament

(Case T-49/23)

(2023/C 127/58)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Angel Angelidis (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Maes and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Parliament’s decision of 15 July 2022 relating to a disciplinary penalty; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Parliament’s decision of 15 July 2022 relating to a disciplinary penalty;

| — | withdraw that decision from the applicant’s personal file; |
| --- | --- |

—

withdraw that decision from the applicant’s personal file;

| — | reimburse to the applicant the sums deducted on that basis from his retirement pension, together with default interest as from the date of the first deduction; |
| --- | --- |

—

reimburse to the applicant the sums deducted on that basis from his retirement pension, together with default interest as from the date of the first deduction;

| — | order the Parliament to pay the applicant compensation of EUR 50 000 for the serious non-material and financial damage caused, including impairment of the peace of the applicant’s family life while at the same time he has to support his wife who suffers from a serious illness; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Parliament to pay the applicant compensation of EUR 50 000 for the serious non-material and financial damage caused, including impairment of the peace of the applicant’s family life while at the same time he has to support his wife who suffers from a serious illness;

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

—

order the Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 2 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union. The applicant submits that his son, who has reached his majority, was not entrusted to the care of his mother by a competent authority or pursuant to a legislative provision. Therefore, the applicant maintains that the Parliament was required to continue paying him the dependent child allowance. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 2 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union. The applicant submits that his son, who has reached his majority, was not entrusted to the care of his mother by a competent authority or pursuant to a legislative provision. Therefore, the applicant maintains that the Parliament was required to continue paying him the dependent child allowance.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 1(a) and (b) of Conclusion No 274/15 of the Heads of Administration. The applicant submits that, pursuant to the abovementioned provisions, the Parliament should have presumed that his son was the subject of actual maintenance, and should not have required proof of actual maintenance. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 1(a) and (b) of Conclusion No 274/15 of the Heads of Administration. The applicant submits that, pursuant to the abovementioned provisions, the Parliament should have presumed that his son was the subject of actual maintenance, and should not have required proof of actual maintenance.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, on the ground that the applicant was not heard before the adoption of the penalty against him and that the Secretary-General of the Parliament showed a manifest lack of impartiality. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, on the ground that the applicant was not heard before the adoption of the penalty against him and that the Secretary-General of the Parliament showed a manifest lack of impartiality.

---

| 11.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/47

---

Action brought on 13 February 2023 — Alan and Others v Commission

(Case T-69/23)

(2023/C 127/59)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Alan Srl (Zinasco, Italy), Evergreen Italia Srl (Milano, Italy), Agrorisorse Srl (Bergamo, Italy), Azienda Agricola Allevi Srl (Sannazzaro dè Burgondi, Italy) (represented by: P. Ferraris, E. Robaldo and F. Trolli, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

| — | Annul the implementing decision of the European Commission of 2 December 2022 C(2022) 8645 final approving the 2023-2027 CAP Strategic Plan of Italy, in so far as, in the statements concerning interventions in the field of environmental and climate commitments, the plan establishes, as a commitment which must be observed in order for contributions to be paid, a prohibition on the agricultural use of activated sludges or any other waste recovered in R10 operations within the meaning of Part IV of Decreto legislativo n. 152/2006 (Legislative Decree No 152/2006) and requires that only fertilisers approved under Regulation (EU) No 2019/1009 and/or organic fertilisers whose constituent matrices are included therein be used. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the implementing decision of the European Commission of 2 December 2022 C(2022) 8645 final approving the 2023-2027 CAP Strategic Plan of Italy, in so far as, in the statements concerning interventions in the field of environmental and climate commitments, the plan establishes, as a commitment which must be observed in order for contributions to be paid, a prohibition on the agricultural use of activated sludges or any other waste recovered in R10 operations within the meaning of Part IV of Decreto legislativo n. 152/2006 (Legislative Decree No 152/2006) and requires that only fertilisers approved under Regulation (EU) No 2019/1009 and/or organic fertilisers whose constituent matrices are included therein be used.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea, alleging infringement of Regulation (EU) No 2021/2115 (1) and of the communication of the European Commission titled ‘Ensuring availability and affordability of fertilizers — COM (2022) 590 final’ of 9 November 2022.






  — | Regulation (EU) No 2021 2115, in governing the allocation of agricultural contributions, contains no provision precluding the use of activated sludges and products derived therefrom, the use of which is in fact incentivised, in the context of the CAP, by the European Commission itself, which has expressed clearly that it is in favour of the use of sludges in agriculture, most recently in the communication ‘Ensuring availability and affordability of fertilizers — COM (2022) 590 final’ of 9 November 2022. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea, alleging infringement of Regulation (EU) No 2021/2115 (1) and of the communication of the European Commission titled ‘Ensuring availability and affordability of fertilizers — COM (2022) 590 final’ of 9 November 2022.

—

Regulation (EU) No 2021 2115, in governing the allocation of agricultural contributions, contains no provision precluding the use of activated sludges and products derived therefrom, the use of which is in fact incentivised, in the context of the CAP, by the European Commission itself, which has expressed clearly that it is in favour of the use of sludges in agriculture, most recently in the communication ‘Ensuring availability and affordability of fertilizers — COM (2022) 590 final’ of 9 November 2022.

| 2. | Second plea, alleging infringement of Directive 2008/98/EC, (2) Directive EU 2018/851, (3) the principles of a circular economy, Directive EEC 86/278 (4) and Regulation (EU) No 2019/1009 (5).






  — | The general prohibition on using activated sludges and fertilisers derived therefrom which have been recovered in agriculture established in the national 2023-2027 CAP Strategic Plan approved by the Commission and, therefore, the burden associated with that activity as compared with fertilisers under Regulation (EU) No 2019/1009, contrasts clearly with the current development model selected at Community level, which is based on the so-called ‘circular economy’ and on using waste to produce energy, with the aim of preserving natural resources, and fails to take into consideration either the current and substantial failure to implement Regulation (EU) 2019/1009 in Italy or the fact that the latter, aside from not having even implicitly repealed Directive EEC 86/278, had no effect on the Italian rules on fertilisers (Decreto legislativo 75/2010 (Legislative Decree 75/2010)). |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea, alleging infringement of Directive 2008/98/EC, (2) Directive EU 2018/851, (3) the principles of a circular economy, Directive EEC 86/278 (4) and Regulation (EU) No 2019/1009 (5).

—

The general prohibition on using activated sludges and fertilisers derived therefrom which have been recovered in agriculture established in the national 2023-2027 CAP Strategic Plan approved by the Commission and, therefore, the burden associated with that activity as compared with fertilisers under Regulation (EU) No 2019/1009, contrasts clearly with the current development model selected at Community level, which is based on the so-called ‘circular economy’ and on using waste to produce energy, with the aim of preserving natural resources, and fails to take into consideration either the current and substantial failure to implement Regulation (EU) 2019/1009 in Italy or the fact that the latter, aside from not having even implicitly repealed Directive EEC 86/278, had no effect on the Italian rules on fertilisers (Decreto legislativo 75/2010 (Legislative Decree 75/2010)).

| 3. | Third plea, alleging infringement of Directive EEC 86/278 and distortion of the market and competition which is detrimental to operators in the activated sludge recovery sector.






  — | The general prohibition on using activated sludges recovered from agriculture causes impermissible and unjustified distortive effects on competition which, in addition to being contrary to Directive EEC 86/278, undermine the market position of other operators active in the activated sludge recovery sector, disadvantaging them as compared with producers of other organic and chemical fertilisers. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea, alleging infringement of Directive EEC 86/278 and distortion of the market and competition which is detrimental to operators in the activated sludge recovery sector.

—

The general prohibition on using activated sludges recovered from agriculture causes impermissible and unjustified distortive effects on competition which, in addition to being contrary to Directive EEC 86/278, undermine the market position of other operators active in the activated sludge recovery sector, disadvantaging them as compared with producers of other organic and chemical fertilisers.

| 4. | Fourth plea, alleging infringement of Article 296(2) TFEU, Regulation (EU) No 2021/2115 and Directive EEC 86/278. Failure to investigate, misrepresentation of the facts, conditions not satisfied, contradiction, manifest lack of logic, difference in treatment and serious failure to state reasons.






  — | The national strategic plan approved by the Commission, in so far as it prohibits the use of activated sludges and other waste recovered in R10 operations and fertilisers not covered by Regulation (EU) No 2019/1009, is entirely unjustified — a circumstance which makes it clear that the relevant conditions have not been met and that the legislation on the recovery of activated sludges in agriculture is being infringed — and establishes an impermissible difference in treatment compared to other fertilisers. |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea, alleging infringement of Article 296(2) TFEU, Regulation (EU) No 2021/2115 and Directive EEC 86/278. Failure to investigate, misrepresentation of the facts, conditions not satisfied, contradiction, manifest lack of logic, difference in treatment and serious failure to state reasons.

—

The national strategic plan approved by the Commission, in so far as it prohibits the use of activated sludges and other waste recovered in R10 operations and fertilisers not covered by Regulation (EU) No 2019/1009, is entirely unjustified — a circumstance which makes it clear that the relevant conditions have not been met and that the legislation on the recovery of activated sludges in agriculture is being infringed — and establishes an impermissible difference in treatment compared to other fertilisers.

| 5. | Fifth plea, alleging infringement of Regulation (EU) No 2021/2115 and failure to observe the principle of proportionality.






  — | The establishment of the objectives pursued by the contested environmental and climate interventions is in no way subject to or prejudiced by the use of activated sludges in agriculture, the use of which is, in fact, entirely irrelevant for the purpose of protecting the environment and improving agricultural practices, and therefore the burden imposed on the applicants, besides being unjustified, is disproportionate and excessively onerous as compared with the alleged protective benefit. |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea, alleging infringement of Regulation (EU) No 2021/2115 and failure to observe the principle of proportionality.

—

The establishment of the objectives pursued by the contested environmental and climate interventions is in no way subject to or prejudiced by the use of activated sludges in agriculture, the use of which is, in fact, entirely irrelevant for the purpose of protecting the environment and improving agricultural practices, and therefore the burden imposed on the applicants, besides being unjustified, is disproportionate and excessively onerous as compared with the alleged protective benefit.

| 6. | Sixth plea, alleging a misuse of powers on the basis that they have been used for improper purposes. Conditions for the adoption of a prohibition on the use of sludges and derivatives thereof have not been satisfied.






  — | The choice to prohibit, in the context of the contested environmental and climate interventions, the use of sludges — which has no specific justification from a technical scientific perspective and in respect of which virtually no technical reasons have been provided — reflects the actual, distorted objective pursued, namely to preclude the agricultural re-use of activated sludges, which disadvantages, at a financial level, agricultural businesses wishing to fertilise their land in that way. |
| --- | --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea, alleging a misuse of powers on the basis that they have been used for improper purposes. Conditions for the adoption of a prohibition on the use of sludges and derivatives thereof have not been satisfied.

—

The choice to prohibit, in the context of the contested environmental and climate interventions, the use of sludges — which has no specific justification from a technical scientific perspective and in respect of which virtually no technical reasons have been provided — reflects the actual, distorted objective pursued, namely to preclude the agricultural re-use of activated sludges, which disadvantages, at a financial level, agricultural businesses wishing to fertilise their land in that way.

| 7. | Seventh plea, alleging infringement of Article 70 of Regulation (EU) No 2021/2115 of 2 December 2021 and failure to obverse the principle of proportionality.






  — | The national strategic plan approved by the Commission established a commitment period of 5 years for the contested environmental and climate interventions, whereas Article 70(3) of Regulation (EU) No 2021/2115 provides that the maximum duration is 24 months. |
| --- | --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea, alleging infringement of Article 70 of Regulation (EU) No 2021/2115 of 2 December 2021 and failure to obverse the principle of proportionality.

—

The national strategic plan approved by the Commission established a commitment period of 5 years for the contested environmental and climate interventions, whereas Article 70(3) of Regulation (EU) No 2021/2115 provides that the maximum duration is 24 months.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) 2021/2115 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 2 December 2021 establishing rules on support for strategic plans to be drawn up by Member States under the common agricultural policy (CAP Strategic Plans) and financed by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Regulations (EU) No 1305/2013 and (EU) No 1307/2013 (OJ 2021 L 435, p. 1).

(2)  Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives (OJ 2008 L 312, p. 3).

(3)  Directive (EU) 2018/851 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 amending Directive 2008/98/EC on waste (OJ 2018 L 150, p. 109).

(4)  Council Directive 86/278/EEC of 12 June 1986 on the protection of the environment, and in particular of the soil, when sewage sludge is used in agriculture (OJ 1986 L 181, p. 6).

(5)  Regulation (EU) 2019/1009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019 laying down rules on the making available on the market of EU fertilising products and amending Regulations (EC) No 1069/2009 and (EC) No 1107/2009 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2003/2003 (OJ 2019 L 170, p. 1).

---

| 11.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/49

---

Action brought on 14 February 2023 — Data Protection Commission v European Data Protection Board

(Case T-70/23)

(2023/C 127/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Data Protection Commission (represented by: D. Young, A. Bateman and R. Minch, Solicitors, B. Kennelly, SC, D. Fennelly and E. Synnott, Barristers)

Defendant: European Data Protection Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the second line of paragraph 198 of the Decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the second line of paragraph 198 of the Decision;

| — | annul the second line of paragraph 487 of the Decision; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the second line of paragraph 487 of the Decision; and

| — | order that the European Data Protection Board pays the Data Protection Commission’s costs of and occasioned by this application. |
| --- | --- |

—

order that the European Data Protection Board pays the Data Protection Commission’s costs of and occasioned by this application.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action to annul the second lines of paragraphs 198 and 487 of Binding Decision 3/2022 on the dispute submitted by the Irish SA on Meta Platforms Ireland Limited and its Facebook service (Art. 65 GDPR), the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the European Data Protection Board exceeded its competence under Article 65(1)(a) of the Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) (GDPR) in purporting to instruct the Data Protection Commission, at paragraphs 198 and 487 of the Decision, to: (i) carry out a new investigation, and (ii) issue a new draft decision in accordance with Article 60(3) GDPR. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the European Data Protection Board exceeded its competence under Article 65(1)(a) of the Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) (GDPR) in purporting to instruct the Data Protection Commission, at paragraphs 198 and 487 of the Decision, to: (i) carry out a new investigation, and (ii) issue a new draft decision in accordance with Article 60(3) GDPR.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the European Data Protection Board infringed Article 4(24) and Article 65(1)(a) GDPR by incorrectly interpreting those provisions as conferring a competence on the European Data Protection Board to instruct the Data Protection Commission to: (i) carry out a new investigation, and (ii) issue a new draft decision in accordance with Article 60(3) GDPR. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the European Data Protection Board infringed Article 4(24) and Article 65(1)(a) GDPR by incorrectly interpreting those provisions as conferring a competence on the European Data Protection Board to instruct the Data Protection Commission to: (i) carry out a new investigation, and (ii) issue a new draft decision in accordance with Article 60(3) GDPR.

---

(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).

---

| 11.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/50

---

Action brought on 15 February 2023 — RT France v Council

(Case T-75/23)

(2023/C 127/61)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: RT France (Boulogne-Billancourt, France) (represented by: E. Piwnica, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Forms of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/2477 of 16 December 2022, amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, in so far as it concerns the association ‘TV-Novosti’ and the companies in its ownership; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/2477 of 16 December 2022, amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, in so far as it concerns the association ‘TV-Novosti’ and the companies in its ownership;

| — | annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2022/2476 of 16 December 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, in so far as it concerns the association ‘TV-Novosti’ and the companies in its ownership; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2022/2476 of 16 December 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, in so far as it concerns the association ‘TV-Novosti’ and the companies in its ownership;

| — | order the Council of the European Union to bear the costs; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council of the European Union to bear the costs;

| — | with all the legal consequences that entails. |
| --- | --- |

—

with all the legal consequences that entails.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Council disregarded its obligation to state reasons. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Council disregarded its obligation to state reasons.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Council infringed the right to property under Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Council infringed the right to property under Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Council infringed the freedom to conduct a business under Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Council infringed the freedom to conduct a business under Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

| 4. | Fourth plea, alleging that the Council erred in its assessment of the facts, thereby vitiating the contested measures. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea, alleging that the Council erred in its assessment of the facts, thereby vitiating the contested measures.

---

| 11.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/51

---

Action brought on 17 February 2023 — Beauty Biosciences v EUIPO — Société de Recherche Cosmétique (BEAUTYBIO)

(Case T-80/23)

(2023/C 127/62)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Beauty Biosciences LLC (Dallas, Texas, United States) (represented by: D. Mărginean, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Société de Recherche Cosmétique SARL (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark BEAUTYBIO — European Union trade mark No 16 919 342

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 December 2022 in Case R 1038/2022-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision in the sense of rejecting the application for a declaration of invalidity in its entirety and maintain the contested trademark registered for all the registered goods in Class 3; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in the sense of rejecting the application for a declaration of invalidity in its entirety and maintain the contested trademark registered for all the registered goods in Class 3;

| — | alter the contested decision it in the sense of rejecting the application for a declaration of invalidity in its entirety and maintain the contested trademark registered for all the registered goods in Class 3; |
| --- | --- |

—

alter the contested decision it in the sense of rejecting the application for a declaration of invalidity in its entirety and maintain the contested trademark registered for all the registered goods in Class 3;

| — | order Société de Recherche Cosmétique SARL to pay the costs incurred by Beauty Biosciences LLC in the present action, in the proceedings before the Board of Appeals and in the proceedings before the Cancellation Division. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Société de Recherche Cosmétique SARL to pay the costs incurred by Beauty Biosciences LLC in the present action, in the proceedings before the Board of Appeals and in the proceedings before the Cancellation Division.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 59(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council corroborated with Article 7(1)(c) of that Regulation; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 59(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council corroborated with Article 7(1)(c) of that Regulation;

| — | Infringement of Article 59(1)(a) Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council corroborated with Article 7(1)(b) of that Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 59(1)(a) Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council corroborated with Article 7(1)(b) of that Regulation.

---

| 11.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/52

---

Action brought on 17 February 2023 — Beauty Biosciences v EUIPO — Société de Recherche Cosmétique (BEAUTYBIO SCIENCE)

(Case T-81/23)

(2023/C 127/63)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Beauty Biosciences LLC (Dallas, Texas, United States) (represented by: D. Mărginean, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Société de Recherche Cosmétique SARL (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark BEAUTYBIO SCIENCE –European Union trade mark No 16 919 301

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 December 2022 in Case R 1039/2022-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision in the sense of rejecting the application for a declaration of invalidity in its entirety and maintain the contested trademark registered for all the registered goods in Class 3; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in the sense of rejecting the application for a declaration of invalidity in its entirety and maintain the contested trademark registered for all the registered goods in Class 3;

| — | alter the contested decision it in the sense of rejecting the application for a declaration of invalidity in its entirety and maintain the contested trademark registered for all the registered goods in Class 3; |
| --- | --- |

—

alter the contested decision it in the sense of rejecting the application for a declaration of invalidity in its entirety and maintain the contested trademark registered for all the registered goods in Class 3;

| — | order Société de Recherche Cosmétique SARL to pay the costs incurred by Beauty Biosciences LLC in the present action, in the proceedings before the Board of Appeals and in the proceedings before the Cancellation Division. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Société de Recherche Cosmétique SARL to pay the costs incurred by Beauty Biosciences LLC in the present action, in the proceedings before the Board of Appeals and in the proceedings before the Cancellation Division.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 59(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council corroborated with Article 7(1)(c) of that Regulation; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 59(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council corroborated with Article 7(1)(c) of that Regulation;

| — | Infringement of Article 59(1)(a) Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council corroborated with Article 7(1)(b) of that Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 59(1)(a) Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council corroborated with Article 7(1)(b) of that Regulation.

---

| 11.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/53

---

Action brought on 17 February 2023 — Data Protection Commission v European Data Protection Board

(Case T-84/23)

(2023/C 127/64)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Data Protection Commission (represented by: D. Young, A. Bateman and R. Minch, Solicitors, B. Kennelly, SC, D. Fennelly and E. Synnott, Barristers)

Defendant: European Data Protection Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the second lines of paragraphs 203 and 454 of Binding Decision 4/2022 of the European Data Protection Board (the ‘EDPB’) on the dispute submitted by the Irish SA pursuant to Article 65 GDPR on Meta Platforms Ireland Limited and its Instagram service; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the second lines of paragraphs 203 and 454 of Binding Decision 4/2022 of the European Data Protection Board (the ‘EDPB’) on the dispute submitted by the Irish SA pursuant to Article 65 GDPR on Meta Platforms Ireland Limited and its Instagram service;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the EDPB exceeded its competence under Article 65(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council (GDPR) (1) in purporting to instruct the Data Protection Commission (the ‘DPC’) to: (i) carry out a new investigation, and (ii) issue a new draft decision in accordance with Article 60(3) GDPR. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the EDPB exceeded its competence under Article 65(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council (GDPR) (1) in purporting to instruct the Data Protection Commission (the ‘DPC’) to: (i) carry out a new investigation, and (ii) issue a new draft decision in accordance with Article 60(3) GDPR.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the EDPB infringed Article 4(24) GDPR and Article 65(1)(a) GDPR by incorrectly interpreting those provisions as conferring a competence on the EDPB to instruct the DPC to: (i) carry out a new investigation, and (ii) issue a new draft decision in accordance with Article 60(3) GDPR. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the EDPB infringed Article 4(24) GDPR and Article 65(1)(a) GDPR by incorrectly interpreting those provisions as conferring a competence on the EDPB to instruct the DPC to: (i) carry out a new investigation, and (ii) issue a new draft decision in accordance with Article 60(3) GDPR.

---

(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).

---

| 11.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/53

---

Action brought on 20 February 2023 — DGC Switzerland v EUIPO (cyberscan)

(Case T-85/23)

(2023/C 127/65)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: DGC Switzerland AG (Zurich, Switzerland) (represented by: N. Medler, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for the EU word mark ‘cyberscan’ — Application No 18 607 123

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 December 2022 in Case R 1587/2022-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | remit the case back to the examiner. |
| --- | --- |

—

remit the case back to the examiner.

Pleas in law

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

—

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

| — | Infringement of Article 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.

---

| 11.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/54

---

Action brought on 20 February 2023 — Kande Mupompa v Council

(Case T-88/23)

(2023/C 127/66)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Alex Kande Mupompa (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/2412 of 8 December 2022, (1) in so far as the applicant remains at No 5 in the annex to that decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/2412 of 8 December 2022, (1) in so far as the applicant remains at No 5 in the annex to that decision;

| — | annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/2401 of 8 December 2022, (2) in so far as the applicant remains at No 5 in Annex I to that regulation; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/2401 of 8 December 2022, (2) in so far as the applicant remains at No 5 in Annex I to that regulation;

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

—

order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of the right of defence. In that respect, the applicant raises a number of complaints regarding the infringement of his rights in the course of the procedures that led the Council to adopt and renew the restrictive measures against him and, in particular, the infringement of his right to be heard under acceptable conditions. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the right of defence. In that respect, the applicant raises a number of complaints regarding the infringement of his rights in the course of the procedures that led the Council to adopt and renew the restrictive measures against him and, in particular, the infringement of his right to be heard under acceptable conditions.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment regarding the applicant’s involvement in acts constituting serious human rights breaches in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The applicant criticises the context of the review, which preceded the contested renewal of the restrictive measures and disputes any current involvement in the events underpinning the decision to include him in the list of persons covered by Decision 2010/788/CFSP. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment regarding the applicant’s involvement in acts constituting serious human rights breaches in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The applicant criticises the context of the review, which preceded the contested renewal of the restrictive measures and disputes any current involvement in the events underpinning the decision to include him in the list of persons covered by Decision 2010/788/CFSP.

---

(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/2412 of 8 December 2022 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2022 L 317, p. 122).

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/2401 of 8 December 2022 implementing Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2022 L 317, p. 32).

---

| 11.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/55

---

Action brought on 20 February 2023 — Boshab v Council

(Case T-89/23)

(2023/C 127/67)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Evariste Boshab (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/2412 of 8 December 2022, (1) in so far as the applicant remains at No 5 in the annex to that decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/2412 of 8 December 2022, (1) in so far as the applicant remains at No 5 in the annex to that decision;

| — | annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/2401 of 8 December 2022, (2) in so far as the applicant remains at No 5 in Annex I to that regulation; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/2401 of 8 December 2022, (2) in so far as the applicant remains at No 5 in Annex I to that regulation;

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

—

order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law, which are, in essence, identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-88/23, Kande Mupompa v Council.

---

(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/2412 of 8 December 2022 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2022 L 317, p. 122).

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/2401 of 8 December 2022 implementing Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2022 L 317, p. 32).

---

| 11.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/56

---

Action brought on 21 February 2023 — Court of Auditors v Allianz Insurance Luxembourg

(Case T-93/23)

(2023/C 127/68)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Court of Auditors of the European Union (represented by: C. Lange-Tramoni, K. Kantza and B. Schäfer, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Allianz Insurance Luxembourg (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that the claims relating to the cracked and damaged glazing and the detachment of the plaster from the foundation wall of the K3 Building of the Court of Auditors fall within the scope of the 10-year and 2-year civil liability insurance contract; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the claims relating to the cracked and damaged glazing and the detachment of the plaster from the foundation wall of the K3 Building of the Court of Auditors fall within the scope of the 10-year and 2-year civil liability insurance contract;

| — | order the defendant to reimburse the costs and expenses relating to the claims, currently calculated at EUR 90 145 for the glazing and EUR 89 809,55 in respect of the foundation wall, EUR 179 954,55 altogether, plus the statutory interest from the service of this application on the defendant; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to reimburse the costs and expenses relating to the claims, currently calculated at EUR 90 145 for the glazing and EUR 89 809,55 in respect of the foundation wall, EUR 179 954,55 altogether, plus the statutory interest from the service of this application on the defendant;

| — | declare that the defendant breached its contractual obligations under the 10-year and 2-year civil liability insurance contract; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the defendant breached its contractual obligations under the 10-year and 2-year civil liability insurance contract;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law based on its right to claim payment for the incidents of damage established after the completion of the K3 Building, by the defendant, in its capacity as insurer, under the 10-year and 2-year civil liability insurance contract. In that regard, it submits, in so far as concerns the two claims, that under the terms of that contract, the defendant must bear all the costs incurred by it in that context, and the costs necessary for the related repairs.

In relation to the claim concerning the glazing, the applicant maintains that it is covered by the guarantee under the 10-year and 2-year civil liability insurance contract as hidden defects concerning structural work and that the alleged distinction drawn by the defendant between, on the one hand, the design and/or production defects in the glazing manufacturing process and, on the other hand, construction defects, is irrelevant.

As regards the claim concerning the basement wall, the applicant submits that the exclusion clause relied on by the defendant with regard to the damage resulting from the non-performance or partial performance of contractual obligations is not applicable to completed works and that the fact that the damage can be repaired is not such as to call that conclusion into question.

---

| 11.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/56

---

Action brought on 23 February 2023 — Medela v EUIPO (THE SCIENCE OF CARE)

(Case T-97/23)

(2023/C 127/69)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Medela Holding AG (Baar, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Hartmann, S. Fröhlich and H. Lerchl, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark ‘THE SCIENCE OF CARE’ — International Registration No 1 635 852 designating the European Union

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 December 2022 in Case R 1163/2022-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision concerning the refusal in part of the application for the extension of protection under international registration No 1 635 852 THE SCIENCE OF CARE, in so far as the Board of Appeal therein refused to grant protection for the mark for the Class 44 services ‘rental of breast pumps and vacuum pumps; advisory and information services for medical products; consultancy in the field of medical apparatus and instruments’; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision concerning the refusal in part of the application for the extension of protection under international registration No 1 635 852 THE SCIENCE OF CARE, in so far as the Board of Appeal therein refused to grant protection for the mark for the Class 44 services ‘rental of breast pumps and vacuum pumps; advisory and information services for medical products; consultancy in the field of medical apparatus and instruments’;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

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

—

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

| — | Infringement of Article 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.

---

| 11.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/57

---

Action brought on 23 February 2023 — Atomico Investment v EUIPO — Gomes Tominaga (atomic fund)

(Case T-98/23)

(2023/C 127/70)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Atomico Investment Holdings Limited (Road Town, British Virgin Islands) (represented by: S. Malynicz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Augusto Gomes Tominaga (Amsterdam, Netherlands)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark atomic fund — Application for registration No 17 796 781

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 December 2022 in Case R 324/2022-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and the other party, if it takes part in these proceedings, to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the other party, if it takes part in these proceedings, to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 11.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/58

---

Action brought on 24 February 2023 — Darila v EUIPO — Original Buff (Buffet)

(Case T-101/23)

(2023/C 127/71)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Michal Darila (Bratislava, Slovakia) (represented by: M. Holič, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Original Buff, SA (Igualada, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark Buffet — Application for registration No 18 285 108

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 December 2022 in Case R 528/2022-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | alter the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

alter the contested decision;

| — | uphold the decision of the Opposition Division on opposition No B 3 136 022; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the decision of the Opposition Division on opposition No B 3 136 022;

| — | reject the opposition; |
| --- | --- |

—

reject the opposition;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

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.

---

| 11.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/58

---

Action brought on 24 February 2023 — Data Protection Commission v EDPB

(Case T-111/23)

(2023/C 127/72)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Data Protection Commission (represented by: B. Kennelly, SC, D. Fennelly and E. Synnott, Barristers-at-Law, D. Young, A. Bateman and R. Minch, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Data Protection Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul paragraphs 222 and 326(8) of Binding Decision 5/2022 of the European Data Protection Board (the ‘EDPB’) on the dispute submitted by the Irish SA pursuant to Article 65 GDPR on WhatsApp Ireland Limited; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul paragraphs 222 and 326(8) of Binding Decision 5/2022 of the European Data Protection Board (the ‘EDPB’) on the dispute submitted by the Irish SA pursuant to Article 65 GDPR on WhatsApp Ireland Limited;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the EDPB exceeded its competence under Article 65(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council (GDPR) (1) in purporting to instruct the Data Protection Commission to: (i) carry out a new investigation, and (ii) issue a new draft decision in accordance with Article 60(3) GDPR. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the EDPB exceeded its competence under Article 65(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council (GDPR) (1) in purporting to instruct the Data Protection Commission to: (i) carry out a new investigation, and (ii) issue a new draft decision in accordance with Article 60(3) GDPR.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the EDPB infringed Article 4(24) GDPR and Article 65(1)(a) GDPR by incorrectly interpreting those provisions as conferring a competence on the EDPB to instruct the DPC to: (i) carry out a new investigation, and (ii) issue a new draft decision in accordance with Article 60(3) GDPR. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the EDPB infringed Article 4(24) GDPR and Article 65(1)(a) GDPR by incorrectly interpreting those provisions as conferring a competence on the EDPB to instruct the DPC to: (i) carry out a new investigation, and (ii) issue a new draft decision in accordance with Article 60(3) GDPR.

---

(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) (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2016 L 119, p. 1).

---

| 11.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/59

---

Action brought on 2 March 2023 — Papier-Mettler v EUIPO (Shape of a carrier bag)

(Case T-113/23)

(2023/C 127/73)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Papier-Mettler KG (Morbach, Germany) (represented by: D. Graetsch and M. Bergermann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU three-dimensional mark (Shape of a carrier bag) — Application No 18 580 604

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 December 2022 in Case R 764/2022-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

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.

---

| 11.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/60

---

Action brought on 2 March 2023 — Papier-Mettler v EUIPO (Shape of a carrier bag)

(Case T-114/23)

(2023/C 127/74)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Papier-Mettler (Morbach, Germany) (represented by: D. Graetsch and M. Bergermann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU three-dimensional mark (Shape of a carrier bag) — Application No 18 580 606

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 December 2022 in Case R 765/2022-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

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.

---

| 11.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/60

---

Order of the General Court of 17 February 2023 — Mylan Ireland v EMA

(Case T-653/20) (1)

(2023/C 127/75)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 433, 14.12.2020.

---