# Official Journal C 51/31 J

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 51 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6531 January 2022 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 51

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6531 January 2022

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2022/C 51/01 | 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

2022/C 51/01

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 |
| 2022/C 51/02 | Case C-437/19: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative — Luxembourg) — État luxembourgeois v L (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Administrative cooperation in the field of taxation — Directive 2011/16/EU — Article 1(1), Article 5 and Article 20(2) — Request for information — Decision ordering that information be provided — Refusal to comply with the order — Penalty — Foreseeable relevance of the requested information — Absence of identification of the taxpayers concerned individually and by name — Concept of identity of the person under examination or investigation — Statement of reasons of the request for information — Scope — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 47 — Right to an effective remedy against the decision ordering that information be provided — Article 52(1) — Limitation — Respect for the essence of the right) | 2 |
| 2022/C 51/03 | Case C-564/19: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 23 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Pesti Központi Kerületi Bíróság — Hungary) — Criminal proceedings against IS (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Directive 2010/64/EU — Article 5 — Quality of the interpretation and translation — Directive 2012/13/EU — Right to information in criminal proceedings — Article 4(5) and Article 6(1) — Right to information about the accusation — Right to interpretation and translation — Directive 2016/343/EU — Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial — Article 48(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 267 TFEU — Second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU — Admissibility — Appeal in the interests of the law against a decision ordering a reference for a preliminary ruling — Disciplinary proceedings — Power of the higher court to declare the request for a preliminary ruling unlawful) | 3 |
| 2022/C 51/04 | Case C-833/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 23 November 2021 — Council of the European Union v Hamas (Appeal — Common foreign and security policy — Fight against terrorism — Restrictive measures against certain persons and entities — Freezing of funds — Common Position 2001/931/CFSP — Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 — Continued inclusion of an organisation on the list of persons, groups and entities involved in terrorist acts — Statement of individual reasons notified to the organisation set out in a separate document from that containing a general statement of reasons — Authentication of the statement of individual reasons — Article 297(2) TFEU) | 4 |
| 2022/C 51/05 | Joined Cases C-884/19 P and C-888/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 2 December 2021 — European Commission v Xinyi PV Products (Anhui) Holdings Ltd, GMB Glasmanufaktur Brandenburg GmbH (C-884/19 P), GMB Glasmanufaktur Brandenburg GmbH v Xinyi PV Products (Anhui) Holdings Ltd, European Commission (C-888/19 P) (Appeal — Dumping — Imports of solar glass originating in China — Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 — Article 2(7)(b) and (c) — Undertaking operating under market economy conditions status — Denied — Concept of significant distortions carried over from the former non-market economy system, within the meaning of the third indent of Article 2(7)(c) — Tax incentives) | 5 |
| 2022/C 51/06 | Case C-3/20: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 30 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rīgas rajona tiesa — Latvia) — Criminal proceedings against AB, CE, MM investīcijas SIA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protocol (No 7) on the privileges and immunities of the European Union — Member of an organ of the European Central Bank — Governor of a national central bank of a Member State — Immunity from criminal proceedings — Indictment connected with activities carried out in the course of employment within the Member State) | 5 |
| 2022/C 51/07 | Case C-25/20: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 25 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Višje sodišče v Ljubljani — Slovenia) — Proceedings brought by NK, acting as liquidator in the insolvency of Alpine BAU GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Insolvency proceedings — Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 — Articles 4 and 28 — Article 32(2) — Time limit for the lodging of claims in insolvency proceedings — Lodging, in secondary insolvency proceedings ongoing in a Member State, of claims by the liquidator in the main proceedings pending in another Member State — Compulsory time limit laid down by the law of the State in which secondary insolvency proceedings have been opened) | 6 |
| 2022/C 51/08 | Case C-102/20: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — StWL Städtische Werke Lauf a.d. Pegnitz GmbH v eprimo GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2002/58/EC — Processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector — Article 2(h) — Concept of electronic mail — Article 13(1) — Concept of use of ... electronic mail for the purposes of direct marketing — Directive 2005/29/EC — Unfair commercial practices — Annex I, point 26 — Concept of persistent and unwanted solicitations by email — Advertising messages — Inbox advertising) | 7 |
| 2022/C 51/09 | Case C-233/20: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 25 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — WD v job-medium GmbH, in liquidation (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2003/88/EC — Protection of the safety and health of workers — Article 7(1) — Right to an allowance in lieu of paid annual leave not taken before the end of the employment relationship — Early termination of the employment relationship by the employee) | 8 |
| 2022/C 51/10 | Case C-249/20 P: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 25 November 2021 — European Commission v UG (Appeal — Civil service — Contract staff — Contract of indefinite duration — Termination — Grounds for termination — Distortion — Non-material damage — Admissibility — Failure to rule on a head of claim) | 9 |
| 2022/C 51/11 | Case C-271/20: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — Aurubis AG v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading — Free allocation of allowances — Decision 2011/278/EU — Article 3(d) — Fuel benchmark sub-installation — Concepts of combustion and fuel — Primary copper production by flash smelting — Request for allocation — Allowances requested and not yet allocated on the date of expiry of a trading period — Possibility of issuing such allowances during the subsequent trading period by way of enforcement of a judicial decision given after that date) | 9 |
| 2022/C 51/12 | Case C-289/20: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Paris — France) — IB v FA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Jurisdiction to hear divorce applications — Article 3(1)(a) — Habitual residence of an applicant) | 10 |
| 2022/C 51/13 | Case C-334/20: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 25 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Veszprémi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Amper Metal Kft v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 2 — Transaction subject to VAT — Concept — Article 168(a) and Article 176 — Right to deduct input VAT — Refusal — Advertising services categorised as excessively expensive and not beneficial by the tax authority — Lack of turnover generated by the taxable person) | 11 |
| 2022/C 51/14 | Case C-372/20: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 25 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzgericht — Austria) — QY v Finanzamt Österreich, formerly Finanzamt Wien für den 8., 16. und 17. Bezirk (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 45 et 48 TFEU — Freedom of movement for workers — Equal treatment — Family benefits for development aid workers who take their family members to the third country to which they have been posted — Discontinuation — Article 288, second paragraph TFEU — Legal acts of the European Union — Scope of regulations — National legislation with a wider personal scope than that of a regulation — Conditions — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Article 11(3)(a) and (e) — Scope — Employed person who is a national of a Member State employed as a development aid worker by an employer established in another Member State and sent on mission to a third country — Article 68(3) — Right of the applicant for family benefits to submit a single application to the institution of the Member State having primary jurisdiction or to the institution of the Member State having subsidiary jurisdiction) | 11 |
| 2022/C 51/15 | Case C-484/20: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 2 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München — Germany) — Vodafone Kabel Deutschland GmbH v Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive (EU) 2015/2366 — Payment services — Article 62(4) — Charges applicable — Article 107(1) — Full harmonisation — Article 115(1) and (2) — Transposition and application — Subscriptions for cable television and internet access — Contracts of indefinite duration concluded before the date for transposition of that directive — Charges applied to payment transactions without direct debit authorisation that are initiated after that date) | 12 |
| 2022/C 51/16 | Case C-488/20: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Warszawie — Poland) — Delfarma sp. z o.o. v Prezes Urzędu Rejestracji Produktów Leczniczych, Wyrobów Medycznych i Produktów Biobójczych (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 34 and 36 TFUE — Free movement of goods — Measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction — Medicinal products for human use — Parallel import of medicinal products — Legislation of a Member State under which a parallel import licence is to expire automatically after one year from the expiry of the marketing authorisation for the reference medicinal product — Protection of the health and life of humans — Proportionality — Directive 2001/83/EC — Pharmacovigilance) | 13 |
| 2022/C 51/17 | Case C-161/21: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 4 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte dei conti — Sezione regionale di controllo per la Campania — Italy) — Comune di Camerota (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Directive 2011/85/EU — Directive 2011/7/EU — Economic and monetary policy — Local authority in financial difficulty — Financial rebalancing plan — National legislation suspending the investigative powers of the Court of Auditors due to the health crisis related to the COVID-19 pandemic — Article 267 TFEU — Definition of court or tribunal of a Member State — No dispute before the referring body — Manifest inadmissibility) | 14 |
| 2022/C 51/18 | Case C-253/21: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 6 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg — Germany) — TUIfly GmbH v FI, RE (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Article 5 — Article 7 — Article 8(3) — Denied boarding, cancellation or long delay of a flight — Compensation and assistance to passengers — Concept of cancellation — Diversion of a flight to an airport not serving the same town, city or region as that for which the booking was made — Re-routing of passengers by coach) | 14 |
| 2022/C 51/19 | Case C-408/21 P: Appeal brought on 2 July 2021 by the Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 21 April 2021 in Case T-252/19, Pech v Council | 15 |
| 2022/C 51/20 | Case C-462/21 P: Appeal brought on 28 July 2021 by Puma SE against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 19 May 2021 in Case T-510/19, Puma v EUIPO — Gemma Group (Representation of a bounding feline) | 16 |
| 2022/C 51/21 | Case C-468/21 P: Appeal brought on 19 July 2021 by Electrodomésticos Taurus, S.L. against the order of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 17 May 2021 in Case T-328/20, Electrodomésticos Taurus, S.L. v EUIPO — Shenzen Aukey E-Business Co. Ltd | 16 |
| 2022/C 51/22 | Case C-565/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 14 September 2021 — CaixaBank, S.A. v X | 17 |
| 2022/C 51/23 | Case C-583/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social n.o 1 de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 20 September 2021 — NC v BA, DA, DV and CG | 18 |
| 2022/C 51/24 | Case C-584/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social n.o 1 de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 20 September 2021 — JD v BA, DA, DV and CG | 18 |
| 2022/C 51/25 | Case C-585/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social n.1 de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 20 September 2021 — TA v BA, DA, DV and CG | 19 |
| 2022/C 51/26 | Case C-586/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social n.o 1 de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 20 September 2021 — FZ v BA, DA, DV and CG | 19 |
| 2022/C 51/27 | Case C-641/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzgericht (Austria) lodged on 20 October 2021 — Climate Corporation Emissions Trading GmbH v Finanzamt Österreich | 20 |
| 2022/C 51/28 | Case C-676/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 9 November 2021 — A | 20 |
| 2022/C 51/29 | Case C-690/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München I (Germany) lodged on 17 November 2021 — RSD Reise Service Deutschland GmbH v QL | 21 |
| 2022/C 51/30 | Case C-708/21P: Appeal brought on 24 November 2021 by Évariste Boshab against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 15 September 2021 in Case T-107/20, Boshab v Council | 21 |
| 2022/C 51/31 | Case C-709/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Pitești (Romania) lodged on 24 November 2021 — MK | 22 |
| 2022/C 51/32 | Case C-758/21 P: Appeal brought on 9 December 2021 by Ryanair DAC, Airport Marketing Services Ltd, FR Financing (Malta) Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 29 September 2021 in Case T-448/18, Ryanair and Others v Commission | 23 |
| 2022/C 51/33 | Case C-643/20: Order of the President of the Court of 6 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Veszprémi Törvényszék — Hungary) — ENERGOTT Fejlesztő és Vagyonkezelő Kft v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága | 24 |
| | General Court |
| 2022/C 51/34 | Case T-500/16: Judgment of the General Court of 8 December 2021 — BZ v ECB (Civil service — ECB staff — Request for recognition of an occupational disease — Non-contractual liability — Material damage — Non-material damage) | 25 |
| 2022/C 51/35 | Case T-257/19: Judgment of the General Court of 24 November 2021 — Al Zoubi v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Syria — Freezing of funds — Errors of assessment) | 25 |
| 2022/C 51/36 | Case T-804/19: Judgment of the General Court of 1 December 2021 — HC v Commission (Civil service — Recruitment — Notice of competition — Open competition EPSO/AD/363/18 — Decision not to admit the applicant to the next stage of the competition — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment — Plea of illegality — Equal treatment — Proportionality — Right to be heard — Principle of sound administration — Language rules for the competition — Discrimination based on language — Liability) | 26 |
| 2022/C 51/37 | Case T-265/20: Judgment of the General Court of 1 December 2021 — JR v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to the oral test in a competition — Partial refusal of access — Method for rounding scores — Weightings assigned to the different parts and sub-parts of the oral test — Secrecy of the selection board’s proceedings — Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 — No need to adjudicate in part) | 27 |
| 2022/C 51/38 | Case T-293/20: Judgment of the General Court of 1 December 2021 — Ruiz-Ruiz v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Recruitment — Notice of open competition EPSO/AD/371/19 — Decision of the Selection Board to exclude the applicant from the next phase of the competition — Admission criterion related to professional experience — Compliance of criterion applied by the Selection Board with the competition notice — Manifest error of assessment) | 28 |
| 2022/C 51/39 | Case T-546/20: Judgment of the General Court of 1 December 2021 — Sopra Steria Benelux and Unisys Belgium v Commission (Public service contract — Tender procedure — Services for the specification, development, maintenance and support of IT platforms for DG Taxation and Customs Union — Rejection of tender submitted by a tenderer and award of the contract to another tenderer — Obligation to state reasons — Abnormally low offer) | 28 |
| 2022/C 51/40 | Case T-662/20: Judgment of the General Court of 1 December 2021 — Muratbey Gida v EUIPO — M. J. Dairies (triple helicoid cheese) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing triple helicoid cheese — Earlier international design — Ground for invalidity — Individual character — Disclosure of the earlier design — Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Different overall impression — Article 6 of Regulation No 6/2002) | 29 |
| 2022/C 51/41 | Case T-700/20: Judgment of the General Court of 1 December 2021 — Schmid v EUIPO — Landeskammer für Land- und Forstwirtschaft in Steiermark (Steirisches Kürbiskernöl g.g.A) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark Steirisches Kürbiskernöl g. g. A GESCHÜTZTE GEOGRAFISCHE ANGABE — Absolute ground for refusal — Trade mark including badges, emblems or escutcheons — Emblem of one of the areas of action of the European Union — Protected geographical indications — Article 7(1)(i) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(i) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 30 |
| 2022/C 51/42 | Case T-71/21: Judgment of the General Court of 8 December 2021 — QB v Commission (Civil service — Temporary staff — Remuneration — Expatriation allowance — Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Refusal to grant the expatriation allowance — Main occupation — Work done for another State) | 30 |
| 2022/C 51/43 | Case T-84/21: Judgment of the General Court of 1 December 2021 — Jieyang Defa Industry v EUIPO — Mattel (Doll’s Head) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a doll’s head — Earlier design — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — Degree of freedom of the designer — No different overall impression — Articles 6 and 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002) | 31 |
| 2022/C 51/44 | Case T-152/21: Judgment of the General Court of 1 December 2021 — Union Syndicale Solidaires des SDIS de France et DOM/TOM v Commission (Non-contractual liability — Filing of a complaint with the Commission concerning the application of EU law — Time limit for reply — Right to good administration — Mandatory due diligence — Reasonable period — No sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals) | 31 |
| 2022/C 51/45 | Case T-230/21: Judgment of the General Court of 1 December 2021 — Jalkh v Parliament (Law governing the institutions — Member of the European Parliament — Privileges and immunities — Decision to waive parliamentary immunity — Articles 8 and 9 of Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union — Procedure for waiving immunity — Manifest error of assessment) | 32 |
| 2022/C 51/46 | Case T-714/21: Action brought on 4 November 2021 — AL v Commission | 33 |
| 2022/C 51/47 | Case T-750/21: Action brought on 26 November 2021 — Beauty Biosciences v EUIPO — Société de Recherche Cosmétique (BIO-BEAUTÉ) | 34 |
| 2022/C 51/48 | Case T-754/21: Action brought on 29 November 2021 — Peace United v EUIPO — 1906 Collins (bâoli) | 35 |
| 2022/C 51/49 | Case T-758/21: Action brought on 1 December 2021 — Dorsum v EUIPO — ID Quantique (Clavis) | 36 |
| 2022/C 51/50 | Case T-760/21: Action brought on 29 November 2021 — DCM Film Distribution v Commission | 37 |
| 2022/C 51/51 | Case T-761/21: Action brought on 6 December 2021 — Courtois and Others v Commission | 38 |
| 2022/C 51/52 | Case T-769/21: Action brought on 10 December 2021 — Euranimi v Commission | 39 |
| 2022/C 51/53 | Case T-770/21: Action brought on 9 December 2021 — OC v EEAS | 40 |
| 2022/C 51/54 | Case T-777/21: Action brought on 14 December 2021 — Trend Glass v EUIPO (ECO STORAGE) | 40 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2022/C 51/02

Case C-437/19: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative — Luxembourg) — État luxembourgeois v L (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Administrative cooperation in the field of taxation — Directive 2011/16/EU — Article 1(1), Article 5 and Article 20(2) — Request for information — Decision ordering that information be provided — Refusal to comply with the order — Penalty — Foreseeable relevance of the requested information — Absence of identification of the taxpayers concerned individually and by name — Concept of identity of the person under examination or investigation — Statement of reasons of the request for information — Scope — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 47 — Right to an effective remedy against the decision ordering that information be provided — Article 52(1) — Limitation — Respect for the essence of the right)

2

2022/C 51/03

Case C-564/19: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 23 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Pesti Központi Kerületi Bíróság — Hungary) — Criminal proceedings against IS (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Directive 2010/64/EU — Article 5 — Quality of the interpretation and translation — Directive 2012/13/EU — Right to information in criminal proceedings — Article 4(5) and Article 6(1) — Right to information about the accusation — Right to interpretation and translation — Directive 2016/343/EU — Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial — Article 48(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 267 TFEU — Second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU — Admissibility — Appeal in the interests of the law against a decision ordering a reference for a preliminary ruling — Disciplinary proceedings — Power of the higher court to declare the request for a preliminary ruling unlawful)

3

2022/C 51/04

Case C-833/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 23 November 2021 — Council of the European Union v Hamas (Appeal — Common foreign and security policy — Fight against terrorism — Restrictive measures against certain persons and entities — Freezing of funds — Common Position 2001/931/CFSP — Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 — Continued inclusion of an organisation on the list of persons, groups and entities involved in terrorist acts — Statement of individual reasons notified to the organisation set out in a separate document from that containing a general statement of reasons — Authentication of the statement of individual reasons — Article 297(2) TFEU)

4

2022/C 51/05

Joined Cases C-884/19 P and C-888/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 2 December 2021 — European Commission v Xinyi PV Products (Anhui) Holdings Ltd, GMB Glasmanufaktur Brandenburg GmbH (C-884/19 P), GMB Glasmanufaktur Brandenburg GmbH v Xinyi PV Products (Anhui) Holdings Ltd, European Commission (C-888/19 P) (Appeal — Dumping — Imports of solar glass originating in China — Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 — Article 2(7)(b) and (c) — Undertaking operating under market economy conditions status — Denied — Concept of significant distortions carried over from the former non-market economy system, within the meaning of the third indent of Article 2(7)(c) — Tax incentives)

5

2022/C 51/06

Case C-3/20: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 30 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rīgas rajona tiesa — Latvia) — Criminal proceedings against AB, CE, MM investīcijas SIA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protocol (No 7) on the privileges and immunities of the European Union — Member of an organ of the European Central Bank — Governor of a national central bank of a Member State — Immunity from criminal proceedings — Indictment connected with activities carried out in the course of employment within the Member State)

5

2022/C 51/07

Case C-25/20: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 25 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Višje sodišče v Ljubljani — Slovenia) — Proceedings brought by NK, acting as liquidator in the insolvency of Alpine BAU GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Insolvency proceedings — Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 — Articles 4 and 28 — Article 32(2) — Time limit for the lodging of claims in insolvency proceedings — Lodging, in secondary insolvency proceedings ongoing in a Member State, of claims by the liquidator in the main proceedings pending in another Member State — Compulsory time limit laid down by the law of the State in which secondary insolvency proceedings have been opened)

6

2022/C 51/08

Case C-102/20: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — StWL Städtische Werke Lauf a.d. Pegnitz GmbH v eprimo GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2002/58/EC — Processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector — Article 2(h) — Concept of electronic mail — Article 13(1) — Concept of use of ... electronic mail for the purposes of direct marketing — Directive 2005/29/EC — Unfair commercial practices — Annex I, point 26 — Concept of persistent and unwanted solicitations by email — Advertising messages — Inbox advertising)

7

2022/C 51/09

Case C-233/20: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 25 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — WD v job-medium GmbH, in liquidation (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2003/88/EC — Protection of the safety and health of workers — Article 7(1) — Right to an allowance in lieu of paid annual leave not taken before the end of the employment relationship — Early termination of the employment relationship by the employee)

8

2022/C 51/10

Case C-249/20 P: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 25 November 2021 — European Commission v UG (Appeal — Civil service — Contract staff — Contract of indefinite duration — Termination — Grounds for termination — Distortion — Non-material damage — Admissibility — Failure to rule on a head of claim)

9

2022/C 51/11

Case C-271/20: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — Aurubis AG v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading — Free allocation of allowances — Decision 2011/278/EU — Article 3(d) — Fuel benchmark sub-installation — Concepts of combustion and fuel — Primary copper production by flash smelting — Request for allocation — Allowances requested and not yet allocated on the date of expiry of a trading period — Possibility of issuing such allowances during the subsequent trading period by way of enforcement of a judicial decision given after that date)

9

2022/C 51/12

Case C-289/20: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Paris — France) — IB v FA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Jurisdiction to hear divorce applications — Article 3(1)(a) — Habitual residence of an applicant)

10

2022/C 51/13

Case C-334/20: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 25 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Veszprémi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Amper Metal Kft v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 2 — Transaction subject to VAT — Concept — Article 168(a) and Article 176 — Right to deduct input VAT — Refusal — Advertising services categorised as excessively expensive and not beneficial by the tax authority — Lack of turnover generated by the taxable person)

11

2022/C 51/14

Case C-372/20: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 25 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzgericht — Austria) — QY v Finanzamt Österreich, formerly Finanzamt Wien für den 8., 16. und 17. Bezirk (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 45 et 48 TFEU — Freedom of movement for workers — Equal treatment — Family benefits for development aid workers who take their family members to the third country to which they have been posted — Discontinuation — Article 288, second paragraph TFEU — Legal acts of the European Union — Scope of regulations — National legislation with a wider personal scope than that of a regulation — Conditions — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Article 11(3)(a) and (e) — Scope — Employed person who is a national of a Member State employed as a development aid worker by an employer established in another Member State and sent on mission to a third country — Article 68(3) — Right of the applicant for family benefits to submit a single application to the institution of the Member State having primary jurisdiction or to the institution of the Member State having subsidiary jurisdiction)

11

2022/C 51/15

Case C-484/20: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 2 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München — Germany) — Vodafone Kabel Deutschland GmbH v Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive (EU) 2015/2366 — Payment services — Article 62(4) — Charges applicable — Article 107(1) — Full harmonisation — Article 115(1) and (2) — Transposition and application — Subscriptions for cable television and internet access — Contracts of indefinite duration concluded before the date for transposition of that directive — Charges applied to payment transactions without direct debit authorisation that are initiated after that date)

12

2022/C 51/16

Case C-488/20: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Warszawie — Poland) — Delfarma sp. z o.o. v Prezes Urzędu Rejestracji Produktów Leczniczych, Wyrobów Medycznych i Produktów Biobójczych (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 34 and 36 TFUE — Free movement of goods — Measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction — Medicinal products for human use — Parallel import of medicinal products — Legislation of a Member State under which a parallel import licence is to expire automatically after one year from the expiry of the marketing authorisation for the reference medicinal product — Protection of the health and life of humans — Proportionality — Directive 2001/83/EC — Pharmacovigilance)

13

2022/C 51/17

Case C-161/21: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 4 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte dei conti — Sezione regionale di controllo per la Campania — Italy) — Comune di Camerota (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Directive 2011/85/EU — Directive 2011/7/EU — Economic and monetary policy — Local authority in financial difficulty — Financial rebalancing plan — National legislation suspending the investigative powers of the Court of Auditors due to the health crisis related to the COVID-19 pandemic — Article 267 TFEU — Definition of court or tribunal of a Member State — No dispute before the referring body — Manifest inadmissibility)

14

2022/C 51/18

Case C-253/21: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 6 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg — Germany) — TUIfly GmbH v FI, RE (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Article 5 — Article 7 — Article 8(3) — Denied boarding, cancellation or long delay of a flight — Compensation and assistance to passengers — Concept of cancellation — Diversion of a flight to an airport not serving the same town, city or region as that for which the booking was made — Re-routing of passengers by coach)

14

2022/C 51/19

Case C-408/21 P: Appeal brought on 2 July 2021 by the Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 21 April 2021 in Case T-252/19, Pech v Council

15

2022/C 51/20

Case C-462/21 P: Appeal brought on 28 July 2021 by Puma SE against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 19 May 2021 in Case T-510/19, Puma v EUIPO — Gemma Group (Representation of a bounding feline)

16

2022/C 51/21

Case C-468/21 P: Appeal brought on 19 July 2021 by Electrodomésticos Taurus, S.L. against the order of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 17 May 2021 in Case T-328/20, Electrodomésticos Taurus, S.L. v EUIPO — Shenzen Aukey E-Business Co. Ltd

16

2022/C 51/22

Case C-565/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 14 September 2021 — CaixaBank, S.A. v X

17

2022/C 51/23

Case C-583/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social n.o 1 de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 20 September 2021 — NC v BA, DA, DV and CG

o

18

2022/C 51/24

Case C-584/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social n.o 1 de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 20 September 2021 — JD v BA, DA, DV and CG

o

18

2022/C 51/25

Case C-585/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social n.1 de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 20 September 2021 — TA v BA, DA, DV and CG

19

2022/C 51/26

Case C-586/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social n.o 1 de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 20 September 2021 — FZ v BA, DA, DV and CG

o

19

2022/C 51/27

Case C-641/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzgericht (Austria) lodged on 20 October 2021 — Climate Corporation Emissions Trading GmbH v Finanzamt Österreich

20

2022/C 51/28

Case C-676/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 9 November 2021 — A

20

2022/C 51/29

Case C-690/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München I (Germany) lodged on 17 November 2021 — RSD Reise Service Deutschland GmbH v QL

21

2022/C 51/30

Case C-708/21P: Appeal brought on 24 November 2021 by Évariste Boshab against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 15 September 2021 in Case T-107/20, Boshab v Council

21

2022/C 51/31

Case C-709/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Pitești (Romania) lodged on 24 November 2021 — MK

22

2022/C 51/32

Case C-758/21 P: Appeal brought on 9 December 2021 by Ryanair DAC, Airport Marketing Services Ltd, FR Financing (Malta) Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 29 September 2021 in Case T-448/18, Ryanair and Others v Commission

23

2022/C 51/33

Case C-643/20: Order of the President of the Court of 6 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Veszprémi Törvényszék — Hungary) — ENERGOTT Fejlesztő és Vagyonkezelő Kft v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

24

General Court

2022/C 51/34

Case T-500/16: Judgment of the General Court of 8 December 2021 — BZ v ECB (Civil service — ECB staff — Request for recognition of an occupational disease — Non-contractual liability — Material damage — Non-material damage)

25

2022/C 51/35

Case T-257/19: Judgment of the General Court of 24 November 2021 — Al Zoubi v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Syria — Freezing of funds — Errors of assessment)

25

2022/C 51/36

Case T-804/19: Judgment of the General Court of 1 December 2021 — HC v Commission (Civil service — Recruitment — Notice of competition — Open competition EPSO/AD/363/18 — Decision not to admit the applicant to the next stage of the competition — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment — Plea of illegality — Equal treatment — Proportionality — Right to be heard — Principle of sound administration — Language rules for the competition — Discrimination based on language — Liability)

26

2022/C 51/37

Case T-265/20: Judgment of the General Court of 1 December 2021 — JR v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to the oral test in a competition — Partial refusal of access — Method for rounding scores — Weightings assigned to the different parts and sub-parts of the oral test — Secrecy of the selection board’s proceedings — Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 — No need to adjudicate in part)

27

2022/C 51/38

Case T-293/20: Judgment of the General Court of 1 December 2021 — Ruiz-Ruiz v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Recruitment — Notice of open competition EPSO/AD/371/19 — Decision of the Selection Board to exclude the applicant from the next phase of the competition — Admission criterion related to professional experience — Compliance of criterion applied by the Selection Board with the competition notice — Manifest error of assessment)

28

2022/C 51/39

Case T-546/20: Judgment of the General Court of 1 December 2021 — Sopra Steria Benelux and Unisys Belgium v Commission (Public service contract — Tender procedure — Services for the specification, development, maintenance and support of IT platforms for DG Taxation and Customs Union — Rejection of tender submitted by a tenderer and award of the contract to another tenderer — Obligation to state reasons — Abnormally low offer)

28

2022/C 51/40

Case T-662/20: Judgment of the General Court of 1 December 2021 — Muratbey Gida v EUIPO — M. J. Dairies (triple helicoid cheese) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing triple helicoid cheese — Earlier international design — Ground for invalidity — Individual character — Disclosure of the earlier design — Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Different overall impression — Article 6 of Regulation No 6/2002)

29

2022/C 51/41

Case T-700/20: Judgment of the General Court of 1 December 2021 — Schmid v EUIPO — Landeskammer für Land- und Forstwirtschaft in Steiermark (Steirisches Kürbiskernöl g.g.A) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark Steirisches Kürbiskernöl g. g. A GESCHÜTZTE GEOGRAFISCHE ANGABE — Absolute ground for refusal — Trade mark including badges, emblems or escutcheons — Emblem of one of the areas of action of the European Union — Protected geographical indications — Article 7(1)(i) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(i) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

30

2022/C 51/42

Case T-71/21: Judgment of the General Court of 8 December 2021 — QB v Commission (Civil service — Temporary staff — Remuneration — Expatriation allowance — Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Refusal to grant the expatriation allowance — Main occupation — Work done for another State)

30

2022/C 51/43

Case T-84/21: Judgment of the General Court of 1 December 2021 — Jieyang Defa Industry v EUIPO — Mattel (Doll’s Head) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a doll’s head — Earlier design — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — Degree of freedom of the designer — No different overall impression — Articles 6 and 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

31

2022/C 51/44

Case T-152/21: Judgment of the General Court of 1 December 2021 — Union Syndicale Solidaires des SDIS de France et DOM/TOM v Commission (Non-contractual liability — Filing of a complaint with the Commission concerning the application of EU law — Time limit for reply — Right to good administration — Mandatory due diligence — Reasonable period — No sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals)

31

2022/C 51/45

Case T-230/21: Judgment of the General Court of 1 December 2021 — Jalkh v Parliament (Law governing the institutions — Member of the European Parliament — Privileges and immunities — Decision to waive parliamentary immunity — Articles 8 and 9 of Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union — Procedure for waiving immunity — Manifest error of assessment)

32

2022/C 51/46

Case T-714/21: Action brought on 4 November 2021 — AL v Commission

33

2022/C 51/47

Case T-750/21: Action brought on 26 November 2021 — Beauty Biosciences v EUIPO — Société de Recherche Cosmétique (BIO-BEAUTÉ)

34

2022/C 51/48

Case T-754/21: Action brought on 29 November 2021 — Peace United v EUIPO — 1906 Collins (bâoli)

35

2022/C 51/49

Case T-758/21: Action brought on 1 December 2021 — Dorsum v EUIPO — ID Quantique (Clavis)

36

2022/C 51/50

Case T-760/21: Action brought on 29 November 2021 — DCM Film Distribution v Commission

37

2022/C 51/51

Case T-761/21: Action brought on 6 December 2021 — Courtois and Others v Commission

38

2022/C 51/52

Case T-769/21: Action brought on 10 December 2021 — Euranimi v Commission

39

2022/C 51/53

Case T-770/21: Action brought on 9 December 2021 — OC v EEAS

40

2022/C 51/54

Case T-777/21: Action brought on 14 December 2021 — Trend Glass v EUIPO (ECO STORAGE)

40

---

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 31.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/1

---

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

(2022/C 51/01)

Last publication

OJ C 37, 24.1.2022

Past publications

OJ C 24, 17.1.2022

OJ C 11, 10.1.2022

OJ C 2, 3.1.2022

OJ C 513, 20.12.2021

OJ C 502, 13.12.2021

OJ C 490, 6.12.2021

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 31.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative — Luxembourg) — État luxembourgeois v L

(Case C-437/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Administrative cooperation in the field of taxation - Directive 2011/16/EU - Article 1(1), Article 5 and Article 20(2) - Request for information - Decision ordering that information be provided - Refusal to comply with the order - Penalty - ‘Foreseeable relevance’ of the requested information - Absence of identification of the taxpayers concerned individually and by name - Concept of ‘identity of the person under examination or investigation’ - Statement of reasons of the request for information - Scope - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 47 - Right to an effective remedy against the decision ordering that information be provided - Article 52(1) - Limitation - Respect for the essence of the right)

(2022/C 51/02)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour administrative

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: État luxembourgeois

Respondent: L

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 1(1), Article 5 and Article 20(2) of Council Directive 2011/16/EU of 15 February 2011 on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation and repealing Directive 77/799/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that a request for information must be regarded as relating to information which does not appear to be manifestly devoid of any foreseeable relevance, where the persons under examination or investigation within the meaning of that latter provision are not identified individually and by name by that request but the requesting authority provides a clear and sufficient explanation that it is conducting a targeted investigation into a limited group of persons, justified by reasonable suspicions of non-compliance with a specific legal obligation. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 1(1), Article 5 and Article 20(2) of Council Directive 2011/16/EU of 15 February 2011 on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation and repealing Directive 77/799/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that a request for information must be regarded as relating to information which does not appear to be manifestly devoid of any foreseeable relevance, where the persons under examination or investigation within the meaning of that latter provision are not identified individually and by name by that request but the requesting authority provides a clear and sufficient explanation that it is conducting a targeted investigation into a limited group of persons, justified by reasonable suspicions of non-compliance with a specific legal obligation.

| 2. | Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as meaning that a person holding information who:






  — | has had an administrative financial penalty imposed on him or her for failure to comply with an information order in the context of an exchange between national tax authorities pursuant to Directive 2011/16, where that order is itself not open to challenge under the domestic law of the requested Member State, and |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as meaning that a person holding information who:

—

has had an administrative financial penalty imposed on him or her for failure to comply with an information order in the context of an exchange between national tax authorities pursuant to Directive 2011/16, where that order is itself not open to challenge under the domestic law of the requested Member State, and

| — | has contested the legality of that order indirectly in an action against the decision imposing a penalty for failure to comply with that order, having thus obtained disclosure of the minimum information referred to in Article 20(2) of that directive in the course of the judicial proceedings relating to that action, |
| --- | --- |

—

has contested the legality of that order indirectly in an action against the decision imposing a penalty for failure to comply with that order, having thus obtained disclosure of the minimum information referred to in Article 20(2) of that directive in the course of the judicial proceedings relating to that action,

must, following the definitive recognition of the legality of that order and that decision issued against him or her, be given the opportunity to comply with the information order within the time limit initially prescribed for that purpose by national law, without that entailing the continued application of the penalty which that person had to incur in order to exercise his or her right to an effective remedy. It is only if that person does not comply with that order within that time limit that the penalty imposed would legitimately become payable.

---

(1)  OJ C 270, 12.8.2019.

---

| 31.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 23 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Pesti Központi Kerületi Bíróság — Hungary) — Criminal proceedings against IS

(Case C-564/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Directive 2010/64/EU - Article 5 - Quality of the interpretation and translation - Directive 2012/13/EU - Right to information in criminal proceedings - Article 4(5) and Article 6(1) - Right to information about the accusation - Right to interpretation and translation - Directive 2016/343/EU - Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial - Article 48(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 267 TFEU - Second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU - Admissibility - Appeal in the interests of the law against a decision ordering a reference for a preliminary ruling - Disciplinary proceedings - Power of the higher court to declare the request for a preliminary ruling unlawful)

(2022/C 51/03)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Pesti Központi Kerületi Bíróság

Party in the main proceedings

IS

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 267 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding the supreme court of a Member State from declaring, following an appeal in the interests of the law, that a request for a preliminary ruling which has been submitted to the Court under Article 267 TFEU by a lower court is unlawful on the ground that the questions referred are not relevant and necessary for the resolution of the dispute in the main proceedings, without, however, altering the legal effects of the decision containing that request. The principle of the primacy of EU law requires that lower court to disregard such a decision of the national supreme court. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 267 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding the supreme court of a Member State from declaring, following an appeal in the interests of the law, that a request for a preliminary ruling which has been submitted to the Court under Article 267 TFEU by a lower court is unlawful on the ground that the questions referred are not relevant and necessary for the resolution of the dispute in the main proceedings, without, however, altering the legal effects of the decision containing that request. The principle of the primacy of EU law requires that lower court to disregard such a decision of the national supreme court.

| 2. | Article 267 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding disciplinary proceedings from being brought against a national judge on the ground that he or she has made a reference for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice under that provision. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 267 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding disciplinary proceedings from being brought against a national judge on the ground that he or she has made a reference for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice under that provision.

| 3. | Article 5 of Directive 2010/64/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings must be interpreted as requiring Member States to take concrete measures in order to ensure that the quality of the interpretation and translations provided is sufficient to enable the suspect or accused person to understand the accusation against him or her and in order that that interpretation can be reviewed by the national courts.
  Article 2(5) of Directive 2010/64 and Article 4(5) and Article 6(1) of Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings, read in the light of Article 48(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as precluding a person from being tried in absentia when, on account of inadequate interpretation, he or she has not been informed, in a language which he or she understands, of the accusation against him or her or where it is impossible to ascertain the quality of the interpretation provided and therefore to establish that he or she has been informed, in a language which he or she understands, of the accusation against him or her. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 5 of Directive 2010/64/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings must be interpreted as requiring Member States to take concrete measures in order to ensure that the quality of the interpretation and translations provided is sufficient to enable the suspect or accused person to understand the accusation against him or her and in order that that interpretation can be reviewed by the national courts.

Article 2(5) of Directive 2010/64 and Article 4(5) and Article 6(1) of Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings, read in the light of Article 48(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as precluding a person from being tried in absentia when, on account of inadequate interpretation, he or she has not been informed, in a language which he or she understands, of the accusation against him or her or where it is impossible to ascertain the quality of the interpretation provided and therefore to establish that he or she has been informed, in a language which he or she understands, of the accusation against him or her.

---

(1)  OJ C 95, 23.3.2020.

---

| 31.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 23 November 2021 — Council of the European Union v Hamas

(Case C-833/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Common foreign and security policy - Fight against terrorism - Restrictive measures against certain persons and entities - Freezing of funds - Common Position 2001/931/CFSP - Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 - Continued inclusion of an organisation on the list of persons, groups and entities involved in terrorist acts - Statement of individual reasons notified to the organisation set out in a separate document from that containing a general statement of reasons - Authentication of the statement of individual reasons - Article 297(2) TFEU)

(2022/C 51/04)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and S. Van Overmeire, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Hamas (represented by: L. Glock, avocate)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 4 September 2019, Hamas v Council (T-308/18, EU:T:2019:557), in so far as it upholds the eighth plea relied on at first instance and annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/475 of 21 March 2018 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) 2017/1426; Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/468 of 21 March 2018 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) 2017/1420; Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1084 of 30 July 2018 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) 2018/475; and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1071 of 30 July 2018 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) 2018/468, in so far as those acts concern Hamas, including Hamas-Izz al-Din al-Qassem; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 4 September 2019, Hamas v Council (T-308/18, EU:T:2019:557), in so far as it upholds the eighth plea relied on at first instance and annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/475 of 21 March 2018 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) 2017/1426; Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/468 of 21 March 2018 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) 2017/1420; Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1084 of 30 July 2018 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) 2018/475; and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1071 of 30 July 2018 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) 2018/468, in so far as those acts concern Hamas, including Hamas-Izz al-Din al-Qassem;

| 2. | Dismisses the action brought in Case T-308/18 by Hamas; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action brought in Case T-308/18 by Hamas;

| 3. | Orders Hamas to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union in the present appeal and at first instance. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Hamas to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union in the present appeal and at first instance.

---

(1)  OJ C 10, 13.1.2020.

---

| 31.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 2 December 2021 — European Commission v Xinyi PV Products (Anhui) Holdings Ltd, GMB Glasmanufaktur Brandenburg GmbH (C-884/19 P), GMB Glasmanufaktur Brandenburg GmbH v Xinyi PV Products (Anhui) Holdings Ltd, European Commission (C-888/19 P)

(Joined Cases C-884/19 P and C-888/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Dumping - Imports of solar glass originating in China - Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Article 2(7)(b) and (c) - ‘Undertaking operating under market economy conditions’ status - Denied - Concept of ‘significant distortions carried over from the former non-market economy system’, within the meaning of the third indent of Article 2(7)(c) - Tax incentives)

(2022/C 51/05)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: European Commission (represented initially by L. Flynn and T. Maxian Rusche and by A. Demeneix, and subsequently by L. Flynn and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents) (C-884/19 P), GMB Glasmanufaktur Brandenburg GmbH (represented by: R. MacLean, solicitor) (C-888/19 P)

Other parties to the proceedings: Xinyi PV Products (represented by Y. Melin and B. Vigneron, lawyers) (C-884/19 P and C-888/19 P), GMB Glasmanufaktur Brandenburg GmbH (represented by: R. MacLean, solicitor) (C-884/19 P), European Commission (represented initially by L. Flynn and T. Maxian Rusche and by A. Demeneix, and subsequently by L. Flynn and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents) (C-888/19)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 24 September 2019, Xinyi PV Products (Anhui) Holdings v Commission (T-586/14 RENV, EU:T:2019:668); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 24 September 2019, Xinyi PV Products (Anhui) Holdings v Commission (T-586/14 RENV, EU:T:2019:668);

| 2. | Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for a ruling on the second to fourth pleas in law raised before it; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for a ruling on the second to fourth pleas in law raised before it;

| 3. | Reserves the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Reserves the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 54, 17.2.2020.

OJ C 45, 10.2.2020.

---

| 31.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 30 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rīgas rajona tiesa — Latvia) — Criminal proceedings against AB, CE, ‘MM investīcijas’ SIA

(Case C-3/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protocol (No 7) on the privileges and immunities of the European Union - Member of an organ of the European Central Bank - Governor of a national central bank of a Member State - Immunity from criminal proceedings - Indictment connected with activities carried out in the course of employment within the Member State)

(2022/C 51/06)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Rīgas rajona tiesa

Parties in the main proceedings

AB, CE, ‘MM investīcijas’ SIA

LR Ģenerālprokuratūras Krimināltiesiskā departamenta Sevišķi svarīgu lietu izmeklēšanas nodaļa

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 22 of Protocol (No 7) on the privileges and immunities of the European Union, read in the light of Article 130 TFEU and Article 7 of Protocol (No 4) on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, must be interpreted as meaning that the governor of a central bank of a Member State enjoys the immunity from legal proceedings provided for in Article 11(a) of Protocol (No 7) on the privileges and immunities of the European Union for acts performed by him or her in his or her official capacity as a member of an organ of the European Central Bank. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 22 of Protocol (No 7) on the privileges and immunities of the European Union, read in the light of Article 130 TFEU and Article 7 of Protocol (No 4) on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, must be interpreted as meaning that the governor of a central bank of a Member State enjoys the immunity from legal proceedings provided for in Article 11(a) of Protocol (No 7) on the privileges and immunities of the European Union for acts performed by him or her in his or her official capacity as a member of an organ of the European Central Bank.

| 2. | Article 11(a) of Protocol (No 7) on the privileges and immunities of the European Union, read in conjunction with Article 22 of that protocol, must be interpreted as meaning that the governor of a central bank of a Member State continues, in respect of acts performed in his or her official capacity, to enjoy the immunity from legal proceedings provided for in Article 11(a) of that protocol after he or she has ceased to hold office. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 11(a) of Protocol (No 7) on the privileges and immunities of the European Union, read in conjunction with Article 22 of that protocol, must be interpreted as meaning that the governor of a central bank of a Member State continues, in respect of acts performed in his or her official capacity, to enjoy the immunity from legal proceedings provided for in Article 11(a) of that protocol after he or she has ceased to hold office.

| 3. | Article 11(a) of Protocol (No 7) on the privileges and immunities of the European Union, read in conjunction with Articles 17 and 22 of that protocol, must be interpreted as meaning that the national authority responsible for the criminal proceedings, that is to say, depending on the stage of the proceedings, the authority responsible for criminal prosecutions or the competent criminal court, has the competence to assess, in the first place, whether the offence potentially committed by the governor of a national central bank, in his or her capacity as a member of an organ of the European Central Bank, is an act of that governor carried out in the performance of his or her duties within that organ, but in the event of doubt it is required, in accordance with the principle of sincere cooperation, to request the opinion of the European Central Bank and to comply with the latter. Conversely, it is for the European Central Bank alone to assess, when it receives an application for waiver of that governor’s immunity, whether such a waiver of immunity is contrary to the interests of the European Union, subject to the potential review of that assessment by the Court of Justice. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 11(a) of Protocol (No 7) on the privileges and immunities of the European Union, read in conjunction with Articles 17 and 22 of that protocol, must be interpreted as meaning that the national authority responsible for the criminal proceedings, that is to say, depending on the stage of the proceedings, the authority responsible for criminal prosecutions or the competent criminal court, has the competence to assess, in the first place, whether the offence potentially committed by the governor of a national central bank, in his or her capacity as a member of an organ of the European Central Bank, is an act of that governor carried out in the performance of his or her duties within that organ, but in the event of doubt it is required, in accordance with the principle of sincere cooperation, to request the opinion of the European Central Bank and to comply with the latter. Conversely, it is for the European Central Bank alone to assess, when it receives an application for waiver of that governor’s immunity, whether such a waiver of immunity is contrary to the interests of the European Union, subject to the potential review of that assessment by the Court of Justice.

| 4. | Article 11(a) of Protocol (No 7) on the privileges and immunities of the European Union must be interpreted as meaning that the immunity from legal proceedings for which it provides does not preclude the criminal prosecution in its entirety, including investigative measures, the gathering of evidence and service of the indictment. Nevertheless, if, at the stage of the investigations conducted by the national authorities and before the court is seised, it is established that the person under investigation may enjoy immunity from legal proceedings in respect of the acts which are the subject of the criminal prosecution, it is for those authorities to request a waiver of immunity from the institution of the European Union concerned. That immunity does not preclude evidence gathered during the investigation from being used in other judicial proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Article 11(a) of Protocol (No 7) on the privileges and immunities of the European Union must be interpreted as meaning that the immunity from legal proceedings for which it provides does not preclude the criminal prosecution in its entirety, including investigative measures, the gathering of evidence and service of the indictment. Nevertheless, if, at the stage of the investigations conducted by the national authorities and before the court is seised, it is established that the person under investigation may enjoy immunity from legal proceedings in respect of the acts which are the subject of the criminal prosecution, it is for those authorities to request a waiver of immunity from the institution of the European Union concerned. That immunity does not preclude evidence gathered during the investigation from being used in other judicial proceedings.

| 5. | Article 11(a) and Article 17 of Protocol (No 7) on the privileges and immunities of the European Union must be interpreted as meaning that immunity from legal proceedings does not apply where the beneficiary of that immunity is implicated in criminal proceedings in respect of acts which were not performed in the context of the duties which he or she carries out on behalf of an institution of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Article 11(a) and Article 17 of Protocol (No 7) on the privileges and immunities of the European Union must be interpreted as meaning that immunity from legal proceedings does not apply where the beneficiary of that immunity is implicated in criminal proceedings in respect of acts which were not performed in the context of the duties which he or she carries out on behalf of an institution of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 77, 9.3.2020.

---

| 31.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 25 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Višje sodišče v Ljubljani — Slovenia) — Proceedings brought by NK, acting as liquidator in the insolvency of Alpine BAU GmbH

(Case C-25/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Insolvency proceedings - Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 - Articles 4 and 28 - Article 32(2) - Time limit for the lodging of claims in insolvency proceedings - Lodging, in secondary insolvency proceedings ongoing in a Member State, of claims by the liquidator in the main proceedings pending in another Member State - Compulsory time limit laid down by the law of the State in which secondary insolvency proceedings have been opened)

(2022/C 51/07)

Language of the case: Slovenian

Referring court

Višje sodišče v Ljubljani

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: NK, acting as liquidator in the insolvency of Alpine BAU GmbH

Intervening parties: Alpine BAU GmbH, Salzburg — Celje Branch, in liquidation

Operative part of the judgment

Article 32(2) of Council Regulation (EC) 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings, read in conjunction with Articles 4 and 28 of that regulation, must be interpreted as meaning that the lodging, in secondary insolvency proceedings, of claims already submitted in the main insolvency proceedings by the liquidator in those proceedings is subject to the provisions relating to time limits for the lodging of claims and to the consequences of lodging such claims out of time, laid down by the law of the State of the opening of those secondary proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 103, 30.9.2020.

---

| 31.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — StWL Städtische Werke Lauf a.d. Pegnitz GmbH v eprimo GmbH

(Case C-102/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2002/58/EC - Processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector - Article 2(h) - Concept of ‘electronic mail’ - Article 13(1) - Concept of ‘use of ... electronic mail for the purposes of direct marketing’ - Directive 2005/29/EC - Unfair commercial practices - Annex I, point 26 - Concept of ‘persistent and unwanted solicitations by email’ - Advertising messages - Inbox advertising)

(2022/C 51/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: StWL Städtische Werke Lauf a.d. Pegnitz GmbH

Defendant: eprimo GmbH

intervening party: Interactive Media CCSP GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 13(1) of Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications), as amended by Directive 2009/136/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that the display, in the inbox of an electronic mail service user, of advertising messages in a form similar to that of real emails, and placed in the same position as those emails, without the fact that recipients are randomly determined or an assessment of the level of intensity and burden imposed on that user being relevant in that regard, constitutes ‘use of ... electronic mail for the purposes of direct marketing’, which is permitted only on the condition that the user was clearly and specifically informed of the distribution methods of such advertising, including within the list of private emails received, and the user indicated specific and fully informed consent to receive such messages; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 13(1) of Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications), as amended by Directive 2009/136/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that the display, in the inbox of an electronic mail service user, of advertising messages in a form similar to that of real emails, and placed in the same position as those emails, without the fact that recipients are randomly determined or an assessment of the level of intensity and burden imposed on that user being relevant in that regard, constitutes ‘use of ... electronic mail for the purposes of direct marketing’, which is permitted only on the condition that the user was clearly and specifically informed of the distribution methods of such advertising, including within the list of private emails received, and the user indicated specific and fully informed consent to receive such messages;

| 2. | Annex I, point 26, to Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’), must be interpreted as meaning that an activity consisting of the display in the inbox of an email service user of advertising messages in a form similar to that of real emails, and placed in the same position as those emails, falls within the concept of ‘persistent and unwanted solicitations’ of users of email services, within the meaning of that provision, if the display of those advertising messages is, first, sufficiently frequent and regular to be classified as ‘persistent solicitations’ and, second, may be classified as ‘unwanted solicitations’ in the absence of consent having been given by that user prior to that display. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Annex I, point 26, to Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’), must be interpreted as meaning that an activity consisting of the display in the inbox of an email service user of advertising messages in a form similar to that of real emails, and placed in the same position as those emails, falls within the concept of ‘persistent and unwanted solicitations’ of users of email services, within the meaning of that provision, if the display of those advertising messages is, first, sufficiently frequent and regular to be classified as ‘persistent solicitations’ and, second, may be classified as ‘unwanted solicitations’ in the absence of consent having been given by that user prior to that display.

---

(1)  OJ C 209, 22.6.2020.

---

| 31.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 25 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — WD v job-medium GmbH, in liquidation

(Case C-233/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2003/88/EC - Protection of the safety and health of workers - Article 7(1) - Right to an allowance in lieu of paid annual leave not taken before the end of the employment relationship - Early termination of the employment relationship by the employee)

(2022/C 51/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: WD

Defendant: job-medium GmbH, in liquidation

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 7 of 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, read in the light of Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law under which no allowance is payable in lieu of paid annual leave not taken in respect of the current and last year of employment, where the worker unilaterally terminates the employment relationship early and without cause; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 7 of 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, read in the light of Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law under which no allowance is payable in lieu of paid annual leave not taken in respect of the current and last year of employment, where the worker unilaterally terminates the employment relationship early and without cause;

| 2. | It is not necessary for the national court to verify whether the worker was unable to take the leave to which he or she was entitled. |
| --- | --- |

2.

It is not necessary for the national court to verify whether the worker was unable to take the leave to which he or she was entitled.

---

(1)  OJ C 297, 7.9.2020.

---

| 31.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 25 November 2021 — European Commission v UG

(Case C-249/20 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Contract staff - Contract of indefinite duration - Termination - Grounds for termination - Distortion - Non-material damage - Admissibility - Failure to rule on a head of claim)

(2022/C 51/10)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: B. Mongin and L. Radu Bouyon, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: UG (represented by: initially by: M. Richard and P. Junqueira de Oliveira, subsequently by: M. Richard, avocats)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 2 April 2020, UG v Commission (T-571/17, not published, EU:T:2020:141) in so far as it annulled the European Commission’s decision of 17 October 2016 to terminate UG’s contract of employment of indefinite duration, found the existence of an illegality capable of giving rise to that institution’s liability and rejected as inadmissible UG’s head of claim seeking compensation for her non-material damage; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 2 April 2020, UG v Commission (T-571/17, not published, EU:T:2020:141) in so far as it annulled the European Commission’s decision of 17 October 2016 to terminate UG’s contract of employment of indefinite duration, found the existence of an illegality capable of giving rise to that institution’s liability and rejected as inadmissible UG’s head of claim seeking compensation for her non-material damage;

| 2. | Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union;

| 3. | Reserves the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Reserves the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 348, 19.10.2020.

---

| 31.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — Aurubis AG v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-271/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading - Free allocation of allowances - Decision 2011/278/EU - Article 3(d) - Fuel benchmark sub-installation - Concepts of ‘combustion’ and ‘fuel’ - Primary copper production by flash smelting - Request for allocation - Allowances requested and not yet allocated on the date of expiry of a trading period - Possibility of issuing such allowances during the subsequent trading period by way of enforcement of a judicial decision given after that date)

(2022/C 51/11)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Aurubis AG

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 3(d) of Commission Decision 2011/278/EU of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of a ‘fuel benchmark sub-installation’ covers, within an installation producing primary copper and whose activity falls within Annex I to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC, as amended by Directive 2009/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 amending Directive 2003/87 so as to improve and extend the greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme of the Community, a flash smelting foundry that causes sulphur present in the raw material used to be oxidised, that raw material being a copper concentrate. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 3(d) of Commission Decision 2011/278/EU of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of a ‘fuel benchmark sub-installation’ covers, within an installation producing primary copper and whose activity falls within Annex I to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC, as amended by Directive 2009/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 amending Directive 2003/87 so as to improve and extend the greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme of the Community, a flash smelting foundry that causes sulphur present in the raw material used to be oxidised, that raw material being a copper concentrate.

| 2. | Decision 2011/278 must be interpreted as meaning that free allowances to which the operator of an installation is entitled in respect of the third trading period (2013 to 2020) may still be issued to the latter after 31 December 2020 by way of enforcement of a judicial decision given after that date. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Decision 2011/278 must be interpreted as meaning that free allowances to which the operator of an installation is entitled in respect of the third trading period (2013 to 2020) may still be issued to the latter after 31 December 2020 by way of enforcement of a judicial decision given after that date.

---

(1)  OJ C 287, 31.8.2020.

---

| 31.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Paris — France) — IB v FA

(Case C-289/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Jurisdiction to hear divorce applications - Article 3(1)(a) - ‘Habitual residence’ of an applicant)

(2022/C 51/12)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Paris

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: IB

Defendant: FA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, must be interpreted as meaning that a spouse who divides his or her time between two Member States may have his or her habitual residence in only one of those Member States, with the result that only the courts of the Member State in which that habitual residence is situated have jurisdiction to rule on the application for the dissolution of matrimonial ties.

---

(1)  OJ C 297, 7.9.2020.

---

| 31.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 25 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Veszprémi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Amper Metal Kft v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

(Case C-334/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 2 - Transaction subject to VAT - Concept - Article 168(a) and Article 176 - Right to deduct input VAT - Refusal - Advertising services categorised as excessively expensive and not beneficial by the tax authority - Lack of turnover generated by the taxable person)

(2022/C 51/13)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Veszprémi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Amper Metal Kft

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

Operative part of the judgment

Article 168(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that a taxable person may deduct input value added tax (VAT) paid for advertising services where such a supply of services constitutes a transaction subject to VAT within the meaning of Article 2 of Directive 2006/112, and has a direct and immediate link with one or more taxable output transactions or with the taxable person’s economic activity as a whole, by way of overheads, without it being necessary to take into account the fact that the price charged for such services is excessive in relation to a reference value defined by the national tax authorities or that those services have not given rise to an increase in the taxable person’s turnover.

---

(1)  OJ C 423, 7.12.2020.

---

| 31.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 25 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzgericht — Austria) — QY v Finanzamt Österreich, formerly Finanzamt Wien für den 8., 16. und 17. Bezirk

(Case C-372/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 45 et 48 TFEU - Freedom of movement for workers - Equal treatment - Family benefits for development aid workers who take their family members to the third country to which they have been posted - Discontinuation - Article 288, second paragraph TFEU - Legal acts of the European Union - Scope of regulations - National legislation with a wider personal scope than that of a regulation - Conditions - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Article 11(3)(a) and (e) - Scope - Employed person who is a national of a Member State employed as a development aid worker by an employer established in another Member State and sent on mission to a third country - Article 68(3) - Right of the applicant for family benefits to submit a single application to the institution of the Member State having primary jurisdiction or to the institution of the Member State having subsidiary jurisdiction)

(2022/C 51/14)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: QY

Defendant: Finanzamt Österreich, formerly Finanzamt Wien für den 8., 16. und 17. Bezirk

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 11(3)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems must be interpreted as meaning that an employed person who is a national of a Member State of which she and her children are residents, who is engaged under an employment contract as a development aid worker by an employer whose registered office is in another Member State, who is subject, under the legislation of that other Member State, to the compulsory social security scheme of that Member State, who is posted to a third country not immediately after her recruitment but after a training period in that other Member State and who subsequently returns there for a reintegration period, must be regarded as pursuing an activity as an employed person in that Member State within the meaning of that provision; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 11(3)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems must be interpreted as meaning that an employed person who is a national of a Member State of which she and her children are residents, who is engaged under an employment contract as a development aid worker by an employer whose registered office is in another Member State, who is subject, under the legislation of that other Member State, to the compulsory social security scheme of that Member State, who is posted to a third country not immediately after her recruitment but after a training period in that other Member State and who subsequently returns there for a reintegration period, must be regarded as pursuing an activity as an employed person in that Member State within the meaning of that provision;

| 2. | The second paragraph of Article 288 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding the adoption by a Member State of a national legislation the personal scope of which is wider than that of Regulation No 883/2004, in so far as it provides for the assimilation of nationals of the member states to the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992 to its own nationals, provided that that legislation is interpreted in a manner consistent with that regulation and that the primacy of that regulation is not called into question; |
| --- | --- |

2.

The second paragraph of Article 288 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding the adoption by a Member State of a national legislation the personal scope of which is wider than that of Regulation No 883/2004, in so far as it provides for the assimilation of nationals of the member states to the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992 to its own nationals, provided that that legislation is interpreted in a manner consistent with that regulation and that the primacy of that regulation is not called into question;

| 3. | Article 68(3)(a) of Regulation No 883/2004 and Article 60(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down detailed rules for the application of Regulation No 883/2004 must be interpreted as mutually binding on the institution of the Member State having primary jurisdiction and on the institution of the Member State having subsidiary jurisdiction, with the result that the applicant for family benefits must lodge only one application with one of those institutions and it is then for those two institutions to process that claim jointly; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 68(3)(a) of Regulation No 883/2004 and Article 60(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down detailed rules for the application of Regulation No 883/2004 must be interpreted as mutually binding on the institution of the Member State having primary jurisdiction and on the institution of the Member State having subsidiary jurisdiction, with the result that the applicant for family benefits must lodge only one application with one of those institutions and it is then for those two institutions to process that claim jointly;

| 4. | Articles 45 TFEU and 48 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude a Member State from generally discontinuing the family benefits which it has hitherto provided to development aid workers who take their family members to a third country to which they have been posted, provided that, first, that discontinuation is applied without distinction to beneficiaries who are nationals of that Member State and to beneficiaries who are nationals of other Member States and, second, that that discontinuation involves a different treatment between the development aid workers concerned, not depending on whether or not they have exercised their right to freedom of movement before or after that discontinuation, but depending on whether their children reside with them in a Member State or in a third country. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Articles 45 TFEU and 48 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude a Member State from generally discontinuing the family benefits which it has hitherto provided to development aid workers who take their family members to a third country to which they have been posted, provided that, first, that discontinuation is applied without distinction to beneficiaries who are nationals of that Member State and to beneficiaries who are nationals of other Member States and, second, that that discontinuation involves a different treatment between the development aid workers concerned, not depending on whether or not they have exercised their right to freedom of movement before or after that discontinuation, but depending on whether their children reside with them in a Member State or in a third country.

---

(1)  OJ C 433, 14.12.2020.

---

| 31.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 2 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München — Germany) — Vodafone Kabel Deutschland GmbH v Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V.

(Case C-484/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive (EU) 2015/2366 - Payment services - Article 62(4) - Charges applicable - Article 107(1) - Full harmonisation - Article 115(1) and (2) - Transposition and application - Subscriptions for cable television and internet access - Contracts of indefinite duration concluded before the date for transposition of that directive - Charges applied to payment transactions without direct debit authorisation that are initiated after that date)

(2022/C 51/15)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Vodafone Kabel Deutschland GmbH

Respondent: Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 62(4) of Directive (EU) 2015/2366 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on payment services in the internal market, amending Directives 2002/65/EC, 2009/110/EC and 2013/36/EU and Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, and repealing Directive 2007/64/EC, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation or a national practice under which, in the context of contracts of indefinite duration concluded with consumers, the prohibition on requesting charges for the use of payment instruments, and for payment services, referred to in Article 62(4) applies only to payment transactions initiated in performance of contracts concluded after 13 January 2018, with the result that such charges remain applicable to payment transactions initiated after that date in performance of contracts of indefinite duration concluded before that date.

---

(1)  OJ C 433, 14.12.2020.

---

| 31.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Warszawie — Poland) — Delfarma sp. z o.o. v Prezes Urzędu Rejestracji Produktów Leczniczych, Wyrobów Medycznych i Produktów Biobójczych

(Case C-488/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 34 and 36 TFUE - Free movement of goods - Measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction - Medicinal products for human use - Parallel import of medicinal products - Legislation of a Member State under which a parallel import licence is to expire automatically after one year from the expiry of the marketing authorisation for the reference medicinal product - Protection of the health and life of humans - Proportionality - Directive 2001/83/EC - Pharmacovigilance)

(2022/C 51/16)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Delfarma sp. z o.o.

Defendant: Prezes Urzędu Rejestracji Produktów Leczniczych, Wyrobów Medycznych i Produktów Biobójczych

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 34 and 36 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which a parallel import licence for a medicinal product expires automatically after one year from the expiry of the marketing authorisation of reference, without carrying out an examination whether there is any risk to the health and life of humans. The fact that parallel importers are exempt from the obligation to submit periodic safety reports is not a ground which may per se justify the adoption of such a decision.

---

(1)  OJ C 19, 18.1.2021.

---

| 31.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/14

---

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 4 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte dei conti — Sezione regionale di controllo per la Campania — Italy) — Comune di Camerota

(Case C-161/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Directive 2011/85/EU - Directive 2011/7/EU - Economic and monetary policy - Local authority in financial difficulty - Financial rebalancing plan - National legislation suspending the investigative powers of the Court of Auditors due to the health crisis related to the COVID-19 pandemic - Article 267 TFEU - Definition of ‘court or tribunal of a Member State’ - No dispute before the referring body - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2022/C 51/17)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte dei conti — Sezione regionale di controllo per la Campania

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Comune di Camerota

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte dei conti — Sezione regionale di controllo per la Campania (Court of Auditors — Regional Audit Division for Campania, Italy), made by decision of 9 March 2021, is manifestly inadmissible.

---

(1)  OJ C 217, 7.6.2021.

---

| 31.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/14

---

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 6 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg — Germany) — TUIfly GmbH v FI, RE

(Case C-253/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Article 5 - Article 7 - Article 8(3) - Denied boarding, cancellation or long delay of a flight - Compensation and assistance to passengers - Concept of ‘cancellation’ - Diversion of a flight to an airport not serving the same town, city or region as that for which the booking was made - Re-routing of passengers by coach)

(2022/C 51/18)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: TUIfly GmbH

Respondents: FI, RE

Operative part of the order

Article 5(1)(c), Article 7(1) and Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, must be interpreted as meaning that a diverted flight landing at an airport which is not that for which the booking was made and which does not serve the same town, city or region is capable of conferring on the passenger a right to compensation for cancellation of a flight.

---

(1)  OJ C 289, 19.7.2021.

---

| 31.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/15

---

Appeal brought on 2 July 2021 by the Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 21 April 2021 in Case T-252/19, Pech v Council

(Case C-408/21 P)

(2022/C 51/19)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. de Gregorio Merino, E. Dumitriu-Segnana, K. Pavlaki, E. Rebasti, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Laurent Pech, Kingdom of Sweden

Form of order sought

The Appellant claims that the Court should:

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

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court;

| — | give final judgment in the matters that are the subject of this appeal, and |
| --- | --- |

—

give final judgment in the matters that are the subject of this appeal, and

| — | order the applicant in Case T-252/19 to pay the costs of the Council arising from that case and from the present appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the applicant in Case T-252/19 to pay the costs of the Council arising from that case and from the present appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the Council relies on three pleas in law:

First plea: misinterpretation and misapplication of the second indent of Article 4(2) of regulation 1049/2001 (1)

First limb of the plea: the General Court erred in its assessment of whether the requested opinion has a particularly wide scope and has interpreted this criterion, set by the case law, in a way that renders it inoperative. By failing to address the Council's arguments in that regard, the General Court has also breached its duty to state reasons.

Second limb of the plea: the General Court erred in law in not taking into consideration the sensitivity of the legal opinion in view of the specific circumstances of the context in which it was given, in particular its crucial character for the decision-making process. The interpretation of the sensitive nature of legal advice suggested by the General Court, which isolates the content of a legal opinion from its surrounding circumstances, is legally flawed and deprives the protection afforded under the second indent of Article 4(2) of the Regulation of a large part of its substance.

Third limb of the plea: the General Court erred in its assessment of whether disclosure of the legal opinion would adversely affect forthcoming court proceedings by compromising the equality of the parties before the judge and the Council’s right of defence.

Second plea: misinterpretation and misapplication of first subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation 1049/2001

First limb of the second plea: in deciding on the applicability of the exception provided for in the first subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, the General Court made an error in law by considering that the confirmatory decision needed — and failed — to adduce tangible evidence. Moreover, the General Court confined its reasoning to generic affirmations that generally negate protection instead of specifically addressing the justifications provided by the Council as to the risk for its decision-making process.

Second limb of the second plea: The General Court also committed an error in law by considering that the principle of democratic accountability that underpins the enhanced transparency of legislative documents applies to all documents relating to legislative procedures in the same way, regardless of whether they contain positions of political decision-makers or are contributions by internal services, including the Legal Service.

Third plea: breach of Article 113 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court and misrepresentation of facts

Finally, the General Court refused to reopen the oral phase of the procedure and to take into consideration the fact that court proceedings had been introduced against regulation 2020/2092 (2) in relation to the very same legal issues discussed in the opinion. This constitutes a breach of procedure which did not allow the Council to be heard on an essential element for the case before the General Court.

---

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

(2)  Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2020 on a general regime of conditionality for the protection of the Union budget (OJ 2020, L 433 I, p. 1).

---

| 31.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/16

---

Appeal brought on 28 July 2021 by Puma SE against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 19 May 2021 in Case T-510/19, Puma v EUIPO — Gemma Group (Representation of a bounding feline)

(Case C-462/21 P)

(2022/C 51/20)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Puma SE (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, abogado)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

By order of 1 December 2021, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal was not allowed to proceed and that Puma SE should bear its own costs.

---

| 31.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/16

---

Appeal brought on 19 July 2021 by Electrodomésticos Taurus, S.L. against the order of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 17 May 2021 in Case T-328/20, Electrodomésticos Taurus, S.L. v EUIPO — Shenzen Aukey E-Business Co. Ltd

(Case C-468/21 P)

(2022/C 51/21)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Electrodomésticos Taurus, S.L. (represented by: E. Manresa Medina, lawyer)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and Shenzen Aukey E-Business Co. Ltd

By order of 6 October 2021, the Vice-President of the Court of Justice dismissed the appeal as inadmissible and ordered Electrodomésticos Taurus, S.L. to bear its own costs.

---

| 31.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/17

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 14 September 2021 — CaixaBank, S.A. v X

(Case C-565/21)

(2022/C 51/22)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: CaixaBank, S.A.

Defendant: X

Questions referred

| 1. | Do Article 3(1) and Articles 4 and 5 of Directive 93/13/EEC (1) preclude national case-law that, having regard to the specific rules of national law governing arrangement fees paid, in one instalment and generally at the time of concluding the contract, in consideration for services related to reviewing, granting or processing mortgages or loans or other similar services inherent in the lender’s activity with a view to granting the loan, deems that the contractual term providing for that fee constitutes an essential element of the contract, since it represents a principal part of the cost of the loan and cannot be assessed as unfair if it is written in clear, intelligible language, within the broad meaning established in the case-law of the CJEU? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do Article 3(1) and Articles 4 and 5 of Directive 93/13/EEC (1) preclude national case-law that, having regard to the specific rules of national law governing arrangement fees paid, in one instalment and generally at the time of concluding the contract, in consideration for services related to reviewing, granting or processing mortgages or loans or other similar services inherent in the lender’s activity with a view to granting the loan, deems that the contractual term providing for that fee constitutes an essential element of the contract, since it represents a principal part of the cost of the loan and cannot be assessed as unfair if it is written in clear, intelligible language, within the broad meaning established in the case-law of the CJEU?

| 2. | Does Article 4(2) of Directive 93/13/EEC preclude national case-law to the effect that, in order to assess whether the term constituting an essential element of the mortgage or loan agreement is clear and intelligible, account must be taken of issues such as consumers’ general knowledge of that term, the mandatory information that financial institutions must provide to potential borrowers under regulations on standardised information sheets, advertising by banks, the particular attention paid to it by the average consumer as being part of the cost to be paid entirely at the time of taking out the loan, and constituting a substantial part of the economic consequences to them of securing the loan, and whether the wording, placement and structure of the term make it possible to conclude that it constitutes an essential element of the contract? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does Article 4(2) of Directive 93/13/EEC preclude national case-law to the effect that, in order to assess whether the term constituting an essential element of the mortgage or loan agreement is clear and intelligible, account must be taken of issues such as consumers’ general knowledge of that term, the mandatory information that financial institutions must provide to potential borrowers under regulations on standardised information sheets, advertising by banks, the particular attention paid to it by the average consumer as being part of the cost to be paid entirely at the time of taking out the loan, and constituting a substantial part of the economic consequences to them of securing the loan, and whether the wording, placement and structure of the term make it possible to conclude that it constitutes an essential element of the contract?

| 3. | Does Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC preclude national case-law that deems that a contractual term such as the one at issue in the main proceedings, relating to the arrangement fee for a loan agreement, whose purpose is remuneration for services relating to the review, design and individual processing of a loan application (reviewing the viability of the loan, the debtor’s creditworthiness, the status of encumbrances on the property to be mortgaged, etc.) as prerequisites for granting the loan, which fee is expressly provided for in national legislation as constituting payment for the formalities inherent in granting the loan, does not, contrary to the requirement of good faith, cause a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC preclude national case-law that deems that a contractual term such as the one at issue in the main proceedings, relating to the arrangement fee for a loan agreement, whose purpose is remuneration for services relating to the review, design and individual processing of a loan application (reviewing the viability of the loan, the debtor’s creditworthiness, the status of encumbrances on the property to be mortgaged, etc.) as prerequisites for granting the loan, which fee is expressly provided for in national legislation as constituting payment for the formalities inherent in granting the loan, does not, contrary to the requirement of good faith, cause a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer?

---

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

---

| 31.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/18

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social n.o 1 de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 20 September 2021 — NC v BA, DA, DV and CG

(Case C-583/21)

(2022/C 51/23)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social n.o 1 de Madrid

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: NC

Defendants: BA, DA, DV and CG

Question referred

Does Article 1(1)(a) of Council Directive (EC) 2001/23 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, (1) and consequently the contents of the directive, apply to a situation in which the notary in post in a notary’s office — who is both a public official and also the private-sector employer of the office’s employees, with the employment relationship being governed by general employment legislation and by a sectoral Collective Agreement — succeeds the outgoing post-holder, takes on the previous notary’s Protocol, continues to provide services at the same place of work using the same material facilities, and takes on the staff who had worked for the previous notary who had held that post?

---

(1)  OJ 2001 L 82, p. 16.

---

| 31.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/18

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social n.o 1 de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 20 September 2021 — JD v BA, DA, DV and CG

(Case C-584/21)

(2022/C 51/24)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social n.o 1 de Madrid

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: JD

Defendants: BA, DA, DV and CG

Question referred

Does Article 1(1)(a) of Council Directive (EC) 2001/23 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, (1) and consequently the contents of the directive, apply to a situation in which the notary in post in a notary’s office — who is both a public official and also the private-sector employer of the office’s employees, with the employment relationship being governed by general employment legislation and by a sectoral Collective Agreement — succeeds the outgoing post-holder, takes on the previous notary’s Protocol, continues to provide services at the same place of work using the same material facilities, and takes on the staff who had worked for the previous notary who had held that post?

---

(1)  OJ 2001 L 82, p. 16.

---

| 31.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/19

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social n.1 de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 20 September 2021 — TA v BA, DA, DV and CG

(Case C-585/21)

(2022/C 51/25)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social n.1 de Madrid

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: TA

Defendants: BA, DA, DV and CG

Question referred

Does Article 1(1)(a) of Council Directive (EC) 2001/23 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, (1) and consequently the contents of the directive, apply to a situation in which the notary in post in a notary’s office — who is both a public official and also the private-sector employer of the office’s employees, with the employment relationship being governed by general employment legislation and by a sectoral Collective Agreement — succeeds the outgoing post-holder, takes on the previous notary’s Protocol, continues to provide services at the same place of work using the same material facilities, and takes on the staff who had worked for the previous notary who had held that post?

---

(1)  OJ 2001 L 82, p. 16.

---

| 31.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/19

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social n.o 1 de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 20 September 2021 — FZ v BA, DA, DV and CG

(Case C-586/21)

(2022/C 51/26)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social n.o 1 de Madrid

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: FZ

Defendants: BA, DA, DV and CG

Question referred

Does Article 1(1)(a) of Council Directive (EC) 2001/23 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, (1) and consequently the contents of the directive, apply to a situation in which the notary in post in a notary’s office — who is both a public official and also the private-sector employer of the office’s employees, with the employment relationship being governed by general employment legislation and by a sectoral Collective Agreement — succeeds the outgoing post-holder, takes on the previous notary’s Protocol, continues to provide services at the same place of work using the same material facilities, and takes on the staff who had worked for the previous notary who had held that post?

---

(1)  OJ 2001 L 82, p. 16.

---

| 31.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/20

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzgericht (Austria) lodged on 20 October 2021 — Climate Corporation Emissions Trading GmbH v Finanzamt Österreich

(Case C-641/21)

(2022/C 51/27)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Climate Corporation Emissions Trading GmbH

Respondent authority: Finanzamt Österreich

Question referred

Is Directive 2006/112/EC, as amended by Directive 2008/8/EC, (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the national authorities and courts must regard the place of supply of a service, which, under the written law, is formally located in the other Member State, in which the recipient of the supply is established, as being within the national territory if the domestic taxable person supplying the service should have known that, in supplying it, he or she was participating in value added tax evasion committed in the context of a chain of supplies?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1), as amended by Council Directive 2008/8/EC of 12 February 2008 amending Directive 2006/112/EC as regards the place of supply of services (OJ 2008 L 44, p. 11).

---

| 31.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/20

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 9 November 2021 — A

(Case C-676/21)

(2022/C 51/28)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: A

Other party: Veronsaajien oikeudenvalvontayksikkö

Questions referred

| 1. | Can the provisions on the free movement of goods in Title II of Part Three of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union or Article 110 TFEU preclude legislation of a Member State under which, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, the motor vehicle tax included in the value of a vehicle within the meaning of the Autoverolaki (1482/1994) (Law on motor vehicle tax [1482/1994]) is not refunded to the owner of the vehicle where he or she exports the vehicle for use on a permanent basis in another Member State, and is it relevant in that connection whether the vehicle was intended to be used on a permanent basis primarily in the territory of the Member State which levied the motor vehicle tax and whether it was actually used on a permanent basis primarily in that territory? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can the provisions on the free movement of goods in Title II of Part Three of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union or Article 110 TFEU preclude legislation of a Member State under which, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, the motor vehicle tax included in the value of a vehicle within the meaning of the Autoverolaki (1482/1994) (Law on motor vehicle tax [1482/1994]) is not refunded to the owner of the vehicle where he or she exports the vehicle for use on a permanent basis in another Member State, and is it relevant in that connection whether the vehicle was intended to be used on a permanent basis primarily in the territory of the Member State which levied the motor vehicle tax and whether it was actually used on a permanent basis primarily in that territory?

| 2. | If the intention of use of the vehicle and its actual use are relevant to the answer to the first question, how is such intention of use on a non-permanent basis and such actual use on a non-permanent basis to be demonstrated in so far as the duration for which a private vehicle is to be used in the Member State cannot be determined in advance? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the intention of use of the vehicle and its actual use are relevant to the answer to the first question, how is such intention of use on a non-permanent basis and such actual use on a non-permanent basis to be demonstrated in so far as the duration for which a private vehicle is to be used in the Member State cannot be determined in advance?

| 3. | If the refusal to grant an export refund within the meaning of the Law on motor vehicle tax constitutes a restriction on the free movement of goods in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, can that restriction be justified by the objective of limiting the export of old vehicles which are often in poor condition and pollute the environment? Is the restriction of the export refund to vehicles less than ten years old to be regarded as being incompatible with EU law on the ground that motor vehicle tax is nevertheless levied on imported used vehicles irrespective of the duration for which they have been used? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the refusal to grant an export refund within the meaning of the Law on motor vehicle tax constitutes a restriction on the free movement of goods in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, can that restriction be justified by the objective of limiting the export of old vehicles which are often in poor condition and pollute the environment? Is the restriction of the export refund to vehicles less than ten years old to be regarded as being incompatible with EU law on the ground that motor vehicle tax is nevertheless levied on imported used vehicles irrespective of the duration for which they have been used?

---

| 31.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/21

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München I (Germany) lodged on 17 November 2021 — RSD Reise Service Deutschland GmbH v QL

(Case C-690/21)

(2022/C 51/29)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht München I

Parties to the main proceedings

Defendant and appellant: RSD Reise Service Deutschland GmbH

Applicant and respondent: QL

Question referred

Is Article 12(4) of Directive (EU) 2015/2302 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the traveller may be forced to accept a voucher and/or postponement in lieu of the repayment requested in the event of cancellation by the organiser due to a global pandemic?

---

(1)  Directive (EU) 2015/2302 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on package travel and linked travel arrangements, amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 90/314/EEC (OJ 2015 L 326, p. 1).

---

| 31.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/21

---

Appeal brought on 24 November 2021 by Évariste Boshab against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 15 September 2021 in Case T-107/20, Boshab v Council

(Case C-708/21P)

(2022/C 51/30)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Évariste Boshab (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, T. Payan, and A. Guillerme, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: 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 15 September 2021 in Case T-107/20, Boshab v Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 15 September 2021 in Case T-107/20, Boshab v Council;

| — | Allow the action on the merits and annul Decision (CFSP) 2019/2109 (1) in so far as it maintains the appellant at number 8 of the Annex to Decision 2010/788/CFSP and Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2101 (2) in so far as it maintains the appellant at number 8 of Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005; |
| --- | --- |

—

Allow the action on the merits and annul Decision (CFSP) 2019/2109 (1) in so far as it maintains the appellant at number 8 of the Annex to Decision 2010/788/CFSP and Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2101 (2) in so far as it maintains the appellant at number 8 of Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005;

| — | Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of both proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of both proceedings.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of his appeal, the appellant relies on two grounds of appeal, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence and a manifest error of assessment.

As regards the first ground of appeal, the appellant claims that the General Court infringed the rights of the defence and, in particular, the appellant’s right to be heard, in so far as it failed to draw the necessary conclusions from the fact that the Council rendered the right to be heard meaningless by failing to carry out the necessary checks, in particular having recourse to an interview, and that, consequently, the procedure leading to renewal could have had a different outcome.

As regards the second ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the General Court made a manifest error of assessment in so far as it failed to take account of the fact that restrictive measures are precautionary in nature and, by definition, provisional, the validity of which is always subject to the continuation of the factual and legal circumstances which led to their adoption and to the need to maintain them in order to achieve the objective associated with them; that it did not find that the evidence put forward by the Council was in no way capable of justifying any conduct falling within the criterion for inclusion in the lists at issue, namely acts constituting serious violations of human rights; and that it did not censor the fact that the Council had not examined the evidence submitted by the appellant in the context of the review procedure and that it had not carried out its own verifications on that basis.

---

(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/2109 of 9 December 2019 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2019 L 318, p. 134).

(2)  Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/2101 of 9 December 2019 implementing Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2019 L 318, p. 1).

---

| 31.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/22

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Pitești (Romania) lodged on 24 November 2021 — MK

(Case C-709/21)

(2022/C 51/31)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Pitești

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant/complainant: MK

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the principle of the independence of the judiciary, enshrined in the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 2 TEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, preclude a provision of national law, such as that contained in Article 148(2) of the Romanian Constitution, as interpreted by the Curtea Constituțională (Constitutional Court, Romania) in Decision No 390/2021, according to which national courts have no jurisdiction to examine the conformity with EU law of a provision of national law that has been found to be constitutional by a decision of the Constitutional Court? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the principle of the independence of the judiciary, enshrined in the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 2 TEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, preclude a provision of national law, such as that contained in Article 148(2) of the Romanian Constitution, as interpreted by the Curtea Constituțională (Constitutional Court, Romania) in Decision No 390/2021, according to which national courts have no jurisdiction to examine the conformity with EU law of a provision of national law that has been found to be constitutional by a decision of the Constitutional Court?

| 2. | Does the principle of the independence of the judiciary, enshrined in the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 2 TEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, preclude a provision of national law, such as that contained in Article 99(ș) of Legea nr. 303/2004 privind statutul judecătorilor și procurorilor (Law No 303/2004 on the rules governing judges and prosecutors), which provides for the initiation of disciplinary proceedings and the application of disciplinary penalties in respect of a judge for failure to comply with a decision of the Constitutional Court, where that judge is called upon to acknowledge the primacy of EU law over the grounds of a decision of the Constitutional Court, that provision of national law depriving him or her of the possibility of applying a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union which he or she regards as taking precedence? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the principle of the independence of the judiciary, enshrined in the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 2 TEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, preclude a provision of national law, such as that contained in Article 99(ș) of Legea nr. 303/2004 privind statutul judecătorilor și procurorilor (Law No 303/2004 on the rules governing judges and prosecutors), which provides for the initiation of disciplinary proceedings and the application of disciplinary penalties in respect of a judge for failure to comply with a decision of the Constitutional Court, where that judge is called upon to acknowledge the primacy of EU law over the grounds of a decision of the Constitutional Court, that provision of national law depriving him or her of the possibility of applying a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union which he or she regards as taking precedence?

| 3. | Does the principle of the independence of the judiciary, enshrined in the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 2 TEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, preclude a national judicial practice which precludes a judge, on pain of incurring disciplinary liability, from applying the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union in criminal proceedings in relation to a complaint regarding the reasonable duration of criminal proceedings, governed by Article 4881 of the Romanian Code of Criminal Procedure? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the principle of the independence of the judiciary, enshrined in the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 2 TEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, preclude a national judicial practice which precludes a judge, on pain of incurring disciplinary liability, from applying the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union in criminal proceedings in relation to a complaint regarding the reasonable duration of criminal proceedings, governed by Article 4881 of the Romanian Code of Criminal Procedure?

---

| 31.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/23

---

Appeal brought on 9 December 2021 by Ryanair DAC, Airport Marketing Services Ltd, FR Financing (Malta) Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 29 September 2021 in Case T-448/18, Ryanair and Others v Commission

(Case C-758/21 P)

(2022/C 51/32)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Ryanair DAC, Airport Marketing Services Ltd, FR Financing (Malta) Ltd (represented by: E. Vahida, avocat, B. Byrne, advocaat, and S. Rating, abogado)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

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

—

set aside the judgment under appeal;

| — | annul Articles 5 and 6 and Articles 9, 10 and 11, insofar as they concern the appellants, of Commission Decision (EU) 2018/628 (the contested decision) (1), or in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court for reconsideration; and in any event |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Articles 5 and 6 and Articles 9, 10 and 11, insofar as they concern the appellants, of Commission Decision (EU) 2018/628 (the contested decision) (1), or in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court for reconsideration; and in any event

| — | order the Commission to pay the appellants’ costs of this appeal and of the procedure in case T-448/18 before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the appellants’ costs of this appeal and of the procedure in case T-448/18 before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellants advance four grounds of appeal.

First, the General Court erred in law by rejecting as inadmissible, and therefore refusing to take into account for its judicial review, key pieces of evidence that were submitted by the appellants prior to the closure of the oral part of the procedure before the General Court. The General Court: erred in disregarding, or failing to duly consider, the legal principles underpinning the rules in Articles 85, (1) to (3), of the General Court’s Rules of Procedure; and erred in disregarding the case law applying those provisions.

Second, the General Court misinterpreted Article 17 of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 (2) and misapplied Article 296 TFEU by finding respectively that: (i) the Commission had not violated the applicable limitation period for aid recovery; and (ii) the Contested Decision contained sufficient reasoning in that regard.

Third, the General Court distorted the clear sense of the evidence produced before it when assessing if the Commission lawfully applied the so-called ‘market economy operator’ test when determining if the appellants received an advantage within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. The General Court distorted evidence related to: (i) a security fee stipulated in an airport services agreement between the airport and Ryanair; (ii) the estimation of incremental operating costs that the airport could have expected; and (iii) the load factor relied on by the Commission when carrying out its ex ante profitability assessment.

Fourth, the General Court erred in law by concluding that errors concerning the amount of the aid to be recovered calculated based on ex ante data should not be corrected based on ex post data in the file when the contested decision was adopted.

---

(1)  Commission Decision (EU) 2018/628 of 11 November 2016 on State aid SA.24221(2011/C) (ex 2011/NN) implemented by Austria for the Klagenfurt airport, Ryanair and other airlines using the airport (notified under document C(2016) 7131) (OJ 2018 L 107, p. 1).

(2)  Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9).

---

| 31.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/24

---

Order of the President of the Court of 6 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Veszprémi Törvényszék — Hungary) — ENERGOTT Fejlesztő és Vagyonkezelő Kft v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

(Case C-643/20) (1)

(2022/C 51/33)

Language of the case: Hungarian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 98, 22.3.2021.

---

General Court

| 31.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 December 2021 — BZ v ECB

(Case T-500/16) (1)

(Civil service - ECB staff - Request for recognition of an occupational disease - Non-contractual liability - Material damage - Non-material damage)

(2022/C 51/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: BZ (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: E. Carlini and F. Feyerbacher, acting as Agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU and Article 50a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union for, first, annulment of the ECB’s decisions of 29 August 2011, 20 December 2011 and 25 April 2012 and, secondly, compensation for the material and non-material damage allegedly sustained as a result of the ECB’s conduct.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

Orders BZ to pay the costs.

---

(1)  [confidential] (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under number [confidential] and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).

---

| 31.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 November 2021 — Al Zoubi v Council

(Case T-257/19) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Syria - Freezing of funds - Errors of assessment)

(2022/C 51/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Khaldoun Al Zoubi (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: L. Cloquet, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Kyriakopoulou and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2019/87 of 21 January 2019 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2019 L 18 I, p. 13), of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/85 of 21 January 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2019 L 18 I, p. 4), of Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/806 of 17 May 2019 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2019 L 132, p. 36), of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/798 of 17 May 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2019 L 132, p. 1), of Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/719 of 28 May 2020 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2020 L 168, p. 66), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/716 of 28 May 2020 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2020 L 168, p. 1), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2019/87 of 21 January 2019 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/85 of 21 January 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/806 of 17 May 2019 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/798 of 17 May 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/719 of 28 May 2020 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/716 of 28 May 2020 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, in so far as those acts concern Mr Khaldoun Al Zoubi; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2019/87 of 21 January 2019 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/85 of 21 January 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/806 of 17 May 2019 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/798 of 17 May 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/719 of 28 May 2020 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/716 of 28 May 2020 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, in so far as those acts concern Mr Khaldoun Al Zoubi;

| 2. | Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 238, 15.7.2019.

---

| 31.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 1 December 2021 — HC v Commission

(Case T-804/19) (1)

(Civil service - Recruitment - Notice of competition - Open competition EPSO/AD/363/18 - Decision not to admit the applicant to the next stage of the competition - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Plea of illegality - Equal treatment - Proportionality - Right to be heard - Principle of sound administration - Language rules for the competition - Discrimination based on language - Liability)

(2022/C 51/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: HC (represented by: G. Pandey, V. Villante and D. Rovetta, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Brauhoff, T. Lilamand and D. Milanowska, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 270 TFEU for the annulment of, first, the notice of competition EPSO/AD/363/18 of 11 October 2018 organised for the purpose of drawing up two reserve lists from which the Commission is to recruit administrators (at grade AD 7) in the fields of customs and taxation, secondly, the decision of the selection board for that competition not to include the applicant’s name on the list of individuals invited to the assessment centre, thirdly, the decision of that selection board rejecting the applicant’s request for a review, fourthly, the Commission’s decision of 20 August 2019 dismissing the applicant’s claim under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and, fifthly, the list of candidates invited to the next stage of the competition, and for compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result thereof.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

Orders HC to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 54, 17.2.2020.

---

| 31.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 1 December 2021 — JR v Commission

(Case T-265/20) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to the oral test in a competition - Partial refusal of access - Method for rounding scores - Weightings assigned to the different parts and sub-parts of the oral test - Secrecy of the selection board’s proceedings - Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 - No need to adjudicate in part)

(2022/C 51/37)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Milanowska, C. Ehrbar and H. Kranenborg, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the Commission’s decisions of 28 February 2020 and 9 April 2020 refusing the applicant access to certain documents relating to the internal competition COM/03/AD/18 (AD 6) — 1 — Administrators.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Rules that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the form of order sought by the applicant seeking annulment of the European Commission’s decisions of 28 February 2020 and 9 April 2020 in so far as they refused the applicant access to the method for rounding scores used by the selection board in the internal competition COM/03/AD/18 (AD 6) — 1 — Administrators; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Rules that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the form of order sought by the applicant seeking annulment of the European Commission’s decisions of 28 February 2020 and 9 April 2020 in so far as they refused the applicant access to the method for rounding scores used by the selection board in the internal competition COM/03/AD/18 (AD 6) — 1 — Administrators;

| 2. | Annuls the Commission’s decision of 9 April 2020 in so far as it refuses access to a document containing the weightings assigned to the two parts of the oral test (interview and structured presentation) specified in the notice for the internal competition COM/03/AD/18 (AD 6) — 1 — Administrators, and the two sub-parts of the interview (professional experience and motivation) which were also specified in the notice for that competition; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Annuls the Commission’s decision of 9 April 2020 in so far as it refuses access to a document containing the weightings assigned to the two parts of the oral test (interview and structured presentation) specified in the notice for the internal competition COM/03/AD/18 (AD 6) — 1 — Administrators, and the two sub-parts of the interview (professional experience and motivation) which were also specified in the notice for that competition;

| 3. | Orders the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 247, 27.7.2020.

---

| 31.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 1 December 2021 — Ruiz-Ruiz v Commission

(Case T-293/20) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Recruitment - Notice of open competition EPSO/AD/371/19 - Decision of the Selection Board to exclude the applicant from the next phase of the competition - Admission criterion related to professional experience - Compliance of criterion applied by the Selection Board with the competition notice - Manifest error of assessment)

(2022/C 51/38)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Vanesa Ruiz-Ruiz (Alkmaar, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara, T. Lilamand and I. Melo Sampaio, Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for annulment, first, of the decision of the Selection Board of 20 September 2019 refusing the applicant’s request for review of the decision not to admit her to the next phase of the open competition EPSO/AD/371/19 and, secondly, of the decision of the appointing authority of 7 February 2020 rejecting the applicant’s complaint against that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Selection Board of 20 September 2019 refusing the request for review of Ms Vanesa Ruiz-Ruiz’s exclusion from competition EPSO/AD/371/19; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Selection Board of 20 September 2019 refusing the request for review of Ms Vanesa Ruiz-Ruiz’s exclusion from competition EPSO/AD/371/19;

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

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 222, 6.7.2020.

---

| 31.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 1 December 2021 — Sopra Steria Benelux and Unisys Belgium v Commission

(Case T-546/20) (1)

(Public service contract - Tender procedure - Services for the specification, development, maintenance and support of IT platforms for DG ‘Taxation and Customs Union’ - Rejection of tender submitted by a tenderer and award of the contract to another tenderer - Obligation to state reasons - Abnormally low offer)

(2022/C 51/39)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Sopra Steria Benelux (Ixelles, Belgium), Unisys Belgium (Machelen, Belgium) (represented by: L. Masson and G. Tilman, lawyers)

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

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 2 July 2020 which, first, rejected the joint tender submitted by Sopra Steria Benelux and Unisys Belgium for lot A in the tendering procedure bearing reference TAXUD/2019/OP/0006 for services for the specification, development, maintenance and support of the third level of the IT platforms of the Directorate General for ‘Taxation and Customs Union’ and, secondly, awarded the contract to the other consortium that submitted a tender.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 2 July 2020 which, first, rejected the joint tender submitted by Sopra Steria Benelux and Unisys Belgium in the context of the tendering procedure bearing reference TAXUD/2019/OP/0006 for services for the specification, development, maintenance and support of the third level of the IT platforms of the Directorate General for ‘Taxation and Customs Union’ and, secondly, awarded the contract to the other consortium that submitted a tender in so far as it concerns lot A; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 2 July 2020 which, first, rejected the joint tender submitted by Sopra Steria Benelux and Unisys Belgium in the context of the tendering procedure bearing reference TAXUD/2019/OP/0006 for services for the specification, development, maintenance and support of the third level of the IT platforms of the Directorate General for ‘Taxation and Customs Union’ and, secondly, awarded the contract to the other consortium that submitted a tender in so far as it concerns lot A;

| 2. | Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Sopra Steria Benelux and Unisys Belgium. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Sopra Steria Benelux and Unisys Belgium.

---

(1)  OJ C 359, 26.10.2020.

---

| 31.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 1 December 2021 — Muratbey Gida v EUIPO — M. J. Dairies (triple helicoid cheese)

(Case T-662/20) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing triple helicoid cheese - Earlier international design - Ground for invalidity - Individual character - Disclosure of the earlier design - Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Different overall impression - Article 6 of Regulation No 6/2002)

(2022/C 51/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Muratbey Gida Sanayí ve Tícaret AŞ (Istanbul, Turkey) (represented by: M. Schork, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: M. J. Dairies EOOD (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: D. Dimitrova and I. Pakidanska, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 August 2020 (Case R 1925/2019-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between M. J. Dairies and Muratbey Gida Sanayí ve Tícaret.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Muratbey Gida Sanayí ve Tícaret AŞ to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Muratbey Gida Sanayí ve Tícaret AŞ to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 9, 11.1.2021.

---

| 31.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 1 December 2021 — Schmid v EUIPO — Landeskammer für Land- und Forstwirtschaft in Steiermark (Steirisches Kürbiskernöl g.g.A)

(Case T-700/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark Steirisches Kürbiskernöl g. g. A GESCHÜTZTE GEOGRAFISCHE ANGABE - Absolute ground for refusal - Trade mark including badges, emblems or escutcheons - Emblem of one of the areas of action of the European Union - Protected geographical indications - Article 7(1)(i) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(i) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2022/C 51/41)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Gabriele Schmid (Halbenrain, Austria) (represented by: A. Ginzburg, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: D. Hanf and M. Eberl, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Landeskammer für Land- und Forstwirtschaft in Steiermark (Graz, Austria) (represented by: I. Hödl, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 September 2020 (Case R 2186/2019-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Landeskammer für Land- und Forstwirtschaft in Steiermark and Ms Schmid.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 23 September 2020 (Case R 2186/2019-4); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 23 September 2020 (Case R 2186/2019-4);

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Ms Gabriele Schmid; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Ms Gabriele Schmid;

| 3. | Orders Landeskammer für Land- und Forstwirtschaft in Steiermark to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Landeskammer für Land- und Forstwirtschaft in Steiermark to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 28, 25.1.2021.

---

| 31.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 December 2021 — QB v Commission

(Case T-71/21) (1)

(Civil service - Temporary staff - Remuneration - Expatriation allowance - Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Refusal to grant the expatriation allowance - Main occupation - Work done for another State)

(2022/C 51/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Bohr and A.C. Simon, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of the decision of the Commission’s Office for the ‘Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements’ (PMO) of 6 April 2020 refusing to grant the expatriation allowance to the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

Orders QB to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 148, 26.4.2021.

---

| 31.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 1 December 2021 — Jieyang Defa Industry v EUIPO — Mattel (Doll’s Head)

(Case T-84/21) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a doll’s head - Earlier design - Ground for invalidity - No individual character - Degree of freedom of the designer - No different overall impression - Articles 6 and 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

(2022/C 51/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Jieyang Defa Industry Co. Ltd (Jieyang, People’s Republic of China) (represented by: C. Bercial Arias and F. Codevelle, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Mattel, Inc. (El Segundo, California, United States) (represented by: A. Pompe-Ciszewska and P. Mleczak, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 December 2020 (Case R 2021/2019-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Mattel and Jieyang Defa Industry Co.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Jieyang Defa Industry Co. Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Jieyang Defa Industry Co. Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 110, 29.3.2021.

---

| 31.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 1 December 2021 — Union Syndicale Solidaires des SDIS de France et DOM/TOM v Commission

(Case T-152/21) (1)

(Non-contractual liability - Filing of a complaint with the Commission concerning the application of EU law - Time limit for reply - Right to good administration - Mandatory due diligence - Reasonable period - No sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals)

(2022/C 51/44)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Union Syndicale Solidaires des services départementaux d’incendie et de secours (SDIS) de France et DOM/TOM (Nîmes, France) (represented by: O. Coudray, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Ehrbar and A. Spina, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the harm suffered by the applicant as a result of the Commission’s negligent failure to deal with her complaint, registered on 27 June 2019 under reference CHAP(2019)01840, for alleged breach of European Union law by the French Republic.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders the Union Syndicale Solidaires des services départementaux d’incendie et de secours (SDIS) de France et DOM/TOM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Union Syndicale Solidaires des services départementaux d’incendie et de secours (SDIS) de France et DOM/TOM to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 182, 10.5.2021.

---

| 31.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 1 December 2021 — Jalkh v Parliament

(Case T-230/21) (1)

(Law governing the institutions - Member of the European Parliament - Privileges and immunities - Decision to waive parliamentary immunity - Articles 8 and 9 of Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union - Procedure for waiving immunity - Manifest error of assessment)

(2022/C 51/45)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

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

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of European Parliament decision P9_TA(2021)0092 of 25 March 2021 on the request for waiver of the immunity of the applicant (2020/2110(IMM)).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Jean-François Jalkh to pay the costs, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Jean-François Jalkh to pay the costs, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures.

---

(1)  OJ C 242, 21.6.2021.

---

| 31.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/33

---

Action brought on 4 November 2021 — AL v Commission

(Case T-714/21)

(2022/C 51/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: AL (represented by: R. Rata, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | primarily, annul the defendant’s decision of 4 August 2021 (ref. Ares (2021) 4962656) in response to the complaint within the meaning of Article 90(2) lodged by the applicant on 9 April 2021 against the decision of the PMO of 11 January 2021; (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

primarily, annul the defendant’s decision of 4 August 2021 (ref. Ares (2021) 4962656) in response to the complaint within the meaning of Article 90(2) lodged by the applicant on 9 April 2021 against the decision of the PMO of 11 January 2021; (1)

| — | order the defendant to disclose and produce (i) documentary evidence in relation to the calculation which was at the basis of the PMO decision of 21 November 2019; and (ii) the entire text of the ‘DG HR reply to another complaint’, partially quoted by the PMO in the email dated 8 October 2020; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to disclose and produce (i) documentary evidence in relation to the calculation which was at the basis of the PMO decision of 21 November 2019; and (ii) the entire text of the ‘DG HR reply to another complaint’, partially quoted by the PMO in the email dated 8 October 2020;

| — | order the defendant to determine the assumed cost of maintenance for the period from 1 November 2020 to 30 September 2021 based on the applicant’s mother’s residence in Belgium; and |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to determine the assumed cost of maintenance for the period from 1 November 2020 to 30 September 2021 based on the applicant’s mother’s residence in Belgium; and

| — | order the defendant to pay the allowance for his mother assimilated as a child for the period from 1 November 2020 to 30 September 2021; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the allowance for his mother assimilated as a child for the period from 1 November 2020 to 30 September 2021;

| — | order the defendant to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

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 the violation by the defendant of Article 2(4) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations and of the Commission Decision of 15 April 2014 on general implementing provisions concerning persons to be treated as dependent children, in so far as, in calculating the cost of the applicant’s mother’s maintenance, the defendant incorrectly estimated that the applicant’s mother’s place of residence was in Romania and not in Belgium. Furthermore, the Commission erred in determining the cost of the applicant’s mother’s maintenance as 50 % of the basic salary of an official in the first step of grade AST 1, corrected with the country coefficient for Romania, since the applicant’s mother resided permanently in the applicant’s household and, that being so, 40 % of that basic salary (with no correction) should have been considered. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging the violation by the defendant of Article 2(4) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations and of the Commission Decision of 15 April 2014 on general implementing provisions concerning persons to be treated as dependent children, in so far as, in calculating the cost of the applicant’s mother’s maintenance, the defendant incorrectly estimated that the applicant’s mother’s place of residence was in Romania and not in Belgium. Furthermore, the Commission erred in determining the cost of the applicant’s mother’s maintenance as 50 % of the basic salary of an official in the first step of grade AST 1, corrected with the country coefficient for Romania, since the applicant’s mother resided permanently in the applicant’s household and, that being so, 40 % of that basic salary (with no correction) should have been considered.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging violation of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations, in so far as the applicant was neither aware that there was no due reason for the payment of the assimilation allowance for the period from 1 November 2019 to 31 October 2020, nor was the overpayment patently such that he could not have been unaware of it. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging violation of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations, in so far as the applicant was neither aware that there was no due reason for the payment of the assimilation allowance for the period from 1 November 2019 to 31 October 2020, nor was the overpayment patently such that he could not have been unaware of it.

---

(1)  Editorial note: the contested decision concerns the payment of family allowances pursuant to Article 2(4) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations applicable to officials of the European Union.

---

| 31.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/34

---

Action brought on 26 November 2021 — Beauty Biosciences v EUIPO — Société de Recherche Cosmétique (BIO-BEAUTÉ)

(Case T-750/21)

(2022/C 51/47)

Language of the case: 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: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark BIO-BEAUTÉ — European Union trade mark No 13 609 631

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 September 2021 in Joined Cases R 1871/2020-4 and R 1891/2020-4.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | partly annul the contested decision in the sense of declaring the contested trademark invalid for the goods in Class 3: ‘dentifrices; essential oils; perfumes, toilet water, eau de cologne; incense; perfume water’; |
| --- | --- |

—

partly annul the contested decision in the sense of declaring the contested trademark invalid for the goods in Class 3: ‘dentifrices; essential oils; perfumes, toilet water, eau de cologne; incense; perfume water’;

| — | partly annul the contested decision in the sense of declaring the contested trademark invalid for the goods in Class 3: ‘Cosmetics; body deodorants; Extracts of plant for cosmetic purposes; Soaps, cleansing milk; Cosmetic creams, gels, milks, lotions, masks, pomades, powders, serums and preparations for skin care; Anti-wrinkle preparations; Cosmetic preparations for lip care; Sun-tanning preparations (cosmetics), after-sun preparations (cosmetics); Cosmetic preparations for slimming purposes; Depilatories; Hair products (hair and scalp care preparations); Baths (Cosmetic preparations for -); Make-up and make up removing preparations; Preparations for shaving and after-shave preparations’; |
| --- | --- |

—

partly annul the contested decision in the sense of declaring the contested trademark invalid for the goods in Class 3: ‘Cosmetics; body deodorants; Extracts of plant for cosmetic purposes; Soaps, cleansing milk; Cosmetic creams, gels, milks, lotions, masks, pomades, powders, serums and preparations for skin care; Anti-wrinkle preparations; Cosmetic preparations for lip care; Sun-tanning preparations (cosmetics), after-sun preparations (cosmetics); Cosmetic preparations for slimming purposes; Depilatories; Hair products (hair and scalp care preparations); Baths (Cosmetic preparations for -); Make-up and make up removing preparations; Preparations for shaving and after-shave preparations’;

| — | alter the contested decision it in the sense of declaring the contested trademark invalid for the goods in Class 3: ‘dentifrices; essential oils; perfumes, toilet water, eau de cologne; incense; perfume water’; |
| --- | --- |

—

alter the contested decision it in the sense of declaring the contested trademark invalid for the goods in Class 3: ‘dentifrices; essential oils; perfumes, toilet water, eau de cologne; incense; perfume water’;

| — | alter the contested decision and alter it in the sense of declaring the contested trademark invalid for the goods in Class 3: ‘Cosmetics; body deodorants; Extracts of plant for cosmetic purposes; Soaps, cleansing milk; Cosmetic creams, gels, milks, lotions, masks, pomades, powders, serums and preparations for skin care; Antiwrinkle preparations; Cosmetic preparations for lip care; Sun-tanning preparations (cosmetics), after-sun preparations (cosmetics); Cosmetic preparations for slimming purposes; Depilatories; Hair products (hair and scalp care preparations); Baths (Cosmetic preparations for -); Make-up and make up removing preparations; Preparations for shaving and after-shave preparations’; |
| --- | --- |

—

alter the contested decision and alter it in the sense of declaring the contested trademark invalid for the goods in Class 3: ‘Cosmetics; body deodorants; Extracts of plant for cosmetic purposes; Soaps, cleansing milk; Cosmetic creams, gels, milks, lotions, masks, pomades, powders, serums and preparations for skin care; Antiwrinkle preparations; Cosmetic preparations for lip care; Sun-tanning preparations (cosmetics), after-sun preparations (cosmetics); Cosmetic preparations for slimming purposes; Depilatories; Hair products (hair and scalp care preparations); Baths (Cosmetic preparations for -); Make-up and make up removing preparations; Preparations for shaving and after-shave preparations’;

| — | order Société de Recherche Cosmétique S.A.R.L. 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 S.A.R.L. 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) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council as the Board of Appeal wrongly assessed that the EUTM No 13 609 631 BIO-BEAUTÉ is not descriptive in connection to the goods in Class 3 ‘dentifrices; essential oils; perfumes, toilet water, eau de cologne; incense; perfume water’; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 59(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council as the Board of Appeal wrongly assessed that the EUTM No 13 609 631 BIO-BEAUTÉ is not descriptive in connection to the goods in Class 3 ‘dentifrices; essential oils; perfumes, toilet water, eau de cologne; incense; perfume water’;

| — | Infringement of Article 59(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council as the Board of Appeal wrongly assessed that the EUTM No 13 609 631 BIO-BEAUTÉ does not lack distinctive character in connection to the goods in Class 3 ‘dentifrices; essential oils; perfumes, toilet water, eau de cologne; incense; perfume water’; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 59(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council as the Board of Appeal wrongly assessed that the EUTM No 13 609 631 BIO-BEAUTÉ does not lack distinctive character in connection to the goods in Class 3 ‘dentifrices; essential oils; perfumes, toilet water, eau de cologne; incense; perfume water’;

| — | Infringement of Article 59(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(3) and Article 59(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council as the Board of Appeal wrongly assessed that the EUTM No 13 609 631 BIO-BEAUTÉ has acquired distinctive character in connection to the goods in Class 3 ‘Cosmetics; body deodorants; Extracts of plant for cosmetic purposes; Soaps, cleansing milk; Cosmetic creams, gels, milks, lotions, masks, pomades, powders, serums and preparations for skin care; Anti-wrinkle preparations; Cosmetic preparations for lip care; Sun-tanning preparations (cosmetics), after-sun preparations (cosmetics); Cosmetic preparations for slimming purposes; Depilatories; Hair products 2 (hair and scalp care preparations); Baths (Cosmetic preparations for -); Make-up and make up removing preparations; Preparations for shaving and after-shave preparations’. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 59(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(3) and Article 59(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council as the Board of Appeal wrongly assessed that the EUTM No 13 609 631 BIO-BEAUTÉ has acquired distinctive character in connection to the goods in Class 3 ‘Cosmetics; body deodorants; Extracts of plant for cosmetic purposes; Soaps, cleansing milk; Cosmetic creams, gels, milks, lotions, masks, pomades, powders, serums and preparations for skin care; Anti-wrinkle preparations; Cosmetic preparations for lip care; Sun-tanning preparations (cosmetics), after-sun preparations (cosmetics); Cosmetic preparations for slimming purposes; Depilatories; Hair products 2 (hair and scalp care preparations); Baths (Cosmetic preparations for -); Make-up and make up removing preparations; Preparations for shaving and after-shave preparations’.

---

| 31.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/35

---

Action brought on 29 November 2021 — Peace United v EUIPO — 1906 Collins (bâoli)

(Case T-754/21)

(2022/C 51/48)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Peace United Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Artzimovitch, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: 1906 Collins LLC (Miami, Florida, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark bâoli — EU trade mark No 6 619 977

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 September 2021 in Case R 275/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision in so far as, as a result of various errors of assessment in fact and in law and disregard of the duty of sound administration, the Board of Appeal found that the EU trade mark No 6 619 977 bâoli had not been put to genuine use during the period at issue in respect of the services claimed in Classes 41 and 43; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in so far as, as a result of various errors of assessment in fact and in law and disregard of the duty of sound administration, the Board of Appeal found that the EU trade mark No 6 619 977 bâoli had not been put to genuine use during the period at issue in respect of the services claimed in Classes 41 and 43;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 63(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in so far as the Board of Appeal erred in its assessment of the unfairness of the revocation action; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 63(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in so far as the Board of Appeal erred in its assessment of the unfairness of the revocation action;

| — | Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in so far as the Board of Appeal erred in its assessment of genuine use of the mark. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in so far as the Board of Appeal erred in its assessment of genuine use of the mark.

---

| 31.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/36

---

Action brought on 1 December 2021 — Dorsum v EUIPO — ID Quantique (Clavis)

(Case T-758/21)

(2022/C 51/49)

Language in which the application was lodged: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: Dorsum Informatikai Fejlesztő és Szolgáltató Zrt. (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: Gy. Hajdu, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: ID Quantique SA (Carouge, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘Clavis’ — registration No 18064876

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 September 2021 in Case R 189/2021-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | primarily, amend the contested decision and uphold the applicant’s action; |
| --- | --- |

—

primarily, amend the contested decision and uphold the applicant’s action;

| — | alternatively, annul the contested decision with the effects also extending to the decision issued by EUIPO on 27 November 2020; |
| --- | --- |

—

alternatively, annul the contested decision with the effects also extending to the decision issued by EUIPO on 27 November 2020;

| — | order compensation to be paid to the applicant for the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order compensation to be paid to the applicant for the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 47(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 47(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 107 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 107 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 95 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 95 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of essential procedural requirements. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of essential procedural requirements.

---

| 31.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/37

---

Action brought on 29 November 2021 — DCM Film Distribution v Commission

(Case T-760/21)

(2022/C 51/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: DCM Film Distribution GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: A. Huttenlauch, M. Klasse and P. Hesse, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul European Commission Decision C(2021) 7095 final of 28 September 2021 on the review of the legality of an act of the European Education and Culture Executive Agency pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 58/2003 (1) in accordance with Article 264(1) TFEU; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul European Commission Decision C(2021) 7095 final of 28 September 2021 on the review of the legality of an act of the European Education and Culture Executive Agency pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 58/2003 (1) in accordance with Article 264(1) TFEU; and

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

—

order the European Commission to pay all costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s interpretation of ‘European company’ is incompatible with the literal meaning of the Guidelines and the Work Programme.






  — | It is argued that the Commission erred in law by interpreting the criterion of nationality to refer only to the natural persons owning the applicant company. Thereby, the Commission wrongly understands ‘ownership’ to mean ‘ultimate ownership’. The wording does not permit the conclusion that the nationality of ‘ultimate shareholders’ and not only of direct shareholders is decisive for the classification of the applicant as a European company. The Commission’s narrow reading is not only not supported by the wording but also inconsistent with and contrary to the common understanding of the terms ‘nationality’, ‘EU company’, and ‘European work’ as established in EU law. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s interpretation of ‘European company’ is incompatible with the literal meaning of the Guidelines and the Work Programme.

—

It is argued that the Commission erred in law by interpreting the criterion of nationality to refer only to the natural persons owning the applicant company. Thereby, the Commission wrongly understands ‘ownership’ to mean ‘ultimate ownership’. The wording does not permit the conclusion that the nationality of ‘ultimate shareholders’ and not only of direct shareholders is decisive for the classification of the applicant as a European company. The Commission’s narrow reading is not only not supported by the wording but also inconsistent with and contrary to the common understanding of the terms ‘nationality’, ‘EU company’, and ‘European work’ as established in EU law.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s interpretation of ‘European company’ is incompatible with higher-ranking EU law.






  — | It is argued that by relying on this erroneous interpretation without adequately taking into account the facts of the case, the Commission’s decision runs counter the objectives of applicable EU law. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s interpretation of ‘European company’ is incompatible with higher-ranking EU law.

—

It is argued that by relying on this erroneous interpretation without adequately taking into account the facts of the case, the Commission’s decision runs counter the objectives of applicable EU law.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s decision contradicts Regulation (EU) No 1295/2013 (2) underlying the Creative Europe MEDIA funding scheme.






  — | It is argued that relying on the nationality of the ultimate owners of the applicant company as an eligibility prerequisite for funding has no basis in the Creative Europe Regulation; in fact, it contradicts the notion of a consistent implementation of the general and specific objectives of the Creative Europe MEDIA sub-programme. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s decision contradicts Regulation (EU) No 1295/2013 (2) underlying the Creative Europe MEDIA funding scheme.

—

It is argued that relying on the nationality of the ultimate owners of the applicant company as an eligibility prerequisite for funding has no basis in the Creative Europe Regulation; in fact, it contradicts the notion of a consistent implementation of the general and specific objectives of the Creative Europe MEDIA sub-programme.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s decision also violates the requirements of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046. (3)







  — | It is argued that the Commission’s interpretation of the eligibility criteria fails to satisfy the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination, which the Commission is required to observe in its financing decisions on grants. |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s decision also violates the requirements of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046. (3)

—

It is argued that the Commission’s interpretation of the eligibility criteria fails to satisfy the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination, which the Commission is required to observe in its financing decisions on grants.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s decision infringes Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.






  — | It is argued that the Commission’s decision leads to a different treatment of like cases to the detriment of certain entities, which is not objectively justified. |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s decision infringes Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

—

It is argued that the Commission’s decision leads to a different treatment of like cases to the detriment of certain entities, which is not objectively justified.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission exceeds the limits of its discretionary powers.






  — | It is argued that choosing an interpretation disregarding and conflicting with EU law despite several alternative interpretations being available, that are consistent with EU law, constitutes a misuse of discretion on the Commission’s part. |
| --- | --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission exceeds the limits of its discretionary powers.

—

It is argued that choosing an interpretation disregarding and conflicting with EU law despite several alternative interpretations being available, that are consistent with EU law, constitutes a misuse of discretion on the Commission’s part.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s decision infringes the principle of proportionality.






  — | It is argued that granting funding subject to the reservation that the outflow of profits to any third countries would be prevented would have been an equally effective but milder means. |
| --- | --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s decision infringes the principle of proportionality.

—

It is argued that granting funding subject to the reservation that the outflow of profits to any third countries would be prevented would have been an equally effective but milder means.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 58/2003 of 19 December 2002 laying down the statute for executive agencies to be entrusted with certain tasks in the management of Community programmes (OJ 2003 L 11, p. 1).

(2)  Regulation (EU) No 1295/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 establishing the Creative Europe Programme (2014 to 2020) and repealing Decisions No 1718/2006/EC, No 1855/2006/EC and No 1041/2009/EC (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 221).

(3)  Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, amending Regulations (EU) No 1296/2013, (EU) No 1301/2013, (EU) No 1303/2013, (EU) No 1304/2013, (EU) No 1309/2013, (EU) No 1316/2013, (EU) No 223/2014, (EU) No 283/2014, and Decision No 541/2014/EU and repealing Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 (OJ 2018 L 193, p. 1).

---

| 31.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/38

---

Action brought on 6 December 2021 — Courtois and Others v Commission

(Case T-761/21)

(2022/C 51/51)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Fabien Courtois (Rueil-Malmaison, France) and 2088 other applicants (represented by: A. Durand, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | declare the applicants’ claims admissible and well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the applicants’ claims admissible and well founded;

| — | annul the implied decision of rejection of 24 September 2021 arising from the failure to reply to the confirmatory application submitted by the applicants on 13 August 2021; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the implied decision of rejection of 24 September 2021 arising from the failure to reply to the confirmatory application submitted by the applicants on 13 August 2021;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law based on the admissibility of the action. The applicants claim, in that regard, that they have standing as applicants entitled to bring an action for the purposes of Article 8(3) of 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 (1) (‘Regulation 1049/2001’) and as addressees of the contested act within the meaning of Article 263(4) TFEU. The applicants further state that they have an interest in bringing proceedings arising from the Commission’s refusal of access to documents in its implied decision of rejection of 24 September 2021 and the infringement of their fundamental rights by the contested decision. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law based on the admissibility of the action. The applicants claim, in that regard, that they have standing as applicants entitled to bring an action for the purposes of Article 8(3) of 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 (1) (‘Regulation 1049/2001’) and as addressees of the contested act within the meaning of Article 263(4) TFEU. The applicants further state that they have an interest in bringing proceedings arising from the Commission’s refusal of access to documents in its implied decision of rejection of 24 September 2021 and the infringement of their fundamental rights by the contested decision.

| 2. | Second plea in law based on the internal legality of the Commission’s decision. The applicants claim that the Commission infringed the applicants’ right of access to documents by relying on incomplete and erroneous grounds. The applicants further argue that they rely on overriding public interests which justify access to the documents. Lastly, the applicants consider that the Commission infringed the principle of proportionality in that it went beyond what was necessary to achieve its objectives. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law based on the internal legality of the Commission’s decision. The applicants claim that the Commission infringed the applicants’ right of access to documents by relying on incomplete and erroneous grounds. The applicants further argue that they rely on overriding public interests which justify access to the documents. Lastly, the applicants consider that the Commission infringed the principle of proportionality in that it went beyond what was necessary to achieve its objectives.

---

(1)  OJ 2021 L 145, p. 43.

---

| 31.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/39

---

Action brought on 10 December 2021 — Euranimi v Commission

(Case T-769/21)

(2022/C 51/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Association of Non-Integrated Metal Importers & distributors (Euranimi) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Campa, D. Rovetta, P. Gjørtler, V. Villante, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1483 of 15 September 2021 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of stainless steel cold-rolled flat products originating in the People’s Republic of China and Taiwan following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1483 of 15 September 2021 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of stainless steel cold-rolled flat products originating in the People’s Republic of China and Taiwan following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | order the European Commission to bear applicant’s and its own legal costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to bear applicant’s and its own legal costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action to annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1483 of 15 September 2021 (1), the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging breach of Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 (2) — manifest error of assessment by the Commission’s services. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging breach of Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 (2) — manifest error of assessment by the Commission’s services.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging breach of Article 3(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 with regard to the injury and causation assessment for both Chinese and Taiwanese products — manifest error of assessment. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging breach of Article 3(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 with regard to the injury and causation assessment for both Chinese and Taiwanese products — manifest error of assessment.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging breach of Article 2(6a) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016, concerning the legal status of the Report by which the European Commission establishes the existence of significant market distortions in a certain country or a certain sector in that country and use of such reports for the dumping determination. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging breach of Article 2(6a) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016, concerning the legal status of the Report by which the European Commission establishes the existence of significant market distortions in a certain country or a certain sector in that country and use of such reports for the dumping determination.

---

(1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1483 of 15 September 2021 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of stainless steel cold-rolled flat products originating in the People’s Republic of China and Taiwan following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council (JO 2021 L 327, p. 1)

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

---

| 31.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/40

---

Action brought on 9 December 2021 — OC v EEAS

(Case T-770/21)

(2022/C 51/53)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: OC (represented by: L. Levi and N. Flandin, lawyers)

Defendant: European External Action Service (EEAS)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

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

—

declare the present action admissible and well founded;

consequently:

| — | annul the decision of 10 September 2020, notified on 11 February 2021, by which the appointing authority rejected the applicant’s request for assistance made under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 10 September 2020, notified on 11 February 2021, by which the appointing authority rejected the applicant’s request for assistance made under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union;

| — | in so far as necessary, annul the decision of the appointing authority of 31 August 2021 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 6 May 2021 against the decision of 10 September 2021; |
| --- | --- |

—

in so far as necessary, annul the decision of the appointing authority of 31 August 2021 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 6 May 2021 against the decision of 10 September 2021;

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

—

order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging breach of the obligation to state reasons and of the right to be heard. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging breach of the obligation to state reasons and of the right to be heard.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging breach of procedure and of the competence rules concerning distribution of powers. The applicant submits in that regard that the decision to initiate an administrative investigation should have been taken by the Secretary-General of EEAS. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging breach of procedure and of the competence rules concerning distribution of powers. The applicant submits in that regard that the decision to initiate an administrative investigation should have been taken by the Secretary-General of EEAS.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment committed by EEAS in the light of its definition of psychological harassment and of the breach of Article 12a of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment committed by EEAS in the light of its definition of psychological harassment and of the breach of Article 12a of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the duty of care. |
| --- | --- |

4.

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

---

| 31.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/40

---

Action brought on 14 December 2021 — Trend Glass v EUIPO (ECO STORAGE)

(Case T-777/21)

(2022/C 51/54)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Trend Glass sp. z o.o. (Radom, Poland) (represented by: J. Gwiazdowska, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark ECO STORAGE — Application No 18 324 347

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 October 2021 in Case R 1315/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision in its entirety and give final judgment by approving for registration EU trade mark application No 18 324 347; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in its entirety and give final judgment by approving for registration EU trade mark application No 18 324 347;

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

—

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

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs, including the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO and the Operations Department of EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs, including the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO and the Operations Department of EUIPO.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, read in conjunction with Article 7(2) thereof; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, read in conjunction with Article 7(2) thereof;

| — | Infringement of Article 33(2) and (7) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, as well as Article 42(1) thereof; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 33(2) and (7) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, as well as Article 42(1) thereof;

| — | Infringement of Article 94(1) and Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 94(1) and Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as well as Article 41(1) and (2)(a) and (c) thereof, including the right to be heard, the obligation [of the administration] to give reasons for its decisions, the right to good administration, the principle of legal certainty, and the principle of equal treatment. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as well as Article 41(1) and (2)(a) and (c) thereof, including the right to be heard, the obligation [of the administration] to give reasons for its decisions, the right to good administration, the principle of legal certainty, and the principle of equal treatment.

---