# Official Journal C 432/14 N

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 432 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6514 November 2022 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 432

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6514 November 2022

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2022/C 432/01 | 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 432/01

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 432/02 | Case C-597/20: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 29 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Polskie Linie Lotnicze LOT S.A. v Budapest Főváros Kormányhivatala (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Article 16 — Compensation and assistance to passengers — Task of the national body responsible for the enforcement of that regulation — National legislation conferring on that body the power to order an air carrier to pay compensation due to a passenger — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 47 — Right to seek remedy before a tribunal) | 2 |
| 2022/C 432/03 | Case C-633/20: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 29 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband eV v TC Medical Air Ambulance Agency GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services — Single market in insurance — Directive 2002/92/EC — Definition of insurance intermediary — Activity of insurance mediation — Directive (EU) 2016/97 — Activity of distribution of insurance — Scope of those directives — Membership of a group insurance policy — Assignment of rights under the insurance contract — Insurance benefits in the event of sickness or accident abroad — Remuneration paid by the member in consideration for the insurance cover acquired — Consumer protection — Equal treatment of insurance intermediaries) | 3 |
| 2022/C 432/04 | Case C-3/21: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) — Ireland) — FS v The Chief Appeals Officer, The Social Welfare Appeals Office, The Minister for Employment Affairs, The Minister for Social Protection (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social security for migrant workers — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Coordination of social security systems — Family benefits — Back payment — Relocation of the beneficiary to another Member State — Article 81 — Concept of claim — Article 76(4) — Duty of mutual information and cooperation — Non-compliance — 12-month limitation period — Principle of effectiveness) | 4 |
| 2022/C 432/05 | Case C-202/21 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 29 September 2022 — ABLV Bank AS, in liquidation v Single Resolution Board (SRB), European Commission (Appeal — Economic and monetary policy — Banking union — Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 — Single resolution mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms — Single Resolution Fund — Annual contributions — Liquidation of a credit institution — Reimbursement of contributions paid — Pro rata temporis) | 5 |
| 2022/C 432/06 | Case C-235/21: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče — Slovenia) — Raiffeisen Leasing, trgovina in leasing d.o.o. v Republika Slovenija (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 203 — Sale-and-lease back agreement — Persons liable for payment of VAT — Possibility of treating a written contractual agreement as an invoice) | 5 |
| 2022/C 432/07 | Case C-500/21 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 September 2022 — Health Information Management (HIM) v European Commission (Appeal — Arbitration clause — Grant agreements concluded under the Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) Policy Support Programme — Audit report — Debit notes issued by the European Commission for the recovery of certain sums — Action for annulment — Investigation by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) — Counterclaim — Full repayment of the grants concerned — Rights of the defence — Principle of sound administration — Impartiality — Principle of proportionality — Obligation to state reasons) | 6 |
| 2022/C 432/08 | Case C-460/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 11 July 2022 — DIGI Távközlési és Szolgáltató Kft. v Nemzeti Média- és Hírközlési Hatóság | 6 |
| 2022/C 432/09 | Case C-519/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 4 August 2022 — MAX7 Design Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága | 7 |
| 2022/C 432/10 | Case C-536/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Ravensburg (Germany) lodged on 10 August 2022 — MW, CY v VR Bank Ravensburg-Weingarten eG | 8 |
| 2022/C 432/11 | Case C-537/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 11 August 2022 — Global Ink Trade Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága | 9 |
| 2022/C 432/12 | Case C-538/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 11 August 2022 — SB v Agrárminiszter | 10 |
| 2022/C 432/13 | Case C-547/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Bratislava II (Slovakia) lodged on 17 August 2022 — INGSTEEL spol. s. r. o. v Úrad pre verejné obstarávanie | 11 |
| 2022/C 432/14 | Case C-566/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 26 August 2022 — Inkreal s. r. o. v Dúha reality s. r. o. | 12 |
| 2022/C 432/15 | Case C-611/22 P: Appeal brought on 22 September 2022 by Illumina, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 13 July 2022 in Case T-227/21, Illumina v Commission | 13 |
| 2022/C 432/16 | Case C-620/22 P: Appeal brought on 27 September 2022 by RT France against the judgment of the General Court (Grand Chamber) delivered on 27 July 2022 in Case T-125/22, RT France v Council | 14 |
| | General Court |
| 2022/C 432/17 | Case T-604/18: Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — Google and Alphabet v Commission (Google Android) (Competition — Abuse of dominant position — Smart mobile devices — Decision finding an infringement of Article 102 TFEU and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement — Concepts of multi-sided platform and market (ecosystem) — Operating system (Google Android) — App store (Play Store) — Search and browser applications (Google Search and Chrome) — Agreements with device manufacturers and mobile network operators — Single and continuous infringement — Concepts of overall plan and conduct implemented in the context of the same infringement (product bundles, exclusivity payments and anti-fragmentation obligations) — Exclusionary effects — Rights of the defence — Unlimited jurisdiction) | 16 |
| 2022/C 432/18 | Case T-597/19: Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — Helsingin kaupunki v Commission (State aid — Coach and bus transport — Equipment loan and capital loans granted by the City of Helsinki — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Existing aid — Advantage — Application of the private creditor criterion in a market economy test — Public status of the debtor — Taking into account an existing aid scheme — Application of the private investor criterion in a market economy test — Economic continuity — Procedural rights of the interested parties — Article 108(2) TFEU — Obligation to state reasons — General principles of EU law) | 17 |
| 2022/C 432/19 | Case T-603/19: Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — Helsingin Bussiliikenne v Commission (State aid — Coach and bus transport — Equipment loan and capital loans granted by the City of Helsinki — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Economic continuity — Procedural rights of interested parties — Article 6(1) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 — Obligation to state reasons) | 18 |
| 2022/C 432/20 | Case T-744/19: Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — Methanol Holdings (Trinidad) v Commission (Dumping — Imports of mixtures of urea and ammonium nitrate originating in Russia, Trinidad and Tobago and the United States — Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1688 — Article 3(1) to (3) and (5) to (8) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 — Sales through related companies — Construction of the export price — Injury to the Union industry — Calculation of price undercutting — Causal link — Article 9(4) of Regulation 2016/1036 — Calculation of the injury margin — Injury elimination) | 19 |
| 2022/C 432/21 | Case T-865/19: Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — Nevinnomysskiy Azot and NAK Azot v Commission (Dumping — Imports of mixtures of urea and ammonium nitrate originating in Russia, Trinidad and Tobago and the United States — Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1688 — Definitive anti-dumping duty — Dumping margin — Determination of the normal value — Adjustments — Construction of the export price — Fair comparison — Injury to the Union industry — Calculation of price undercutting — Sales between related companies — Causal link — Calculation of the injury margin — Injury elimination — Lesser duty rule — Use of facts available) | 19 |
| 2022/C 432/22 | Joined Cases T-371/20 and T-554/20: Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — Pollinis France v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Standing Committee for Plants, Animals, Food and Feed — EFSA guidance document on the risk assessment of plant protection products on bees — Individual positions of the Member States — Refusal to grant access — Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001 — Exception relating to protection of the decision-making process) | 20 |
| 2022/C 432/23 | Case T-575/20: Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — SŽ — Tovorni promet v Commission (Directive 2014/25/EU — Procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors — Implementing Decision on the applicability of Article 34 of Directive 2014/25 on railway freight transport in Slovenia — Direct exposure to competition — Product market definition — Geographic market definition — Assessment of direct exposure to competition — Principle of good administration — Obligation to state reasons) | 21 |
| 2022/C 432/24 | Case T-775/20: Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — PB v Commission (Public supply contracts — Provision of technical assistance services to the High Judicial Council and the Ukrainian authorities — Irregularities in the procedure for awarding contracts — Recovery of amounts unduly paid — Debit note — Director of the company — Legal basis — Non-contractual liability) | 21 |
| 2022/C 432/25 | Case T-179/21: Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — QN v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Appraisal report — 2019 appraisal procedure — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment — Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials — Liability) | 22 |
| 2022/C 432/26 | Joined Cases T-367/21 and T-432/21: Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — Sushi&Food Factor v EUIPO (READY 4YOU) (EU trade mark — Applications for EU figurative marks READY 4YOU — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 23 |
| 2022/C 432/27 | Case T-416/21: Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — Itinerant Show Room v EUIPO — Save the Duck (ITINERANT) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark ITINERANT — Earlier EU figurative mark representing a singing duck in a circle — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Similarity — Reputation — Link — Undue advantage — Lack of due cause — Article 95(2) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Article 27(4) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 — Document produced for the first time before the Board of Appeal — Inadmissibility) | 23 |
| 2022/C 432/28 | Case T-417/21: Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — Itinerant Show Room v EUIPO — Save the Duck (ITINERANT) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark ITINERANT — Earlier EU figurative mark representing a duck singing in a circle — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Similarity — Repute — Link — Unfair advantage — No due cause — Article 95(2) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Article 27(4) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 — Document produced for the first time before the Board of Appeal — Inadmissibility) | 24 |
| 2022/C 432/29 | Case T-423/21: Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — Gioioso v EUIPO — Maxi Di (MARE GIOIOSO di Sebastiano IMPORT EXPORT) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark MARE GIOIOSO di Sebastiano IMPORT EXPORT — Earlier national figurative mark GIOIA DI MARE — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 25 |
| 2022/C 432/30 | Case T-498/21: Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — Lotion v EUIPO (BLACK IRISH) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark BLACK IRISH — Absolute grounds for refusal — No distinctive character — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Equal treatment — Obligation to state reasons — Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001) | 25 |
| 2022/C 432/31 | Case T-607/21: Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — Blueroots Technology v EUIPO — Rezk-Salama and Breitlauch (SKILLTREE STUDIOS) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark SKILLTREE STUDIOS — Absolute grounds for refusal — Lack of descriptive character — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 26 |
| 2022/C 432/32 | Case T-609/21: Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — Privatbrauerei Eichbaum v EUIPO — Anchor Brewing Company (STEAM) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark STEAM — Genuine use of the mark — Nature of use — Article 18(1), second subparagraph, heading (a), and Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Obligation to state reasons — Right to be heard — Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001) | 27 |
| 2022/C 432/33 | Case T-686/21: Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — Task Food v EUIPO — Foodtastic (ENERGY CAKE) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark ENERGY CAKE — Declaration of invalidity — Absolute grounds for invalidity — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/2011)) | 27 |
| 2022/C 432/34 | Case T-705/21: Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — Balaban v EUIPO (Stahlwerk) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark STAHLWERK — Absolute grounds for refusal — No distinctive character — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 28 |
| 2022/C 432/35 | Case T-706/21: Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — Balaban v EUIPO (Stahlwerkstatt) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark Stahlwerkstatt — Absolute grounds for refusal — No distinctive character — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 29 |
| 2022/C 432/36 | Case T-737/21: Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — Refractory Intellectual Property v EUIPO (e-tech) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark e-tech — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 29 |
| 2022/C 432/37 | Case T-795/21: Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — Protectoplus v EUIPO (Li-SAFE) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark Li-SAFE — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Restriction of the goods designated in the trade mark application) | 30 |
| 2022/C 432/38 | Case T-523/22: Action brought on 18 August 2022 — Sberbank Europe v Council and Others | 30 |
| 2022/C 432/39 | Case T-524/22: Action brought on 19 August 2022 — Sberbank Europe v Council and Others | 31 |
| 2022/C 432/40 | Case T-594/22: Action brought on 23 September 2022 — Cyprus v EUIPO — Kolios (HALLOUMAKI) | 32 |
| 2022/C 432/41 | Case T-602/22: Action brought on 27 September 2022 — Veritas v Commission | 33 |
| 2022/C 432/42 | Case T-604/22: Action brought on 27 September 2022 — Société du Tour de France v EUIPO — FitX (TOUR DE X) | 34 |
| 2022/C 432/43 | Case T-607/22: Action brought on 30 September 2022 — Kozitsyn v Council | 35 |
| 2022/C 432/44 | Case T-612/22: Action brought on 1 October 2022 — Primicerj v Commission | 36 |
| 2022/C 432/45 | Case T-615/22: Action brought on 30 September 2022 — Cyprus v EUIPO — Cemet (Halime) | 38 |
| 2022/C 432/46 | Case T-457/19: Order of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — Synthomer v Commission | 39 |
| 2022/C 432/47 | Case T-712/19: Order of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — Hikma Pharmaceuticals and Hikma Pharmaceuticals International v Commission | 39 |
| 2022/C 432/48 | Case T-718/19: Order of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — The Weir Group and Others v Commission | 39 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2022/C 432/02

Case C-597/20: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 29 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Polskie Linie Lotnicze LOT S.A. v Budapest Főváros Kormányhivatala (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Article 16 — Compensation and assistance to passengers — Task of the national body responsible for the enforcement of that regulation — National legislation conferring on that body the power to order an air carrier to pay compensation due to a passenger — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 47 — Right to seek remedy before a tribunal)

2

2022/C 432/03

Case C-633/20: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 29 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband eV v TC Medical Air Ambulance Agency GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services — Single market in insurance — Directive 2002/92/EC — Definition of insurance intermediary — Activity of insurance mediation — Directive (EU) 2016/97 — Activity of distribution of insurance — Scope of those directives — Membership of a group insurance policy — Assignment of rights under the insurance contract — Insurance benefits in the event of sickness or accident abroad — Remuneration paid by the member in consideration for the insurance cover acquired — Consumer protection — Equal treatment of insurance intermediaries)

3

2022/C 432/04

Case C-3/21: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) — Ireland) — FS v The Chief Appeals Officer, The Social Welfare Appeals Office, The Minister for Employment Affairs, The Minister for Social Protection (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social security for migrant workers — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Coordination of social security systems — Family benefits — Back payment — Relocation of the beneficiary to another Member State — Article 81 — Concept of claim — Article 76(4) — Duty of mutual information and cooperation — Non-compliance — 12-month limitation period — Principle of effectiveness)

4

2022/C 432/05

Case C-202/21 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 29 September 2022 — ABLV Bank AS, in liquidation v Single Resolution Board (SRB), European Commission (Appeal — Economic and monetary policy — Banking union — Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 — Single resolution mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms — Single Resolution Fund — Annual contributions — Liquidation of a credit institution — Reimbursement of contributions paid — Pro rata temporis)

5

2022/C 432/06

Case C-235/21: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče — Slovenia) — Raiffeisen Leasing, trgovina in leasing d.o.o. v Republika Slovenija (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 203 — Sale-and-lease back agreement — Persons liable for payment of VAT — Possibility of treating a written contractual agreement as an invoice)

5

2022/C 432/07

Case C-500/21 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 September 2022 — Health Information Management (HIM) v European Commission (Appeal — Arbitration clause — Grant agreements concluded under the Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) Policy Support Programme — Audit report — Debit notes issued by the European Commission for the recovery of certain sums — Action for annulment — Investigation by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) — Counterclaim — Full repayment of the grants concerned — Rights of the defence — Principle of sound administration — Impartiality — Principle of proportionality — Obligation to state reasons)

6

2022/C 432/08

Case C-460/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 11 July 2022 — DIGI Távközlési és Szolgáltató Kft. v Nemzeti Média- és Hírközlési Hatóság

6

2022/C 432/09

Case C-519/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 4 August 2022 — MAX7 Design Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

7

2022/C 432/10

Case C-536/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Ravensburg (Germany) lodged on 10 August 2022 — MW, CY v VR Bank Ravensburg-Weingarten eG

8

2022/C 432/11

Case C-537/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 11 August 2022 — Global Ink Trade Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

9

2022/C 432/12

Case C-538/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 11 August 2022 — SB v Agrárminiszter

10

2022/C 432/13

Case C-547/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Bratislava II (Slovakia) lodged on 17 August 2022 — INGSTEEL spol. s. r. o. v Úrad pre verejné obstarávanie

11

2022/C 432/14

Case C-566/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 26 August 2022 — Inkreal s. r. o. v Dúha reality s. r. o.

12

2022/C 432/15

Case C-611/22 P: Appeal brought on 22 September 2022 by Illumina, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 13 July 2022 in Case T-227/21, Illumina v Commission

13

2022/C 432/16

Case C-620/22 P: Appeal brought on 27 September 2022 by RT France against the judgment of the General Court (Grand Chamber) delivered on 27 July 2022 in Case T-125/22, RT France v Council

14

General Court

2022/C 432/17

Case T-604/18: Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — Google and Alphabet v Commission (Google Android) (Competition — Abuse of dominant position — Smart mobile devices — Decision finding an infringement of Article 102 TFEU and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement — Concepts of multi-sided platform and market (ecosystem) — Operating system (Google Android) — App store (Play Store) — Search and browser applications (Google Search and Chrome) — Agreements with device manufacturers and mobile network operators — Single and continuous infringement — Concepts of overall plan and conduct implemented in the context of the same infringement (product bundles, exclusivity payments and anti-fragmentation obligations) — Exclusionary effects — Rights of the defence — Unlimited jurisdiction)

16

2022/C 432/18

Case T-597/19: Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — Helsingin kaupunki v Commission (State aid — Coach and bus transport — Equipment loan and capital loans granted by the City of Helsinki — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Existing aid — Advantage — Application of the private creditor criterion in a market economy test — Public status of the debtor — Taking into account an existing aid scheme — Application of the private investor criterion in a market economy test — Economic continuity — Procedural rights of the interested parties — Article 108(2) TFEU — Obligation to state reasons — General principles of EU law)

17

2022/C 432/19

Case T-603/19: Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — Helsingin Bussiliikenne v Commission (State aid — Coach and bus transport — Equipment loan and capital loans granted by the City of Helsinki — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Economic continuity — Procedural rights of interested parties — Article 6(1) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 — Obligation to state reasons)

18

2022/C 432/20

Case T-744/19: Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — Methanol Holdings (Trinidad) v Commission (Dumping — Imports of mixtures of urea and ammonium nitrate originating in Russia, Trinidad and Tobago and the United States — Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1688 — Article 3(1) to (3) and (5) to (8) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 — Sales through related companies — Construction of the export price — Injury to the Union industry — Calculation of price undercutting — Causal link — Article 9(4) of Regulation 2016/1036 — Calculation of the injury margin — Injury elimination)

19

2022/C 432/21

Case T-865/19: Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — Nevinnomysskiy Azot and NAK Azot v Commission (Dumping — Imports of mixtures of urea and ammonium nitrate originating in Russia, Trinidad and Tobago and the United States — Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1688 — Definitive anti-dumping duty — Dumping margin — Determination of the normal value — Adjustments — Construction of the export price — Fair comparison — Injury to the Union industry — Calculation of price undercutting — Sales between related companies — Causal link — Calculation of the injury margin — Injury elimination — Lesser duty rule — Use of facts available)

19

2022/C 432/22

Joined Cases T-371/20 and T-554/20: Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — Pollinis France v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Standing Committee for Plants, Animals, Food and Feed — EFSA guidance document on the risk assessment of plant protection products on bees — Individual positions of the Member States — Refusal to grant access — Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001 — Exception relating to protection of the decision-making process)

20

2022/C 432/23

Case T-575/20: Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — SŽ — Tovorni promet v Commission (Directive 2014/25/EU — Procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors — Implementing Decision on the applicability of Article 34 of Directive 2014/25 on railway freight transport in Slovenia — Direct exposure to competition — Product market definition — Geographic market definition — Assessment of direct exposure to competition — Principle of good administration — Obligation to state reasons)

21

2022/C 432/24

Case T-775/20: Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — PB v Commission (Public supply contracts — Provision of technical assistance services to the High Judicial Council and the Ukrainian authorities — Irregularities in the procedure for awarding contracts — Recovery of amounts unduly paid — Debit note — Director of the company — Legal basis — Non-contractual liability)

21

2022/C 432/25

Case T-179/21: Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — QN v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Appraisal report — 2019 appraisal procedure — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment — Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials — Liability)

22

2022/C 432/26

Joined Cases T-367/21 and T-432/21: Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — Sushi&Food Factor v EUIPO (READY 4YOU) (EU trade mark — Applications for EU figurative marks READY 4YOU — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

23

2022/C 432/27

Case T-416/21: Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — Itinerant Show Room v EUIPO — Save the Duck (ITINERANT) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark ITINERANT — Earlier EU figurative mark representing a singing duck in a circle — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Similarity — Reputation — Link — Undue advantage — Lack of due cause — Article 95(2) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Article 27(4) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 — Document produced for the first time before the Board of Appeal — Inadmissibility)

23

2022/C 432/28

Case T-417/21: Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — Itinerant Show Room v EUIPO — Save the Duck (ITINERANT) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark ITINERANT — Earlier EU figurative mark representing a duck singing in a circle — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Similarity — Repute — Link — Unfair advantage — No due cause — Article 95(2) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Article 27(4) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 — Document produced for the first time before the Board of Appeal — Inadmissibility)

24

2022/C 432/29

Case T-423/21: Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — Gioioso v EUIPO — Maxi Di (MARE GIOIOSO di Sebastiano IMPORT EXPORT) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark MARE GIOIOSO di Sebastiano IMPORT EXPORT — Earlier national figurative mark GIOIA DI MARE — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

25

2022/C 432/30

Case T-498/21: Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — Lotion v EUIPO (BLACK IRISH) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark BLACK IRISH — Absolute grounds for refusal — No distinctive character — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Equal treatment — Obligation to state reasons — Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)

25

2022/C 432/31

Case T-607/21: Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — Blueroots Technology v EUIPO — Rezk-Salama and Breitlauch (SKILLTREE STUDIOS) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark SKILLTREE STUDIOS — Absolute grounds for refusal — Lack of descriptive character — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

26

2022/C 432/32

Case T-609/21: Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — Privatbrauerei Eichbaum v EUIPO — Anchor Brewing Company (STEAM) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark STEAM — Genuine use of the mark — Nature of use — Article 18(1), second subparagraph, heading (a), and Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Obligation to state reasons — Right to be heard — Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)

27

2022/C 432/33

Case T-686/21: Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — Task Food v EUIPO — Foodtastic (ENERGY CAKE) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark ENERGY CAKE — Declaration of invalidity — Absolute grounds for invalidity — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/2011))

27

2022/C 432/34

Case T-705/21: Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — Balaban v EUIPO (Stahlwerk) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark STAHLWERK — Absolute grounds for refusal — No distinctive character — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

28

2022/C 432/35

Case T-706/21: Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — Balaban v EUIPO (Stahlwerkstatt) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark Stahlwerkstatt — Absolute grounds for refusal — No distinctive character — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

29

2022/C 432/36

Case T-737/21: Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — Refractory Intellectual Property v EUIPO (e-tech) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark e-tech — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

29

2022/C 432/37

Case T-795/21: Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — Protectoplus v EUIPO (Li-SAFE) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark Li-SAFE — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Restriction of the goods designated in the trade mark application)

30

2022/C 432/38

Case T-523/22: Action brought on 18 August 2022 — Sberbank Europe v Council and Others

30

2022/C 432/39

Case T-524/22: Action brought on 19 August 2022 — Sberbank Europe v Council and Others

31

2022/C 432/40

Case T-594/22: Action brought on 23 September 2022 — Cyprus v EUIPO — Kolios (HALLOUMAKI)

32

2022/C 432/41

Case T-602/22: Action brought on 27 September 2022 — Veritas v Commission

33

2022/C 432/42

Case T-604/22: Action brought on 27 September 2022 — Société du Tour de France v EUIPO — FitX (TOUR DE X)

34

2022/C 432/43

Case T-607/22: Action brought on 30 September 2022 — Kozitsyn v Council

35

2022/C 432/44

Case T-612/22: Action brought on 1 October 2022 — Primicerj v Commission

36

2022/C 432/45

Case T-615/22: Action brought on 30 September 2022 — Cyprus v EUIPO — Cemet (Halime)

38

2022/C 432/46

Case T-457/19: Order of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — Synthomer v Commission

39

2022/C 432/47

Case T-712/19: Order of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — Hikma Pharmaceuticals and Hikma Pharmaceuticals International v Commission

39

2022/C 432/48

Case T-718/19: Order of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — The Weir Group and Others v Commission

39

---

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 14.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/1

---

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

(2022/C 432/01)

Last publication

OJ C 424, 7.11.2022

Past publications

OJ C 418, 31.10.2022

OJ C 408, 24.10.2022

OJ C 398, 17.10.2022

OJ C 389, 10.10.2022

OJ C 380, 3.10.2022

OJ C 368, 26.9.2022

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 14.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 29 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Polskie Linie Lotnicze ‘LOT’ S.A. v Budapest Főváros Kormányhivatala

(Case C-597/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Article 16 - Compensation and assistance to passengers - Task of the national body responsible for the enforcement of that regulation - National legislation conferring on that body the power to order an air carrier to pay compensation due to a passenger - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 47 - Right to seek remedy before a tribunal)

(2022/C 432/02)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Polskie Linie Lotnicze ‘LOT’ S.A.

Defendant: Budapest Főváros Kormányhivatala

Operative part of the judgment

Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91

must be interpreted as meaning that the Member States have the power to authorise the national body responsible for the enforcement of that regulation to compel an air carrier to pay compensation, within the meaning of Article 7 of that regulation, due to passengers under that regulation, where an individual complaint has been made to that national body by a passenger, provided that it is open to that passenger and that air carrier to bring proceedings before the courts.

---

(1)  OJ C 28, 25.1.2021.

---

| 14.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/3

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 29 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband eV v TC Medical Air Ambulance Agency GmbH

(Case C-633/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services - Single market in insurance - Directive 2002/92/EC - Definition of ‘insurance intermediary’ - Activity of ‘insurance mediation’ - Directive (EU) 2016/97 - Activity of ‘distribution of insurance’ - Scope of those directives - Membership of a group insurance policy - Assignment of rights under the insurance contract - Insurance benefits in the event of sickness or accident abroad - Remuneration paid by the member in consideration for the insurance cover acquired - Consumer protection - Equal treatment of insurance intermediaries)

(2022/C 432/03)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband eV

Defendant: TC Medical Air Ambulance Agency GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(3) and (5) of Directive 2002/92/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 December 2002 on insurance mediation, as amended by Directive 2014/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014, and of Article 2(1)(1), (3) and (8) of Directive (EU) 2016/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 January 2016, on the distribution of insurance, as amended by Directive (EU) 2018/411 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2018,

must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘insurance intermediary’ and, therefore, that of ‘insurance distributor’, within the meaning of those provisions, covers a legal person whose activity consists in offering its customers membership on a voluntary basis, in return for payment which it receives from them, of a group insurance policy to which it has subscribed previously with an insurance company, where that membership entitles those customers to insurance benefits in the event, in particular, of sickness or accident abroad.

---

(1)  OJ C 62, 22.2.2021.

---

| 14.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) — Ireland) — FS v The Chief Appeals Officer, The Social Welfare Appeals Office, The Minister for Employment Affairs, The Minister for Social Protection

(Case C-3/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security for migrant workers - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Coordination of social security systems - Family benefits - Back payment - Relocation of the beneficiary to another Member State - Article 81 - Concept of ‘claim’ - Article 76(4) - Duty of mutual information and cooperation - Non-compliance - 12-month limitation period - Principle of effectiveness)

(2022/C 432/04)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court (Ireland)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: FS

Defendants: The Chief Appeals Officer, The Social Welfare Appeals Office, The Minister for Employment Affairs, The Minister for Social Protection

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 81 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 the concept of ‘claim’ in that article refers only to an application made by a person who has exercised his or her right to freedom of movement to the authorities of a Member State which is not competent under the conflict rules laid down by that regulation. Therefore, that concept does not include either the initial application made under the legislation of a Member State by a person who has not yet exercised his or her right to freedom of movement or the periodic payment, by the authorities of that Member State, of a benefit normally payable, at the time of that payment, by another Member State. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 81 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 the concept of ‘claim’ in that article refers only to an application made by a person who has exercised his or her right to freedom of movement to the authorities of a Member State which is not competent under the conflict rules laid down by that regulation. Therefore, that concept does not include either the initial application made under the legislation of a Member State by a person who has not yet exercised his or her right to freedom of movement or the periodic payment, by the authorities of that Member State, of a benefit normally payable, at the time of that payment, by another Member State.

| 2. | EU law, and in particular the principle of effectiveness, does not preclude the application of national legislation which makes the retroactive effect of an application for child benefit subject to a limitation period of 12 months, since that period does not render practically impossible or excessively difficult the exercise by the migrant workers concerned of the rights conferred by Regulation No 883/2004. |
| --- | --- |

2.

EU law, and in particular the principle of effectiveness, does not preclude the application of national legislation which makes the retroactive effect of an application for child benefit subject to a limitation period of 12 months, since that period does not render practically impossible or excessively difficult the exercise by the migrant workers concerned of the rights conferred by Regulation No 883/2004.

---

(1)  OJ C 138, 19.4.2021.

---

| 14.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/5

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 29 September 2022 — ABLV Bank AS, in liquidation v Single Resolution Board (SRB), European Commission

(Case C-202/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - Economic and monetary policy - Banking union - Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 - Single resolution mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms - Single Resolution Fund - Annual contributions - Liquidation of a credit institution - Reimbursement of contributions paid - Pro rata temporis)

(2022/C 432/05)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: ABLV Bank AS, in liquidation (represented by: O. Behrends, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: Single Resolution Board (SRB) (represented by: C.J. Flynn and J. Kerlin, acting as Agents, and by S. Ianc, T. Klupsch, B. Meyring and S. Schelo, Rechtsanwälte), European Commission (represented by: A. Nijenhuis, A. Steiblytė and D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders ABLV Bank AS, in liquidation, to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Single Resolution Board (SRB) and the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders ABLV Bank AS, in liquidation, to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Single Resolution Board (SRB) and the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 217, 7.6.2021.

---

| 14.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče — Slovenia) — Raiffeisen Leasing, trgovina in leasing d.o.o. v Republika Slovenija

(Case C-235/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 203 - Sale-and-lease back agreement - Persons liable for payment of VAT - Possibility of treating a written contractual agreement as an invoice)

(2022/C 432/06)

Language of the case: Slovenian

Referring court

Vrhovno sodišče

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Raiffeisen Leasing, trgovina in leasing d.o.o.

Defendant: Republika Slovenija

Operative part of the judgment

Article 203 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 contractual sale-and-lease back agreement, the conclusion of which was not followed by the issue of an invoice by the parties, may be regarded as an invoice, within the meaning of that provision, where that contractual agreement contains all the information necessary for the tax authorities of a Member State to be able to establish whether the substantive conditions for the right to deduct value added tax are satisfied in the case, which is for the referring court to ascertain.

---

(1)  OJ C 217, 7.6.2021.

---

| 14.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 September 2022 — Health Information Management (HIM) v European Commission

(Case C-500/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - Arbitration clause - Grant agreements concluded under the Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) Policy Support Programme - Audit report - Debit notes issued by the European Commission for the recovery of certain sums - Action for annulment - Investigation by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) - Counterclaim - Full repayment of the grants concerned - Rights of the defence - Principle of sound administration - Impartiality - Principle of proportionality - Obligation to state reasons)

(2022/C 432/07)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Health Information Management (HIM) (represented by: P. Zeegers, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Estrada de Solà and M. Ilkova, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Health Information Management (HIM) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Health Information Management (HIM) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 391, 27.9.2021

---

| 14.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/6

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 11 July 2022 — DIGI Távközlési és Szolgáltató Kft. v Nemzeti Média- és Hírközlési Hatóság

(Case C-460/22)

(2022/C 432/08)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: DIGI Távközlési és Szolgáltató Kft.

Defendant: Nemzeti Média- és Hírközlési Hatóság

Questions referred

Is an undertaking which provides electronic communications services on the relevant market, but which did not participate in a given auction procedure (‘the auction procedure’) because it did not meet the requirements for participation established in the specifications laying down the detailed rules governing the auction procedure (‘the specifications’), as a result of which the decision of the national regulatory authority recording the outcome of the auction does not contain any provision relating to that undertaking, an undertaking affected by a decision of a national regulatory authority for the purposes of Article 4(1) of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) (1) and, in consequence, an undertaking entitled to exercise the right to an effective remedy enshrined in Article 47 of the [Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union] against that decision?

---

(1)  OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33.

---

| 14.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/7

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 4 August 2022 — MAX7 Design Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

(Case C-519/22)

(2022/C 432/09)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: MAX7 Design Kft.

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

Questions referred

| 1. | In the light of Article 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) and the principle of proportionality under Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, is legislation of a Member State under which a company’s tax identification number or VAT identification number may be cancelled for failure to comply with the requirement to lodge a tax guarantee imposed on that company compatible with the freedom to conduct a business enshrined in Article 16 of the Charter, even in the case where the members of the company are not directly aware that the requirement to lodge that guarantee has been imposed on the company or that the reason why the requirement to lodge a tax guarantee was imposed on the company is that one of its executive officers is or was a member or executive of another legal person with an outstanding tax debt? |
| --- | --- |

1.

In the light of Article 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) and the principle of proportionality under Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, is legislation of a Member State under which a company’s tax identification number or VAT identification number may be cancelled for failure to comply with the requirement to lodge a tax guarantee imposed on that company compatible with the freedom to conduct a business enshrined in Article 16 of the Charter, even in the case where the members of the company are not directly aware that the requirement to lodge that guarantee has been imposed on the company or that the reason why the requirement to lodge a tax guarantee was imposed on the company is that one of its executive officers is or was a member or executive of another legal person with an outstanding tax debt?

| 2. | In the light of principle of necessity under Article 273 of Directive [2006/112] and the principle of proportionality under Article 52(1) of the Charter, is legislation of a Member State under which a company’s tax identification number or VAT identification number may be cancelled for failure to comply with the requirement to lodge a tax guarantee imposed on that company compatible with the freedom to conduct a business enshrined in Article 16 of the Charter and the right to an effective remedy under Article 47 of the Charter, even in the case where the minimum notice period for properly convening a meeting of that company’s decision-making body, in accordance with the general provisions of the legislation of that Member State, does not allow that body to dismiss the executive officer affected by the impediment giving rise to the requirement to lodge that guarantee, and thus to remove that impediment within a timeframe such as to cause the obligation to lodge the guarantee to be extinguished, thereby obviating the need to cancel the tax identification number, before the tax authority’s decision imposing the requirement to lodge that guarantee becomes final? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the light of principle of necessity under Article 273 of Directive [2006/112] and the principle of proportionality under Article 52(1) of the Charter, is legislation of a Member State under which a company’s tax identification number or VAT identification number may be cancelled for failure to comply with the requirement to lodge a tax guarantee imposed on that company compatible with the freedom to conduct a business enshrined in Article 16 of the Charter and the right to an effective remedy under Article 47 of the Charter, even in the case where the minimum notice period for properly convening a meeting of that company’s decision-making body, in accordance with the general provisions of the legislation of that Member State, does not allow that body to dismiss the executive officer affected by the impediment giving rise to the requirement to lodge that guarantee, and thus to remove that impediment within a timeframe such as to cause the obligation to lodge the guarantee to be extinguished, thereby obviating the need to cancel the tax identification number, before the tax authority’s decision imposing the requirement to lodge that guarantee becomes final?

| 3. | Is legislation of a Member State which provides in mandatory terms, and without leaving any discretion to law-enforcement bodies, that:






  (a) | the removal by the company, as a taxable person, of the impediment giving rise to the imposition of the requirement to lodge a tax guarantee once the decision imposing that requirement has become final has no effect on the obligation to lodge a tax guarantee or, therefore, on the cancellability of the tax identification number, even if that impediment was removed after the decision imposing the requirement to lodge a guarantee became final but within the prescribed time limit for lodging that guarantee; and that, |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Is legislation of a Member State which provides in mandatory terms, and without leaving any discretion to law-enforcement bodies, that:

(a)

the removal by the company, as a taxable person, of the impediment giving rise to the imposition of the requirement to lodge a tax guarantee once the decision imposing that requirement has become final has no effect on the obligation to lodge a tax guarantee or, therefore, on the cancellability of the tax identification number, even if that impediment was removed after the decision imposing the requirement to lodge a guarantee became final but within the prescribed time limit for lodging that guarantee; and that,

| (b) | if the tax guarantee has not been lodged, the company, as a taxable person, cannot remedy the legal consequences of the cancellation of its tax identification number once the prescribed time limit for lodging that guarantee has expired, even if it removed the impediment giving rise to the imposition of the requirement to lodge a guarantee after the decision imposing that requirement became final but within the prescribed time limit for lodging that guarantee,
  compatible with the freedom to conduct a business enshrined in Article 16 of the Charter, subject to the necessary limitation thereof provided for in Article 273 of [...] Directive [2006/112], and proportionate in accordance with Article 52(1) of the Charter and with the right to effective judicial protection under Article 47 of the Charter? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

if the tax guarantee has not been lodged, the company, as a taxable person, cannot remedy the legal consequences of the cancellation of its tax identification number once the prescribed time limit for lodging that guarantee has expired, even if it removed the impediment giving rise to the imposition of the requirement to lodge a guarantee after the decision imposing that requirement became final but within the prescribed time limit for lodging that guarantee,

compatible with the freedom to conduct a business enshrined in Article 16 of the Charter, subject to the necessary limitation thereof provided for in Article 273 of [...] Directive [2006/112], and proportionate in accordance with Article 52(1) of the Charter and with the right to effective judicial protection under Article 47 of the Charter?

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

---

| 14.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/8

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Ravensburg (Germany) lodged on 10 August 2022 — MW, CY v VR Bank Ravensburg-Weingarten eG

(Case C-536/22)

(2022/C 432/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Ravensburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: MW, CY

Defendant: VR Bank Ravensburg-Weingarten eG

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the concept of ‘fair and objective compensation ... for possible costs directly linked to the early repayment’ in Article 25(3) of Directive 2014/17/EU (1) be interpreted as meaning that the compensation also covers the creditor’s loss of profit, in particular the future interest payments lost as a result of the early repayment? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must the concept of ‘fair and objective compensation ... for possible costs directly linked to the early repayment’ in Article 25(3) of Directive 2014/17/EU (1) be interpreted as meaning that the compensation also covers the creditor’s loss of profit, in particular the future interest payments lost as a result of the early repayment?

| 2. | If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:
  Does EU law, specifically Article 25(3) of Directive 2014/17/EU, contain guidelines for the calculation of the income which the creditor receives from its reinvestment of a consumer loan relating to immovable property which has been repaid early — income to be taken into account in the context of loss of profit — and if so, what are those guidelines?
  In particular:






  (a) | Must the national rules for that calculation be linked to the manner in which the creditor actually uses the amount which was repaid early? |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:

Does EU law, specifically Article 25(3) of Directive 2014/17/EU, contain guidelines for the calculation of the income which the creditor receives from its reinvestment of a consumer loan relating to immovable property which has been repaid early — income to be taken into account in the context of loss of profit — and if so, what are those guidelines?

In particular:

(a)

Must the national rules for that calculation be linked to the manner in which the creditor actually uses the amount which was repaid early?

| (b) | May a national rule allow the creditor to calculate the compensation for early repayment on the basis of a notional reinvestment in safe capital market securities with maturities corresponding to the term of the credit agreement (‘asset/liability method’)? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

May a national rule allow the creditor to calculate the compensation for early repayment on the basis of a notional reinvestment in safe capital market securities with maturities corresponding to the term of the credit agreement (‘asset/liability method’)?

| 3. | Does the scope of Article 25 of Directive 2014/17/EU also cover the case where the consumer first terminates a consumer credit agreement relating to immovable property on the basis of a right of termination provided for by the national legislature before repaying the loan to the creditor early? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the scope of Article 25 of Directive 2014/17/EU also cover the case where the consumer first terminates a consumer credit agreement relating to immovable property on the basis of a right of termination provided for by the national legislature before repaying the loan to the creditor early?

---

(1)  Directive 2014/17/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 February 2014 on credit agreements for consumers relating to residential immovable property and amending Directives 2008/48/EC and 2013/36/EU and Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ 2014 L 60, p. 34).

---

| 14.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/9

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 11 August 2022 — Global Ink Trade Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

(Case C-537/22)

(2022/C 432/11)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Global Ink Trade Kft.

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the fact that a court in a Member State, adjudicating at last instance, interprets a decision of the Court of Justice (adopted in the form of an order in response to a request for a preliminary ruling specifically concerned with the case-law developed by the self-same court adjudicating at last instance) as meaning that there is nothing in that decision which has or is likely to have the effect of overturning earlier decisions of the Court of Justice or bringing about a change in the previous national case-law developed by the court adjudicating at last instance, constitute an infringement of the principle of the primacy of EU law and of the right to effective judicial protection guaranteed in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the fact that a court in a Member State, adjudicating at last instance, interprets a decision of the Court of Justice (adopted in the form of an order in response to a request for a preliminary ruling specifically concerned with the case-law developed by the self-same court adjudicating at last instance) as meaning that there is nothing in that decision which has or is likely to have the effect of overturning earlier decisions of the Court of Justice or bringing about a change in the previous national case-law developed by the court adjudicating at last instance, constitute an infringement of the principle of the primacy of EU law and of the right to effective judicial protection guaranteed in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’)?

| 2. | Must the principle of the primacy of EU law and the right to effective judicial protection guaranteed in Article 47 of the Charter be interpreted as meaning that the principle of the primacy of decisions of the Court of Justice applies even in the case where a court in a Member State, adjudicating at last instance, also relies on [the] earlier judgments [of the Court of Justice] as precedent? Is a different answer conceivable, in the light of Article 99 of the Rules of Procedures of the Court of Justice, where the decision of the Court of Justice takes the form of an order? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must the principle of the primacy of EU law and the right to effective judicial protection guaranteed in Article 47 of the Charter be interpreted as meaning that the principle of the primacy of decisions of the Court of Justice applies even in the case where a court in a Member State, adjudicating at last instance, also relies on [the] earlier judgments [of the Court of Justice] as precedent? Is a different answer conceivable, in the light of Article 99 of the Rules of Procedures of the Court of Justice, where the decision of the Court of Justice takes the form of an order?

| 3. | Within the framework of the taxable person’s general obligation to exercise scrutiny, irrespective of the performance and nature of the economic transaction shown on the invoices concerned, and regard being had to Articles 167, 168(a) and 178(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (‘the VAT Directive’) and to the principles of legal certainty and fiscal neutrality, may the taxable person be required, as a condition of benefiting from the right to deduct VAT — and notwithstanding the absence of a legislative provision to this effect in the Member State concerned —, to maintain contact in person with the issuer of the invoice or to contact his supplier only at the officially communicated e-mail address? May these circumstances be regarded as revealing a failure, demonstrated by objective facts, to exercise the due diligence to be expected of the taxable person, account being taken of the fact that those circumstances did not yet exist at the time when the taxable person carried out the relevant checks before entering into the business relationship in question, but are features of the existing business relationship between the parties? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Within the framework of the taxable person’s general obligation to exercise scrutiny, irrespective of the performance and nature of the economic transaction shown on the invoices concerned, and regard being had to Articles 167, 168(a) and 178(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (‘the VAT Directive’) and to the principles of legal certainty and fiscal neutrality, may the taxable person be required, as a condition of benefiting from the right to deduct VAT — and notwithstanding the absence of a legislative provision to this effect in the Member State concerned —, to maintain contact in person with the issuer of the invoice or to contact his supplier only at the officially communicated e-mail address? May these circumstances be regarded as revealing a failure, demonstrated by objective facts, to exercise the due diligence to be expected of the taxable person, account being taken of the fact that those circumstances did not yet exist at the time when the taxable person carried out the relevant checks before entering into the business relationship in question, but are features of the existing business relationship between the parties?

| 4. | Are a legal interpretation and a practice developed in a Member State, whereby a taxable person who has an invoice in conformity with the VAT Directive is refused the benefit of the right to deduct VAT on the ground that he has not acted with due diligence in the course of trade because he has failed to demonstrate conduct such as to support the determination that his activity was not simply confined to the mere receipt of invoices meeting the formal requirements laid down, consistent with the aforementioned articles of the VAT Directive, with the principle of fiscal neutrality and, above all, with the case-law of the Court of Justice — which, when interpreting those provisions, places the burden of proof on the tax authority —, even in the case where the taxable person has enclosed all documentation relating to the transactions at issue and the tax authority has rejected other offers to furnish evidence made by the taxable person during the tax proceedings? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Are a legal interpretation and a practice developed in a Member State, whereby a taxable person who has an invoice in conformity with the VAT Directive is refused the benefit of the right to deduct VAT on the ground that he has not acted with due diligence in the course of trade because he has failed to demonstrate conduct such as to support the determination that his activity was not simply confined to the mere receipt of invoices meeting the formal requirements laid down, consistent with the aforementioned articles of the VAT Directive, with the principle of fiscal neutrality and, above all, with the case-law of the Court of Justice — which, when interpreting those provisions, places the burden of proof on the tax authority —, even in the case where the taxable person has enclosed all documentation relating to the transactions at issue and the tax authority has rejected other offers to furnish evidence made by the taxable person during the tax proceedings?

| 5. | In the light of the aforementioned articles of the VAT Directive and the fundamental principle of legal certainty, may the finding, reached in connection with due diligence, that the issuer of the invoice was not engaged in any economic activity at all, constitute an objective fact, in the case where the tax authority takes the view that there has been a failure to demonstrate the actual performance (and, therefore, the genuine existence) of an economic transaction — as documented by means of invoices, contracts and other supporting accounting documentation, and by correspondence, and as confirmed by the statements of the warehousing undertaking and the taxable person’s director and employee —, and bases that view exclusively on the statement of the supplier undertaking’s director denying the existence of that transaction, without taking into account the circumstances in which that statement was made, the interests of the person making the statement or the fact that, according to the documents in the case file, that undertaking had been founded by the very person making the statement and, according to the information available, an agent was acting on its behalf? |
| --- | --- |

5.

In the light of the aforementioned articles of the VAT Directive and the fundamental principle of legal certainty, may the finding, reached in connection with due diligence, that the issuer of the invoice was not engaged in any economic activity at all, constitute an objective fact, in the case where the tax authority takes the view that there has been a failure to demonstrate the actual performance (and, therefore, the genuine existence) of an economic transaction — as documented by means of invoices, contracts and other supporting accounting documentation, and by correspondence, and as confirmed by the statements of the warehousing undertaking and the taxable person’s director and employee —, and bases that view exclusively on the statement of the supplier undertaking’s director denying the existence of that transaction, without taking into account the circumstances in which that statement was made, the interests of the person making the statement or the fact that, according to the documents in the case file, that undertaking had been founded by the very person making the statement and, according to the information available, an agent was acting on its behalf?

| 6. | Must the provisions of the VAT Directive relating to the deduction of VAT be interpreted as meaning that, in the case where the tax authority discovers during the tax proceedings that the goods mentioned on the invoices concerned are of Community origin and that the taxable person is the second member of a chain [of supplies], the configuration of that scenario — given that goods of Community origin are exempt from VAT and the first Hungarian purchaser is not therefore entitled to deduct VAT, only the second member of that chain being so entitled — is an objective fact sufficient in itself to demonstrate tax evasion, or must the tax authority, in that case, also show, on the basis of objective facts, which member or members of that chain committed tax evasion, by what modus operandi it or they did so, and whether the taxable person was or could have been aware of this through the exercise of due diligence? |
| --- | --- |

6.

Must the provisions of the VAT Directive relating to the deduction of VAT be interpreted as meaning that, in the case where the tax authority discovers during the tax proceedings that the goods mentioned on the invoices concerned are of Community origin and that the taxable person is the second member of a chain [of supplies], the configuration of that scenario — given that goods of Community origin are exempt from VAT and the first Hungarian purchaser is not therefore entitled to deduct VAT, only the second member of that chain being so entitled — is an objective fact sufficient in itself to demonstrate tax evasion, or must the tax authority, in that case, also show, on the basis of objective facts, which member or members of that chain committed tax evasion, by what modus operandi it or they did so, and whether the taxable person was or could have been aware of this through the exercise of due diligence?

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

---

| 14.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 11 August 2022 — SB v Agrárminiszter

(Case C-538/22)

(2022/C 432/12)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SB

Defendant: Agrárminiszter

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the practice of a Member State compliant with Article 30(3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 640/2014 of 11 March 2014 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the integrated administration and control system and conditions for refusal or withdrawal of payments and administrative penalties applicable to direct payments, rural development support and cross compliance, (1) having regard to recitals 28 and 31, points 16 and 18 of Article 2(1) and Article 31(1) to (3) thereof, if that practice establishes that where, under the aid eligibility criterion introduced by the Member State, the calving rate achieved for the number of declared animals is less than the rate required and stipulated for declared animals, the application for payment of coupled support for suckler cows must be refused in its entirety, even where the required calving rate is met by a smaller number of declared animals, because where the calving percentage is less than that required by the national legislation, the result is that none of the declared animals is eligible? |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | If the response to the previous question is in the negative, in the present case, where the calving percentage achieved is less than that required by the national legislation, having regard to the requirements for a graded and proportionate approach established in recitals 28 and 31 of the aforesaid regulation and the articles of EU law cited in the first question referred for a preliminary ruling, must the number of eligible animals within the meaning of point 18 of Article 2(1) and Article 30(3) of the regulation be determined:






  (a) | by classing as eligible animals only those which have calved; or |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

(a)

by classing as eligible animals only those which have calved; or

| (b) | by classing as eligible animals those animals from among the declared animals which comprise the group in which the calving rate stipulated in the national legislation is reached? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

by classing as eligible animals those animals from among the declared animals which comprise the group in which the calving rate stipulated in the national legislation is reached?

| 3. | Having regard to Article 30(3) and Article 31(1) and (2) of Delegated Regulation No 640/2014 and the requirement for proportionality established in recital 31 thereof, must Article 31(3) of that regulation be interpreted as meaning that the penalty is to be determined on the basis of the ratio of the non-compliant to compliant animals, or on the basis of the ratio of the declared animals to the compliant animals, and also that the quotient thus obtained must still be multiplied by 100, in a percentage calculation? |
| --- | --- |

3.

---

(1)  OJ 2014 L 181, p. 48.

---

| 14.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/11

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Bratislava II (Slovakia) lodged on 17 August 2022 — INGSTEEL spol. s. r. o. v Úrad pre verejné obstarávanie

(Case C-547/22)

(2022/C 432/13)

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Okresný súd Bratislava II

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: INGSTEEL spol. s. r. o.

Defendant: Úrad pre verejné obstarávanie

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the practice of a national court hearing a dispute involving a claim for compensation for damage caused to a tenderer who was unlawfully excluded from a public procurement procedure, pursuant to which compensation for loss of opportunity is denied, compatible with Article 2(1)(c), read in conjunction with Article 2(6) and (7), of [Council] Directive [89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Directive] 2007/66/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007 ...? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the practice of a national court hearing a dispute involving a claim for compensation for damage caused to a tenderer who was unlawfully excluded from a public procurement procedure, pursuant to which compensation for loss of opportunity is denied, compatible with Article 2(1)(c), read in conjunction with Article 2(6) and (7), of [Council] Directive [89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Directive] 2007/66/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007 ...?

| 2. | Is the practice of a national court hearing a dispute involving a claim for compensation for damage caused to a tenderer who was unlawfully excluded from a public procurement procedure, pursuant to which a claim for lost profits caused by the loss of opportunity to participate in a public contract is not part of the claim for compensation, compatible with Article 2(1)(c), read in conjunction with Article 2(6) and (7), of [Council] Directive [89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Directive] 2007/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007 ...? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the practice of a national court hearing a dispute involving a claim for compensation for damage caused to a tenderer who was unlawfully excluded from a public procurement procedure, pursuant to which a claim for lost profits caused by the loss of opportunity to participate in a public contract is not part of the claim for compensation, compatible with Article 2(1)(c), read in conjunction with Article 2(6) and (7), of [Council] Directive [89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Directive] 2007/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007 ...?

---

(1)  OJ 2007 L 335, p. 31.

---

| 14.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/12

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 26 August 2022 — Inkreal s. r. o. v Dúha reality s. r. o.

(Case C-566/22)

(2022/C 432/14)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší soud

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Inkreal s. r. o.

Defendant: Dúha reality s. r. o.

Question referred

From the perspective of the existence of an international element, which is required for Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters to apply, is the application of that regulation to be based solely on the fact that two parties with their seat in the same Member State agree on the jurisdiction of courts of another EU Member State?

---

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

---

| 14.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/13

---

Appeal brought on 22 September 2022 by Illumina, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 13 July 2022 in Case T-227/21, Illumina v Commission

(Case C-611/22 P)

(2022/C 432/15)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Illumina, Inc. (represented by: D. Beard, BL, J. Holmes, Barrister, P. Chappatte, avocat, E. Wright, avocate, F. González Díaz, abogado, M. Siragusa, avvocato)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Grail LLC, Hellenic Republic, French Republic, Kingdom of the Netherlands, EFTA Surveillance Authority

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the judgment under appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the judgment under appeal;

| — | annul the Commission Decision C(2021) 2847 final of 19 April 2021, accepting the request of the Autorité de la concurrence française (French Competition Authority) to examine the concentration relating to the acquisition by Illumina, Inc. of sole control over Grail, Inc. (Case COMP/M.10188 — Illumina/Grail), the Commission Decisions C(2021) 2848 final, C(2021) 2849 final, C(2021) 2851 final, C(2021) 2854 final and C(2021) 2855 final of 19 April 2021, accepting the requests of the Greek, Belgian, Norwegian, Icelandic and Dutch competition authorities to join that referral request, the Commission’s letter of 11 March 2021 informing Illumina and Grail of that referral request and the decision of the Commission dated 11 March 2021 informing Illumina that it was prohibited from implementing the concentration pursuant to Article 7 EUMR. (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission Decision C(2021) 2847 final of 19 April 2021, accepting the request of the Autorité de la concurrence française (French Competition Authority) to examine the concentration relating to the acquisition by Illumina, Inc. of sole control over Grail, Inc. (Case COMP/M.10188 — Illumina/Grail), the Commission Decisions C(2021) 2848 final, C(2021) 2849 final, C(2021) 2851 final, C(2021) 2854 final and C(2021) 2855 final of 19 April 2021, accepting the requests of the Greek, Belgian, Norwegian, Icelandic and Dutch competition authorities to join that referral request, the Commission’s letter of 11 March 2021 informing Illumina and Grail of that referral request and the decision of the Commission dated 11 March 2021 informing Illumina that it was prohibited from implementing the concentration pursuant to Article 7 EUMR. (1)

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings (the application to the General Court and the present appeal against the judgment). |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings (the application to the General Court and the present appeal against the judgment).

Pleas in law and main arguments

First, the General Court erred in law in interpreting Article 22(1) EUMR so that it empowers a Member State with national merger control laws to make a request for a referral to the Commission of a concentration that does not qualify for review under its national merger control laws.

Second, the General Court erred in law in rejecting Illumina’s plea that the referral request was made out of time by misinterpreting the meaning of the words ‘made known’ in Article 22 EUMR. It erred in its conclusions that time starts running for a referral by a Member State to the Commission only from when the merging parties specifically provide to the Member State’s authorities sufficient material for them to be able to make a preliminary assessment of whether the merger could qualify for referral.

Having found that the Commission’s delays in sending the invitation letter were unreasonable and breached principles of legal certainty, the obligation to act within a reasonable time and the principle of good administration: (i) the General Court erred in law in finding that Illumina needed to establish harm to the rights of defence in this case; or (ii) the General Court erred in law in finding that there was no such harm.

Third the General Court erred in law in rejecting Illumina’s claim that it had a legitimate expectation that no change in Commission policy would be applied prior to the issuance of guidance and/or the Commission’s active encouragement to Member States to seek a referral was contrary to the principle of legal certainty: (i) in finding that a legitimate expectation could arise only if the assurance relied upon was directed specifically at the concentration in question; (ii) in mischaracterising the scope of the legitimate expectation; (iii) in finding that a carefully considered speech by the Commission Executive Vice-President responsible for competition did not emanate from the EU administration; and/or (iv) in finding that the Executive Vice-President’s assurance that the Commission would continue its policy of discouraging Member States from requesting referrals (pending issuance of guidance) was consistent with the Commission encouraging referral requests.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (the EC Merger Regulation) (OJ 2004 L 24, p. 1).

---

| 14.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/14

---

Appeal brought on 27 September 2022 by RT France against the judgment of the General Court (Grand Chamber) delivered on 27 July 2022 in Case T-125/22, RT France v Council

(Case C-620/22 P)

(2022/C 432/16)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: RT France (represented by: E. Piwnica, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, Kingdom of Belgium, Republic of Estonia, Republic of France, Republic of Latvia, Republic of Lithuania, Republic of Poland, European Commission, High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 27 July 2022 in Case T-125/22 RT France v Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 27 July 2022 in Case T-125/22 RT France v Council;

| — | order the Council of the European Union to bear all the costs; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council of the European Union to bear all the costs;

with all the legal consequences which that entails.

Pleas in law and main arguments

According to the appellant, the General Court infringed the provisions of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in holding that — in order to conclude that there was no infringement of RT France’s right to be heard — the EU authorities were not required to hear the appellant prior to the initial inclusion of its name on the lists in question on account of the highly exceptional context in which the measures at issue were adopted and of the objective pursued by the Council.

The appellant claims that the General Court failed to comply with the provisions of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and distorted the evidence before it by holding that the appellant had not been able to show that the outcome of the procedure might have been different if it had been heard prior to the adoption of the measures at issue or if the grounds for the application of those measures had been disclosed to it beforehand.

Furthermore, the appellant alleges infringement of Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and submits that the General Court distorted the evidence before it in finding that, in order to acknowledge the restriction of the appellant’s freedom of expression, the restrictive measure at issue is necessary, appropriate and proportionate to the objectives it pursued.

According to the appellant, the General Court also infringed the provisions of Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in relying on the provisional nature of the restrictions imposed on the appellant and the lack of evidence of its financial viability in order to hold that the restrictive measure at issue was not disproportionate.

Finally, the appellant alleges infringement of Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and submits that the General Court distorted the evidence before it in finding that the applicant had not been subject to any discrimination.

---

General Court

| 14.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/16

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — Google and Alphabet v Commission (Google Android)

(Case T-604/18) (1)

(Competition - Abuse of dominant position - Smart mobile devices - Decision finding an infringement of Article 102 TFEU and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement - Concepts of multi-sided platform and market (‘ecosystem’) - Operating system (Google Android) - App store (Play Store) - Search and browser applications (Google Search and Chrome) - Agreements with device manufacturers and mobile network operators - Single and continuous infringement - Concepts of overall plan and conduct implemented in the context of the same infringement (product bundles, exclusivity payments and anti-fragmentation obligations) - Exclusionary effects - Rights of the defence - Unlimited jurisdiction)

(2022/C 432/17)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Google LLC (Mountain View, California, United States) and Alphabet, Inc. (Mountain View) (represented by: N. Levy, J. Schindler, A. Lamadrid de Pablo, J. Killick, A. Komninos, G. Forwood, lawyers, P. Stuart, D. Gregory, H. Mostyn, Barristers, and M. Pickford QC)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: N. Khan, A. Dawes, C. Urraca Caviedes and F. Castillo de la Torre, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicants: Application Developers Alliance (Washington, D.C.,United States) (represented by: A. Parr, S. Vaz, Solicitors, and R. Baena Zapatero, lawyer), Computer & Communications Industry Association (Washington, D.C.) (represented by: E. Batchelor, T. Selwyn Sharpe, Solicitors, and G. de Vasconcelos Lopes, lawyer), Gigaset Communications GmbH (Bocholt, Germany) (represented by: J.F. Bellis, lawyer), HMD global Oy (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by: M. Glader and M. Johansson, lawyers), Opera Norway AS, formerly Opera Software AS (Oslo, Norway) (represented by: M. Glader and M. Johansson, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendant: BDZV — Bundesverband Digitalpublisher und Zeitungsverleger eV, formerly Bundesverband Deutscher Zeitungsverleger eV (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: T. Höppner, professor, and P. Westerhoff, lawyer), Bureau européen des unions de consommateurs (BEUC) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A. Fratini, lawyer), FairSearch AISBL (Brussels) (represented by: T. Vinje, D. Paemen and K. Missenden, lawyers), Qwant (Paris, France) (represented by: T. Höppner, professor, and P. Westerhoff, lawyer), Seznam.cz, a.s. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: M. Felgr, T. Vinje, D. Paemen, J. Dobrý and P. Chytil, lawyers), Verband Deutscher Zeitschriftenverleger eV (Berlin) (represented by: T. Höppner, professor, and P. Westerhoff, lawyer)

Re:

By their action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicants seek, principally, annulment of Commission Decision C(2018) 4761 final of 18 July 2018 relating to a proceeding under Article 102 TFEU and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.40099 — Google Android) or, failing that, cancellation or reduction of the fine that was imposed on them in that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Articles 1, 3 and 4 of Decision C(2018) 4761 final of the European Commission of 18 July 2018 relating to a proceeding under Article 102 TFEU and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.40099 — Google Android) in so far as they concern the fourth element of the single and continuous infringement, consisting in having made the conclusion of revenue share agreements with certain original equipment manufacturers and mobile network operators conditional on the exclusive pre-installation of Google Search on a predefined portfolio of devices; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Articles 1, 3 and 4 of Decision C(2018) 4761 final of the European Commission of 18 July 2018 relating to a proceeding under Article 102 TFEU and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.40099 — Google Android) in so far as they concern the fourth element of the single and continuous infringement, consisting in having made the conclusion of revenue share agreements with certain original equipment manufacturers and mobile network operators conditional on the exclusive pre-installation of Google Search on a predefined portfolio of devices;

| 2. | Sets the amount of the fine imposed on Google LLC in Article 2 of Decision C(2018) 4761 final for the single infringement which it committed, as follows from point 1 above, at EUR 4 125 000 000, for which Alphabet, Inc. shall be jointly and severally liable in the amount of EUR 1 520 605 895; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Sets the amount of the fine imposed on Google LLC in Article 2 of Decision C(2018) 4761 final for the single infringement which it committed, as follows from point 1 above, at EUR 4 125 000 000, for which Alphabet, Inc. shall be jointly and severally liable in the amount of EUR 1 520 605 895;

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

3.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 4. | Orders Google and Alphabet to bear their own costs; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Google and Alphabet to bear their own costs;

| 5. | Orders the Commission to bear its own costs; |
| --- | --- |

5.

Orders the Commission to bear its own costs;

| 6. | Orders Application Developers Alliance, BDZV — Bundesverband Digitalpublisher und Zeitungsverleger eV, Bureau européen des unions des consommateurs (BEUC), Computer & Communications Industry Association, FairSearch AISBL, Gigaset Communications GmbH, HMD global Oy, Opera Norway AS, Qwant, Seznam.cz, a.s. and Verband Deutscher Zeitschriftenverleger eV to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Orders Application Developers Alliance, BDZV — Bundesverband Digitalpublisher und Zeitungsverleger eV, Bureau européen des unions des consommateurs (BEUC), Computer & Communications Industry Association, FairSearch AISBL, Gigaset Communications GmbH, HMD global Oy, Opera Norway AS, Qwant, Seznam.cz, a.s. and Verband Deutscher Zeitschriftenverleger eV to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 445, 10.12.2018.

---

| 14.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/17

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — Helsingin kaupunki v Commission

(Case T-597/19) (1)

(State aid - Coach and bus transport - Equipment loan and capital loans granted by the City of Helsinki - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Existing aid - Advantage - Application of the private creditor criterion in a market economy test - Public status of the debtor - Taking into account an existing aid scheme - Application of the private investor criterion in a market economy test - Economic continuity - Procedural rights of the interested parties - Article 108(2) TFEU - Obligation to state reasons - General principles of EU law)

(2022/C 432/18)

Language of the case: Finnish

Parties

Applicant: Helsingin kaupunki (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by: I. Aalto-Setälä and H. Koivuniemi, lawyers)

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

Intervener in support of the applicant: Republic of Finland (represented by: J. Heliskoski and H. Leppo, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Nobina Oy (Espoo, Finland), Nobina AB (Solna, Sweden) (represented by: J. Åkermarck and T. Kalliokoski, lawyers)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2020/1814 of 28 June 2019 on State aid SA.33846 — (2015/C) (ex 2014/NN) (ex 2011/CP) implemented by Finland for Helsingin Bussiliikenne Oy (OJ 2020 L 404, p. 10).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Helsingin kaupunki to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures, as well as those incurred by Nobina Oy and Nobina AB; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Helsingin kaupunki to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures, as well as those incurred by Nobina Oy and Nobina AB;

| 3. | Orders the Republic of Finland to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Republic of Finland to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 363, 28.10.2019.

---

| 14.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/18

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — Helsingin Bussiliikenne v Commission

(Case T-603/19) (1)

(State aid - Coach and bus transport - Equipment loan and capital loans granted by the City of Helsinki - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Economic continuity - Procedural rights of interested parties - Article 6(1) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 - Obligation to state reasons)

(2022/C 432/19)

Language of the case: Finnish

Parties

Applicant: Helsingin Bussiliikenne Oy (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by: O. Hyvönen and N. Rosenlund, lawyers)

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

Intervener in support of the applicant: Republic of Finland (represented by: J. Heliskoski and H. Leppo, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Nobina Oy (in Espoo, Finland), Nobina AB (Solna, Sweden) (represented by: J. Åkermarck and T. Kalliokoski, lawyers)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2020/1814 of 28 June 2019 on State aid SA.33846 — (2015/C) (ex 2014/NN) (ex 2011/CP) implemented by Finland for Helsingin Bussiliikenne Oy (OJ 2020 L 404, p. 10).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Helsingin Bussiliikenne Oy to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures, as well as those incurred by Nobina Oy and Nobina AB; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Helsingin Bussiliikenne Oy to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures, as well as those incurred by Nobina Oy and Nobina AB;

| 3. | Orders the Republic of Finland to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Republic of Finland to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 383, 11.11.2019.

---

| 14.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — Methanol Holdings (Trinidad) v Commission

(Case T-744/19) (1)

(Dumping - Imports of mixtures of urea and ammonium nitrate originating in Russia, Trinidad and Tobago and the United States - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1688 - Article 3(1) to (3) and (5) to (8) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 - Sales through related companies - Construction of the export price - Injury to the Union industry - Calculation of price undercutting - Causal link - Article 9(4) of Regulation 2016/1036 - Calculation of the injury margin - Injury elimination)

(2022/C 432/20)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Methanol Holdings (Trinidad) Ltd (Couva, Trinidad and Tobago) (represented by: B. Servais and V. Crochet, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Luengo and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Achema AB (Jonava, Lithuania) (represented by: B. O’Connor and M. Hommé, lawyers), Grupa Azoty S.A. (Tarnów, Poland), Grupa Azoty Zakłady Azotowe Puławy S.A. (Puławy, Poland) (represented by: B. O’Connor and M. Hommé, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1688 of 8 October 2019 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of mixtures of urea and ammonium nitrate originating in Russia, Trinidad and Tobago and the United States of America (OJ 2019 L 258, p. 21).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Methanol Holdings (Trinidad) Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission, by Achema AB, by Grupa Azoty S.A. and by Grupa Azoty Zakłady Azotowe Puławy S.A. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Methanol Holdings (Trinidad) Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission, by Achema AB, by Grupa Azoty S.A. and by Grupa Azoty Zakłady Azotowe Puławy S.A.

---

(1)  OJ C 10, 13.1.2020.

---

| 14.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — Nevinnomysskiy Azot and NAK ‘Azot’ v Commission

(Case T-865/19) (1)

(Dumping - Imports of mixtures of urea and ammonium nitrate originating in Russia, Trinidad and Tobago and the United States - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1688 - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Dumping margin - Determination of the normal value - Adjustments - Construction of the export price - Fair comparison - Injury to the Union industry - Calculation of price undercutting - Sales between related companies - Causal link - Calculation of the injury margin - Injury elimination - ‘Lesser duty’ rule - Use of facts available)

(2022/C 432/21)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: AO Nevinnomysskiy Azot (Nevinnomyssk, Russia), AO Novomoskovskaya Aktsionernaya Kompania NAK ‘Azot’ (Novomoskovsk, Russia) (represented by: P. Vander Schueren and T. Martin-Brieu, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Luengo and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Fertilizers Europe (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: B. O’Connor and M. Hommé, lawyers)

Re:

By their action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicants seek annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1688 of 8 October 2019 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of mixtures of urea and ammonium nitrate originating in Russia, Trinidad and Tobago and the United States of America (OJ 2019 L 258, p. 21).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders AO Nevinnomysskiy Azot and AO Novomoskovskaya Aktsionernaya Kompania NAK ‘Azot’ to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission and by Fertilizers Europe. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders AO Nevinnomysskiy Azot and AO Novomoskovskaya Aktsionernaya Kompania NAK ‘Azot’ to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission and by Fertilizers Europe.

---

(1)  OJ C 61, 24.2.2020.

---

| 14.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/20

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — Pollinis France v Commission

(Joined Cases T-371/20 and T-554/20) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Standing Committee for Plants, Animals, Food and Feed - EFSA guidance document on the risk assessment of plant protection products on bees - Individual positions of the Member States - Refusal to grant access - Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001 - Exception relating to protection of the decision-making process)

(2022/C 432/22)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Pollinis France (Paris, France) (represented by: C. Lepage and T. Bégel, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Delaude, C. Ehrbar and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, the applicant, Pollinis France, seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2020) 4231 final of 19 June 2020 and Commission Decision C(2020) 5120 final of 21 July 2020, by which the European Commission refused to grant the applicant access to certain documents concerning the Guidance Document of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) on the risk assessment of plant protection products on bees, adopted by the EFSA on 27 June 2013, originally published on 4 July 2013, then republished on 4 July 2014 and granted it partial access to certain other documents concerning the 2013 guidance document on bees.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decisions of the European Commission C(2020) 4231 final of 19 June 2020 and C(2020) 5120 final of 21 July 2020, in that they refuse to grant access to the requested documents on the basis of the first subparagraph of Article 4(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.

Annuls the decisions of the European Commission C(2020) 4231 final of 19 June 2020 and C(2020) 5120 final of 21 July 2020, in that they refuse to grant access to the requested documents on the basis of the first subparagraph of Article 4(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;

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

2.

Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 297, 7.9.2020.

---

| 14.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/21

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — SŽ — Tovorni promet v Commission

(Case T-575/20) (1)

(Directive 2014/25/EU - Procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors - Implementing Decision on the applicability of Article 34 of Directive 2014/25 on railway freight transport in Slovenia - Direct exposure to competition - Product market definition - Geographic market definition - Assessment of direct exposure to competition - Principle of good administration - Obligation to state reasons)

(2022/C 432/23)

Language of the case: Slovenian

Parties

Applicant: SŽ — Tovorni promet d.o.o. (Ljubljana, Slovenia) (represented by: V. Cukrov, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Talabér-Ritz, L. Wildpanner and P. Ondrůšek, acting as Agents, and by M. Menard, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/1025 of 13 July 2020 on the applicability of Article 34 of Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council to railway freight transport in Slovenia (OJ 2020 L 226, p. 5).

Operative part of the judgment

The General Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders SŽ — Tovorni promet d.o.o. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders SŽ — Tovorni promet d.o.o. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 433, 14.12.2020.

---

| 14.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/21

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — PB v Commission

(Case T-775/20) (1)

(Public supply contracts - Provision of technical assistance services to the High Judicial Council and the Ukrainian authorities - Irregularities in the procedure for awarding contracts - Recovery of amounts unduly paid - Debit note - Director of the company - Legal basis - Non-contractual liability)

(2022/C 432/24)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz, J. Estrada de Solà and A. Katsimerou, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by E. Rebasti and I. Demoulin, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his action, the applicant seeks, first, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, annulment of Commission Decision C(2020) 7151 final of 22 October 2020 concerning the application of an administrative measure against the director of the company [Confidential], withdrawing the amounts unduly received under the contract with reference number TACIS/2006/101-510 and the contract with reference number CARDS/2008/166-429, and, second, under the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU, repayment of any amounts recovered by the European Commission on the basis of that decision together with the payment of EUR 10 000 in damages, subject to completion of the proceedings.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision C(2020) 7151 final of 22 October 2020 concerning the application of an administrative measure against the director of the company [Confidential], withdrawing the amounts unduly received under the TACIS/2006/101-510 and CARDS/2008/166-429 contracts; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision C(2020) 7151 final of 22 October 2020 concerning the application of an administrative measure against the director of the company [Confidential], withdrawing the amounts unduly received under the TACIS/2006/101-510 and CARDS/2008/166-429 contracts;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders PB, the European Commission and the Council of the European Union to each bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders PB, the European Commission and the Council of the European Union to each bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 72, 1.3.2021.

---

| 14.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/22

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — QN v Commission

(Case T-179/21) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Appraisal report - 2019 appraisal procedure - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials - Liability)

(2022/C 432/25)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

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

Re:

By his action pursuant to Article 270 TFEU, the applicant, QN, seeks, first, annulment of his 2019 appraisal report and, in so far as necessary, annulment of the decision of 22 December 2020 of the European Commission rejecting his complaint and, second, compensation for the non-material damage he allegedly suffered on account of that report.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

Orders QN to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 206, 31.5.2021.

---

| 14.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — Sushi&Food Factor v EUIPO (READY 4YOU)

(Joined Cases T-367/21 and T-432/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Applications for EU figurative marks READY 4YOU - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 432/26)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Sushi&Food Factor sp. z o.o. sp.k. (Robakowo, Poland) (represented by: J. Gwiazdowska, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Walicka and M. Chylińska, Agents)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decisions of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 20 April 2021 (Case R 2273/2020-5) and of 13 May 2021 (Case R 2321/2020-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Sushi&Food Factor sp. z o.o. sp.k. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Sushi&Food Factor sp. z o.o. sp.k. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 329, 16.8.2021.

---

| 14.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — Itinerant Show Room v EUIPO — Save the Duck (ITINERANT)

(Case T-416/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark ITINERANT - Earlier EU figurative mark representing a singing duck in a circle - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Similarity - Reputation - Link - Undue advantage - Lack of due cause - Article 95(2) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Article 27(4) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 - Document produced for the first time before the Board of Appeal - Inadmissibility)

(2022/C 432/27)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Itinerant Show Room Srl (San Giorgio in Bosco, Italy) (represented by: E. Montelione, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Save the Duck SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: M. De Vietro, lawyer)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 6 May 2021 (Case R 997/2020-5), relating to opposition proceedings between the intervener and the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Itinerant Show Room Srl to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office and by Save the Duck SpA. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Itinerant Show Room Srl to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office and by Save the Duck SpA.

---

(1)  OJ C 357, 6.9.2021.

---

| 14.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — Itinerant Show Room v EUIPO — Save the Duck (ITINERANT)

(Case T-417/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark ITINERANT - Earlier EU figurative mark representing a duck singing in a circle - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Similarity - Repute - Link - Unfair advantage - No due cause - Article 95(2) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Article 27(4) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 - Document produced for the first time before the Board of Appeal - Inadmissibility)

(2022/C 432/28)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Itinerant Show Room Srl (San Giorgio in Bosco, Italy) (represented by: E. Montelione, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Save the Duck SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: M. De Vietro, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 12 May 2021 (Case R 1017/2020-5) in relation to opposition proceedings between the intervener and the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Itinerant Show Room Srl to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Save the Duck SpA. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Itinerant Show Room Srl to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Save the Duck SpA.

---

(1)  OJ C 357, 6.9.2021.

---

| 14.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — Gioioso v EUIPO — Maxi Di (MARE GIOIOSO di Sebastiano IMPORT EXPORT)

(Case T-423/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark MARE GIOIOSO di Sebastiano IMPORT EXPORT - Earlier national figurative mark GIOIA DI MARE - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 432/29)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Sebastiano Gioioso (Fasano, Italy) (represented by: F. Amati, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: R. Raponi and J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Maxi Di Srl (Belfiore, Italy)

Re:

By his application based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 10 May 2021 (Case R 1650/2020-1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | dismisses the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

dismisses the action.

| 2. | orders Mr Sebastiano Gioioso to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders Mr Sebastiano Gioioso to bear the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 357, 6.9.2021.

---

| 14.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — Lotion v EUIPO (BLACK IRISH)

(Case T-498/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark BLACK IRISH - Absolute grounds for refusal - No distinctive character - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Equal treatment - Obligation to state reasons - Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2022/C 432/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Lotion LLC (Woodland Hills, California, United States) (represented by: A. Deutsch, lawyer)

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

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 7 June 2021 (Case R 199/2021-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Lotion LLC to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Lotion LLC to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 391, 27.9.2021.

---

| 14.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — Blueroots Technology v EUIPO — Rezk-Salama and Breitlauch (SKILLTREE STUDIOS)

(Case T-607/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark SKILLTREE STUDIOS - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of descriptive character - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2022/C 432/31)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Blueroots Technology GmbH (Graz, Austria) (represented by: A. Huber-Erlenwein, lawyer)

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

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, interveners before the General Court: Christof Rezk-Salama (Trier, Germany), Linda Breitlauch (Trier) (represented by: F. Weber, lawyer)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment and alteration of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 28 July 2021 (Case R 2218/2020-4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Blueroots Technology GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Blueroots Technology GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 462, 15.11.2021.

---

| 14.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — Privatbrauerei Eichbaum v EUIPO — Anchor Brewing Company (STEAM)

(Case T-609/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark STEAM - Genuine use of the mark - Nature of use - Article 18(1), second subparagraph, heading (a), and Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Obligation to state reasons - Right to be heard - Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2022/C 432/32)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Privatbrauerei Eichbaum GmbH & Co. KG (Mannheim, Germany) (represented by: M. Schmidhuber and E. Levenson, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: G. Sakalaitė-Orlovskienė and J. Ivanauskas, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Anchor Brewing Company LLC (San Francisco, California, United States) (represented by: I. Kuschel and W. von der Osten-Sacken, lawyers)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant, Privatbrauerei Eichbaum GmbH Co. KG, seeks partial annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 14 July 2021 (Case R 780/2020-2), relating to revocation proceedings between the applicant and the intervener.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Privatbrauerei Eichbaum GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Privatbrauerei Eichbaum GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 471, 22.11.2021.

---

| 14.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — Task Food v EUIPO — Foodtastic (ENERGY CAKE)

(Case T-686/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark ENERGY CAKE - Declaration of invalidity - Absolute grounds for invalidity - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/2011))

(2022/C 432/33)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Task Food s.r.o. (Bratislava, Slovakia), authorised to replace energy cake GmbH (represented by: A. Bernegger, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Foodtastic GmbH (Dortmund, Germany)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 11 August 2021 (Case R 2324/2020-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Authorises Task Food s.r.o. to replace energy cake GmbH as applicant; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Authorises Task Food s.r.o. to replace energy cake GmbH as applicant;

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

2.

Dismisses the action;

| 3. | Orders Task Food to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Task Food to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 513, 20.12.2021.

---

| 14.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — Balaban v EUIPO (Stahlwerk)

(Case T-705/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark STAHLWERK - Absolute grounds for refusal - No distinctive character - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 432/34)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Okan Balaban (Bornheim, Germany) (represented by: T. Schaaf, lawyer)

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

Re:

By his action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment in part and the variation of the examiner’s decision of 18 November 2020 and of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 2 September 2021 (Case R 77/2021-1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Okan Balaban to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Okan Balaban to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 37, 24.1.2022.

---

| 14.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — Balaban v EUIPO (Stahlwerkstatt)

(Case T-706/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark Stahlwerkstatt - Absolute grounds for refusal - No distinctive character - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 432/35)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Okan Balaban (Bornheim, Germany) (represented by: T. Schaaf, lawyer)

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

Re:

By his action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment in part and the variation of the examiner’s decision of 27 August 2020 and of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 2 September 2021 (Case R 1987/2020-1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Okan Balaban to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Okan Balaban to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 37, 24.1.2022.

---

| 14.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — Refractory Intellectual Property v EUIPO (e-tech)

(Case T-737/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark e-tech - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 432/36)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Refractory Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: J. Schmidt, lawyer)

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

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 9 September 2021 (Case R 548/2021-4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Refractory Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Refractory Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 37, 24.1.2022.

---

| 14.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — Protectoplus v EUIPO (Li-SAFE)

(Case T-795/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark Li-SAFE - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Restriction of the goods designated in the trade mark application)

(2022/C 432/37)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Protectoplus (Rendsburg, Germany) (represented by: W. Riegger, lawyer)

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

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 6 October 2021 (Case R 845/2021-1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

Orders Protectoplus GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 73, 14.2.2022.

---

| 14.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/30

---

Action brought on 18 August 2022 — Sberbank Europe v Council and Others

(Case T-523/22)

(2022/C 432/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sberbank Europe AG (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: O. Behrends, lawyer)

Defendants: Council of the European Union, European Commission, Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare void pursuant to Article 264 TFEU the contested decision; (1) and |
| --- | --- |

—

declare void pursuant to Article 264 TFEU the contested decision; (1) and

| — | order the SRB, the Commission and the Council to bear the applicant’s costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the SRB, the Commission and the Council to bear the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the SRB exceeded its competence by adopting a decision with respect to the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the SRB exceeded its competence by adopting a decision with respect to the applicant.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the SRB infringed essential procedural requirements with respect to the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the SRB infringed essential procedural requirements with respect to the applicant.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by a number of substantive defects. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by a number of substantive defects.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the SRB failed to consider appropriately alternative measures pursuant to Article 18(1)(b) SRMR. (2) |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the SRB failed to consider appropriately alternative measures pursuant to Article 18(1)(b) SRMR. (2)

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the SRB failed to choose the least burdensome option in the context of resolution action with respect to the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the SRB failed to choose the least burdensome option in the context of resolution action with respect to the applicant.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging that the SRB violated substantive and procedural rules governing the sale of business tool, including Article 20 SRMR. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the SRB violated substantive and procedural rules governing the sale of business tool, including Article 20 SRMR.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging that the SRB violated the principle of proportionality and committed a manifest error of assessment with respect to potential alternative solutions. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging that the SRB violated the principle of proportionality and committed a manifest error of assessment with respect to potential alternative solutions.

| 8. | Eighth plea in law, alleging that the SRB failed to contact the applicant’s or Sberbank Slovenia’s management in relation to Article 13(3) SRMR. |
| --- | --- |

8.

Eighth plea in law, alleging that the SRB failed to contact the applicant’s or Sberbank Slovenia’s management in relation to Article 13(3) SRMR.

| 9. | Ninth plea in law, alleging that the SRB failed to follow the resolution plan without any plausible justification. |
| --- | --- |

9.

Ninth plea in law, alleging that the SRB failed to follow the resolution plan without any plausible justification.

---

(1)  The decision contested by the applicant in this case is the SRB’s decision of 1 March 2022 (SRB/EES/2022/20) with respect to the Slovenian subsidiary of the applicant (Sberbank banka d.d.) including, if applicable, the approval of such decision by the Commission and/or the Council.

(2)  Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ 2014 L 225, p. 1).

---

| 14.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/31

---

Action brought on 19 August 2022 — Sberbank Europe v Council and Others

(Case T-524/22)

(2022/C 432/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sberbank Europe AG (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: O. Behrends, lawyer)

Defendants: Council of the European Union, European Commission, Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare void pursuant to Art. 264 TFEU the contested decision, including, if applicable, the Commission’s and the Council’s approval of such contested decision; (1) and |
| --- | --- |

—

declare void pursuant to Art. 264 TFEU the contested decision, including, if applicable, the Commission’s and the Council’s approval of such contested decision; (1) and

| — | order the SRB, the Commission and the Council to bear the applicant’s costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the SRB, the Commission and the Council to bear the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the SRB exceeded its competence.






  — | The applicant claims that the contested decision presupposes an ability of the SRB to make binding determinations as to the insolvency status of the parent entity. This aspect is solely a matter for the competent national courts. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the SRB exceeded its competence.

—

The applicant claims that the contested decision presupposes an ability of the SRB to make binding determinations as to the insolvency status of the parent entity. This aspect is solely a matter for the competent national courts.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the SRB infringed essential procedural requirements with respect to the applicant.






  — | The applicant claims, inter alia, that the contested decision was not notified properly to the applicant as its true addressee. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the SRB infringed essential procedural requirements with respect to the applicant.

—

The applicant claims, inter alia, that the contested decision was not notified properly to the applicant as its true addressee.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by a number of substantive defects. These defects include that the conditions of Article 18 SRMR (2) were not met. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by a number of substantive defects. These defects include that the conditions of Article 18 SRMR (2) were not met.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the SRB failed to consider appropriate alternative measures pursuant to Article 18(1)(b) SRMR. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the SRB failed to consider appropriate alternative measures pursuant to Article 18(1)(b) SRMR.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the SRB failed to choose the least burdensome option in the context of resolution action with respect to the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the SRB failed to choose the least burdensome option in the context of resolution action with respect to the applicant.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging that the SRB violated substantive and procedural rules governing the sale of business tool, including Article 20 SRMR. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the SRB violated substantive and procedural rules governing the sale of business tool, including Article 20 SRMR.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging that the SRB violated the principle of proportionality and committed a manifest error of assessment with respect to potential alternative solutions. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging that the SRB violated the principle of proportionality and committed a manifest error of assessment with respect to potential alternative solutions.

| 8. | Eighth plea in law, alleging that the SRB failed to contact the applicant’s or Sberbank Croatia’s management in relation to Article 13(3) SRMR. |
| --- | --- |

8.

Eighth plea in law, alleging that the SRB failed to contact the applicant’s or Sberbank Croatia’s management in relation to Article 13(3) SRMR.

| 9. | Ninth plea in law, alleging that the SRB failed to follow the resolution plan without any plausible justification. |
| --- | --- |

9.

Ninth plea in law, alleging that the SRB failed to follow the resolution plan without any plausible justification.

---

(1)  The decision contested by the applicant in this case is the SRB’s decision of 1 March 2022 (SRB/EES/2022/21) with respect to the Croatian subsidiary of the applicant (Sberbank banka d.d.).

(2)  Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ 2014 L 225, p. 1).

---

| 14.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/32

---

Action brought on 23 September 2022 — Cyprus v EUIPO — Kolios (HALLOUMAKI)

(Case T-594/22)

(2022/C 432/40)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Cyprus (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister-at-Law)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Kolios AE Elliniki Viomichania Galaktos (Kilkis, Greece)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark HALLOUMAKI — Application for registration No 18 126 405

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 June 2022 in Case R 19/2022-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order that EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the EUIPO each bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order that EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the EUIPO each bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant.

Pleas in law

| — | The Board of Appeal infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by wrongly interpreting the services covered by the contested mark; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by wrongly interpreting the services covered by the contested mark;

| — | The Board of Appeal infringed Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by failing to hold that consumers and the professional public could make a link between the specified services and the specified goods. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal infringed Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by failing to hold that consumers and the professional public could make a link between the specified services and the specified goods.

---

| 14.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/33

---

Action brought on 27 September 2022 — Veritas v Commission

(Case T-602/22)

(2022/C 432/41)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Veneziana Energia Risorse Idriche Territorio Ambiente Servizi SpA (Veritas) (Venice, Italy) (represented by: A. Pasqualin, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | By a measure of organisation of procedure,






  — | order the production of the document of which disclosure was refused (letter sent on 17 October 2019 by the Italian Authorities in EU Pilot procedure 9456/19/TAXUD); |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

By a measure of organisation of procedure,

—

order the production of the document of which disclosure was refused (letter sent on 17 October 2019 by the Italian Authorities in EU Pilot procedure 9456/19/TAXUD);

| — | acquire the response, and its related annexes, from the Italian Authorities referred to on pages 2 to 3 of the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

acquire the response, and its related annexes, from the Italian Authorities referred to on pages 2 to 3 of the contested decision;

| — | decide on any other measure of inquiry which may be considered useful. |
| --- | --- |

—

decide on any other measure of inquiry which may be considered useful.

| — | On the merits of the case,






  — | annul the decision of the Secretariat-General of the European Commission of 15 July 2022 by which Veritas S.p.A. was refused access to the letter sent on 17 October 2019 by the Italian Authorities in EU Pilot procedure 9456/19/TAXUD and allow the applicant the requested access. |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

On the merits of the case,

—

annul the decision of the Secretariat-General of the European Commission of 15 July 2022 by which Veritas S.p.A. was refused access to the letter sent on 17 October 2019 by the Italian Authorities in EU Pilot procedure 9456/19/TAXUD and allow the applicant the requested access.

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 an error in law and a failure to state reasons in relation to procedural rules provided for in Article 4(4) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents. Contradictory nature.






  — | The applicant submits in that regard that the contested measure bases the refusal of access on a reconstruction that contradicts, without justification, that of the initial response from the institution regarding the fact that the Italian Authorities had exercised the right provided for in Article 4(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging an error in law and a failure to state reasons in relation to procedural rules provided for in Article 4(4) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents. Contradictory nature.

—

The applicant submits in that regard that the contested measure bases the refusal of access on a reconstruction that contradicts, without justification, that of the initial response from the institution regarding the fact that the Italian Authorities had exercised the right provided for in Article 4(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.

| — | The error in law, the failure to state reasons and the contradictory nature of the documents in the procedure vitiate it, preventing verification of the legality of the procedure with respect to the rules applied and the assessments made, depriving the refusal of access of comprehensible justification. |
| --- | --- |

—

The error in law, the failure to state reasons and the contradictory nature of the documents in the procedure vitiate it, preventing verification of the legality of the procedure with respect to the rules applied and the assessments made, depriving the refusal of access of comprehensible justification.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging an error in law and misuse of power in relation to a failure to state reasons/inadequate reasoning and failure to conduct a proper preliminary investigation.






  — | The contested decision refuses access in relation to the exception provided for in the second indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, but in the present case the reasoning is merely ostensible. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging an error in law and misuse of power in relation to a failure to state reasons/inadequate reasoning and failure to conduct a proper preliminary investigation.

—

The contested decision refuses access in relation to the exception provided for in the second indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, but in the present case the reasoning is merely ostensible.

| — | In breach of the law, access to the document requested was refused without explaining how it could specifically and effectively undermine the protection of court proceedings, nor is it proven that the risk of undermining is reasonably foreseeable and not merely hypothetical, it not being specified to which national legal proceedings the decision refers. |
| --- | --- |

—

In breach of the law, access to the document requested was refused without explaining how it could specifically and effectively undermine the protection of court proceedings, nor is it proven that the risk of undermining is reasonably foreseeable and not merely hypothetical, it not being specified to which national legal proceedings the decision refers.

| — | It is not explained why the sending of the document to Veritas compromises the principle of equality of arms within unspecified judicial proceedings of which Veritas is not even mentioned as a party. |
| --- | --- |

—

It is not explained why the sending of the document to Veritas compromises the principle of equality of arms within unspecified judicial proceedings of which Veritas is not even mentioned as a party.

| — | The decision lacks adequate verification in respect of the existence of a ‘duly reasoned’ objection of the Member State which opposes the disclosure of the document and in respect of the real existence of the need for protection provided for in the second indent of Article 4(2) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. |
| --- | --- |

—

The decision lacks adequate verification in respect of the existence of a ‘duly reasoned’ objection of the Member State which opposes the disclosure of the document and in respect of the real existence of the need for protection provided for in the second indent of Article 4(2) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.

---

(1)  OJ 2001 L 145 p. 43.

---

| 14.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/34

---

Action brought on 27 September 2022 — Société du Tour de France v EUIPO — FitX (TOUR DE X)

(Case T-604/22)

(2022/C 432/42)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Société du Tour de France (Boulogne-Billancourt, France) (represented by: T. de Haan and S. Vandezande, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: FitX Beteiligungs GmbH (Essen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark TOUR DE X — Application for registration No 16 701 039

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 July 2022 in Case R 1136/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and the intervener to bear the costs, including those incurred by the applicant before the Office’s Second Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the intervener to bear the costs, including those incurred by the applicant before the Office’s Second Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

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

—

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

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

—

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

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

—

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

---

| 14.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/35

---

Action brought on 30 September 2022 — Kozitsyn v Council

(Case T-607/22)

(2022/C 432/43)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Andrey Anatolyevich Kozitsyn (Verkhnyaya Pyshma, Russia) (represented by: J. Grand d’Esnon, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Conclusions

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | primarily,
  annul:
  Council Decision (CFSP) No 2022/1272 of 21 July 2022 (1) in so far as concerns Mr Kozitsyn;
  Council Regulation (EU) No 2022/1270 of 21 July 2022 (2) in so far as concerns Mr Kozitsyn;
  Council Decision (CFSP) No 2022/329 of 25 February 2022; (3)

  Council Regulation (EU) No 2022/330 of 25 February 2022; (4) |
| --- | --- |

—

primarily,

annul:

Council Decision (CFSP) No 2022/1272 of 21 July 2022 (1) in so far as concerns Mr Kozitsyn;

Council Regulation (EU) No 2022/1270 of 21 July 2022 (2) in so far as concerns Mr Kozitsyn;

Council Decision (CFSP) No 2022/329 of 25 February 2022; (3)

Council Regulation (EU) No 2022/330 of 25 February 2022; (4)

| — | in the alternative,
  annul:
  Council Decision (CFSP) No 2022/1272 of 21 July 2022 in relation to Mr Kozitsyn;
  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2022/1270 of 21 July 2022 in so far as concerns Mr Kozitsyn;
  Article 1(2)(g) of Council Decision (CFSP) No 2022/329 of 25 February 2022;
  Article 1(1)(g) of Council Regulation (EU) No 2022/330 of 25 February 2022; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative,

annul:

Council Decision (CFSP) No 2022/1272 of 21 July 2022 in relation to Mr Kozitsyn;

Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2022/1270 of 21 July 2022 in so far as concerns Mr Kozitsyn;

Article 1(2)(g) of Council Decision (CFSP) No 2022/329 of 25 February 2022;

Article 1(1)(g) of Council Regulation (EU) No 2022/330 of 25 February 2022;

| — | and in any event,
  order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs pursuant to Article 140(b) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

and in any event,

order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs pursuant to Article 140(b) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on nine pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those relied on in the context of Case T-234/22, Ismailova v Council.

---

(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/1272 of 21 July 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 193, p. 219).

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1270 of 21 July 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 193, p. 133).

(3)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/329 of 25 February 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 50, p. 1).

(4)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/330 of 25 February 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 51, p. 1).

---

| 14.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/36

---

Action brought on 1 October 2022 — Primicerj v Commission

(Case T-612/22)

(2022/C 432/44)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Paola Primicerj (Rome, Italy) (represented by: E. Iorio, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the European Commission of 2 August 2022 (EMPL.C.1/BPM/kt (2022)5785472) which refuses the request for access (Gestdem No 2022/4090) to the supplementary letter of formal notice of 15 July 2022, issued by the European Commission to the Italian Republic in the infringement proceedings 2016/4081, relating to the compatibility with EU law of the national law governing the services provided by magistrati onorari (honorary judges); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the European Commission of 2 August 2022 (EMPL.C.1/BPM/kt (2022)5785472) which refuses the request for access (Gestdem No 2022/4090) to the supplementary letter of formal notice of 15 July 2022, issued by the European Commission to the Italian Republic in the infringement proceedings 2016/4081, relating to the compatibility with EU law of the national law governing the services provided by magistrati onorari (honorary judges);

| — | order the European Commission to grant the applicant access to the supplementary letter of formal notice of 15 July 2022, issued by the European Commission to the Italian Republic in the infringement proceedings 2016/4081; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to grant the applicant access to the supplementary letter of formal notice of 15 July 2022, issued by the European Commission to the Italian Republic in the infringement proceedings 2016/4081;

| — | order the European Commission, in the event of opposition, to bear the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission, in the event of opposition, to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, relating to the admissibility of the action.






  — | It is submitted in that regard that the applicant is acting in the exercise of a general right of EU citizens to transparency of the work of the institutions in order to obtain the necessary information, according to that guaranteed to all EU citizens by Regulation (EC) 1049/2001 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, relating to the admissibility of the action.

—

It is submitted in that regard that the applicant is acting in the exercise of a general right of EU citizens to transparency of the work of the institutions in order to obtain the necessary information, according to that guaranteed to all EU citizens by Regulation (EC) 1049/2001 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents.

| — | Knowledge of the letter of formal notice would give the applicant, moreover, the practical benefit of exercising her right to information knowing, after more than six years, the reasons for which no reasoned opinion has yet been issued by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

—

Knowledge of the letter of formal notice would give the applicant, moreover, the practical benefit of exercising her right to information knowing, after more than six years, the reasons for which no reasoned opinion has yet been issued by the Commission.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principles with respect to the access of documents of the EU institutions provided for in the second paragraph of Article 1 of the Treaty on European Union, Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and Article 1 and the third indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) 1049/2001 — the existence of a general interest in accessing the supplementary letter of formal notice of 15 July 2022.






  — | It is submitted in that regard that there exists a general and overriding interest in the right to information, that is, to know of the work of the Commission and of the Italian Republic relating to the independence of the judiciary, an essential condition of the rule of law, with the consequence that the rules of exclusion of the right to access are to be interpreted in a restrictive manner. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principles with respect to the access of documents of the EU institutions provided for in the second paragraph of Article 1 of the Treaty on European Union, Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and Article 1 and the third indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) 1049/2001 — the existence of a general interest in accessing the supplementary letter of formal notice of 15 July 2022.

—

It is submitted in that regard that there exists a general and overriding interest in the right to information, that is, to know of the work of the Commission and of the Italian Republic relating to the independence of the judiciary, an essential condition of the rule of law, with the consequence that the rules of exclusion of the right to access are to be interpreted in a restrictive manner.

| — | The absolute inadequacy of the entire system of rules that govern the office of the magistratura onoraria (honorary judges) and in particular the giudici onorari di pace (magistrates) has, it is argued, already been noted by the Court of Justice of the European Union by its judgments of 16 July 2020 and 7 April 2022, with an infringement of the principle of conditionality. |
| --- | --- |

—

The absolute inadequacy of the entire system of rules that govern the office of the magistratura onoraria (honorary judges) and in particular the giudici onorari di pace (magistrates) has, it is argued, already been noted by the Court of Justice of the European Union by its judgments of 16 July 2020 and 7 April 2022, with an infringement of the principle of conditionality.

| — | It is contrary to the rules on transparency and disclosure of documents of the EU institutions to deny that there is an overriding general interest to know not the confidential documents and the exchange of communication between the Commission and the Italian Republic but rather the objections raised by the letter of formal notice of 15 July 2022, which has been highlighted by the national press and been the subject of summary communication issued by the European Commission itself. |
| --- | --- |

—

It is contrary to the rules on transparency and disclosure of documents of the EU institutions to deny that there is an overriding general interest to know not the confidential documents and the exchange of communication between the Commission and the Italian Republic but rather the objections raised by the letter of formal notice of 15 July 2022, which has been highlighted by the national press and been the subject of summary communication issued by the European Commission itself.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging non-compliance with the obligation to state reasons for the measures adopted by the European institutions.






  — | It is submitted in that regard that by examining the reasons for the measures, all the interested parties can be placed in a position to know and understand the methods by which the institutions implement the Treaty, since the obligation to state reasons has both a review function and a participatory function, in so far as in making the assessments made prior to the adoption of the institutions’ measures clearly understandable, it contributes to alleviating the democratic deficit often levelled against the European Union. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging non-compliance with the obligation to state reasons for the measures adopted by the European institutions.

—

It is submitted in that regard that by examining the reasons for the measures, all the interested parties can be placed in a position to know and understand the methods by which the institutions implement the Treaty, since the obligation to state reasons has both a review function and a participatory function, in so far as in making the assessments made prior to the adoption of the institutions’ measures clearly understandable, it contributes to alleviating the democratic deficit often levelled against the European Union.

| — | The principles regarding the statement of reasons have not been complied with, since the Commission submitted only wholly generic and formulaic claims for the reasons for which the disclosure of the supplementary letter of formal notice of 15 July 2022 would undermine the aforementioned ‘climate of trust’; it replied with a form in which few and scarce claims were inserted which would allow the applicant and the Court a genuine review of the legality of reasons for the refusal, that refusal being insufficiently justified; that is particularly true as regards the reasons that would have prevented at least a partial disclosure of the document, already to some extent disseminated with the infringement package of 15 July 2022, albeit not in such a way as to enable understanding of the content and the reasons for the additional objections made in relation to Italy. |
| --- | --- |

—

The principles regarding the statement of reasons have not been complied with, since the Commission submitted only wholly generic and formulaic claims for the reasons for which the disclosure of the supplementary letter of formal notice of 15 July 2022 would undermine the aforementioned ‘climate of trust’; it replied with a form in which few and scarce claims were inserted which would allow the applicant and the Court a genuine review of the legality of reasons for the refusal, that refusal being insufficiently justified; that is particularly true as regards the reasons that would have prevented at least a partial disclosure of the document, already to some extent disseminated with the infringement package of 15 July 2022, albeit not in such a way as to enable understanding of the content and the reasons for the additional objections made in relation to Italy.

| — | The contested refusal of access does not clearly indicate the grounds on which it is founded, their legal basis, the factual basis and the way in which the different relevant interests have been taken into consideration, because the refusal affects the exercise of rights pursuant to Articles 17 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, with the consequence that since the measure adopted imposes the limitation of a right recognised to the applicant by the Treaty, consisting in a restriction of such rights, the reasons must be somewhat stricter, more precise and accurate in order that the choices made are clearly understandable. |
| --- | --- |

—

The contested refusal of access does not clearly indicate the grounds on which it is founded, their legal basis, the factual basis and the way in which the different relevant interests have been taken into consideration, because the refusal affects the exercise of rights pursuant to Articles 17 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, with the consequence that since the measure adopted imposes the limitation of a right recognised to the applicant by the Treaty, consisting in a restriction of such rights, the reasons must be somewhat stricter, more precise and accurate in order that the choices made are clearly understandable.

---

(1)  OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43.

---

| 14.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/38

---

Action brought on 30 September 2022 — Cyprus v EUIPO — Cemet (Halime)

(Case T-615/22)

(2022/C 432/45)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Cyprus (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister-at-Law, and C. Milbradt, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cemet Oy (Helsinki, Finland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark Halime — Application for registration No 18 241 593

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 June 2022 in Case R 121/2022-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order that EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the EUIPO (should it take part as intervener) each bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order that EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the EUIPO (should it take part as intervener) each bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant.

Pleas in law

| — | The Board of Appeal infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Article 27 of Directive (EU) 2015/2436 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (1) by ignoring the fact that the earlier marks were certification marks, not individual marks; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Article 27 of Directive (EU) 2015/2436 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (1) by ignoring the fact that the earlier marks were certification marks, not individual marks;

| — | The Board of Appeal infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Article 27 of Directive (EU) 2015/2436 of the European Parliament and of the Council in its analysis of the likelihood of confusion; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Article 27 of Directive (EU) 2015/2436 of the European Parliament and of the Council in its analysis of the likelihood of confusion;

| — | The Board of Appeal erred under Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council when analysing the distinctiveness of the earlier certification marks; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal erred under Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council when analysing the distinctiveness of the earlier certification marks;

| — | The Board of Appeal infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by carrying out an erroneous comparison of the respective goods and services. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by carrying out an erroneous comparison of the respective goods and services.

---

(1)  OJ 2015 L 336, p. 1.

---

| 14.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/39

---

Order of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — Synthomer v Commission

(Case T-457/19) (1)

(2022/C 432/46)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 312, 16.9.2019.

---

| 14.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/39

---

Order of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — Hikma Pharmaceuticals and Hikma Pharmaceuticals International v Commission

(Case T-712/19) (1)

(2022/C 432/47)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 10, 13.1.2020.

---

| 14.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/39

---

Order of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — The Weir Group and Others v Commission

(Case T-718/19) (1)

(2022/C 432/48)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 10, 13.1.2020.

---