# Official Journal C 296/21 A

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 296 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6621 August 2023 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 296

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6621 August 2023

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2023/C 296/01 | Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union | 1 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

2023/C 296/01

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

Official Journal of the European Union

1

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2023/C 296/02 | Joined Cases C-212/21 P and C-223/21 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 July 2023 — European Investment Bank (EIB) v ClientEarth, European Commission (C-212/21 P), European Commission v Client Earth, European Investment Bank (EIB) (C-223/21 P) (Appeal — Environment — Aarhus Convention — Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 — Article 2(1)(f) — Concept of environmental law — Article 2(1)(g) — Concept of administrative act — Article 10(1) — Internal review of administrative acts — Resolution of the Board of Directors of the European Investment Bank (EIB) approving the financing of a biomass power generation plant — Rejection of the request for internal review of that resolution as inadmissible — Independence of the EIB in the sphere of its financial operations — Article 271(c) TFEU — Scope) | 2 |
| 2023/C 296/03 | Case C-252/21, Meta Platforms and Others (General terms of use of a social network): Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 July 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Meta Platforms Inc., formerly Facebook Inc., Meta Platforms Ireland Limited, formerly Facebook Ireland Ltd, Facebook Deutschland GmbH v Bundeskartellamt (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data — Regulation (EU) 2016/679 — Online social networks — Abuse of a dominant position by the operator of such a network — Abuse which entails the processing of the personal data of the users of that network as provided for in its general terms of use — Powers of a competition authority of a Member State to find that processing is not consistent with that regulation — Reconciliation with the powers of the national data protection supervisory authorities — Article 4(3) TEU — Principle of sincere cooperation — Points (a) to (f) of the first subparagraph of Article 6(1) of Regulation 2016/679 — Whether the processing is lawful — Article 9(1) and (2) — Processing of special categories of personal data — Article 4(11) — Concept of consent) | 3 |
| 2023/C 296/04 | Case C-510/21, Austrian Airlines (First aid on board an aircraft): Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 July 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — DB v Austrian Airlines AG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Air transport — Montreal Convention — Article 17(1) — Liability of air carriers for death or injury sustained by passengers — Concept of accident — Bodily injuries aggravated by first aid administered following an accident that took place on board an aircraft) | 5 |
| 2023/C 296/05 | Case C-663/21, Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen und Asyl (Refugee who has committed a serious crime): Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 July 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen und Asyl v AA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2011/95/EU — Standards for granting refugee status or subsidiary protection status — Article 14(4)(b) — Revocation of refugee status — Third-country national convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime — Danger to the community — Proportionality test — Directive 2008/115/EU — Return of illegally staying third-country nationals — Postponement of removal) | 6 |
| 2023/C 296/06 | Case C-7/22 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 July 2023 — RQ v Council of the European Union, European Commission (Appeal — Actions for damages — Economic and monetary policy — Restructuring of Greek public debt — Private sector involvement — Damage caused by a reduction in the nominal value of newly issued State bonds compared with the value of cancelled bonds — Statements by the heads of State or Government of the euro zone and the institutions of the European Union — Decisions of the Euro Group — Informal and intergovernmental nature of the Euro Group — Non-contractual liability of the European Union — Possibility of attributing damage) | 7 |
| 2023/C 296/07 | Case C-8/22, Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides (Refugee who has committed a serious crime): Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 July 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — Belgium) — XXX v Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2011/95/EU — Standards for granting refugee status or subsidiary protection status — Article 14(4)(b) — Revocation of refugee status — Third-country national convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime — Danger to the community — Proportionality test) | 7 |
| 2023/C 296/08 | Case C-142/22, The Minister for Justice and Equality (Request for consent — Effects of the initial European arrest warrant: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 6 July 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — OE v The Minister for Justice and Equality (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Article 27 — Prosecution for an offence committed prior to the person’s surrender other than that for which he or she was surrendered — Request for consent sent to the executing judicial authority — European arrest warrant issued by the public prosecutor of a Member State which is not an issuing judicial authority — Consequences for the request for consent) | 8 |
| 2023/C 296/09 | Case C-166/22, Hellfire Massy Residents Association: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 July 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) — Ireland) — Hellfire Massy Residents Association v An Bord Pleanála, Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage, Ireland, Attorney General (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora — Article 12 — System of strict protection for certain animal species — Article 16 — Derogation — Procedure for granting such a derogation — Right of public participation) | 9 |
| 2023/C 296/10 | Case C-285/22 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 July 2023 — Michaël Julien v Council of the European Union (Appeal — Action for annulment — Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, of the one part, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of the other part — Decision (EU) 2021/689 — National of the United Kingdom with family and property interests in the European Union — Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU — Locus standi — Conditions — Interest in bringing proceedings) | 10 |
| 2023/C 296/11 | Case C-402/22, Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid (Particularly serious crime): Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 July 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid v M.A. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2011/95/EU — Standards for granting refugee status or subsidiary protection status — Article 14(4)(b) — Revocation of refugee status — Third-country national convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime — Danger to the community — Proportionality test) | 10 |
| 2023/C 296/12 | Case C-404/22, Ethnikos Organismos Pistopoiisis Prosonton & Epangelmatikou Prosanatolismou: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 July 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Dioikitiko Protodikeio Athinon — Greece) — Ethnikos Organismos Pistopoiisis Prosonton & Epangelmatikou Prosanatolismou (Eoppep) v Elliniko Dimosio (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Information and consultation of workers — Directive 2002/14/EC — Scope — Meaning of undertaking carrying out an economic activity — Private-law entity operating in the public sector — Removal of workers appointed to managerial positions — No prior information or consultation of employee representatives) | 11 |
| 2023/C 296/13 | Case C-462/22, BM (Residence of the divorce applicant): Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 July 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — BM v LO (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Sixth indent of Article 3(1)(a) — Forum actoris — Condition — Habitual residence of the applicant in the Member State of the court seised for the entire period immediately before the application was made) | 12 |
| 2023/C 296/14 | Case C-593/22, First Bank: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 July 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Specializat Cluj — Romania) — FS and WU v First Bank SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Scope — Article 1(2) — Exclusion of contractual terms reflecting mandatory statutory or regulatory provisions — Credit agreement denominated in a foreign currency — Terms relating to the exchange rate — Presumption of knowledge of the law) | 13 |
| 2023/C 296/15 | Case C-334/23, flightright: Order of the President of the Court of 27 June 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — flightright GmbH v Laudamotion GmbH (Air transport — Compensation to air passengers in the event of cancellation of flights — Extraordinary circumstances — Covid-19 pandemic — Cancellation of numerous flights — Profitability — Economic reasons — Protection of the health of crew members — No administrative prohibition) | 13 |
| 2023/C 296/16 | Case C-93/23 P: Appeal brought on 17 February 2023 by the European Union Intellectual Property Office against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 7 December 2022 in Case T-487/21, Neoperl AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office | 14 |
| 2023/C 296/17 | Case C-236/23, Matmut: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Cassation (France) lodged on 7 April 2023 — Mutuelle assurance des travailleurs mutualistes (Matmut) v TN and Others | 15 |
| 2023/C 296/18 | Case C-251/23, Mercedes-Benz Group: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Duisburg (Germany) lodged on 19 April 2023 — OB v Mercedes-Benz Group AG | 16 |
| 2023/C 296/19 | Case C-299/23, Darvate and Others: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 11 May 2023 — Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophones de Belgique and Others v État belge | 17 |
| 2023/C 296/20 | Case C-301/23, Bank BPH: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 10 May 2023 — AJ v Bank BPH S.A. | 18 |
| 2023/C 296/21 | Case C-308/23, Mercedes-Benz Group: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Duisburg (Germany) lodged on 17 May 2023 — YV v Mercedes-Benz Group AG | 19 |
| 2023/C 296/22 | Case C-328/23, Reisebüro and R: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 25 May 2023 — J and A v Reisebüro GmbH and R GmbH | 21 |
| 2023/C 296/23 | Case C-365/23, Arce: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) (Latvia) lodged on 9 June 2023 — SIA A v C, D, E | 22 |
| 2023/C 296/24 | Case C-375/23, Meislev: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret (Denmark) lodged on 13 June 2023 — EN v Udlændingenævnet | 23 |
| 2023/C 296/25 | Case C-379/23, Guldbrev: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Svea hovrätt, Patent- och marknadsöverdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 15 June 2023 — Guldbrev AB v Konsumentombudsmannen | 24 |
| 2023/C 296/26 | Case C-413/23 P: Appeal brought on 5 July 2023 by the European Data Protection Supervisor against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 26 April 2023 in Case T-557/20, Single Resolution Board v European Data Protection Supervisor | 24 |
| | General Court |
| 2023/C 296/27 | Case T-115/20: Judgment of the General Court of 5 July 2023 — Puigdemont i Casamajó and Comín i Oliveres v Parliament (Action for annulment — Institutional law — Member of the Parliament — Refusal of the President of the Parliament to accede to a request for privileges and immunities to be defended — Act not open to challenge — Inadmissibility) | 26 |
| 2023/C 296/28 | Case T-639/20: Judgment of the General Court of 5 July 2023 — TIB Chemicals v Commission (Environment and protection of human health — Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 — Classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures — Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/1182 — Classification of dioctyltin dilaurate [1]; stannane, dioctyl-, bis (coco acyloxy) derivs. [2] — Read-across — Burden of proof — Manifest error of assessment — Impact assessment) | 26 |
| 2023/C 296/29 | Cases T-649/20, T-721/20 and T-767/20: Judgment of the General Court of 5 July 2023 — Clean Aviation Joint Undertaking v NG (Arbitration clause — Seventh Framework Programme for the activities of research and development (FP7) — Grant agreements — Lack of supporting documents and non-compliance with the contractual requirements for part of the declared expenses — Repayment of the sums advanced — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Admissibility — Eligible costs — Burden of proof — Interest on arrears) | 27 |
| 2023/C 296/30 | Case T-126/21: Judgment of the General Court of 5 July 2023 — Nevinnomysskiy Azot and NAK Azot v Commission (Dumping — Imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia — Definitive anti-dumping duties — Request for an expiry review — Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 — Article 5(3) and (9) of Regulation 2016/1036 — Legal time limit — Sufficiency of the evidence — Deficiency procedure — Information submitted outside the legal time limit) | 28 |
| 2023/C 296/31 | Case T-223/21: Judgment of the General Court of 5 July 2023 — SE v Commission (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Recruitment — Contract of employment — Article 2(b) of the CEOS — Rejection of an application — Promotion — Reclassification — New contract — Expiry of the contract — Article 8, second paragraph, and Article 10(3) of the CEOS — Error of law — Equal treatment — Action for annulment — Admissibility) | 29 |
| 2023/C 296/32 | Case T-272/21: Judgment of the General Court of 5 July 2023 — Puigdemont i Casamajó and Others v Parliament (Institutional law — Member of the Parliament — Privileges and immunities — Decision to waive parliamentary immunity — Article 9 of Protocol Noo 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union — Competence of the authority that issued the request for waiver of immunity — Legal certainty — Manifest error of assessment — Scope of the Parliament’s review — Procedure for examining the request for the waiver of immunity — Rights of the defence — Impartiality) | 30 |
| 2023/C 296/33 | Case T-770/21: Judgment of the General Court of 5 July 2023 — OC v EEAS (Civil service — Officials — Staff of the EEAS — Psychological harassment — Article 12a of the Staff Regulations — Request for assistance — Refusal of the request — Article 24 of the Staff Regulations — Obligation to state reasons — Right to be heard — Concept of psychological harassment — Manifest error of assessment — Duty to have regard for the welfare of staff) | 30 |
| 2023/C 296/34 | Case T-10/22: Judgment of the General Court of 5 July 2023 — Wajos v EUIPO (Shape of a container) (EU trade mark — Application for a three-dimensional EU trade mark — Shape of a container — Absolute ground for refusal — Sign consisting exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result — Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Decision taken following the annulment by the General Court of an earlier decision — Res judicata) | 31 |
| 2023/C 296/35 | Case T-666/20: Order of the General Court of 30 June 2023 — Thunus and Others v EIB (Civil service — Staff of the EIB — Remuneration — Annual salary adjustment — Plea of illegality — Res judicata — Legal certainty — Legitimate expectations — Staff consultation — Obligation to state reasons — Proportionality — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law) | 32 |
| 2023/C 296/36 | Case T-719/22: Order of the General Court of 29 June 2023 — Puma v EUIPO — Herno (HERZO) (Action for annulment — EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark HERZO — Earlier EU figurative mark HERNO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law) | 32 |
| 2023/C 296/37 | Case T-260/23: Action brought on 15 May 2023 — Volvo Personvagnar v EUIPO (Shape of headlights) | 33 |
| 2023/C 296/38 | Case T-297/23: Action brought on 24 May 2023 — Timchenko v Council | 34 |
| 2023/C 296/39 | Case T-298/23: Action brought on 24 May 2023 — Timchenko v Council | 35 |
| 2023/C 296/40 | Case T-315/23: Action brought on 6 June 2023 — AL v Council | 35 |
| 2023/C 296/41 | Case T-328/23: Action brought on 13 June 2023 — Radical-Consulting and Others v EuroHPC Joint Undertaking | 37 |
| 2023/C 296/42 | Case T-341/23: Action brought on 16 June 2023 — Dakem v Commission | 37 |
| 2023/C 296/43 | Case T-357/23: Action brought on 4 July 2023 — Verla-Pharm Arzneimittel v EUIPO — Converso (Pherla) | 38 |
| 2023/C 296/44 | Case T-358/23: Action brought on 4 July 2023 — AC Marca Brands v EUIPO — Sanitix (Sanitix) | 39 |
| 2023/C 296/45 | Case T-359/23: Action brought on 4 July 2023 — Société des produits Nestlé v EUIPO — Amigüitos pets & life (THE ONLY ONE by alphaspirit wild and perfect) | 40 |
| 2023/C 296/46 | Case T-367/23: Action brought on 5 July 2023 — Amazon Services Europe v Commission | 41 |
| 2023/C 296/47 | Case T-370/23: Action brought on 5 July 2023 — Al-Assad v Council | 42 |
| 2023/C 296/48 | Case T-373/23: Action brought on 7 July 2023 — Galenica v EUIPO — EvivaMed Distribution (VIVORA) | 43 |
| 2023/C 296/49 | Case T-376/23: Action brought on 7 July 2023 — Washtower IP v EUIPO — LG Electronics (WASHTOWER) | 44 |
| 2023/C 296/50 | Case T-388/23: Action brought on 12 July 2023 — Ergotopia v EUIPO (Wellback) | 44 |
| 2023/C 296/51 | Case T-590/22: Order of the General Court of 4 July 2023 — Cristescu v Commission | 45 |
| 2023/C 296/52 | Case T-605/22: Order of the General Court of 4 July 2023 — RT France v Council | 45 |
| 2023/C 296/53 | Case T-67/23: Order of the General Court of 7 July 2023 — UH v ECB | 45 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2023/C 296/02

Joined Cases C-212/21 P and C-223/21 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 July 2023 — European Investment Bank (EIB) v ClientEarth, European Commission (C-212/21 P), European Commission v Client Earth, European Investment Bank (EIB) (C-223/21 P) (Appeal — Environment — Aarhus Convention — Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 — Article 2(1)(f) — Concept of environmental law — Article 2(1)(g) — Concept of administrative act — Article 10(1) — Internal review of administrative acts — Resolution of the Board of Directors of the European Investment Bank (EIB) approving the financing of a biomass power generation plant — Rejection of the request for internal review of that resolution as inadmissible — Independence of the EIB in the sphere of its financial operations — Article 271(c) TFEU — Scope)

2

2023/C 296/03

Case C-252/21, Meta Platforms and Others (General terms of use of a social network): Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 July 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Meta Platforms Inc., formerly Facebook Inc., Meta Platforms Ireland Limited, formerly Facebook Ireland Ltd, Facebook Deutschland GmbH v Bundeskartellamt (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data — Regulation (EU) 2016/679 — Online social networks — Abuse of a dominant position by the operator of such a network — Abuse which entails the processing of the personal data of the users of that network as provided for in its general terms of use — Powers of a competition authority of a Member State to find that processing is not consistent with that regulation — Reconciliation with the powers of the national data protection supervisory authorities — Article 4(3) TEU — Principle of sincere cooperation — Points (a) to (f) of the first subparagraph of Article 6(1) of Regulation 2016/679 — Whether the processing is lawful — Article 9(1) and (2) — Processing of special categories of personal data — Article 4(11) — Concept of consent)

3

2023/C 296/04

Case C-510/21, Austrian Airlines (First aid on board an aircraft): Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 July 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — DB v Austrian Airlines AG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Air transport — Montreal Convention — Article 17(1) — Liability of air carriers for death or injury sustained by passengers — Concept of accident — Bodily injuries aggravated by first aid administered following an accident that took place on board an aircraft)

5

2023/C 296/05

Case C-663/21, Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen und Asyl (Refugee who has committed a serious crime): Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 July 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen und Asyl v AA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2011/95/EU — Standards for granting refugee status or subsidiary protection status — Article 14(4)(b) — Revocation of refugee status — Third-country national convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime — Danger to the community — Proportionality test — Directive 2008/115/EU — Return of illegally staying third-country nationals — Postponement of removal)

6

2023/C 296/06

Case C-7/22 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 July 2023 — RQ v Council of the European Union, European Commission (Appeal — Actions for damages — Economic and monetary policy — Restructuring of Greek public debt — Private sector involvement — Damage caused by a reduction in the nominal value of newly issued State bonds compared with the value of cancelled bonds — Statements by the heads of State or Government of the euro zone and the institutions of the European Union — Decisions of the Euro Group — Informal and intergovernmental nature of the Euro Group — Non-contractual liability of the European Union — Possibility of attributing damage)

7

2023/C 296/07

Case C-8/22, Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides (Refugee who has committed a serious crime): Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 July 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — Belgium) — XXX v Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2011/95/EU — Standards for granting refugee status or subsidiary protection status — Article 14(4)(b) — Revocation of refugee status — Third-country national convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime — Danger to the community — Proportionality test)

7

2023/C 296/08

Case C-142/22, The Minister for Justice and Equality (Request for consent — Effects of the initial European arrest warrant: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 6 July 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — OE v The Minister for Justice and Equality (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Article 27 — Prosecution for an offence committed prior to the person’s surrender other than that for which he or she was surrendered — Request for consent sent to the executing judicial authority — European arrest warrant issued by the public prosecutor of a Member State which is not an issuing judicial authority — Consequences for the request for consent)

8

2023/C 296/09

Case C-166/22, Hellfire Massy Residents Association: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 July 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) — Ireland) — Hellfire Massy Residents Association v An Bord Pleanála, Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage, Ireland, Attorney General (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora — Article 12 — System of strict protection for certain animal species — Article 16 — Derogation — Procedure for granting such a derogation — Right of public participation)

9

2023/C 296/10

Case C-285/22 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 July 2023 — Michaël Julien v Council of the European Union (Appeal — Action for annulment — Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, of the one part, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of the other part — Decision (EU) 2021/689 — National of the United Kingdom with family and property interests in the European Union — Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU — Locus standi — Conditions — Interest in bringing proceedings)

10

2023/C 296/11

Case C-402/22, Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid (Particularly serious crime): Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 July 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid v M.A. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2011/95/EU — Standards for granting refugee status or subsidiary protection status — Article 14(4)(b) — Revocation of refugee status — Third-country national convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime — Danger to the community — Proportionality test)

10

2023/C 296/12

Case C-404/22, Ethnikos Organismos Pistopoiisis Prosonton & Epangelmatikou Prosanatolismou: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 July 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Dioikitiko Protodikeio Athinon — Greece) — Ethnikos Organismos Pistopoiisis Prosonton & Epangelmatikou Prosanatolismou (Eoppep) v Elliniko Dimosio (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Information and consultation of workers — Directive 2002/14/EC — Scope — Meaning of undertaking carrying out an economic activity — Private-law entity operating in the public sector — Removal of workers appointed to managerial positions — No prior information or consultation of employee representatives)

11

2023/C 296/13

Case C-462/22, BM (Residence of the divorce applicant): Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 July 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — BM v LO (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Sixth indent of Article 3(1)(a) — Forum actoris — Condition — Habitual residence of the applicant in the Member State of the court seised for the entire period immediately before the application was made)

12

2023/C 296/14

Case C-593/22, First Bank: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 July 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Specializat Cluj — Romania) — FS and WU v First Bank SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Scope — Article 1(2) — Exclusion of contractual terms reflecting mandatory statutory or regulatory provisions — Credit agreement denominated in a foreign currency — Terms relating to the exchange rate — Presumption of knowledge of the law)

13

2023/C 296/15

Case C-334/23, flightright: Order of the President of the Court of 27 June 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — flightright GmbH v Laudamotion GmbH (Air transport — Compensation to air passengers in the event of cancellation of flights — Extraordinary circumstances — Covid-19 pandemic — Cancellation of numerous flights — Profitability — Economic reasons — Protection of the health of crew members — No administrative prohibition)

13

2023/C 296/16

Case C-93/23 P: Appeal brought on 17 February 2023 by the European Union Intellectual Property Office against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 7 December 2022 in Case T-487/21, Neoperl AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office

14

2023/C 296/17

Case C-236/23, Matmut: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Cassation (France) lodged on 7 April 2023 — Mutuelle assurance des travailleurs mutualistes (Matmut) v TN and Others

15

2023/C 296/18

Case C-251/23, Mercedes-Benz Group: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Duisburg (Germany) lodged on 19 April 2023 — OB v Mercedes-Benz Group AG

16

2023/C 296/19

Case C-299/23, Darvate and Others: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 11 May 2023 — Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophones de Belgique and Others v État belge

17

2023/C 296/20

Case C-301/23, Bank BPH: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 10 May 2023 — AJ v Bank BPH S.A.

18

2023/C 296/21

Case C-308/23, Mercedes-Benz Group: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Duisburg (Germany) lodged on 17 May 2023 — YV v Mercedes-Benz Group AG

19

2023/C 296/22

Case C-328/23, Reisebüro and R: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 25 May 2023 — J and A v Reisebüro GmbH and R GmbH

21

2023/C 296/23

Case C-365/23, Arce: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) (Latvia) lodged on 9 June 2023 — SIA A v C, D, E

22

2023/C 296/24

Case C-375/23, Meislev: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret (Denmark) lodged on 13 June 2023 — EN v Udlændingenævnet

23

2023/C 296/25

Case C-379/23, Guldbrev: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Svea hovrätt, Patent- och marknadsöverdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 15 June 2023 — Guldbrev AB v Konsumentombudsmannen

24

2023/C 296/26

Case C-413/23 P: Appeal brought on 5 July 2023 by the European Data Protection Supervisor against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 26 April 2023 in Case T-557/20, Single Resolution Board v European Data Protection Supervisor

24

General Court

2023/C 296/27

Case T-115/20: Judgment of the General Court of 5 July 2023 — Puigdemont i Casamajó and Comín i Oliveres v Parliament (Action for annulment — Institutional law — Member of the Parliament — Refusal of the President of the Parliament to accede to a request for privileges and immunities to be defended — Act not open to challenge — Inadmissibility)

26

2023/C 296/28

Case T-639/20: Judgment of the General Court of 5 July 2023 — TIB Chemicals v Commission (Environment and protection of human health — Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 — Classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures — Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/1182 — Classification of dioctyltin dilaurate [1]; stannane, dioctyl-, bis (coco acyloxy) derivs. [2] — Read-across — Burden of proof — Manifest error of assessment — Impact assessment)

26

2023/C 296/29

Cases T-649/20, T-721/20 and T-767/20: Judgment of the General Court of 5 July 2023 — Clean Aviation Joint Undertaking v NG (Arbitration clause — Seventh Framework Programme for the activities of research and development (FP7) — Grant agreements — Lack of supporting documents and non-compliance with the contractual requirements for part of the declared expenses — Repayment of the sums advanced — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Admissibility — Eligible costs — Burden of proof — Interest on arrears)

27

2023/C 296/30

Case T-126/21: Judgment of the General Court of 5 July 2023 — Nevinnomysskiy Azot and NAK Azot v Commission (Dumping — Imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia — Definitive anti-dumping duties — Request for an expiry review — Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 — Article 5(3) and (9) of Regulation 2016/1036 — Legal time limit — Sufficiency of the evidence — Deficiency procedure — Information submitted outside the legal time limit)

28

2023/C 296/31

Case T-223/21: Judgment of the General Court of 5 July 2023 — SE v Commission (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Recruitment — Contract of employment — Article 2(b) of the CEOS — Rejection of an application — Promotion — Reclassification — New contract — Expiry of the contract — Article 8, second paragraph, and Article 10(3) of the CEOS — Error of law — Equal treatment — Action for annulment — Admissibility)

29

2023/C 296/32

Case T-272/21: Judgment of the General Court of 5 July 2023 — Puigdemont i Casamajó and Others v Parliament (Institutional law — Member of the Parliament — Privileges and immunities — Decision to waive parliamentary immunity — Article 9 of Protocol Noo 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union — Competence of the authority that issued the request for waiver of immunity — Legal certainty — Manifest error of assessment — Scope of the Parliament’s review — Procedure for examining the request for the waiver of immunity — Rights of the defence — Impartiality)

o

30

2023/C 296/33

Case T-770/21: Judgment of the General Court of 5 July 2023 — OC v EEAS (Civil service — Officials — Staff of the EEAS — Psychological harassment — Article 12a of the Staff Regulations — Request for assistance — Refusal of the request — Article 24 of the Staff Regulations — Obligation to state reasons — Right to be heard — Concept of psychological harassment — Manifest error of assessment — Duty to have regard for the welfare of staff)

30

2023/C 296/34

Case T-10/22: Judgment of the General Court of 5 July 2023 — Wajos v EUIPO (Shape of a container) (EU trade mark — Application for a three-dimensional EU trade mark — Shape of a container — Absolute ground for refusal — Sign consisting exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result — Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Decision taken following the annulment by the General Court of an earlier decision — Res judicata)

31

2023/C 296/35

Case T-666/20: Order of the General Court of 30 June 2023 — Thunus and Others v EIB (Civil service — Staff of the EIB — Remuneration — Annual salary adjustment — Plea of illegality — Res judicata — Legal certainty — Legitimate expectations — Staff consultation — Obligation to state reasons — Proportionality — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

32

2023/C 296/36

Case T-719/22: Order of the General Court of 29 June 2023 — Puma v EUIPO — Herno (HERZO) (Action for annulment — EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark HERZO — Earlier EU figurative mark HERNO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

32

2023/C 296/37

Case T-260/23: Action brought on 15 May 2023 — Volvo Personvagnar v EUIPO (Shape of headlights)

33

2023/C 296/38

Case T-297/23: Action brought on 24 May 2023 — Timchenko v Council

34

2023/C 296/39

Case T-298/23: Action brought on 24 May 2023 — Timchenko v Council

35

2023/C 296/40

Case T-315/23: Action brought on 6 June 2023 — AL v Council

35

2023/C 296/41

Case T-328/23: Action brought on 13 June 2023 — Radical-Consulting and Others v EuroHPC Joint Undertaking

37

2023/C 296/42

Case T-341/23: Action brought on 16 June 2023 — Dakem v Commission

37

2023/C 296/43

Case T-357/23: Action brought on 4 July 2023 — Verla-Pharm Arzneimittel v EUIPO — Converso (Pherla)

38

2023/C 296/44

Case T-358/23: Action brought on 4 July 2023 — AC Marca Brands v EUIPO — Sanitix (Sanitix)

39

2023/C 296/45

Case T-359/23: Action brought on 4 July 2023 — Société des produits Nestlé v EUIPO — Amigüitos pets & life (THE ONLY ONE by alphaspirit wild and perfect)

40

2023/C 296/46

Case T-367/23: Action brought on 5 July 2023 — Amazon Services Europe v Commission

41

2023/C 296/47

Case T-370/23: Action brought on 5 July 2023 — Al-Assad v Council

42

2023/C 296/48

Case T-373/23: Action brought on 7 July 2023 — Galenica v EUIPO — EvivaMed Distribution (VIVORA)

43

2023/C 296/49

Case T-376/23: Action brought on 7 July 2023 — Washtower IP v EUIPO — LG Electronics (WASHTOWER)

44

2023/C 296/50

Case T-388/23: Action brought on 12 July 2023 — Ergotopia v EUIPO (Wellback)

44

2023/C 296/51

Case T-590/22: Order of the General Court of 4 July 2023 — Cristescu v Commission

45

2023/C 296/52

Case T-605/22: Order of the General Court of 4 July 2023 — RT France v Council

45

2023/C 296/53

Case T-67/23: Order of the General Court of 7 July 2023 — UH v ECB

45

---

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 21.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/1

---

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

(2023/C 296/01)

Last publication

OJ C 286, 14.8.2023

Past publications

OJ C 278, 7.8.2023

OJ C 271, 31.7.2023

OJ C 261, 24.7.2023

OJ C 252, 17.7.2023

OJ C 235, 3.7.2023

OJ C 223, 26.6.2023

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 21.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 July 2023 — European Investment Bank (EIB) v ClientEarth, European Commission (C-212/21 P), European Commission v Client Earth, European Investment Bank (EIB) (C-223/21 P)

(Joined Cases C-212/21 P and C-223/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - Environment - Aarhus Convention - Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 - Article 2(1)(f) - Concept of ‘environmental law’ - Article 2(1)(g) - Concept of ‘administrative act’ - Article 10(1) - Internal review of administrative acts - Resolution of the Board of Directors of the European Investment Bank (EIB) approving the financing of a biomass power generation plant - Rejection of the request for internal review of that resolution as inadmissible - Independence of the EIB in the sphere of its financial operations - Article 271(c) TFEU - Scope)

(2023/C 296/02)

Language of the case: English

Parties

(Case C-212/21 P)

Appellant: European Investment Bank (EIB) (represented by: K. Carr, G. Faedo and T. Gilliams, acting as Agents, and by J. Bouckaert and G. Schaiko, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: ClientEarth (represented by: S. Abram KC and J. Flynn, KC and H. Leith, Barrister), European Commission (represented by: F. Blanc and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

(Case C-223/21 P)

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: F. Blanc and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: ClientEarth (represented by S. Abram KC and J. Flynn KC and H. Leith, Barrister), European Investment Bank (EIB) (represented by K. Carr, G. Faedo and T. Gilliams, acting as Agents, and by J. Bouckaert and G. Schaiko, avocats)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeals; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeals;

| 2. | Orders the European Investment Bank (EIB) and the European Commission to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by ClientEarth. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Investment Bank (EIB) and the European Commission to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by ClientEarth.

---

(1)  OJ C 217, 7.6.2021.

---

| 21.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 July 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Meta Platforms Inc., formerly Facebook Inc., Meta Platforms Ireland Limited, formerly Facebook Ireland Ltd, Facebook Deutschland GmbH v Bundeskartellamt

(Case C-252/21, (1) Meta Platforms and Others (General terms of use of a social network))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data - Regulation (EU) 2016/679 - Online social networks - Abuse of a dominant position by the operator of such a network - Abuse which entails the processing of the personal data of the users of that network as provided for in its general terms of use - Powers of a competition authority of a Member State to find that processing is not consistent with that regulation - Reconciliation with the powers of the national data protection supervisory authorities - Article 4(3) TEU - Principle of sincere cooperation - Points (a) to (f) of the first subparagraph of Article 6(1) of Regulation 2016/679 - Whether the processing is lawful - Article 9(1) and (2) - Processing of special categories of personal data - Article 4(11) - Concept of ‘consent’)

(2023/C 296/03)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Meta Platforms Inc., formerly Facebook Inc., Meta Platforms Ireland Limited, formerly Facebook Ireland Ltd, Facebook Deutschland GmbH

Defendant: Bundeskartellamt

Intervener: Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband eV

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 51 et seq. of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation), as well as Article 4(3) TEU
  must be interpreted as meaning that, subject to compliance with its duty of sincere cooperation with the supervisory authorities, a competition authority of a Member State can find, in the context of the examination of an abuse of a dominant position by an undertaking within the meaning of Article 102 TFEU, that that undertaking’s general terms of use relating to the processing of personal data and the implementation thereof are not consistent with that regulation, where that finding is necessary to establish the existence of such an abuse.
  In view of this duty of sincere cooperation, the national competition authority cannot depart from a decision by the competent national supervisory authority or the competent lead supervisory authority concerning those general terms or similar general terms. Where it has doubts as to the scope of such a decision, where those terms or similar terms are, simultaneously, under examination by those authorities, or where, in the absence of an investigation or decision by those authorities, the competition authority takes the view that the terms in question are not consistent with Regulation 2016/679, it must consult and seek the cooperation of those supervisory authorities in order to dispel its doubts or to determine whether it must wait for them to take a decision before starting its own assessment. In the absence of any objection on their part or of any reply within a reasonable time, the national competition authority may continue its own investigation; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 51 et seq. of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation), as well as Article 4(3) TEU

must be interpreted as meaning that, subject to compliance with its duty of sincere cooperation with the supervisory authorities, a competition authority of a Member State can find, in the context of the examination of an abuse of a dominant position by an undertaking within the meaning of Article 102 TFEU, that that undertaking’s general terms of use relating to the processing of personal data and the implementation thereof are not consistent with that regulation, where that finding is necessary to establish the existence of such an abuse.

In view of this duty of sincere cooperation, the national competition authority cannot depart from a decision by the competent national supervisory authority or the competent lead supervisory authority concerning those general terms or similar general terms. Where it has doubts as to the scope of such a decision, where those terms or similar terms are, simultaneously, under examination by those authorities, or where, in the absence of an investigation or decision by those authorities, the competition authority takes the view that the terms in question are not consistent with Regulation 2016/679, it must consult and seek the cooperation of those supervisory authorities in order to dispel its doubts or to determine whether it must wait for them to take a decision before starting its own assessment. In the absence of any objection on their part or of any reply within a reasonable time, the national competition authority may continue its own investigation;

| 2. | Article 9(1) of Regulation 2016/679
  must be interpreted as meaning that, where the user of an online social network visits websites or apps to which one or more of the categories referred to in that provision relate and, as the case may be, enters information into them when registering or when placing online orders, the processing of personal data by the operator of that online social network, which entails the collection — by means of integrated interfaces, cookies or similar storage technologies — of data from visits to those sites and apps and of the information entered by the user, the linking of all those data with the user’s social network account and the use of those data by that operator, must be regarded as ‘processing of special categories of personal data’ within the meaning of that provision, which is in principle prohibited, subject to the derogations provided for in Article 9(2), where that data processing allows information falling within one of those categories to be revealed, irrespective of whether that information concerns a user of that network or any other natural person; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 9(1) of Regulation 2016/679

must be interpreted as meaning that, where the user of an online social network visits websites or apps to which one or more of the categories referred to in that provision relate and, as the case may be, enters information into them when registering or when placing online orders, the processing of personal data by the operator of that online social network, which entails the collection — by means of integrated interfaces, cookies or similar storage technologies — of data from visits to those sites and apps and of the information entered by the user, the linking of all those data with the user’s social network account and the use of those data by that operator, must be regarded as ‘processing of special categories of personal data’ within the meaning of that provision, which is in principle prohibited, subject to the derogations provided for in Article 9(2), where that data processing allows information falling within one of those categories to be revealed, irrespective of whether that information concerns a user of that network or any other natural person;

| 3. | Article 9(2)(e) of Regulation 2016/679
  must be interpreted as meaning that, where the user of an online social network visits websites or apps to which one or more of the categories set out in Article 9(1) of that regulation relate, the user does not manifestly make public, within the meaning of the first of those provisions, the data relating to those visits collected by the operator of that online social network via cookies or similar storage technologies;
  Where he or she enters information into such websites or apps or where he or she clicks or taps on buttons integrated into those sites and apps, such as the ‘Like’ or ‘Share’ buttons or buttons enabling the user to identify himself or herself on those sites or apps using login credentials linked to his or her social network user account, his or her telephone number or email address, that user manifestly makes public, within the meaning of Article 9(2)(e), the data thus entered or resulting from the clicking or tapping on those buttons only in the circumstance where he or she has explicitly made the choice beforehand, as the case may be on the basis of individual settings selected with full knowledge of the facts, to make the data relating to him or her publicly accessible to an unlimited number of persons; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 9(2)(e) of Regulation 2016/679

must be interpreted as meaning that, where the user of an online social network visits websites or apps to which one or more of the categories set out in Article 9(1) of that regulation relate, the user does not manifestly make public, within the meaning of the first of those provisions, the data relating to those visits collected by the operator of that online social network via cookies or similar storage technologies;

Where he or she enters information into such websites or apps or where he or she clicks or taps on buttons integrated into those sites and apps, such as the ‘Like’ or ‘Share’ buttons or buttons enabling the user to identify himself or herself on those sites or apps using login credentials linked to his or her social network user account, his or her telephone number or email address, that user manifestly makes public, within the meaning of Article 9(2)(e), the data thus entered or resulting from the clicking or tapping on those buttons only in the circumstance where he or she has explicitly made the choice beforehand, as the case may be on the basis of individual settings selected with full knowledge of the facts, to make the data relating to him or her publicly accessible to an unlimited number of persons;

| 4. | Point (b) of the first subparagraph of Article 6(1) of Regulation 2016/679
  must be interpreted as meaning that the processing of personal data by the operator of an online social network, which entails the collection of data of the users of such a network from other services of the group to which that operator belongs or from visits by those users to third-party websites or apps, the linking of those data with the social network account of those users and the use of those data, can be regarded as necessary for the performance of a contract to which the data subjects are party, within the meaning of that provision, only on condition that the processing is objectively indispensable for a purpose that is integral to the contractual obligation intended for those users, such that the main subject matter of the contract cannot be achieved if that processing does not occur; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Point (b) of the first subparagraph of Article 6(1) of Regulation 2016/679

must be interpreted as meaning that the processing of personal data by the operator of an online social network, which entails the collection of data of the users of such a network from other services of the group to which that operator belongs or from visits by those users to third-party websites or apps, the linking of those data with the social network account of those users and the use of those data, can be regarded as necessary for the performance of a contract to which the data subjects are party, within the meaning of that provision, only on condition that the processing is objectively indispensable for a purpose that is integral to the contractual obligation intended for those users, such that the main subject matter of the contract cannot be achieved if that processing does not occur;

| 5. | Point (f) of the first subparagraph of Article 6(1) of Regulation 2016/679
  must be interpreted as meaning that the processing of personal data by the operator of an online social network, which entails the collection of data of the users of such a network from other services of the group to which that operator belongs or from visits by those users to third-party websites or apps, the linking of those data with the social network account of those users and the use of those data, can be regarded as necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by the controller or by a third party, within the meaning of that provision, only on condition that the operator has informed the users from whom the data have been collected of a legitimate interest that is pursued by the data processing, that such processing is carried out only in so far as is strictly necessary for the purposes of that legitimate interest and that it is apparent from a balancing of the opposing interests, having regard to all the relevant circumstances, that the interests or fundamental freedoms and rights of those users do not override that legitimate interest of the controller or of a third party; |
| --- | --- |

5.

Point (f) of the first subparagraph of Article 6(1) of Regulation 2016/679

must be interpreted as meaning that the processing of personal data by the operator of an online social network, which entails the collection of data of the users of such a network from other services of the group to which that operator belongs or from visits by those users to third-party websites or apps, the linking of those data with the social network account of those users and the use of those data, can be regarded as necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by the controller or by a third party, within the meaning of that provision, only on condition that the operator has informed the users from whom the data have been collected of a legitimate interest that is pursued by the data processing, that such processing is carried out only in so far as is strictly necessary for the purposes of that legitimate interest and that it is apparent from a balancing of the opposing interests, having regard to all the relevant circumstances, that the interests or fundamental freedoms and rights of those users do not override that legitimate interest of the controller or of a third party;

| 6. | Point (c) of the first subparagraph of Article 6(1) of Regulation 2016/679
  must be interpreted as meaning that the processing of personal data by the operator of an online social network, which entails the collection of data of the users of such a network from other services of the group to which that operator belongs or from visits by those users to third-party websites or apps, the linking of those data with the social network account of those users and the use of those data, is justified, under that provision, where it is actually necessary for compliance with a legal obligation to which the controller is subject, pursuant to a provision of EU law or the law of the Member State concerned, where that legal basis meets an objective of public interest and is proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and where that processing is carried out only in so far as is strictly necessary; |
| --- | --- |

6.

Point (c) of the first subparagraph of Article 6(1) of Regulation 2016/679

must be interpreted as meaning that the processing of personal data by the operator of an online social network, which entails the collection of data of the users of such a network from other services of the group to which that operator belongs or from visits by those users to third-party websites or apps, the linking of those data with the social network account of those users and the use of those data, is justified, under that provision, where it is actually necessary for compliance with a legal obligation to which the controller is subject, pursuant to a provision of EU law or the law of the Member State concerned, where that legal basis meets an objective of public interest and is proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and where that processing is carried out only in so far as is strictly necessary;

| 7. | Points (d) and (e) of the first subparagraph of Article 6(1) of Regulation 2016/679
  must be interpreted as meaning that the processing of personal data by the operator of an online social network, which entails the collection of data of the users of such a network from other services of the group to which that operator belongs or from visits by those users to third-party websites or apps, the linking of those data with the social network account of those users and the use of those data, cannot, in principle and subject to verification by the referring court, be regarded as necessary in order to protect the vital interests of the data subject or of another natural person, within the meaning of point (d), or for the performance of a task carried out in the public interest or in the exercise of official authority vested in the controller, within the meaning of point (e); |
| --- | --- |

7.

Points (d) and (e) of the first subparagraph of Article 6(1) of Regulation 2016/679

must be interpreted as meaning that the processing of personal data by the operator of an online social network, which entails the collection of data of the users of such a network from other services of the group to which that operator belongs or from visits by those users to third-party websites or apps, the linking of those data with the social network account of those users and the use of those data, cannot, in principle and subject to verification by the referring court, be regarded as necessary in order to protect the vital interests of the data subject or of another natural person, within the meaning of point (d), or for the performance of a task carried out in the public interest or in the exercise of official authority vested in the controller, within the meaning of point (e);

| 8. | Point (a) of the first subparagraph of Article 6(1) and Article 9(2)(a) of Regulation 2016/679
  must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that the operator of an online social network holds a dominant position on the market for online social networks does not, as such, preclude the users of such a network from being able validly to consent, within the meaning of Article 4(11) of that regulation, to the processing of their personal data by that operator. This is nevertheless an important factor in determining whether the consent was in fact validly and, in particular, freely given, which it is for that operator to prove. |
| --- | --- |

8.

Point (a) of the first subparagraph of Article 6(1) and Article 9(2)(a) of Regulation 2016/679

must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that the operator of an online social network holds a dominant position on the market for online social networks does not, as such, preclude the users of such a network from being able validly to consent, within the meaning of Article 4(11) of that regulation, to the processing of their personal data by that operator. This is nevertheless an important factor in determining whether the consent was in fact validly and, in particular, freely given, which it is for that operator to prove.

---

(1)  OJ C 320, 9.8.2021.

---

| 21.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 July 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — DB v Austrian Airlines AG

(Case C-510/21, (1) Austrian Airlines (First aid on board an aircraft))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Air transport - Montreal Convention - Article 17(1) - Liability of air carriers for death or injury sustained by passengers - Concept of ‘accident’ - Bodily injuries aggravated by first aid administered following an accident that took place on board an aircraft)

(2023/C 296/04)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: DB

Defendant: Austrian Airlines AG

Operative part of the judgment

Article 17(1) of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, concluded in Montreal on 28 May 1999, signed by the European Community on 9 December 1999 and approved on its behalf by Council Decision 2001/539/EC of 5 April 2001,

must be interpreted as meaning that the inadequate first aid administered on board an aircraft to a passenger, which aggravated the bodily injuries caused by an ‘accident’, within the meaning of that provision, must be regarded as forming part of that accident.

---

(1)  OJ C 513, 20.12.2021.

---

| 21.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/6

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 July 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen und Asyl v AA

(Case C-663/21, (1) Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen und Asyl (Refugee who has committed a serious crime)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2011/95/EU - Standards for granting refugee status or subsidiary protection status - Article 14(4)(b) - Revocation of refugee status - Third-country national convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime - Danger to the community - Proportionality test - Directive 2008/115/EU - Return of illegally staying third-country nationals - Postponement of removal)

(2023/C 296/05)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen und Asyl

Defendant: AA

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 14(4)(b) of Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted,
  must be interpreted as meaning that the application of that provision is conditional on the competent authority establishing that the revocation of refugee status constitutes a proportionate measure having regard to the danger posed by the third-country national concerned to a fundamental interest of the society of the Member State in which that third-country national is present. To that end, that competent authority must balance that danger against the rights which must be guaranteed, in accordance with that directive, to persons fulfilling the substantive conditions of Article 2(d) of that directive, without, however, that competent authority also being required to verify that the public interest in the return of that third-country national to his or her country of origin outweighs that third-country national’s interest in the continuation of international protection, in the light of the extent and nature of the measures to which that third-country national would be exposed if he or she were to return to his or her country of origin.. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 14(4)(b) of Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted,

must be interpreted as meaning that the application of that provision is conditional on the competent authority establishing that the revocation of refugee status constitutes a proportionate measure having regard to the danger posed by the third-country national concerned to a fundamental interest of the society of the Member State in which that third-country national is present. To that end, that competent authority must balance that danger against the rights which must be guaranteed, in accordance with that directive, to persons fulfilling the substantive conditions of Article 2(d) of that directive, without, however, that competent authority also being required to verify that the public interest in the return of that third-country national to his or her country of origin outweighs that third-country national’s interest in the continuation of international protection, in the light of the extent and nature of the measures to which that third-country national would be exposed if he or she were to return to his or her country of origin..

| 2. | Article 5 of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals,
  must be interpreted as precluding the adoption of a return decision in respect of a third-country national where it is established that removal of that third-country national to the intended country of destination is, by reason of the principle of non-refoulement, precluded for an indefinite period. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 5 of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals,

must be interpreted as precluding the adoption of a return decision in respect of a third-country national where it is established that removal of that third-country national to the intended country of destination is, by reason of the principle of non-refoulement, precluded for an indefinite period.

---

(1)  OJ C 73, 14.2.2022.

---

| 21.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/7

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 July 2023 — RQ v Council of the European Union, European Commission

(Case C-7/22 P) (1)

(Appeal - Actions for damages - Economic and monetary policy - Restructuring of Greek public debt - Private sector involvement - Damage caused by a reduction in the nominal value of newly issued State bonds compared with the value of cancelled bonds - Statements by the heads of State or Government of the euro zone and the institutions of the European Union - Decisions of the Euro Group - Informal and intergovernmental nature of the Euro Group - Non-contractual liability of the European Union - Possibility of attributing damage)

(2023/C 296/06)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: RQ (represented by: M. Meng-Papantoni and H. Tagaras, dikigoroi)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: J. Bauerschmidt, K. Pavlaki and A. Westerhof Löfflerová, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: T. Adamopoulos and S. Delaude, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders RQ to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union and the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders RQ to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union and the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 119, 14.3.2022.

---

| 21.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/7

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 July 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — Belgium) — XXX v Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides

(Case C-8/22, (1) Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides (Refugee who has committed a serious crime))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2011/95/EU - Standards for granting refugee status or subsidiary protection status - Article 14(4)(b) - Revocation of refugee status - Third-country national convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime - Danger to the community - Proportionality test)

(2023/C 296/07)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: XXX

Defendant: Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 14(4)(b) of Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted
  must be interpreted as meaning that the existence of a danger to the community of the Member State in which the third-country national concerned is present cannot be regarded as established by the mere fact that he or she has been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 14(4)(b) of Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted

must be interpreted as meaning that the existence of a danger to the community of the Member State in which the third-country national concerned is present cannot be regarded as established by the mere fact that he or she has been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime.

| 2. | Article 14(4)(b) of Directive 2011/95
  must be interpreted as meaning that the application of that provision is subject to the competent authority establishing that the threat which the third-country national concerned represents to one of the fundamental interests of the society of the Member State in which he or she is present is genuine, present and sufficiently serious and that the revocation of refugee status constitutes a measure that is proportionate to that threat. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 14(4)(b) of Directive 2011/95

must be interpreted as meaning that the application of that provision is subject to the competent authority establishing that the threat which the third-country national concerned represents to one of the fundamental interests of the society of the Member State in which he or she is present is genuine, present and sufficiently serious and that the revocation of refugee status constitutes a measure that is proportionate to that threat.

---

(1)  OJ C 148, 4.4.2022.

---

| 21.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 6 July 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — OE v The Minister for Justice and Equality

(Case C-142/22, (1) The Minister for Justice and Equality (Request for consent — Effects of the initial European arrest warrant)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - European arrest warrant - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Article 27 - Prosecution for an offence committed prior to the person’s surrender other than that for which he or she was surrendered - Request for consent sent to the executing judicial authority - European arrest warrant issued by the public prosecutor of a Member State which is not an issuing judicial authority - Consequences for the request for consent)

(2023/C 296/08)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: OE

Defendant: The Minister for Justice and Equality

Operative part of the judgment

Article 27(3)(g) and (4) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States

must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that a European arrest warrant on the basis of which a person has been the subject of a surrender decision has been issued by an authority which did not constitute an ‘issuing judicial authority’ within the meaning of Article 6(1) of that framework decision, does not preclude the executing judicial authority, to which a request to that effect has been made by an issuing judicial authority within the meaning of Article 6(1), from subsequently giving its consent to that person being prosecuted, sentenced or otherwise deprived of his or her liberty for an offence committed prior to his or her surrender other than that for which he or she was surrendered.

---

(1)  OJ C 191, 10.5.2022.

---

| 21.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 July 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) — Ireland) — Hellfire Massy Residents Association v An Bord Pleanála, Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage, Ireland, Attorney General

(Case C-166/22, (1) Hellfire Massy Residents Association)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Directive 92/43/EEC - Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora - Article 12 - System of strict protection for certain animal species - Article 16 - Derogation - Procedure for granting such a derogation - Right of public participation)

(2023/C 296/09)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court (Ireland)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hellfire Massy Residents Association

Respondents: An Bord Pleanála, Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage, Ireland, Attorney General

Other parties: South Dublin County Council, An Taisce — The National Trust for Ireland, Save Our Bride Otters

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 12 and 16 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora

must be interpreted as meaning that a piece of national legislation intended to transpose those provisions into national law cannot be regarded as contrary to that directive on the ground that that piece of national legislation does not provide for (i) a development consent procedure which involves a decision by a competent authority determining whether it is necessary to apply for a derogation under Article 16 of the abovementioned directive because of matters identified following the grant of development consent to a project and/or whether surveys are required to that end or (ii) public participation in that derogation procedure.

---

(1)  OJ C 198, 16.5.2022.

---

| 21.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 July 2023 — Michaël Julien v Council of the European Union

(Case C-285/22 P) (1)

(Appeal - Action for annulment - Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, of the one part, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of the other part - Decision (EU) 2021/689 - National of the United Kingdom with family and property interests in the European Union - Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU - Locus standi - Conditions - Interest in bringing proceedings)

(2023/C 296/10)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Michaël Julien (represented by: J. Fouchet and J.-N. Caubet-Hilloutou, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer, J. Ciantar and R. Meyer, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Mr Michaël Julien to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Michaël Julien to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 257, 4.7.2022.

---

| 21.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/10

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 July 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid v M.A.

(Case C-402/22, (1) Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid (Particularly serious crime)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2011/95/EU - Standards for granting refugee status or subsidiary protection status - Article 14(4)(b) - Revocation of refugee status - Third-country national convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime - Danger to the community - Proportionality test)

(2023/C 296/11)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

Defendant: M.A.

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 14(4)(b) of Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted
  must be interpreted as meaning that a crime which, in view of its specific features, is exceptionally serious, in so far as it is one of the crimes which most seriously undermine the legal order of the community concerned, constitutes a ‘particularly serious crime’ within the meaning of that provision. In order to assess whether a crime for which a third-country national has been convicted by a final judgment has such a degree of seriousness, account must be taken, inter alia, of the penalty provided for and the penalty imposed for that crime, the nature of that crime, any aggravating or mitigating circumstances, whether or not that crime was intentional, the nature and extent of the harm caused by that crime and the procedure used to punish it. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 14(4)(b) of Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted

must be interpreted as meaning that a crime which, in view of its specific features, is exceptionally serious, in so far as it is one of the crimes which most seriously undermine the legal order of the community concerned, constitutes a ‘particularly serious crime’ within the meaning of that provision. In order to assess whether a crime for which a third-country national has been convicted by a final judgment has such a degree of seriousness, account must be taken, inter alia, of the penalty provided for and the penalty imposed for that crime, the nature of that crime, any aggravating or mitigating circumstances, whether or not that crime was intentional, the nature and extent of the harm caused by that crime and the procedure used to punish it.

| 2. | Article 14(4)(b) of Directive 2011/95
  must be interpreted as meaning that the existence of a danger to the community of the Member State in which the third-country national concerned is present cannot be regarded as established by the mere fact that he or she has been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 14(4)(b) of Directive 2011/95

must be interpreted as meaning that the existence of a danger to the community of the Member State in which the third-country national concerned is present cannot be regarded as established by the mere fact that he or she has been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime.

| 3. | Article 14(4)(b) of Directive 2011/95
  must be interpreted as meaning that the application of that provision is subject to the competent authority establishing that the threat which the third-country national concerned represents to one of the fundamental interests of the society of the Member State in which he or she is present is genuine, present and sufficiently serious and that the revocation of refugee status constitutes a measure that is proportionate to that threat. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 14(4)(b) of Directive 2011/95

must be interpreted as meaning that the application of that provision is subject to the competent authority establishing that the threat which the third-country national concerned represents to one of the fundamental interests of the society of the Member State in which he or she is present is genuine, present and sufficiently serious and that the revocation of refugee status constitutes a measure that is proportionate to that threat.

---

(1)  OJ C 368, 26.9.2022.

---

| 21.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 July 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Dioikitiko Protodikeio Athinon — Greece) — Ethnikos Organismos Pistopoiisis Prosonton & Epangelmatikou Prosanatolismou (Eoppep) v Elliniko Dimosio

(Case C-404/22, (1) Ethnikos Organismos Pistopoiisis Prosonton & Epangelmatikou Prosanatolismou)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Information and consultation of workers - Directive 2002/14/EC - Scope - Meaning of ‘undertaking carrying out an economic activity’ - Private-law entity operating in the public sector - Removal of workers appointed to managerial positions - No prior information or consultation of employee representatives)

(2023/C 296/12)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Dioikitiko Protodikeio Athinon

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ethnikos Organismos Pistopoiisis Prosonton & Epangelmatikou Prosanatolismou (Eoppep)

Defendant: Elliniko Dimosio

Questions referred

| 1. | Article 2(a) of Directive 2002/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community
  must be interpreted as meaning that that provision may refer to a legal person governed by private law which acts as a legal person governed by public law and exercises public powers where it also provides, for remuneration, services which are in competition with those provided by market operators. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 2(a) of Directive 2002/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community

must be interpreted as meaning that that provision may refer to a legal person governed by private law which acts as a legal person governed by public law and exercises public powers where it also provides, for remuneration, services which are in competition with those provided by market operators.

| 2. | Article 4(2)(b) of Directive 2002/14
  must be interpreted as meaning that the information and consultation obligation laid down therein does not apply in the event of a change of post for a small number of employees appointed on an interim basis to management roles, where that change is not capable of affecting the situation, structure or probable development of employment within the undertaking concerned, or placing employment more generally under threat. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 4(2)(b) of Directive 2002/14

must be interpreted as meaning that the information and consultation obligation laid down therein does not apply in the event of a change of post for a small number of employees appointed on an interim basis to management roles, where that change is not capable of affecting the situation, structure or probable development of employment within the undertaking concerned, or placing employment more generally under threat.

---

(1)  OJ C 359, 19.9.2022.

---

| 21.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 July 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — BM v LO

(Case C-462/22, (1) BM (Residence of the divorce applicant))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Sixth indent of Article 3(1)(a) - Forum actoris - Condition - Habitual residence of the applicant in the Member State of the court seised for the entire period immediately before the application was made)

(2023/C 296/13)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: BM

Defendant: LO

Operative part of the judgment

The sixth indent of Article 3(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000,

must be interpreted as meaning that that provision makes the jurisdiction of the court of a Member State to hear an application for the dissolution of matrimonial ties subject to the condition that the applicant, who is a national of that Member State, provides evidence that he or she has acquired a habitual residence in that Member State for at least six months immediately prior to the submission of his or her application.

---

(1)  OJ C 359, 19.9.2022.

---

| 21.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 July 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Specializat Cluj — Romania) — FS and WU v First Bank SA

(Case C-593/22, (1) First Bank)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Scope - Article 1(2) - Exclusion of contractual terms reflecting mandatory statutory or regulatory provisions - Credit agreement denominated in a foreign currency - Terms relating to the exchange rate - Presumption of knowledge of the law)

(2023/C 296/14)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Specializat Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: FS and WU

Respondent: First Bank SA

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 1(2) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts
  must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to fall within the exclusion from the scope of that directive laid down by that provision, it is not necessary for the term included in a loan agreement concluded between a consumer and a seller or supplier to quote the corresponding mandatory statutory or regulatory provision of national law verbatim or to refer expressly thereto, but it is sufficient that it is substantively equivalent to that mandatory provision, that is to say that it has the same normative content. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 1(2) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts

must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to fall within the exclusion from the scope of that directive laid down by that provision, it is not necessary for the term included in a loan agreement concluded between a consumer and a seller or supplier to quote the corresponding mandatory statutory or regulatory provision of national law verbatim or to refer expressly thereto, but it is sufficient that it is substantively equivalent to that mandatory provision, that is to say that it has the same normative content.

| 2. | Article 1(2) of Directive 93/13
  must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to determine whether a term included in a loan agreement concluded between a consumer and a seller or supplier falls within the exclusion from the scope of that directive laid down by that provision, it is irrelevant that the consumer has no knowledge of the fact that that term reflects a mandatory statutory or regulatory provision of national law. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 1(2) of Directive 93/13

must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to determine whether a term included in a loan agreement concluded between a consumer and a seller or supplier falls within the exclusion from the scope of that directive laid down by that provision, it is irrelevant that the consumer has no knowledge of the fact that that term reflects a mandatory statutory or regulatory provision of national law.

---

(1)  OJ C 472, 12.12.2022.

---

| 21.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/13

---

Order of the President of the Court of 27 June 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — flightright GmbH v Laudamotion GmbH

(Case C-334/23, (1) flightright)

(Air transport - Compensation to air passengers in the event of cancellation of flights - Extraordinary circumstances - Covid-19 pandemic - Cancellation of numerous flights - Profitability - Economic reasons - Protection of the health of crew members - No administrative prohibition)

(2023/C 296/15)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: flightright GmbH

Respondent: Laudamotion GmbH

Operative part of the order

Case C-334/23 is removed from the Register of the Court.

---

(1)  Date lodged: 26.5.2023.

---

| 21.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/14

---

Appeal brought on 17 February 2023 by the European Union Intellectual Property Office against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 7 December 2022 in Case T-487/21, Neoperl AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office

(Case C-93/23 P)

(2023/C 296/16)

Language of the case: German

Parties

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

Other party to the proceedings: Neoperl AG

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

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

—

set aside the judgment under appeal;

| — | order each party to bear its own costs; |
| --- | --- |

—

order each party to bear its own costs;

| — | dismiss the action brought against the contested decision. |
| --- | --- |

—

dismiss the action brought against the contested decision.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on a single ground, alleging that the judgment under appeal is contrary to Article 72(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001, (1) which raises an issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of Union law, within the meaning of the third paragraph of Article 58a of the Statute of the Court of Justice:

| 1. | The judgment under appeal is contrary to Article 72(3) of Regulation 2017/1001 in so far as it holds that the substantive examination of the ground for refusal in Article 7(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 4 of Regulation 207/2009 (2) constitutes a legal issue that has to be examined prior to the consideration of the application for annulment submitted to the General Court. In that regard, the General Court failed to recognise that this was not necessary in order to review the legality of the contested decision of the Board of Appeal. That review could have been ensured through the examination of the question whether the Board of Appeal, by omitting to examine Article 7(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 4 of Regulation 207/2009, infringed Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 207/2009 and Article 71(1) of Regulation 2017/1001, as relied on in the pleas in law put forward by the applicant at first instance. In that regard, the General Court unlawfully assumed the original competence of the Board of Appeal (Articles 165(1), 66(1), 70(1) of Regulation 2017/1001) to examine the substance of the ground for refusal in Article 7(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 4 of Regulation 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The judgment under appeal is contrary to Article 72(3) of Regulation 2017/1001 in so far as it holds that the substantive examination of the ground for refusal in Article 7(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 4 of Regulation 207/2009 (2) constitutes a legal issue that has to be examined prior to the consideration of the application for annulment submitted to the General Court. In that regard, the General Court failed to recognise that this was not necessary in order to review the legality of the contested decision of the Board of Appeal. That review could have been ensured through the examination of the question whether the Board of Appeal, by omitting to examine Article 7(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 4 of Regulation 207/2009, infringed Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 207/2009 and Article 71(1) of Regulation 2017/1001, as relied on in the pleas in law put forward by the applicant at first instance. In that regard, the General Court unlawfully assumed the original competence of the Board of Appeal (Articles 165(1), 66(1), 70(1) of Regulation 2017/1001) to examine the substance of the ground for refusal in Article 7(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 4 of Regulation 207/2009.

| 2. | The judgment under appeal is contrary to Article 72(3) of Regulation 2017/1001 since the General Court itself carried out the substantive review of Article 7(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 4 of Regulation 207/2009. The General Court does not have jurisdiction ratione materiae for that review because the Board of Appeal made no decision on the applicability of Article 7(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 4 of Regulation 207/2009 the substance of which was amenable to review as to its legality. Thus the substantive review carried out by the General Court constitutes an unlawful alteration of the contested decision. The General Court effectively exercised the original competence of the Board of Appeal in that regard (Articles 165(1), 66(1), 70(1) of Regulation 2017/1001) and thereby definitively and unlawfully deprived the Board of Appeal of that competence. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The judgment under appeal is contrary to Article 72(3) of Regulation 2017/1001 since the General Court itself carried out the substantive review of Article 7(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 4 of Regulation 207/2009. The General Court does not have jurisdiction ratione materiae for that review because the Board of Appeal made no decision on the applicability of Article 7(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 4 of Regulation 207/2009 the substance of which was amenable to review as to its legality. Thus the substantive review carried out by the General Court constitutes an unlawful alteration of the contested decision. The General Court effectively exercised the original competence of the Board of Appeal in that regard (Articles 165(1), 66(1), 70(1) of Regulation 2017/1001) and thereby definitively and unlawfully deprived the Board of Appeal of that competence.

| 3. | The ‘infringement of the scope of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 207/2009’ examined by the General Court of its own motion contrary to the pleas in law raised by the applicant at first instance constitutes an impermissible circumvention of the rule of jurisdiction laid down by the EU legislature in Article 72 of Regulation 2017/1001. It follows that the judgment under appeal is unlawful in its entirety, since it is based entirely on that infringement. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The ‘infringement of the scope of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 207/2009’ examined by the General Court of its own motion contrary to the pleas in law raised by the applicant at first instance constitutes an impermissible circumvention of the rule of jurisdiction laid down by the EU legislature in Article 72 of Regulation 2017/1001. It follows that the judgment under appeal is unlawful in its entirety, since it is based entirely on that infringement.

| 4. | The infringement by the judgment under appeal of Article 72(3) of Regulation 2017/1001 necessarily entails further infringements to the detriment of the appellant, namely that (i) the Board of Appeal was definitively deprived of its original (Articles 165(1), 66(1) and 70(1) of Regulation 2017/1001) and specific (Article 71(1), second sentence, first alternative of Regulation 2017/1001) competence to examine and decide the appeal; and (ii) the independence of its members in the exercise of that competence has been undermined (Article 166(7) of Regulation 2017/1001). Furthermore, those infringements unlawfully limit the applicant’s multi-level and specific legal protection at first instance against the decision of the EUIPO examiner and against the decision of the Board of Appeal, as provided for by the EU legislature (Article 66(1), Article 165(1) and recital 30 of Regulation 2017/1001; Article 72 of Regulation 2017/1001). |
| --- | --- |

4.

The infringement by the judgment under appeal of Article 72(3) of Regulation 2017/1001 necessarily entails further infringements to the detriment of the appellant, namely that (i) the Board of Appeal was definitively deprived of its original (Articles 165(1), 66(1) and 70(1) of Regulation 2017/1001) and specific (Article 71(1), second sentence, first alternative of Regulation 2017/1001) competence to examine and decide the appeal; and (ii) the independence of its members in the exercise of that competence has been undermined (Article 166(7) of Regulation 2017/1001). Furthermore, those infringements unlawfully limit the applicant’s multi-level and specific legal protection at first instance against the decision of the EUIPO examiner and against the decision of the Board of Appeal, as provided for by the EU legislature (Article 66(1), Article 165(1) and recital 30 of Regulation 2017/1001; Article 72 of Regulation 2017/1001).

| 5. | The appeal raises an ‘issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of Union law’ within the meaning of the third paragraph of Article 58a of the Statute of the Court of Justice, since the judgment under appeal threatens to create legal uncertainty in relation to an issue that is of particular structural significance for the specific system and ‘logic of the institutional architecture’ provided for by the EU legislature in order to ensure comprehensive, proper, effective and multi-level legal protection against EUIPO decisions. Due to its horizontal and constitutional nature, that issue is of significance for the judicial review of all decisions of the EUIPO Boards of Appeal in trade mark and design matters. It also concerns legal protection against decisions of all EU agencies, for which the EU legislature has made a specific, comprehensive and prior review by an independent Board of Appeal mandatory as a ‘specific condition’ within the meaning of the fifth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The appeal raises an ‘issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of Union law’ within the meaning of the third paragraph of Article 58a of the Statute of the Court of Justice, since the judgment under appeal threatens to create legal uncertainty in relation to an issue that is of particular structural significance for the specific system and ‘logic of the institutional architecture’ provided for by the EU legislature in order to ensure comprehensive, proper, effective and multi-level legal protection against EUIPO decisions. Due to its horizontal and constitutional nature, that issue is of significance for the judicial review of all decisions of the EUIPO Boards of Appeal in trade mark and design matters. It also concerns legal protection against decisions of all EU agencies, for which the EU legislature has made a specific, comprehensive and prior review by an independent Board of Appeal mandatory as a ‘specific condition’ within the meaning of the fifth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark (OJ 2017 L 154, p. 1).

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (codified version) (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).

---

| 21.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/15

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Cassation (France) lodged on 7 April 2023 — Mutuelle assurance des travailleurs mutualistes (Matmut) v TN and Others

(Case C-236/23, Matmut)

(2023/C 296/17)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Court of Cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Mutuelle assurance des travailleurs mutualistes (Matmut)

Defendants: TN, Société MAAF assurances, Fonds de garantie des assurances obligatoires de dommages (FGAO), PQ

Question referred

Must Articles 3 and 13 of Directive 2009/103 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 (1) be interpreted as precluding the nullity of a contract for civil liability motor insurance from being declared enforceable against a passenger who is a victim where that person is also the policyholder and intentionally made a false statement at the time of conclusion of the contract which gave rise to that nullity?

---

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

---

| 21.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/16

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Duisburg (Germany) lodged on 19 April 2023 — OB v Mercedes-Benz Group AG

(Case C-251/23, Mercedes-Benz Group)

(2023/C 296/18)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Duisburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: OB

Defendant: Mercedes-Benz Group AG

Questions referred

| 1. | Is a diesel-powered passenger vehicle to which the Euro 5 emissions standard applies contrary to the rules of European law, irrespective of whether a switching device that is to be classified conceptually as a defeat device within the meaning of Article 3(10) of Regulation No 715/2007 (1) is installed in its control system, if it is clear from the outset, on the basis of its design and the control system for the installed functions, that after the engine has warmed up it emits more than 180 mg of nitrogen oxide per km in the ‘mix’ even if it completes a NEDC test run in that state? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is a diesel-powered passenger vehicle to which the Euro 5 emissions standard applies contrary to the rules of European law, irrespective of whether a switching device that is to be classified conceptually as a defeat device within the meaning of Article 3(10) of Regulation No 715/2007 (1) is installed in its control system, if it is clear from the outset, on the basis of its design and the control system for the installed functions, that after the engine has warmed up it emits more than 180 mg of nitrogen oxide per km in the ‘mix’ even if it completes a NEDC test run in that state?

| 2. | Can an element of design in a vehicle which senses temperature, vehicle speed, engine speed (RPM), transmission gear, manifold vacuum or any other parameter for the purpose of modulating the parameters of the combustion process in the engine depending on the results of the sensing operation reduce the effectiveness of the emission control system within the meaning of Article 3(10) of Regulation No 715/2007 and therefore constitute a defeat device within the meaning of Article 3(10) of Regulation No 715/2007 even where the modulation of the parameters of the combustion process effected by the element of design based on the results of the sensing operation increases emissions of a certain harmful substance, such as nitrogen oxide, while at the same time reducing emissions of one or more other harmful substances, such as particulates, hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and/or carbon dioxide? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Can an element of design in a vehicle which senses temperature, vehicle speed, engine speed (RPM), transmission gear, manifold vacuum or any other parameter for the purpose of modulating the parameters of the combustion process in the engine depending on the results of the sensing operation reduce the effectiveness of the emission control system within the meaning of Article 3(10) of Regulation No 715/2007 and therefore constitute a defeat device within the meaning of Article 3(10) of Regulation No 715/2007 even where the modulation of the parameters of the combustion process effected by the element of design based on the results of the sensing operation increases emissions of a certain harmful substance, such as nitrogen oxide, while at the same time reducing emissions of one or more other harmful substances, such as particulates, hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and/or carbon dioxide?

| 3. | If Question 2 is to be answered in the affirmative: Under what conditions does the element of design in such a case constitute a defeat device within the meaning of Article 3(10) of Regulation No 715/2007? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If Question 2 is to be answered in the affirmative: Under what conditions does the element of design in such a case constitute a defeat device within the meaning of Article 3(10) of Regulation No 715/2007?

| 4. | If Question 2 is to be answered in the affirmative: Are rules of national law which require the purchaser of a vehicle to the full extent to prove the presence of a defeat device within the meaning of Article 3(10) of Regulation No 715/2007, even though the vehicle manufacturer does not have to contribute information in this regard in measures of inquiry, contrary to the provisions of Article 18(1), Article 26(1) and Article 46 of Directive 2007/46, which are mentioned in the judgment of the Court of Justice of 21 March 2023 (Mercedes-Benz Group (Liability of manufacturers of vehicles fitted with defeat devices), C 100/21, EU:C:2023:229) (2) in so far as it follows from those provisions that the purchaser of a vehicle must, in the event that a prohibited defeat device is installed in it, have a right to compensation against its manufacturer (see paragraphs 91 and 93 of that judgment)? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If Question 2 is to be answered in the affirmative: Are rules of national law which require the purchaser of a vehicle to the full extent to prove the presence of a defeat device within the meaning of Article 3(10) of Regulation No 715/2007, even though the vehicle manufacturer does not have to contribute information in this regard in measures of inquiry, contrary to the provisions of Article 18(1), Article 26(1) and Article 46 of Directive 2007/46, which are mentioned in the judgment of the Court of Justice of 21 March 2023 (Mercedes-Benz Group (Liability of manufacturers of vehicles fitted with defeat devices), C 100/21, EU:C:2023:229) (2) in so far as it follows from those provisions that the purchaser of a vehicle must, in the event that a prohibited defeat device is installed in it, have a right to compensation against its manufacturer (see paragraphs 91 and 93 of that judgment)?

| 5. | If Question 4 is to be answered in the affirmative: What allocation of the burden of proof is provided for under European law in a dispute between the purchaser of a vehicle and its manufacturer regarding the former’s right to compensation against the latter in respect of the presence of a defeat device within the meaning of Article 3(10) of Regulation No 715/2007? Do the parties each benefit from a lighter burden of proof or are they subject to obligations where applicable and, if so, which? If obligations do apply, what are the consequences of non-compliance? |
| --- | --- |

5.

If Question 4 is to be answered in the affirmative: What allocation of the burden of proof is provided for under European law in a dispute between the purchaser of a vehicle and its manufacturer regarding the former’s right to compensation against the latter in respect of the presence of a defeat device within the meaning of Article 3(10) of Regulation No 715/2007? Do the parties each benefit from a lighter burden of proof or are they subject to obligations where applicable and, if so, which? If obligations do apply, what are the consequences of non-compliance?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2007 on type approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information (OJ 2007 L 171, p. 1).

(2)  Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles (Framework Directive) (OJ 2007 L 263, p. 1).

---

| 21.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/17

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 11 May 2023 — Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophones de Belgique and Others v État belge

(Case C-299/23, Darvate and Others (1))

(2023/C 296/19)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophones de Belgique, Coordination et Initiatives pour et avec les Réfugiés et Étrangers ASBL, NX

Defendant: État Belge

Questions referred

Does Article 34 of Directive 2016/801/EU on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purposes of research, studies, training, voluntary service, pupil exchange schemes or educational projects and au pairing, alone or in conjunction with Articles 7, 14 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the principle of effectiveness, and in the light of the objective pursued by that directive to strengthen the procedural guarantees available to third-country nationals and to encourage foreign students to come to the European Union, require:

| 1. | that a foreign student have the option of bringing an exceptional appeal, in conditions of extreme urgency, where he or she demonstrates that he or she has exercised all due diligence and that compliance with the time limits imposed in order to conduct an ordinary procedure (for suspension/annulment) could hamper the pursuit of the studies in question?
  If the answer to that question is in the negative, must the same negative answer be given where failure to adopt a decision in a short period of time risks causing the person concerned irretrievably to lose a year of study? |
| --- | --- |

1.

that a foreign student have the option of bringing an exceptional appeal, in conditions of extreme urgency, where he or she demonstrates that he or she has exercised all due diligence and that compliance with the time limits imposed in order to conduct an ordinary procedure (for suspension/annulment) could hamper the pursuit of the studies in question?

If the answer to that question is in the negative, must the same negative answer be given where failure to adopt a decision in a short period of time risks causing the person concerned irretrievably to lose a year of study?

| 2. | that a foreign student have the option of bringing an exceptional appeal, in conditions of extreme urgency, where he or she demonstrates that he or she has exercised all due diligence and that compliance with the time limits imposed in order to conduct an ordinary procedure (for suspension/annulment) could hamper the pursuit of the studies in question, in the context of which, concomitantly with the suspension, he or she may request that other interim measures be ordered to ensure the effectiveness of the right to obtain authorisation if he or she fulfils the general and specific conditions, as guaranteed in Article 5(3) of Directive 2016/80/EU?
  If the answer to that question is in the negative, must the same negative answer be given where failure to adopt a decision in a short period of time risks causing the person concerned irretrievably to lose a year of study? |
| --- | --- |

2.

that a foreign student have the option of bringing an exceptional appeal, in conditions of extreme urgency, where he or she demonstrates that he or she has exercised all due diligence and that compliance with the time limits imposed in order to conduct an ordinary procedure (for suspension/annulment) could hamper the pursuit of the studies in question, in the context of which, concomitantly with the suspension, he or she may request that other interim measures be ordered to ensure the effectiveness of the right to obtain authorisation if he or she fulfils the general and specific conditions, as guaranteed in Article 5(3) of Directive 2016/80/EU?

If the answer to that question is in the negative, must the same negative answer be given where failure to adopt a decision in a short period of time risks causing the person concerned irretrievably to lose a year of study?

| 3. | that the remedy in the form of an appeal against the decision refusing to grant the visa allow the court to substitute its own assessment for that of the administrative authority and to review the decision of that authority, or is it sufficient to have a review of legality which allows the court to censure any illegality, particularly a manifest error of assessment, by setting aside the administrative authority’s decision? |
| --- | --- |

3.

that the remedy in the form of an appeal against the decision refusing to grant the visa allow the court to substitute its own assessment for that of the administrative authority and to review the decision of that authority, or is it sufficient to have a review of legality which allows the court to censure any illegality, particularly a manifest error of assessment, by setting aside the administrative authority’s decision?

---

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

---

| 21.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/18

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 10 May 2023 — AJ v Bank BPH S.A.

(Case C-301/23, Bank BPH)

(2023/C 296/20)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: AJ

Defendant: Bank BPH S.A.

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, (1) and the principle of effectiveness, be interpreted as precluding a judicial interpretation of national legislation pursuant to which a consumer may not effectively seek a declaration from a court that a contract concluded by him or her contains contractual terms which are not binding on him or her or that that contract is invalid in its entirety? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, (1) and the principle of effectiveness, be interpreted as precluding a judicial interpretation of national legislation pursuant to which a consumer may not effectively seek a declaration from a court that a contract concluded by him or her contains contractual terms which are not binding on him or her or that that contract is invalid in its entirety?

| 2. | Are Articles 4(2) and 5 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts to be interpreted as meaning that the requirement that the contractual terms be drafted in plain, intelligible language is satisfied in relation to a credit agreement linked to a foreign currency exchange rate in the case where the bank has provided the borrower with:






  — | a historical chart of the exchange rate of that foreign currency against the national currency showing that that exchange rate has changed by several dozen percentage points over several years, and |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Are Articles 4(2) and 5 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts to be interpreted as meaning that the requirement that the contractual terms be drafted in plain, intelligible language is satisfied in relation to a credit agreement linked to a foreign currency exchange rate in the case where the bank has provided the borrower with:

—

a historical chart of the exchange rate of that foreign currency against the national currency showing that that exchange rate has changed by several dozen percentage points over several years, and

| — | a simulation showing the effect of an increase of several dozen percentage points in the exchange rate of the foreign currency on the amount of the loan instalments? |
| --- | --- |

—

a simulation showing the effect of an increase of several dozen percentage points in the exchange rate of the foreign currency on the amount of the loan instalments?

| 3. | Must Articles 4(2) and 5 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts be interpreted as meaning that the requirement that the contractual terms be drafted in plain, intelligible language should be analysed against the model of the average consumer, or should the individual situation and characteristics of the consumer at the time of the conclusion of the contract be taken into account, including, in particular, his or her knowledge, education and experience? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Must Articles 4(2) and 5 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts be interpreted as meaning that the requirement that the contractual terms be drafted in plain, intelligible language should be analysed against the model of the average consumer, or should the individual situation and characteristics of the consumer at the time of the conclusion of the contract be taken into account, including, in particular, his or her knowledge, education and experience?

| 4. | Must Article 3(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts be interpreted as meaning that a contractual term which provides that the margin applied by a bank is to be the arithmetic mean of the margins applied by several other specifically named commercial banks is contrary to the requirement of good faith and causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Must Article 3(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts be interpreted as meaning that a contractual term which provides that the margin applied by a bank is to be the arithmetic mean of the margins applied by several other specifically named commercial banks is contrary to the requirement of good faith and causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer?

| 5. | Must Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, and the principle of effectiveness, be interpreted as precluding a judicial interpretation of national legislation pursuant to which the national court may declare that the consumer is not bound only by the unfair element of the contractual term (providing for modification of the average rate of the National Bank of Poland by a spread margin), which does not constitute a separate contractual obligation, but that he or she is bound by the rest of that contractual term? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Must Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, and the principle of effectiveness, be interpreted as precluding a judicial interpretation of national legislation pursuant to which the national court may declare that the consumer is not bound only by the unfair element of the contractual term (providing for modification of the average rate of the National Bank of Poland by a spread margin), which does not constitute a separate contractual obligation, but that he or she is bound by the rest of that contractual term?

| 6. | Must Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts be interpreted as meaning that the obligation on the national court to inform the consumer of the legal consequences which the declaration of invalidity of a contract may have covers only claims for restitution arising from the invalidity of the contract or as meaning that that obligation covers any hypothetical legal consequences (even if they are doubtful, debatable or unlikely) which may result from the invalidity of the contract? |
| --- | --- |

6.

Must Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts be interpreted as meaning that the obligation on the national court to inform the consumer of the legal consequences which the declaration of invalidity of a contract may have covers only claims for restitution arising from the invalidity of the contract or as meaning that that obligation covers any hypothetical legal consequences (even if they are doubtful, debatable or unlikely) which may result from the invalidity of the contract?

---

(1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.

---

| 21.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/19

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Duisburg (Germany) lodged on 17 May 2023 — YV v Mercedes-Benz Group AG

(Case C-308/23, Mercedes-Benz Group)

(2023/C 296/21)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Duisburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: YV

Defendant: Mercedes-Benz Group AG

Questions referred

| 1. | Can an element of design in a vehicle which senses temperature, vehicle speed, engine speed (RPM), transmission gear, manifold vacuum or any other parameter for the purpose of modulating the parameters of the combustion process in the engine depending on the result of the sensing operation reduce the effectiveness of the emission control system within the meaning of Article 3(10) of Regulation No 715/2007 (1) and thus constitute a defeat device within the meaning of Article 3(10) of Regulation No 715/2007 even where the modulation of the parameters of the combustion process effected by the element of design based on the result of the sensing operation increases emissions of a certain harmful substance, such as nitrogen oxide, while at the same reducing emissions of one or more other harmful substances, such as particulates, hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and/or carbon dioxide? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can an element of design in a vehicle which senses temperature, vehicle speed, engine speed (RPM), transmission gear, manifold vacuum or any other parameter for the purpose of modulating the parameters of the combustion process in the engine depending on the result of the sensing operation reduce the effectiveness of the emission control system within the meaning of Article 3(10) of Regulation No 715/2007 (1) and thus constitute a defeat device within the meaning of Article 3(10) of Regulation No 715/2007 even where the modulation of the parameters of the combustion process effected by the element of design based on the result of the sensing operation increases emissions of a certain harmful substance, such as nitrogen oxide, while at the same reducing emissions of one or more other harmful substances, such as particulates, hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and/or carbon dioxide?

| 2. | If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative: Under what conditions does the element of design constitute a defeat device in such a case? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative: Under what conditions does the element of design constitute a defeat device in such a case?

| 3. | Can a circuit or controller in a vehicle, which, by modulating the parameters of the combustion process, increases emissions of a certain harmful substance, such as nitrogen oxide, while at the same time reducing emissions of one or more other harmful substances, such as particulates, hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and/or carbon dioxide, be prohibited under European law from other points of view than that of the presence of a defeat device within the meaning of Article 3(10) of Regulation No 715/2007? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Can a circuit or controller in a vehicle, which, by modulating the parameters of the combustion process, increases emissions of a certain harmful substance, such as nitrogen oxide, while at the same time reducing emissions of one or more other harmful substances, such as particulates, hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and/or carbon dioxide, be prohibited under European law from other points of view than that of the presence of a defeat device within the meaning of Article 3(10) of Regulation No 715/2007?

| 4. | If Question 3 is to be answered in the affirmative: Under what conditions is this the case? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If Question 3 is to be answered in the affirmative: Under what conditions is this the case?

| 5. | If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative: Under point (a) of the second sentence of Article 5(2) of Regulation No 715/2007 is a defeat device within the meaning of Article 3(10) of that regulation permitted even if, although it is not needed to protect the engine against damage or accident, it is nevertheless needed for the safe operation of the vehicle? |
| --- | --- |

5.

If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative: Under point (a) of the second sentence of Article 5(2) of Regulation No 715/2007 is a defeat device within the meaning of Article 3(10) of that regulation permitted even if, although it is not needed to protect the engine against damage or accident, it is nevertheless needed for the safe operation of the vehicle?

| 6. | If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative: Are provisions of national law which place the full burden on the purchaser of a vehicle to prove the presence of a defeat device within the meaning of Article 3(10) of Regulation No 715/2007 and, moreover, also the absence of facts on the basis of which any defeat device in the above sense that may be established is permitted under the exception provided for in point (a) of the second sentence of Article 5(2) of Regulation No 715/2007, even though the vehicle manufacturer does not have to contribute information in this regard in measures of inquiry, contrary to Article 18(1), Article 26(1) and Article 46 of Directive 2007/46/EC (2) cited in the judgment of the Court of Justice of 21 March 2023 (Case C-100/21), in so far as it follows from the latter provisions that the purchaser of a vehicle must have a right to compensation against its manufacturer in the event that a prohibited defeat device is installed therein (see paragraphs 91 and 93 of that judgment)? |
| --- | --- |

6.

If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative: Are provisions of national law which place the full burden on the purchaser of a vehicle to prove the presence of a defeat device within the meaning of Article 3(10) of Regulation No 715/2007 and, moreover, also the absence of facts on the basis of which any defeat device in the above sense that may be established is permitted under the exception provided for in point (a) of the second sentence of Article 5(2) of Regulation No 715/2007, even though the vehicle manufacturer does not have to contribute information in this regard in measures of inquiry, contrary to Article 18(1), Article 26(1) and Article 46 of Directive 2007/46/EC (2) cited in the judgment of the Court of Justice of 21 March 2023 (Case C-100/21), in so far as it follows from the latter provisions that the purchaser of a vehicle must have a right to compensation against its manufacturer in the event that a prohibited defeat device is installed therein (see paragraphs 91 and 93 of that judgment)?

| 7. | If Question 6 is to be answered in the affirmative: What is the allocation of the burden of proof under European law in a dispute between the purchaser of a vehicle and its manufacturer concerning the right of the former to compensation against the latter in respect of the presence of a defeat device within the meaning of Article 3(10) of Regulation No 715/2007 and the existence of facts on the basis of which the latter is permitted under the exception provided for in point (a) of the second sentence of Article 5(2) of Regulation No 715/2007? Do the parties benefit from any relaxations of the burden of proof? If so, which ones? Or do they have any obligations? If so, which ones? If obligations apply: What are the consequences of failing to meet them? |
| --- | --- |

7.

If Question 6 is to be answered in the affirmative: What is the allocation of the burden of proof under European law in a dispute between the purchaser of a vehicle and its manufacturer concerning the right of the former to compensation against the latter in respect of the presence of a defeat device within the meaning of Article 3(10) of Regulation No 715/2007 and the existence of facts on the basis of which the latter is permitted under the exception provided for in point (a) of the second sentence of Article 5(2) of Regulation No 715/2007? Do the parties benefit from any relaxations of the burden of proof? If so, which ones? Or do they have any obligations? If so, which ones? If obligations apply: What are the consequences of failing to meet them?

| 8. | If Question 3 is to be answered in the affirmative: Are provisions of national law which place the full burden on the purchaser of a vehicle to prove the presence of a circuit or controller which, although it cannot be qualified as a defeat device within the meaning of Article 3(10) of Regulation No 715/2007, is prohibited for other reasons, even though the vehicle manufacturer does not have to contribute information in this regard in measures of inquiry, contrary to Article 18(1), Article 26(1) and Article 46 of Directive 2007/46/EC cited in the judgment of the Court of Justice of 21 March 2023 (Case C-100/21), in so far as it follows from the latter provisions that the purchaser of a vehicle must have a right to compensation against its manufacturer in the event that a prohibited circuit or controller is installed therein (see paragraphs 91 and 93 of that judgment)? |
| --- | --- |

8.

If Question 3 is to be answered in the affirmative: Are provisions of national law which place the full burden on the purchaser of a vehicle to prove the presence of a circuit or controller which, although it cannot be qualified as a defeat device within the meaning of Article 3(10) of Regulation No 715/2007, is prohibited for other reasons, even though the vehicle manufacturer does not have to contribute information in this regard in measures of inquiry, contrary to Article 18(1), Article 26(1) and Article 46 of Directive 2007/46/EC cited in the judgment of the Court of Justice of 21 March 2023 (Case C-100/21), in so far as it follows from the latter provisions that the purchaser of a vehicle must have a right to compensation against its manufacturer in the event that a prohibited circuit or controller is installed therein (see paragraphs 91 and 93 of that judgment)?

| 9. | If Question 8 is to be answered in the affirmative: What is the allocation of the burden of proof under European law in a dispute between the purchaser of a vehicle and its manufacturer concerning the right of the former to compensation against the latter in respect of the presence of a prohibited circuit or controller of the type specified in Question 8? Do the parties benefit from any relaxations of the burden of proof? If so, which ones? Or do they have any obligations? If so, which ones? If obligations apply: What are the consequences of failing to meet them? |
| --- | --- |

9.

If Question 8 is to be answered in the affirmative: What is the allocation of the burden of proof under European law in a dispute between the purchaser of a vehicle and its manufacturer concerning the right of the former to compensation against the latter in respect of the presence of a prohibited circuit or controller of the type specified in Question 8? Do the parties benefit from any relaxations of the burden of proof? If so, which ones? Or do they have any obligations? If so, which ones? If obligations apply: What are the consequences of failing to meet them?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2007 on type approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information (OJ 2007 L 171, p. 1).

(2)  Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles (Framework Directive) (OJ 2007 L 263, p. 1).

---

| 21.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/21

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 25 May 2023 — J and A v Reisebüro GmbH and R GmbH

(Case C-328/23, Reisebüro and R)

(2023/C 296/22)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: J, A

Defendants: Reisebüro GmbH, R GmbH

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 12(2) of Directive (EU) 2015/2302 (1) be interpreted as meaning that unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances occurring at the place of destination or its immediate vicinity and significantly affecting the performance of the package or the carriage of persons to the destination, which entitle the consumer to terminate the package travel contract without paying a termination fee and on which the traveller relies, are to be understood as being ones which






  — | may permissibly already be present at the time when the package travel contract is concluded; or |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 12(2) of Directive (EU) 2015/2302 (1) be interpreted as meaning that unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances occurring at the place of destination or its immediate vicinity and significantly affecting the performance of the package or the carriage of persons to the destination, which entitle the consumer to terminate the package travel contract without paying a termination fee and on which the traveller relies, are to be understood as being ones which

—

may permissibly already be present at the time when the package travel contract is concluded; or

| — | cannot permissibly yet be present at the time when the package travel contract is concluded, but occur for the first time only at some point between then and






  — | the declaration of termination, or |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

cannot permissibly yet be present at the time when the package travel contract is concluded, but occur for the first time only at some point between then and

—

the declaration of termination, or

| — | when the package starts? |
| --- | --- |

—

when the package starts?

| 2. | Must Article 12(2) of the aforementioned Directive (EU) 2015/2302 be interpreted as meaning that the unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances referred to therein are to be understood as being ones which






  — | are not known to the parties at the time when the travel contract is concluded; or |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Must Article 12(2) of the aforementioned Directive (EU) 2015/2302 be interpreted as meaning that the unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances referred to therein are to be understood as being ones which

—

are not known to the parties at the time when the travel contract is concluded; or

| — | may permissibly be known to the parties at the time when the travel contract is concluded; or |
| --- | --- |

—

may permissibly be known to the parties at the time when the travel contract is concluded; or

| — | are not foreseeable, as being generally or imminently likely to occur, by the parties at the time when the travel contract is concluded; or |
| --- | --- |

—

are not foreseeable, as being generally or imminently likely to occur, by the parties at the time when the travel contract is concluded; or

| — | may permissibly be foreseeable, as being generally or imminently likely to occur, by the parties at the time when the travel contract is concluded — and, if so, on the basis of which specific criteria arising from the Directive; or |
| --- | --- |

—

may permissibly be foreseeable, as being generally or imminently likely to occur, by the parties at the time when the travel contract is concluded — and, if so, on the basis of which specific criteria arising from the Directive; or

| — | are broadly known to the parties at the time when the package travel contract is concluded but the specific configuration of which cannot yet be predicted (or can be so with only some degree of probability at most) (which is to say, for example, whether, as a result of a pandemic [in this instance, COVID] which has been in existence for [in this, instance, more than ten] months, additional testing and/or lockdown measures will be prescribed at the holiday destination); or |
| --- | --- |

—

are broadly known to the parties at the time when the package travel contract is concluded but the specific configuration of which cannot yet be predicted (or can be so with only some degree of probability at most) (which is to say, for example, whether, as a result of a pandemic [in this instance, COVID] which has been in existence for [in this, instance, more than ten] months, additional testing and/or lockdown measures will be prescribed at the holiday destination); or

| — | are to be assessed, entirely independently of the level of knowledge of the parties, exclusively on the basis of objective criteria — and, if so, on the basis of which specific criteria arising from the Directive? |
| --- | --- |

—

are to be assessed, entirely independently of the level of knowledge of the parties, exclusively on the basis of objective criteria — and, if so, on the basis of which specific criteria arising from the Directive?

| 3. | Must Article 5 of the aforementioned Directive (EU) 2015/2302 be interpreted as meaning that the pre-contractual information to be provided to the traveller — in particular the information on ‘health formalities’ provided for in Article 5(1)(f) — is to be understood as also including that concerning the testing and lockdown measures to be complied with at the holiday destination on account of the pandemic.
  If Question 3 is answered in the affirmative: |
| --- | --- |

3.

Must Article 5 of the aforementioned Directive (EU) 2015/2302 be interpreted as meaning that the pre-contractual information to be provided to the traveller — in particular the information on ‘health formalities’ provided for in Article 5(1)(f) — is to be understood as also including that concerning the testing and lockdown measures to be complied with at the holiday destination on account of the pandemic.

| 4. | Must Article 5 of the aforementioned Directive (EU) 2015/2302 be interpreted as meaning that, in the event that the parties agree to amend (adjust; ‘reconfigure’) the terms of the package travel contract after it has been concluded — in relation, for example (as here), to individual travel services within the meaning of Article 5(1)(a), such as the transport arrangements, the itinerary or the date of travel –, the pre-contractual information to be provided to the traveller must be provided again or updated in full (even if it is not affected by the ‘reconfiguration’) or in part? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Must Article 5 of the aforementioned Directive (EU) 2015/2302 be interpreted as meaning that, in the event that the parties agree to amend (adjust; ‘reconfigure’) the terms of the package travel contract after it has been concluded — in relation, for example (as here), to individual travel services within the meaning of Article 5(1)(a), such as the transport arrangements, the itinerary or the date of travel –, the pre-contractual information to be provided to the traveller must be provided again or updated in full (even if it is not affected by the ‘reconfiguration’) or in part?

---

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

---

| 21.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/22

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) (Latvia) lodged on 9 June 2023 — SIA A v C, D, E

(Case C-365/23, Arce (1))

(2023/C 296/23)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa (Senāts)

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant and applicant at first instance: SIA A

Other parties in the appeal and defendants at first instance: C, D, E

Questions referred:

| 1. | Does a contract for the provision of services for development and career support for a sportsperson, concluded between a trader carrying on its professional activity in the field of the development and coaching of sportspersons, on the one hand, and, on the other, a minor represented by his or her parents who, at the time the contract was concluded was not carrying on a professional activity in the field of the sport in question, fall within the scope of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (2) (‘Directive 93/13’)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does a contract for the provision of services for development and career support for a sportsperson, concluded between a trader carrying on its professional activity in the field of the development and coaching of sportspersons, on the one hand, and, on the other, a minor represented by his or her parents who, at the time the contract was concluded was not carrying on a professional activity in the field of the sport in question, fall within the scope of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (2) (‘Directive 93/13’)?

| 2. | In the event that the answer to the first question is in the negative, does Directive 93/13 preclude national case-law that interprets the legislation transposing that directive into national law in such a way that the consumer protection provisions contained in that legislation are also applicable to such contracts? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the event that the answer to the first question is in the negative, does Directive 93/13 preclude national case-law that interprets the legislation transposing that directive into national law in such a way that the consumer protection provisions contained in that legislation are also applicable to such contracts?

| 3. | In the event that the answer to the first or the second question is in the affirmative, may a national court carry out an assessment of the unfair nature, in accordance with Article 3 of Directive 93/13, of a contractual term which provides that, in exchange for the provision of the services, specified in the contract, for development and career support in a particular sport, the young sportsperson agrees to pay remuneration consisting of 10 % of the income received over the following 15 years, and find the term in question not to be one whose unfair nature is not, in accordance with Article 4(2) of Directive 93/13, subject to assessment? |
| --- | --- |

3.

In the event that the answer to the first or the second question is in the affirmative, may a national court carry out an assessment of the unfair nature, in accordance with Article 3 of Directive 93/13, of a contractual term which provides that, in exchange for the provision of the services, specified in the contract, for development and career support in a particular sport, the young sportsperson agrees to pay remuneration consisting of 10 % of the income received over the following 15 years, and find the term in question not to be one whose unfair nature is not, in accordance with Article 4(2) of Directive 93/13, subject to assessment?

| 4. | In the event that the answer to the third question is in the affirmative, must a contractual term be found to have been drafted in plain, intelligible language within the meaning of Article 5 of Directive 93/13 where it provides that, in exchange for the provision of the services, specified in the contract, for development and career support for a sportsperson, the young sportsperson agrees to pay remuneration consisting of 10 % of the income received over the following 15 years, having regard to the fact that, at the time the contract was concluded, the young sportsperson did not have clear information about the value of the service provided or the amount he would have to pay in return for that service such as to enable him to evaluate the economic consequences it could have for him? |
| --- | --- |

4.

In the event that the answer to the third question is in the affirmative, must a contractual term be found to have been drafted in plain, intelligible language within the meaning of Article 5 of Directive 93/13 where it provides that, in exchange for the provision of the services, specified in the contract, for development and career support for a sportsperson, the young sportsperson agrees to pay remuneration consisting of 10 % of the income received over the following 15 years, having regard to the fact that, at the time the contract was concluded, the young sportsperson did not have clear information about the value of the service provided or the amount he would have to pay in return for that service such as to enable him to evaluate the economic consequences it could have for him?

| 5. | In the event that the answer to the third question is in the affirmative, must it be found that a contractual term according to which, in return for the provision of the services, specified in the contract, for development and career support for a sportsperson, the young sportsperson agrees to pay remuneration consisting of 10 % of the income received over the following 15 years, is, in accordance with Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13, a term that causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer, in view of the fact that under that Article 3(1) the value of the service provided is not linked to the cost it involves for the consumer? |
| --- | --- |

5.

In the event that the answer to the third question is in the affirmative, must it be found that a contractual term according to which, in return for the provision of the services, specified in the contract, for development and career support for a sportsperson, the young sportsperson agrees to pay remuneration consisting of 10 % of the income received over the following 15 years, is, in accordance with Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13, a term that causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer, in view of the fact that under that Article 3(1) the value of the service provided is not linked to the cost it involves for the consumer?

| 6. | In the event that the answer to the fifth question is in the affirmative, would a decision of a national court be contrary to Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13 where it reduces the amount that a consumer may be required to pay to the service provider to the amount of the actual expenditure incurred by the service provider in providing the services to the consumer under the contract? |
| --- | --- |

6.

In the event that the answer to the fifth question is in the affirmative, would a decision of a national court be contrary to Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13 where it reduces the amount that a consumer may be required to pay to the service provider to the amount of the actual expenditure incurred by the service provider in providing the services to the consumer under the contract?

| 7. | In the event that the answer to the third question is in the negative, if a contractual term which provides that, in exchange for the provision of the services, specified in the contract, for development and career support for a sportsperson, the consumer agrees to pay remuneration consisting of 10 % of the income received over the following 15 years, is not, by virtue of Article 4(2) of Directive 93/13, subject to an assessment of whether it is unfair, may a national court, which has found the amount of the remuneration to be manifestly disproportionate to the contribution made by the service provider, nevertheless declare the contractual term in question to be unfair on the basis of national law? |
| --- | --- |

7.

In the event that the answer to the third question is in the negative, if a contractual term which provides that, in exchange for the provision of the services, specified in the contract, for development and career support for a sportsperson, the consumer agrees to pay remuneration consisting of 10 % of the income received over the following 15 years, is not, by virtue of Article 4(2) of Directive 93/13, subject to an assessment of whether it is unfair, may a national court, which has found the amount of the remuneration to be manifestly disproportionate to the contribution made by the service provider, nevertheless declare the contractual term in question to be unfair on the basis of national law?

| 8. | In the event that the answer to the seventh question is in the affirmative, in the case of a contract concluded with a consumer before Article 8a of Directive 93/13 came into force, must regard be had to the information provided by the Member States to the European Commission under Article 8a of that directive on the measures adopted by the Member State under Article 8 of the directive and, if it must, is the jurisdiction of the national courts limited by the information provided by that Member State under Article 8a of Directive 93/13 where the Member State has indicated that its legislation does not go beyond the minimum standard established in that directive? |
| --- | --- |

8.

In the event that the answer to the seventh question is in the affirmative, in the case of a contract concluded with a consumer before Article 8a of Directive 93/13 came into force, must regard be had to the information provided by the Member States to the European Commission under Article 8a of that directive on the measures adopted by the Member State under Article 8 of the directive and, if it must, is the jurisdiction of the national courts limited by the information provided by that Member State under Article 8a of Directive 93/13 where the Member State has indicated that its legislation does not go beyond the minimum standard established in that directive?

| 9. | In the event that the answer to the first or the second question is in the affirmative, in the light of Article 17(1), in conjunction with Article 24, of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, what is the significance as regards the application of the legislation transposing the provisions of Directive 93/13 into national law, of the fact that, at the time of conclusion of the contract for the provision of services in question, with a term of 15 years, the young sportsperson was a minor and, therefore, the contract was concluded by the minor’s parents on his behalf, and established an obligation on him to pay remuneration of 10 % of all income received in the following 15 years? |
| --- | --- |

9.

In the event that the answer to the first or the second question is in the affirmative, in the light of Article 17(1), in conjunction with Article 24, of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, what is the significance as regards the application of the legislation transposing the provisions of Directive 93/13 into national law, of the fact that, at the time of conclusion of the contract for the provision of services in question, with a term of 15 years, the young sportsperson was a minor and, therefore, the contract was concluded by the minor’s parents on his behalf, and established an obligation on him to pay remuneration of 10 % of all income received in the following 15 years?

| 10. | In the event that the answer to the first or the second question is in the negative, having regard to the fact that sporting activities fall within the scope of EU law, are the fundamental rights enshrined in Article 17(1), in conjunction with Article 24(2), of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, infringed by a contract for the provision of services with a term of 15 years concluded with a young sportsperson, who is a minor — concluded on his behalf by his parents — under which the minor is obliged to pay remuneration consisting of 10 % of all income received in the following 15 years? |
| --- | --- |

10.

In the event that the answer to the first or the second question is in the negative, having regard to the fact that sporting activities fall within the scope of EU law, are the fundamental rights enshrined in Article 17(1), in conjunction with Article 24(2), of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, infringed by a contract for the provision of services with a term of 15 years concluded with a young sportsperson, who is a minor — concluded on his behalf by his parents — under which the minor is obliged to pay remuneration consisting of 10 % of all income received in the following 15 years?

---

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

(2)  OJ 1993, L 95, p. 29.

---

| 21.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/23

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret (Denmark) lodged on 13 June 2023 — EN v Udlændingenævnet

(Case C-375/23, Meislev (1))

(2023/C 296/24)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Højesteret

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: EN

Respondent: Udlændingenævnet

Questions referred

| 1. | Do provisions of national law laying down conditions for obtaining a permanent residence permit in a Member State fall within the scope of the standstill clause in Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association, adopted by the Association Council established by the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey signed on 12 September 1963 at Ankara by the Republic of Turkey, of the one part, and the Member States of the EEC and the Community, of the other part, which was concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Decision 64/732/EEC (2) of 23 December 1963? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do provisions of national law laying down conditions for obtaining a permanent residence permit in a Member State fall within the scope of the standstill clause in Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association, adopted by the Association Council established by the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey signed on 12 September 1963 at Ankara by the Republic of Turkey, of the one part, and the Member States of the EEC and the Community, of the other part, which was concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Decision 64/732/EEC (2) of 23 December 1963?

| 2. | If they do, can making the temporal conditions for obtaining a permanent residence permit for a Member State more onerous (that is to say, making the minimum requirements laid down as regards the length of a foreign national’s prior residence and employment in the Member State more onerous) be regarded as appropriate for facilitating the successful integration of third-country nationals? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If they do, can making the temporal conditions for obtaining a permanent residence permit for a Member State more onerous (that is to say, making the minimum requirements laid down as regards the length of a foreign national’s prior residence and employment in the Member State more onerous) be regarded as appropriate for facilitating the successful integration of third-country nationals?

---

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

(2)  [This decision has not been published in English in the Official Journal.]

---

| 21.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/24

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Svea hovrätt, Patent- och marknadsöverdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 15 June 2023 — Guldbrev AB v Konsumentombudsmannen

(Case C-379/23, Guldbrev)

(2023/C 296/25)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Svea hovrätt, Patent- och marknadsöverdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Guldbrev AB

Respondent: Konsumentombudsmannen

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the valuation and purchase of gold from consumers constitute a product (combined product) within the meaning of Article 2(c), (d) and (i) and Article 3(1) of Directive 2005/29 (1) concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market in a situation such as that at issue before the national court? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the valuation and purchase of gold from consumers constitute a product (combined product) within the meaning of Article 2(c), (d) and (i) and Article 3(1) of Directive 2005/29 (1) concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market in a situation such as that at issue before the national court?

| 2. | If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative, does the valuation of gold in the situation at issue before the national court constitute a product within the meaning of the directive? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative, does the valuation of gold in the situation at issue before the national court constitute a product within the meaning of the directive?

---

(1)  OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22.

---

| 21.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/24

---

Appeal brought on 5 July 2023 by the European Data Protection Supervisor against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 26 April 2023 in Case T-557/20, Single Resolution Board v European Data Protection Supervisor

(Case C-413/23 P)

(2023/C 296/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) (represented by: D. Nardi, T. Zerdick, P. Candellier, X. Lareo, G. Devin, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The Appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside in its entirety the judgment under appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside in its entirety the judgment under appeal;

| — | give a final judgment in the dispute; |
| --- | --- |

—

give a final judgment in the dispute;

| — | order the SRB to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings and of the proceedings before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the SRB to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings and of the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the Appellant raises the following two grounds:

First ground: Incorrect interpretation of Article 3(1) and 3(6) of Regulation 2018/1725 (1) as interpreted by the case-law of the Court of Justice for having required the EDPS to assess whether the information at stake in the case was personal data taking the perspective of the recipient and by omitting to give consideration to the notion of pseudonymisation.

Second ground: Incorrect interpretation of Article 4(2) and 26(1) of Regulation 2018/1725 by omitting to give any consideration to the principle of accountability and having found that the EDPS should have proven that the SRB had effectively anonymised the personal data it was processing.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2018 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by the Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 and Decision No 1247/2002/EC (OJ 2018, L 295, p. 39).

---

General Court

| 21.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 July 2023 — Puigdemont i Casamajó and Comín i Oliveres v Parliament

(Case T-115/20) (1)

(Action for annulment - Institutional law - Member of the Parliament - Refusal of the President of the Parliament to accede to a request for privileges and immunities to be defended - Act not open to challenge - Inadmissibility)

(2023/C 296/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Carles Puigdemont i Casamajó (Waterloo Belgium), Antoni Comín i Oliveres (Waterloo) (represented by: P. Bekaert, G. Boye, S. Bekaert, lawyers, and by B. Emmerson KC)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Görlitz and J.-C. Puffer, acting as Agents,

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

Re:

By their action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicants seek annulment of the decision of the President of the European Parliament allegedly contained in his letter of 10 December 2019, sent in response to the request that the Parliament, on the basis of Rule 9 of its Rules of Procedure, defend their parliamentary immunity.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Carles Puigdemont i Casamajó and Mr Antoni Comín i Oliveres to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Carles Puigdemont i Casamajó and Mr Antoni Comín i Oliveres to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament;

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

3.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 129, 20.4.2020.

---

| 21.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 July 2023 — TIB Chemicals v Commission

(Case T-639/20) (1)

(Environment and protection of human health - Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 - Classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures - Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/1182 - Classification of dioctyltin dilaurate [1]; stannane, dioctyl-, bis (coco acyloxy) derivs. [2] - Read-across - Burden of proof - Manifest error of assessment - Impact assessment)

(2023/C 296/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: TIB Chemicals AG (Mannheim, Germany) (represented by: K. Fischer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lindenthal, S. Delaude and A. Dawes, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Republic of Austria (represented by: J. Schmoll, acting as Agent), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: O. Simonsson, C. Meyer-Seitz, A. Runeskjöld, H. Shev, M. Salborn Hodgson, H. Eklinder and R. Shahsavan Eriksson, acting as Agents), European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), (represented by: M. Heikkilä, J.-P. Trnka and A. Deloff-Bialek, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the partial annulment of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/1182 of 19 May 2020 amending, for the purposes of its adaptation to technical and scientific progress, Part 3 of Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (OJ 2020 L 261, p. 2; ‘the contested regulation’), in so far as it concerns the substance dioctyltin dilaurate; [1] stannane, dioctyl-, bis(coco acyloxy) derivs. [2] (EC No 222-883-3 [1] 293-901-5 [2] and CAS No 3648-18-8 [1] 91648-39-4 [2]).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders TIB Chemicals AG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders TIB Chemicals AG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders the Republic of Austria, the Kingdom of Sweden and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Republic of Austria, the Kingdom of Sweden and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 433, 14.12.2020.

---

| 21.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 July 2023 — Clean Aviation Joint Undertaking v NG

(Cases T-649/20, T-721/20 and T-767/20) (1)

(Arbitration clause - Seventh Framework Programme for the activities of research and development (FP7) - Grant agreements - Lack of supporting documents and non-compliance with the contractual requirements for part of the declared expenses - Repayment of the sums advanced - Jurisdiction of the General Court - Admissibility - Eligible costs - Burden of proof - Interest on arrears)

(2023/C 296/29)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Clean Aviation Joint Undertaking, (represented by: B. Mastantuono, acting as Agent, and by M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: NG (represented by: F. Munari and A. Macchi, lawyers)

Re:

By its actions pursuant to Article 272 TFEU, the applicant seeks an order requiring the defendant to repay, first, the sum of EUR 168 062,23 paid under Grant Agreement No 632420 relating to the project entitled ‘FAST impact cross-analysis methodology for Composite leading edge Structures’, second, the sum of EUR 141 094,80, paid under Grant Agreement No 632506 relating to the project entitled ‘Flexible sensor co-operation for structural health Diagnosis/prognosis’ and, third, the sum of EUR 56 111,31 paid under Grant Agreement No 271874 relating to the project entitled ‘Wireless/Integrated strain monitoring and simulation system’, plus interest on arrears.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court hereby:

| 1. | joins Cases T-649/20, T-721/20 and T-767/20 for the purposes of the judgment; |
| --- | --- |

1.

joins Cases T-649/20, T-721/20 and T-767/20 for the purposes of the judgment;

| 2. | declares that Alpha Consulting Service, represented by NG, was required, before its dissolution, to repay Clean Aviation Joint Undertaking the sum of EUR 56 111,31, plus interest on arrears at a rate of 3,5 % per year from 26 May 2019 and until the date of full payment of the debt, under Grant Agreement No 271874 relating to the project entitled ‘Wireless/Integrated strain monitoring and simulation system’; |
| --- | --- |

2.

declares that Alpha Consulting Service, represented by NG, was required, before its dissolution, to repay Clean Aviation Joint Undertaking the sum of EUR 56 111,31, plus interest on arrears at a rate of 3,5 % per year from 26 May 2019 and until the date of full payment of the debt, under Grant Agreement No 271874 relating to the project entitled ‘Wireless/Integrated strain monitoring and simulation system’;

| 3. | declares that Alpha Consulting Service, represented by NG, was required, before its dissolution, to repay Clean Aviation Joint Undertaking the sum of EUR 141 094,80, plus interest on arrears at a rate of 3,5 % per year from 9 July 2019 and until the date of full payment of the debt, under Grant Agreement No 632605 relating to the project entitled ‘Flexible sensor co-operation for structural health Diagnosis/prognosis’; |
| --- | --- |

3.

declares that Alpha Consulting Service, represented by NG, was required, before its dissolution, to repay Clean Aviation Joint Undertaking the sum of EUR 141 094,80, plus interest on arrears at a rate of 3,5 % per year from 9 July 2019 and until the date of full payment of the debt, under Grant Agreement No 632605 relating to the project entitled ‘Flexible sensor co-operation for structural health Diagnosis/prognosis’;

| 4. | declares that Alpha Consulting Service, represented by NG, was required, before its dissolution, to repay Clean Aviation Joint Undertaking the sum of EUR 168 062,23, plus interest on arrears at a rate of 3,5 % per year, from 13 July 2019 and until the date of full payment of the debt, under Grant Agreement No 632420 relating to the project entitled ‘FAST impact cross-analysis methodology for Composite leading edge Structures’; |
| --- | --- |

4.

declares that Alpha Consulting Service, represented by NG, was required, before its dissolution, to repay Clean Aviation Joint Undertaking the sum of EUR 168 062,23, plus interest on arrears at a rate of 3,5 % per year, from 13 July 2019 and until the date of full payment of the debt, under Grant Agreement No 632420 relating to the project entitled ‘FAST impact cross-analysis methodology for Composite leading edge Structures’;

| 5. | refuses the request for an order requiring NG to pay the debts arising from the Grant Agreements concerned; |
| --- | --- |

5.

refuses the request for an order requiring NG to pay the debts arising from the Grant Agreements concerned;

| 6. | declares that NG and Clean Aviation Joint Undertaking are each to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

6.

declares that NG and Clean Aviation Joint Undertaking are each to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 433, 14.12.2020.

---

| 21.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 July 2023 — Nevinnomysskiy Azot and NAK ‘Azot’ v Commission

(Case T-126/21) (1)

(Dumping - Imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia - Definitive anti-dumping duties - Request for an expiry review - Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 - Article 5(3) and (9) of Regulation 2016/1036 - Legal time limit - Sufficiency of the evidence - Deficiency procedure - Information submitted outside the legal time limit)

(2023/C 296/30)

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 (represented by B. O’Connor and M. Hommé, lawyers)

Re:

By their action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicants seek the annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2100 of 15 December 2020 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2020 L 425, p. 21).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2100 of 15 December 2020 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2100 of 15 December 2020 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

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

2.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by AO Nevinnomysskiy Azot and AO Novomoskovskaya Aktsionernaya Kompania NAK ‘Azot’;

| 3. | Orders Fertilizers Europe to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Fertilizers Europe to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 148, 26.4.2021.

---

| 21.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 July 2023 — SE v Commission

(Case T-223/21) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Recruitment - Contract of employment - Article 2(b) of the CEOS - Rejection of an application - Promotion - Reclassification - New contract - Expiry of the contract - Article 8, second paragraph, and Article 10(3) of the CEOS - Error of law - Equal treatment - Action for annulment - Admissibility)

(2023/C 296/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

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

Re:

By his action under Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks, first, the annulment of the decision of the European Commission of 4 August 2020 rejecting his application for the vacant post published under reference COM/2020/1474, and of the reply of 28 October 2020 to his request under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, pertaining to his eligibility to be promoted, reclassified or assigned to another post and, secondly, compensation for the harm which he claims to have suffered as a consequence of those decisions.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 4 August 2020 rejecting the application of SE for the vacant post published under reference COM/2020/1474; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 4 August 2020 rejecting the application of SE for the vacant post published under reference COM/2020/1474;

| 2. | Orders the Commission to pay SE the sum of EUR 10 000 as compensation for the material damage suffered; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission to pay SE the sum of EUR 10 000 as compensation for the material damage suffered;

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

3.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 4. | Orders the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 278, 12.7.2021.

---

| 21.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 July 2023 — Puigdemont i Casamajó and Others v Parliament

(Case T-272/21) (1)

(Institutional law - Member of the Parliament - Privileges and immunities - Decision to waive parliamentary immunity - Article 9 of Protocol Noo 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union - Competence of the authority that issued the request for waiver of immunity - Legal certainty - Manifest error of assessment - Scope of the Parliament’s review - Procedure for examining the request for the waiver of immunity - Rights of the defence - Impartiality)

(2023/C 296/32)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Carles Puigdemont i Casamajó, (Waterloo, Belgium) Antoni Comín i Oliveres (Waterloo), Clara Ponsatí i Obiols (Waterloo) (represented by, P. Bekaert, J. Costa i Rosselló, G. Boye and S. Bekaert, lawyers

Defendant: European Parliament, (represented by N. Lorenz, N. Görlitz and J.-C. Puffer, acting as Agents)

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

Re:

By their action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicants seek annulment of decisions P9_TA(2021)0059, P9_TA(2021)0060 and P9_TA(2021)0061 of the European Parliament of 9 March 2021 on the request for waiver of their immunity.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Carles Puigdemont i Casamajó, Mr Antoni Comín i Oliveres and Ms Clara Ponsatí i Obiols to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament, including those incurred in Cases T-272/21 R and T-272/21 R II; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Carles Puigdemont i Casamajó, Mr Antoni Comín i Oliveres and Ms Clara Ponsatí i Obiols to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament, including those incurred in Cases T-272/21 R and T-272/21 R II;

| 3. | Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs, including those incurred in Case T-272/21 R II. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs, including those incurred in Case T-272/21 R II.

---

(1)  OJ C 278, 12.7.2021.

---

| 21.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 July 2023 — OC v EEAS

(Case T-770/21) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Staff of the EEAS - Psychological harassment - Article 12a of the Staff Regulations - Request for assistance - Refusal of the request - Article 24 of the Staff Regulations - Obligation to state reasons - Right to be heard - Concept of ‘psychological harassment’ - Manifest error of assessment - Duty to have regard for the welfare of staff)

(2023/C 296/33)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: European External Action Service (represented by: K. Kouri, R. Spáč and A. Ireland, acting as Agents)

Re:

By her action under Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the European External Action Service (EEAS) of 10 September 2020 by which the latter refused her request for assistance.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

Orders OC to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 51, 31.1.2022.

---

| 21.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 July 2023 — Wajos v EUIPO (Shape of a container)

(Case T-10/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for a three-dimensional EU trade mark - Shape of a container - Absolute ground for refusal - Sign consisting exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result - Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Decision taken following the annulment by the General Court of an earlier decision - Res judicata)

(2023/C 296/34)

Language of the case: German

Parties

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

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

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 21 October 2021 (Case R 2958/2019-2).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

Orders Wajos GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 84, 21.2.2022.

---

| 21.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/32

---

Order of the General Court of 30 June 2023 — Thunus and Others v EIB

(Case T-666/20) (1)

(Civil service - Staff of the EIB - Remuneration - Annual salary adjustment - Plea of illegality - Res judicata - Legal certainty - Legitimate expectations - Staff consultation - Obligation to state reasons - Proportionality - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

(2023/C 296/35)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Vincent Thunus (Contern, Luxembourg) and the five other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the order (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented by: T. Gilliams, A. García Sánchez and E. Manoukian, acting as Agents, and P.-E. Partsch, lawyer)

Re:

By their action under Article 270 TFEU and Article 50a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the applicants seek, first, annulment of the decisions of the European Investment Bank (EIB), contained in their pay slips for March 2020 and subsequent months, setting the annual adjustment of the basic salary at 0,7 % for the year 2020 and, secondly, compensation for the material damage they claim to have suffered as a result of those decisions.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is rejected as manifestly lacking any foundation in law. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is rejected as manifestly lacking any foundation in law.

| 2. | Mr Vincent Thunus and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Investment Bank (EIB). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Vincent Thunus and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Investment Bank (EIB).

---

(1)  OJ C 28, 25.1.2021.

---

| 21.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/32

---

Order of the General Court of 29 June 2023 — Puma v EUIPO — Herno (HERZO)

(Case T-719/22) (1)

(Action for annulment - EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark HERZO - Earlier EU figurative mark HERNO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

(2023/C 296/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: M. Schunke and P. Trieb, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Herno SpA (Lesa, Italy)

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 19 July 2022 (Case R 297/2022-1).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law.

| 2. | Each party shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Each party shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 15, 16.1.2023.

---

| 21.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/33

---

Action brought on 15 May 2023 — Volvo Personvagnar v EUIPO (Shape of headlights)

(Case T-260/23)

(2023/C 296/37)

Language of the case: Swedish

Parties

Applicant: Volvo Personvagnar AB (Gothenburg, Sweden) (represented by: H.-A. Odh and E. Esaiasson, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for an EU three-dimensional mark (Shape of headlights) — Application for registration No 18 560 591

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 March 2023 in Case R 1129/2022-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision under Article 72 EUTMR and alter the decision in order to approve the applicant’s application for registration of EU trade mark No 18 560 591; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision under Article 72 EUTMR and alter the decision in order to approve the applicant’s application for registration of EU trade mark No 18 560 591;

| — | order the defendant, on the basis of Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, to pay the applicant’s costs in both the proceedings before the Court and before the European Union Intellectual Property Office; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant, on the basis of Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, to pay the applicant’s costs in both the proceedings before the Court and before the European Union Intellectual Property Office;

| — | treat the following evidence as confidential:
  Annex A.1 — Statement by expert Aina Nilsson Ström and annex (CV)
  Annex A.3 — Confirmation of a licence between Volvo Cars and Polestar. |
| --- | --- |

—

treat the following evidence as confidential:

Annex A.1 — Statement by expert Aina Nilsson Ström and annex (CV)

Annex A.3 — Confirmation of a licence between Volvo Cars and Polestar.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 21.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/34

---

Action brought on 24 May 2023 — Timchenko v Council

(Case T-297/23)

(2023/C 296/38)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Gennady Nikolayevich Timchenko (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: T. Bontinck, L. Burguin, S. Bonifassi, E. Fedorova and J. Goffin, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/572 of 13 March 2023 in so far as it extends the application of the restrictive measures adopted against the applicant by Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/337 of 28 February 2022 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/336 of 28 February 2022; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/572 of 13 March 2023 in so far as it extends the application of the restrictive measures adopted against the applicant by Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/337 of 28 February 2022 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/336 of 28 February 2022;

| — | annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/571 of 13 March 2023 in so far as it extends the application of the restrictive measures adopted against the applicant by Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/337 of 28 February 2022 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/336 of 28 February 2022; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/571 of 13 March 2023 in so far as it extends the application of the restrictive measures adopted against the applicant by Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/337 of 28 February 2022 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/336 of 28 February 2022;

| — | order the Council to pay the sum of EUR 1 000 000, on a provisional basis, in respect of the non-material damage suffered by the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay the sum of EUR 1 000 000, on a provisional basis, in respect of the non-material damage suffered by the applicant;

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

—

order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment regarding the grounds relied on by the Council, in particular as regards the designation criteria applied to the applicant and the nature of the measures adopted. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment regarding the grounds relied on by the Council, in particular as regards the designation criteria applied to the applicant and the nature of the measures adopted.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to fulfil its obligation to state reasons. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to fulfil its obligation to state reasons.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to be heard. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to be heard.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the fundamental rights which the applicant derives from his fundamental status as a European citizen. The applicant claims that the restriction, on the basis of the CFSP, of his freedom of movement within the territory of the European Union, as guaranteed by the Treaties, has no legal basis and is disproportionate and unnecessary. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the fundamental rights which the applicant derives from his fundamental status as a European citizen. The applicant claims that the restriction, on the basis of the CFSP, of his freedom of movement within the territory of the European Union, as guaranteed by the Treaties, has no legal basis and is disproportionate and unnecessary.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s other fundamental rights guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, in particular infringement of his right to property and his right to respect for his private and family life. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s other fundamental rights guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, in particular infringement of his right to property and his right to respect for his private and family life.

---

| 21.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/35

---

Action brought on 24 May 2023 — Timchenko v Council

(Case T-298/23)

(2023/C 296/39)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Elena Petrovna Timchenko (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: T. Bontinck, L. Burguin, S. Bonifassi, E. Fedorova and J. Goffin, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims the Court should:

| — | annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/572 of 13 March 2023 in so far as it extends the application of the restrictive measures adopted against the applicant by Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/582 of 8 April 2022 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/581 of 8 April 2022; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/572 of 13 March 2023 in so far as it extends the application of the restrictive measures adopted against the applicant by Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/582 of 8 April 2022 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/581 of 8 April 2022;

| — | annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/571 of 13 March 2023 in so far as it extends the application of the restrictive measures adopted against the applicant by Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/582 of 8 April 2022 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/581 of 8 April 2022; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/571 of 13 March 2023 in so far as it extends the application of the restrictive measures adopted against the applicant by Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/582 of 8 April 2022 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/581 of 8 April 2022;

| — | order the Council to pay the sum of EUR 1 000 000, on a provisional basis, in respect of the non-material damage suffered by the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay the sum of EUR 1 000 000, on a provisional basis, in respect of the non-material damage suffered by the applicant;

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

—

order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law that are identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-297/23, Timchenko v Council.

---

| 21.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/35

---

Action brought on 6 June 2023 — AL v Council

(Case T-315/23)

(2023/C 296/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

declare admissible the present application;

| — | order the production from file number ORG/130/22 and/or from any other file related to the concerned promotion exercise of:






  — | the applicant’s individual comparative evaluation used for the taking of the decision for non-promotion; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

order the production from file number ORG/130/22 and/or from any other file related to the concerned promotion exercise of:

—

the applicant’s individual comparative evaluation used for the taking of the decision for non-promotion;

| — | the precise methodology used for the carrying out of the aforesaid individual comparative evaluation; |
| --- | --- |

—

the precise methodology used for the carrying out of the aforesaid individual comparative evaluation;

| — | material evidence that the same methodology has been applied universally across all officials who he was compared to, and notably the officials who have been promoted; |
| --- | --- |

—

material evidence that the same methodology has been applied universally across all officials who he was compared to, and notably the officials who have been promoted;

| — | the report sent by the Advisory Committee on Promotion for the function group AST, career path 1-9 (‘the ACP’), to the Appointing Authority (‘the AA’) on 12 July 2022 and the list of the officials proposed for promotion; |
| --- | --- |

—

the report sent by the Advisory Committee on Promotion for the function group AST, career path 1-9 (‘the ACP’), to the Appointing Authority (‘the AA’) on 12 July 2022 and the list of the officials proposed for promotion;

| — | all the documents related to the concerned promotion exercise which are related directly or indirectly to the applicant, with the personal information related to third parties redacted as appropriate. |
| --- | --- |

—

all the documents related to the concerned promotion exercise which are related directly or indirectly to the applicant, with the personal information related to third parties redacted as appropriate.

| — | annul the Council of the European Union General Secretariat Internal Note of 6 March 2023 referenced Ariane 1250 in so far as the name of the applicant is not included in the promotion list; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Council of the European Union General Secretariat Internal Note of 6 March 2023 referenced Ariane 1250 in so far as the name of the applicant is not included in the promotion list;

| — | declare as valid both the initial list proposed by the ACP to the AA on 12 July 2022 of the ASTs proposed for promotion (which includes the name of the applicant as proposed for promotion), and the modified list proposed by the ACP to the AA and adopted and published by the AA on 18 July 2022, with the result being 65 AST4s promoted to AST5 (instead of 64 promotion possibilities) and in compensation to order the AA to deduct one promotion possibility (AST4 to AST5) from the possibilities of promotion for a future promotion exercise; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare as valid both the initial list proposed by the ACP to the AA on 12 July 2022 of the ASTs proposed for promotion (which includes the name of the applicant as proposed for promotion), and the modified list proposed by the ACP to the AA and adopted and published by the AA on 18 July 2022, with the result being 65 AST4s promoted to AST5 (instead of 64 promotion possibilities) and in compensation to order the AA to deduct one promotion possibility (AST4 to AST5) from the possibilities of promotion for a future promotion exercise;

| — | order the AA and Payment Master Office to pay to the applicant the difference between the AST4 and AST5 salary from 1 January 2022; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the AA and Payment Master Office to pay to the applicant the difference between the AST4 and AST5 salary from 1 January 2022;

| — | raise, of its own motion, any other issue of public interest that it sees fit; |
| --- | --- |

—

raise, of its own motion, any other issue of public interest that it sees fit;

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

—

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging an abuse of power and the violation notably, but not only, of the provisions of Article 54 of the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union and of the principle of legitimate expectations in so far as the Appointing Authority pressured the Advisory Committee on Promotions for function group AST (career path 1-9, grades 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5) to modify the list of officials proposed to be promoted. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging an abuse of power and the violation notably, but not only, of the provisions of Article 54 of the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union and of the principle of legitimate expectations in so far as the Appointing Authority pressured the Advisory Committee on Promotions for function group AST (career path 1-9, grades 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5) to modify the list of officials proposed to be promoted.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging the violation of the provisions of Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations, of the principle of equal treatment and of the principle of good administration in the conduct of the concerned promotion exercise which adversely affected the applicant, leading to the non-inclusion of his name in the list of promoted officials. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging the violation of the provisions of Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations, of the principle of equal treatment and of the principle of good administration in the conduct of the concerned promotion exercise which adversely affected the applicant, leading to the non-inclusion of his name in the list of promoted officials.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging the violation of the principle ‘non bis in idem’. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging the violation of the principle ‘non bis in idem’.

---

| 21.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/37

---

Action brought on 13 June 2023 — Radical-Consulting and Others v EuroHPC Joint Undertaking

(Case T-328/23)

(2023/C 296/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Radical-Consulting UG (Randowtal, Germany), Surf BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) and Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften (München, Germany) (represented by: M. Martens, K. Munungu and B. Mourisse, lawyers)

Defendant: European High-Performance Computing Joint Undertaking

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | declare that the application for annulment of the contested decisions is admissible and well-founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the application for annulment of the contested decisions is admissible and well-founded;

| — | annul the decision of EuroHPC of 11 August 2022 rejecting the proposal submitted by the consortium of which the Applicants are a member; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of EuroHPC of 11 August 2022 rejecting the proposal submitted by the consortium of which the Applicants are a member;

| — | annul the decision of EuroHPC of 4 April 2023 rejecting the evaluation review; and, |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of EuroHPC of 4 April 2023 rejecting the evaluation review; and,

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

—

order EuroHPC to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the decision of EuroHPC contains multiple factual errors and thus EuroHPC made a substantial error in appreciation, in violation of the principles of good administration as enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter on Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the decision of EuroHPC contains multiple factual errors and thus EuroHPC made a substantial error in appreciation, in violation of the principles of good administration as enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter on Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a breach of the duty to state reasons as enshrined in Article 296(2) TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a breach of the duty to state reasons as enshrined in Article 296(2) TFEU.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a breach of the transparency principle enshrined in Article 29(3) of Regulation 2021/695 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 April 2021 establishing Horizon Europe — the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation, laying down its rules for participation and dissemination (‘Horzion Europe regulation’). |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a breach of the transparency principle enshrined in Article 29(3) of Regulation 2021/695 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 April 2021 establishing Horizon Europe — the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation, laying down its rules for participation and dissemination (‘Horzion Europe regulation’).

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging a breach of the principle of equal treatment enshrined in Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a breach of the principle of equal treatment enshrined in Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the EuroHPC made a manifest error in appreciation by manifestly misapplying Article 30(2) of the Horizon Europe Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the EuroHPC made a manifest error in appreciation by manifestly misapplying Article 30(2) of the Horizon Europe Regulation.

---

| 21.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/37

---

Action brought on 16 June 2023 — Dakem v Commission

(Case T-341/23)

(2023/C 296/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Dakem (Courbevoie, France) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem and P. Sellar, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2023/686 of 24 March 2023 not granting a Union authorisation for the single biocidal product ‘Insecticide Textile Contact’; (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2023/686 of 24 March 2023 not granting a Union authorisation for the single biocidal product ‘Insecticide Textile Contact’; (1)

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment and infringement of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012. (2)







  — | The defendant, it is argued, has committed a manifest error of assessment and infringed Article 19(1)(b) of, in conjunction with paragraph 8(a) of Annex VI to Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 by failing to take into account relevant factors, specifically the results of a biodegradability study which impacted on the environmental risk assessment, and a revised environmental risk assessment provided by the applicant after the failure of the evaluating competent authority’s first accordance check of its assessment. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment and infringement of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012. (2)

—

The defendant, it is argued, has committed a manifest error of assessment and infringed Article 19(1)(b) of, in conjunction with paragraph 8(a) of Annex VI to Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 by failing to take into account relevant factors, specifically the results of a biodegradability study which impacted on the environmental risk assessment, and a revised environmental risk assessment provided by the applicant after the failure of the evaluating competent authority’s first accordance check of its assessment.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of a rule of law: the principle of non-discrimination.






  — | In assessing the feasibility of a proposed risk mitigation measure, the defendant failed to accord to the applicant’s product the same treatment afforded to other products in comparable situations, and to do so without proffering any objective justification, which infringes the principle of non-discrimination. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of a rule of law: the principle of non-discrimination.

—

In assessing the feasibility of a proposed risk mitigation measure, the defendant failed to accord to the applicant’s product the same treatment afforded to other products in comparable situations, and to do so without proffering any objective justification, which infringes the principle of non-discrimination.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of a rule of law: the principle of sound administration.






  — | The defendant breached the principle of sound administration by failing to act diligently in fulfilling its obligations to assist the applicant, a small and medium sized enterprise, in ensuring full compliance with the requirements of Article 19 of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012. The breach of sound administration was, it is argued, fourfold:






  — | The applicant was not allowed to produce and submit data to refine the environmental risk assessment after the failure of the first accordance check; |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of a rule of law: the principle of sound administration.

—

The defendant breached the principle of sound administration by failing to act diligently in fulfilling its obligations to assist the applicant, a small and medium sized enterprise, in ensuring full compliance with the requirements of Article 19 of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012. The breach of sound administration was, it is argued, fourfold:

—

The applicant was not allowed to produce and submit data to refine the environmental risk assessment after the failure of the first accordance check;

| — | The evaluating competent authority did not accommodate the applicant’s request to have the results of the biodegradability study taken into account in the environmental risk assessment; |
| --- | --- |

—

The evaluating competent authority did not accommodate the applicant’s request to have the results of the biodegradability study taken into account in the environmental risk assessment;

| — | The applicant was not given any genuine opportunity to respond to the change in value used for leachable fraction in the human health evaluation; and |
| --- | --- |

—

The applicant was not given any genuine opportunity to respond to the change in value used for leachable fraction in the human health evaluation; and

| — | The applicant was not given the opportunity to provide a product-specific study on dermal absorption. |
| --- | --- |

—

The applicant was not given the opportunity to provide a product-specific study on dermal absorption.

---

(1)  OJ 2023 L 90, p. 42.

(2)  Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products (OJ L 2012 L 167, p. 1).

---

| 21.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/38

---

Action brought on 4 July 2023 — Verla-Pharm Arzneimittel v EUIPO — Converso (Pherla)

(Case T-357/23)

(2023/C 296/43)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Verla-Pharm Arzneimittel GmbH & Co. KG (Tutzing, Germany) (represented by: M.-C. Seiler, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Valeria Converso (San Giorgio a Cremano, Italy)

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 Pherla — Application for registration No l8 319 785

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 February 2023 in Case R 268/2022-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision which was notified on 25 April 2023; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision which was notified on 25 April 2023;

| — | uphold the opposition number B 3 139 093 in its entirety, and reject the contested application in respect of all the contested goods in class 5; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the opposition number B 3 139 093 in its entirety, and reject the contested application in respect of all the contested goods in class 5;

| — | in the alternative, remit the case to the Board of Appeal for re-examination; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, remit the case to the Board of Appeal for re-examination;

| — | order EUIPO to bear the applicant’s costs and expenses. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to bear the applicant’s costs and expenses.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 94(1), first sentence, of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council due to violation of the defendant’s obligation to state reasons of its decisions, also provided in Article 41(1), (2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 94(1), first sentence, of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council due to violation of the defendant’s obligation to state reasons of its decisions, also provided in Article 41(1), (2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

| — | Infringement of Article 94(1), second sentence, of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council due to violation of the applicant’s right to be heard, also provided in Article 41(1), (2)(a) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 94(1), second sentence, of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council due to violation of the applicant’s right to be heard, also provided in Article 41(1), (2)(a) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council due to its misapplication and therefore violation. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council due to its misapplication and therefore violation.

---

| 21.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/39

---

Action brought on 4 July 2023 — AC Marca Brands v EUIPO — Sanitix (Sanitix)

(Case T-358/23)

(2023/C 296/44)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: AC Marca Brands, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: D. Pellisé Urquiza and J. C. Quero Navarro, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sanitix Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

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 word mark Sanitix — Application for registration No 18 294 902

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 May 2023 in Case R 1954/2022-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and/or Sanitix Ltd to bear the costs of these proceedings and of the opposition and appeal proceedings before EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and/or Sanitix Ltd to bear the costs of these proceedings and of the opposition and appeal proceedings before EUIPO.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1) and (5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1) and (5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 21.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/40

---

Action brought on 4 July 2023 — Société des produits Nestlé v EUIPO — Amigüitos pets & life (THE ONLY ONE by alphaspirit wild and perfect)

(Case T-359/23)

(2023/C 296/45)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Société des produits Nestlé SA (Vevey, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Jaeger-Lenz and C. Elkemann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Amigüitos pets & life, SA (Lorca, Spain)

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 trade mark THE ONLY ONE by alphaspirit wild and perfect in colours white, red and black — Application for registration No 15 385 719

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 March 2023 in Case R 424/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order the EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceeding before the General Court and order the potential intervener (Amigüitos pets and life, SA) to pay the costs before the EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceeding before the General Court and order the potential intervener (Amigüitos pets and life, SA) to pay the costs before the EUIPO.

Pleas in law

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

—

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

| — | Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 72(6) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 72(6) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 21.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/41

---

Action brought on 5 July 2023 — Amazon Services Europe v Commission

(Case T-367/23)

(2023/C 296/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Amazon Services Europe Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: A. Conrad, M. Frank, R. Spanó and I. Ioannidis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the European Commission Decision of 25 April 2023 designating Amazon Store as a very large online platform, in accordance with Article 33(4) of Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council (C(2023) 2746 final); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the European Commission Decision of 25 April 2023 designating Amazon Store as a very large online platform, in accordance with Article 33(4) of Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council (C(2023) 2746 final);

| — | alternatively, annul the European Commission Decision of 25 April 2023 designating Amazon Store as a very large online platform, in accordance with Article 33(4) of Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council (C(2023) 2746 final), insofar as it imposes on Amazon the obligation to provide users with an option for each recommender system that is not based on profiling under Article 38, and declaration of inapplicability of Article 38 of Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council (C(2023) 2746 final); |
| --- | --- |

—

alternatively, annul the European Commission Decision of 25 April 2023 designating Amazon Store as a very large online platform, in accordance with Article 33(4) of Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council (C(2023) 2746 final), insofar as it imposes on Amazon the obligation to provide users with an option for each recommender system that is not based on profiling under Article 38, and declaration of inapplicability of Article 38 of Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council (C(2023) 2746 final);

| — | furthermore, or alternatively, annul the European Commission Decision of 25 April 2023 designating Amazon Store as a very large online platform, in accordance with Article 33(4) of Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council (C(2023) 2746 final), insofar as it imposes on Amazon an obligation to compile and make publicly available an advertisement repository under Article 39, and declaration of inapplicability of Article 39 of Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council (C(2023) 2746 final); and, |
| --- | --- |

—

furthermore, or alternatively, annul the European Commission Decision of 25 April 2023 designating Amazon Store as a very large online platform, in accordance with Article 33(4) of Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council (C(2023) 2746 final), insofar as it imposes on Amazon an obligation to compile and make publicly available an advertisement repository under Article 39, and declaration of inapplicability of Article 39 of Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council (C(2023) 2746 final); and,

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

—

order the European Commission 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, alleging that the designation as a very large online platform, in accordance with Article 33(4) of Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council (C(2023) 2746 final), is based on a discriminatory criterion and disproportionately violates the principle of equal treatment and the applicant’s fundamental rights. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the designation as a very large online platform, in accordance with Article 33(4) of Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council (C(2023) 2746 final), is based on a discriminatory criterion and disproportionately violates the principle of equal treatment and the applicant’s fundamental rights.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that Article 38 of Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council (C(2023) 2746 final) violates the principle of equal treatment and the applicant’s fundamental rights. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that Article 38 of Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council (C(2023) 2746 final) violates the principle of equal treatment and the applicant’s fundamental rights.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that Article 39 of Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council (C(2023) 2746 final) violates the principle of equal treatment and the applicant’s fundamental rights. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that Article 39 of Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council (C(2023) 2746 final) violates the principle of equal treatment and the applicant’s fundamental rights.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 October 2022 on a Single Market For Digital Services and amending Directive 2000/31/EC (Digital Services Act) (OJ 2022 L 277, p. 1).

---

| 21.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/42

---

Action brought on 5 July 2023 — Al-Assad v Council

(Case T-370/23)

(2023/C 296/47)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Samer Kamal Al-Assad (Qardaha, Syria) (represented by: W. Woll, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/844 (1) which adds the applicant’s name to Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 36/201; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/844 (1) which adds the applicant’s name to Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 36/201;

| — | annul Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2023/847 (2) which adds the applicant’s name to Annex I to Decision 2013/255/PESC; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2023/847 (2) which adds the applicant’s name to Annex I to Decision 2013/255/PESC;

| — | order the European Union to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Union to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging an error of assessment. The applicant maintains, first, that his membership of the Assad family is not sufficiently established and, second, that he is not involved in any drug trafficking. In addition, he puts forward a plea of illegality of Article 27(2)(b) and Article 28(2)(b) of Decision 2013/255/CFSP. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging an error of assessment. The applicant maintains, first, that his membership of the Assad family is not sufficiently established and, second, that he is not involved in any drug trafficking. In addition, he puts forward a plea of illegality of Article 27(2)(b) and Article 28(2)(b) of Decision 2013/255/CFSP.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a violation of the right to an effective remedy. The applicant invokes in this respect the obligation to hold court proceedings to punish serious offenses and the impossibility for the Council to punish him for drug trafficking. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a violation of the right to an effective remedy. The applicant invokes in this respect the obligation to hold court proceedings to punish serious offenses and the impossibility for the Council to punish him for drug trafficking.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging damage to the applicant’s reputation. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging damage to the applicant’s reputation.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to property. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to property.

---

(1)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/844 of 24 April 2023 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2023 L 109 I, p. 1).

(2)  Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2023/847 of 24 April 2023 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2023 L 109 I, p. 26).

---

| 21.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/43

---

Action brought on 7 July 2023 — Galenica v EUIPO — EvivaMed Distribution (VIVORA)

(Case T-373/23)

(2023/C 296/48)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Galenica AG (Bern, Switzerland) (represented by: C. Tenkhoff and T. Herzog, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: EvivaMed Distribution GmbH (Wenzenbach, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark VIVORA — Application No 18 255 604

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 April 2023 in Case R 1556/2022-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul in part and, if necessary, alter the contested decision in so far as it dismisses the appeal in respect of the following goods:

  Class 9: Computer software and computer hardware for medical and diagnostic purposes, in particular in the field of diabetes; computer software for use in evaluation, verification and administration of medical data, in particular in the field of diabetes; computer software and computer hardware for the connection of medical apparatus and devices and additional hardware, in particular for use in the field of endocrinological and cardiovascular diseases, as well as accessories of the aforementioned goods, namely, personal digital assistants (PDAs) and handheld, data storage instruments with multiple functions and all kinds of corresponding machine-readable data carriers equipped with programs for use by patients and physicians; infrared interfaces for the transfer of device commands and configuration information from a personal computer to medical devices, in particular blood glucose meters, insulin pumps, and vice versa; modems for transferring patient data from diagnostic equipment to a remote site; cables for the connection of computers and computer accessories with medical apparatus and instruments; short-range wireless interconnection, in particular for mobile phones, computers and other electronic devices; IoT-Connections (GSM); online electronic publications (downloadable).


  Class 10: Cannulae; inhalers; disposable syringes for injections; lancets and lancet devices; insulin pumps and accessories thereof for personal care, namely, glass and plastic cartridges, cartridge filling sets, catheters, infusion sets and tubing, pen needles, disposable syringes, adapters, ampoules, and filling devices; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul in part and, if necessary, alter the contested decision in so far as it dismisses the appeal in respect of the following goods:

Class 9: Computer software and computer hardware for medical and diagnostic purposes, in particular in the field of diabetes; computer software for use in evaluation, verification and administration of medical data, in particular in the field of diabetes; computer software and computer hardware for the connection of medical apparatus and devices and additional hardware, in particular for use in the field of endocrinological and cardiovascular diseases, as well as accessories of the aforementioned goods, namely, personal digital assistants (PDAs) and handheld, data storage instruments with multiple functions and all kinds of corresponding machine-readable data carriers equipped with programs for use by patients and physicians; infrared interfaces for the transfer of device commands and configuration information from a personal computer to medical devices, in particular blood glucose meters, insulin pumps, and vice versa; modems for transferring patient data from diagnostic equipment to a remote site; cables for the connection of computers and computer accessories with medical apparatus and instruments; short-range wireless interconnection, in particular for mobile phones, computers and other electronic devices; IoT-Connections (GSM); online electronic publications (downloadable).

Class 10: Cannulae; inhalers; disposable syringes for injections; lancets and lancet devices; insulin pumps and accessories thereof for personal care, namely, glass and plastic cartridges, cartridge filling sets, catheters, infusion sets and tubing, pen needles, disposable syringes, adapters, ampoules, and filling devices;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs of the present proceedings, including the costs of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs of the present proceedings, including the costs of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 21.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/44

---

Action brought on 7 July 2023 — Washtower IP v EUIPO — LG Electronics (WASHTOWER)

(Case T-376/23)

(2023/C 296/49)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Washtower IP BV (Hengelo, Netherlands) (represented by: L. Fresco, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: LG Electronics, Inc. (Seoul, Republic of Korea)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark WASHTOWER — European Union trade mark No 18 193 675

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 April 2023 in Case R 412/2022-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and dismiss LG Electronics’ cancellation action or, alternatively, annul that decision and send the case back to the Board of Appeal for reconsideration; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and dismiss LG Electronics’ cancellation action or, alternatively, annul that decision and send the case back to the Board of Appeal for reconsideration;

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

—

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

Pleas in law

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

—

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

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

—

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

---

| 21.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/44

---

Action brought on 12 July 2023 — Ergotopia v EUIPO (Wellback)

(Case T-388/23)

(2023/C 296/50)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Ergotopia GmbH (Darmstadt, Germany) (represented by: A. Biesterfeld-Kuhn)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for the EU word mark ‘Wellback’ — Application No 18 682 838

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 May 2023 in Case R 36/2023-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred in the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred in the appeal proceedings.

Plea in law

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

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 21.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/45

---

Order of the General Court of 4 July 2023 — Cristescu v Commission

(Case T-590/22) (1)

(2023/C 296/51)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 424, 7.11.2022.

---

| 21.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/45

---

Order of the General Court of 4 July 2023 — RT France v Council

(Case T-605/22) (1)

(2023/C 296/52)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 424, 7.11.2022.

---

| 21.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/45

---

Order of the General Court of 7 July 2023 — UH v ECB

(Case T-67/23) (1)

(2023/C 296/53)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 164, 8.5.2023.

---