# Official Journal C 490/6 De

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 490 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 646 December 2021 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 490

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 646 December 2021

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2021/C 490/01 | 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

2021/C 490/01

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 |
| 2021/C 490/02 | Case C-668/19: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 October 2021 — European Commission v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 258 TFEU — Directive 91/271/EEC — Collecting and treatment of urban waste water — Article 3 to 5 and 10 — No collecting systems for urban water in certain agglomerations — No secondary treatment or equivalent treatment of urban waste water in certain agglomerations — Construction and operation of treatment plants — Control of discharges from such plants — Sensitive areas — More stringent treatment of waste water) | 2 |
| 2021/C 490/03 | Case C-717/19: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Boehringer Ingelheim RCV GmbH & Co. KG Magyarországi Fióktelepe v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 90(1) — Reduction of the taxable amount where the price is reduced after the supply takes place — Payments made by a pharmaceutical company to the State health insurance agency — Article 273 — Administrative formalities required by national legislation for the exercise of the right to reduction — Principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality) | 6 |
| 2021/C 490/04 | Case C-882/19: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona — Spain) — Sumal SL v Mercedes Benz Trucks España SL (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Competition — Compensation for harm caused by a practice prohibited under Article 101(1) TFEU — Determination of the undertakings liable to provide compensation — Action for compensation directed against the subsidiary of a parent company and brought following a decision finding only that the parent company participated in a cartel — Concept of an undertaking — Concept of economic unit) | 7 |
| 2021/C 490/05 | Case C-13/20: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Top System SA v Belgian State (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Copyright and related rights — Legal protection of computer programs — Directive 91/250/EEC — Article 5 — Exceptions to the restricted acts — Acts necessary to enable the lawful purchaser to correct errors — Concept — Article 6 — Decompilation — Conditions) | 8 |
| 2021/C 490/06 | Case C-35/20: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus — Finland) — Criminal proceedings against A (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Citizenship of the Union — Right of Union citizens to move freely within the territories of the Member States — Article 21 TFEU — Directive 2004/38/EC — Articles 4 and 5 — Obligation to carry an identity card or a passport — Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 (Schengen Borders Code) — Annex VI — Crossing the maritime border of a Member State on board a pleasure boat — Rules on sanctions applicable when moving between Member States without an identity card or passport — Rules on daily fines in criminal cases — Calculation of the fine based on the offender’s average monthly income — Proportionality — Severity of the sanction in relation to the offence) | 9 |
| 2021/C 490/07 | Case C-119/20: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) — Latvia) — Līga Šenfelde v Lauku atbalsta dienests (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common agricultural policy — European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) funding — National Rural Development Programme 2014-2020 — Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 — Article 19(1)(a) — Business start-up aid for young farmers — Aid for the development of small farms — Cumulation of aid — Possibility to refuse the cumulation) | 10 |
| 2021/C 490/08 | Case C-136/20: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Zalaegerszegi Járásbíróság — Hungary) — Proceedings relating to the recognition and enforcement of a financial penalty imposed on LU (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA — Enforcement of financial penalties — Principle of mutual recognition — Article 5(1) — Offences giving rise to the recognition and enforcement of penalty decisions without verification of the double criminality of the act — Article 5(3) — Offences in respect of which the Member State has the option of making the recognition and enforcement of penalty decisions subject to the double criminality of the act — Verification by the executing Member State of the legal characterisation given to the offence by the issuing Member State in the certificate accompanying the penalty decision) | 10 |
| 2021/C 490/09 | Case C-272/20 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 October 2021 — Sebastian Veit v European Central Bank (ECB) (Appeal — Civil service — European Central Bank (ECB) staff members — Remuneration — Competitions — Equality of treatment between internal and external candidates — Classification in step) | 11 |
| 2021/C 490/10 | Case C-338/20: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Łodzi-Śródmieścia w Łodzi — Poland) — Proceedings relating to the recognition and execution of a financial penalty imposed on D.P. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Mutual recognition — Financial penalties — Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA — Grounds for non-recognition and non-execution — Article 20(3) — Decision imposing a financial penalty — Observance of the rights of the defence — Notification of documents in a language not understood by the sentenced person — Translation of the essential elements of the decision) | 11 |
| 2021/C 490/11 | Case C-408/20 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 October 2021 — Danilo Poggiolini v European Parliament (Appeal — Institutional law — Single statute for Members of the European Parliament — Members of the European Parliament elected in Italian constituencies — Modification of pension entitlements — Act adversely affecting an official — Provisional position — Independent legal effects) | 12 |
| 2021/C 490/12 | Case C-431/20 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 October 2021 — Carlo Tognoli and Others v European Parliament (Appeal — Institutional law — Single statute for Members of the European Parliament — Members of the European Parliament elected in Italian constituencies — Modification of pension entitlements — Act adversely affecting an official — Provisional position — Independent legal effects) | 13 |
| 2021/C 490/13 | Case C-581/20: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven kasatsionen sad (Bulgaria) — Bulgaria) — Skarb Państwa Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej reprezentowany przez Generalnego Dyrektora Dróg Krajowych i Autostrad v TOTO SpA — Costruzioni Generali, Vianini Lavori SpA (Request for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Article 1(1) — Civil and commercial matters — Article 35 — Provisional, including protective, measures — Action based on a contract for the construction of a public expressway concluded between a public authority and two private law companies — Application for interim relief relating to penalties and guarantees arising from that contract — Decision on interim relief already given by a court having jurisdiction as to the substance) | 14 |
| 2021/C 490/14 | Case C-613/20: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 6 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Salzburg — Austria) — CS v Eurowings GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Article 5(3) — Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of cancellation or long delay of flights — Exemption from the obligation to pay compensation — Concept of extraordinary circumstances — Strike by airline staff — Strike by the staff of a subsidiary in solidarity with the staff of the parent company) | 15 |
| 2021/C 490/15 | Case C-419/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla m.st. Warszawy w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 8 July 2021 — X sp. z o.o., sp. k. v Z | 15 |
| 2021/C 490/16 | Case C-453/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 21 July 2021 — X-FAB Dresden GmbH & Co. KG v FC | 16 |
| 2021/C 490/17 | Case C-499/21 P: Appeal brought on 13 August 2021 by Joshua David Silver, Leona Catherine Bashow, Charles Nicholas Hilary Marquand, JY, JZ, Anthony Styles Clayton, Gillian Margaret Clayton against the order of the General Court (Tenth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 8 June 2021 in Case T-252/20, Silver and Others v Council | 17 |
| 2021/C 490/18 | Case C-504/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Stade (Germany) lodged on 17 August 2021 — Applicant 1 and Others v Bundesrepublik Deutschland | 18 |
| 2021/C 490/19 | Case C-527/21 P: Appeal brought on 20 August 2021 by XC against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 10 February 2021 in Case T-488/18, XC v Commission | 20 |
| 2021/C 490/20 | Case C-543/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 31 August 2021 — Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb e.V. v famila-Handelsmarkt Kiel GmbH & Co. KG | 21 |
| 2021/C 490/21 | Case C-553/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 8 September 2021 — Hauptzollamt Hamburg v Shell Deutschland Oil GmbH | 22 |
| 2021/C 490/22 | Case C-571/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 16 September 2021 — RWE Power Aktiengesellschaft v Hauptzollamt Duisburg | 22 |
| 2021/C 490/23 | Case C-594/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 27 September 2021 — VB v Sixt Leasing SE | 23 |
| 2021/C 490/24 | Case C-601/21: Action brought on 28 September 2021 — European Commission v Republic of Poland | 23 |
| 2021/C 490/25 | Case C-602/21: Action brought on 28 September 2021 — European Commission v Republic of Poland | 24 |
| | General Court |
| 2021/C 490/26 | Case T-646/16 P-RENV-RX: Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2021 — Simpson v Council (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Refusal of the Council to reclassify the person concerned, after he passed an open competition, at the grade laid down in the competition notice — Dismissal of the action on the merits — Appeal — Judgment set aside — Appeal judgment reviewed by the Court of Justice and set aside — Referral back to the General Court as the appeal court — Obligation to state grounds — Equal treatment) | 26 |
| 2021/C 490/27 | Case T-827/17: Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2021 — Aeris Invest v ECB (Access to documents — Decision 2004/258/EC — Documents related to the adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español — Partial refusal to grant access — Exception relating to the protection of the confidentiality of the proceedings of the ECB’s decision-making bodies — Document reflecting the outcome of the proceedings of the ECB’s decision-making bodies — Obligation to state reasons — Exception relating to the protection of the financial, monetary or economic policy of the European Union or of a Member State — Exception relating to the protection of the confidentiality of information that is protected as such under EU law — Concept of confidential information — General presumption of confidentiality — Exemptions from the obligation of professional secrecy — Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights) | 26 |
| 2021/C 490/28 | Case T-15/18: Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2021 — OCU v ECB (Access to documents — Decision 2004/258/EC — Documents relating to the adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español — Refusal to grant access — Exception relating to the protection of the confidentiality of information that is protected as such under EU law — Concept of confidential information — Exemptions from the obligation of professional secrecy — Right to a fair hearing) | 27 |
| 2021/C 490/29 | Joined Cases T-351/18 and T-584/18: Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2021 — Ukrselhosprom PCF and Versobank v ECB (Economic and monetary policy — Prudential supervision of credit institutions — Specific supervisory tasks assigned to the ECB — Decision to withdraw a credit institution’s authorisation — Breach of legislation on combating money laundering and the financing of terrorism — Admissibility — Powers of the national competent authorities (NCAs) of participating Member States and of the ECB under the Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM) — Equal treatment — Proportionality — Protection of legitimate expectations — Legal certainty — Misuse of powers — Rights of the defence — Obligation to state reasons) | 28 |
| 2021/C 490/30 | Case T-655/18: Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2021 — Aupicon and Others v EEAS (Civil service — Officials — Members of the temporary staff — Members of the contract staff — Remuneration — EEAS staff posted to a third country — Article 10 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations — Annual assessment of the allowance for living conditions — Guidelines establishing the methodology to fix the living conditions allowances — Decision fixing the rate of the allowance for living conditions paid to staff posted to Ghana at 20 % — Failure to draw up the questionnaire required by the guidelines — Procedural irregularity — Manifest error of assessment) | 29 |
| 2021/C 490/31 | Case T-153/19: Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2021 — European Union Copper Task Force v Commission (Plant protection products — Active substance copper compounds — Renewal of approval for placing on the market — Candidates for substitution — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Associations — Proportionality — Precautionary principle — Manifest error of assessment — Expert’s report) | 30 |
| 2021/C 490/32 | Case T-279/19: Judgment of the General Court of 29 September 2021 — Front Polisario v Council (External relations — International agreements — Euro-Mediterranean Association Agreement EC-Morocco — Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters on the amendment of Protocols 1 and 4 to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement — Decision approving the conclusion of the agreement — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Capacity to be a party to legal proceedings — Direct concern — Individual concern — Territorial scope — Jurisdiction — Interpretation of international law adopted by the Court — Principle of self-determination — Principle of the relative effect of treaties — Possibility of relying thereon — Concept of consent — Implementation — Discretion — Limits — Maintaining the effects of the contested decision) | 30 |
| 2021/C 490/33 | Joined Cases T-344/19 and T-356/19: Judgment of the General Court of 29 September 2021 — Front Polisario v Council (External relations — International agreements — Euro-Mediterranean Association Agreement EC-Morocco — Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco — Implementation Protocol to the Partnership Agreement — Exchange of Letters accompanying the Partnership Agreement — Decision to conclude — Regulation on the allocation of fishing opportunities between Member States — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Capacity to be a party to legal proceedings — Direct concern — Individual concern — Territorial scope — Jurisdiction — Interpretation of international law adopted by the Court — Principle of self-determination — Principle of the relative effect of treaties — Possibility of relying thereon — Concept of consent — Implementation — Discretion — Limits — Maintaining the effects of the contested decision) | 31 |
| 2021/C 490/34 | Case T-1/20: Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2021 — M.I. Industries v EUIPO — Natural Instinct (INSTINCT) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark INSTINCT — No genuine use of the trade mark — Extent of use — Overall assessment of the evidence — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 32 |
| 2021/C 490/35 | Case T-12/20: Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2021 –Schneider v EUIPO — Frutaria Comercial de Frutas y Hortalizas (Frutaria) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU figurative trade mark Frutaria — Genuine use of the trade mark — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Proof of genuine use — Nature of use) | 33 |
| 2021/C 490/36 | Case T-22/20: Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2021 — IB v EUIPO (Civil service — Officials — Disciplinary proceedings — Suspension of the invalidity procedure during the disciplinary proceedings — Removal from post — Invalidity procedure which has become devoid of purpose following removal from post — Action for annulment — Act adversely affecting an official — Admissibility — Principle of sound administration — Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials — Manifest error of assessment) | 34 |
| 2021/C 490/37 | Case T-43/20: Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2021 — AV and AW v Parliament (Civil service — Officials — Disciplinary proceedings — Disciplinary measure — Downgrading — Rights of the defence — Principle of good administration — Manifest error of assessment) | 34 |
| 2021/C 490/38 | Case T-88/20: Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2021 — Rivière and Others v Parliament (Institutional law — European Parliament — Measure adopted by the President of the European Parliament forbidding national flags being placed on the desks of Members of Parliament — Standards of conduct of Members of Parliament — Article 10(3) of the Parliament’s Rules of Procedure — Act not open to challenge — Inadmissibility) | 35 |
| 2021/C 490/39 | Case T-121/20: Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2021 — IP v Commission (Civil service — Members of the contract staff — OLAF investigation — Reimbursement of medical expenses — Disciplinary penalty — Termination of contract without notice — Article 10(h) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations — Reoffending — Article 27 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations — Decision granting a request that no mention of a previous penalty remain in the personal file — Article 26 of the Staff Regulations — Sanction cannot be enforced or invoked against the official if no mention of it remains in the personal file) | 35 |
| 2021/C 490/40 | Case T-124/20: Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2021 — M/S. Indeutsch International v EUIPO — 135 Kirkstall (Representation of chevrons between two parallel lines) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark representing chevrons between two parallel lines — Absolute ground for refusal — Sign of which an EU trade mark may consist — Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Obligation to rule on the action — Article 71(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Cross-claim) | 36 |
| 2021/C 490/41 | Case T-219/20: Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2021 — JK v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Commission staff working for the EEAS — Request for assistance — Article 24 of the Staff Regulations — Implied decision rejecting the request — Decision rejecting the complaint — Article 90 of the Staff Regulations — Competent Appointing Authority — Principle of sound administration) | 37 |
| 2021/C 490/42 | Case T-429/20: Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2021 — Sedus Stoll v EUIPO — Kappes (Sedus ergo+) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark Sedus ergo+ — Earlier national word mark ERGOPLUS — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 37 |
| 2021/C 490/43 | Case T-436/20: Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2021 — Sedus Stoll v EUIPO — Kappes (Sedus ergo+) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark Sedus ergo+ — Earlier national and international word marks ERGOPLUS — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 38 |
| 2021/C 490/44 | Case T-523/20: Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2021 — Setarcos Consulting v EUIPO (Blockchain Island) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark Blockchain Island — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 39 |
| 2021/C 490/45 | Case T-591/20: Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2021 — Unimax Stationery v EUIPO — Mitsubishi Pencil (UNI-MAX) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark UNI-MAX — Earlier EU figurative marks uni and uni-ball — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 39 |
| 2021/C 490/46 | Case T-668/20: Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2021 — NZ v Commission (Staff case — Officials — Recruitment — Internal competition COM/1/AD 10/18 — Decision not to include the applicant's name on the competition reserve list — Obligation to state reasons — Secrecy of the proceedings of the selection board — Broad discretionary power of the selection board — Failure to communicate the intermediate marks and the weighting of the components of the oral test) | 40 |
| 2021/C 490/47 | Case T-712/20: Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2021 — Škoda Investment v EUIPO — Škoda Auto (Representation of an arrow with wing) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for an EU figurative mark representing an arrow with wing — Earlier EU figurative mark representing an arrow with wing — Relative ground for refusal — Partial rejection of the opposition — Limited scope of the opposition in the context of the appeal before the Board of Appeal — Partial withdrawal of the opposition — Plea raised by the Board of Appeal of its own motion — Prohibition on ruling ultra petita) | 40 |
| 2021/C 490/48 | Case T-732/20: Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2021 — Freundlieb v EUIPO (CRYSTAL) (EU trade mark — EU word mark CRYSTAL — Failure to apply for renewal of the trade mark registration — Revocation of the trade mark on expiry of the registration — Application for restitutio in integrum — Article 104 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Duty of care — No review — Failure to comply with time limits) | 41 |
| 2021/C 490/49 | Case T-733/20: Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2021 — Freundlieb v EUIPO (BANDIT) (EU trade mark — EU word mark BANDIT — Failure to apply for renewal of the trade mark registration — Revocation of the trade mark on expiry of the registration — Application for restitutio in integrum — Article 104 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Duty of care — No review — Failure to comply with time limits) | 42 |
| 2021/C 490/50 | Case T-45/21: Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2021 — Ciano Trading & Services CT & S and Others v Commission (Public service contracts — Tendering procedure — Sustainable restoration for the Commission in Brussels and its surroundings — Annulment of the tendering procedure — Legitimate expectations — Abuse of rights) | 42 |
| 2021/C 490/51 | Case T-633/20: Order of the General Court of 27 September 2021 — CNMSE and Others v Parliament and Council (Action for annulment — Public health — Regulation (EU) 2020/1043 — Conduct of clinical trials with medicinal products for human use containing GMOs — Treatment or prevention of the coronavirus disease SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) — Concept of legislative act — Concept of regulatory act — No individual concern — Inadmissibility) | 43 |
| 2021/C 490/52 | Case T-648/20: Order of the General Court of 28 September 2021 — NB v Court of Justice of the European Union (Action for annulment — Civil service — Decision not to appoint the applicant to grade AST 10 — Time limit for lodging a complaint — Delay — Manifest inadmissibility) | 44 |
| 2021/C 490/53 | Case T-124/21: Order of the General Court of 30 September 2021 — Mariani and Others v Parliament (Action for annulment — Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2223 — Cooperation with the European Public Prosecutor’s Office and the effectiveness of OLAF investigations — Act not of individual concern — Non-regulatory act — Inadmissibility) | 44 |
| 2021/C 490/54 | Case T-148/21 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 8 October 2021 — Paccor Packaging v Commission (Interim relief — Environment — Directive (EU) 2019/904 — Reduction of the impact of certain plastic products on the environment — Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2151 — Harmonised marking specifications for beverage cups — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency) | 45 |
| 2021/C 490/55 | Case T-563/21: Action brought on 6 September 2021 — Zaytsev v Council | 45 |
| 2021/C 490/56 | Case T-564/21: Action brought on 6 September 2021 — Bremino-Grupp v Council | 46 |
| 2021/C 490/57 | Case T-566/21: Action brought on 7 September 2021 — Steinbach International v Commission | 47 |
| 2021/C 490/58 | Case T-586/21: Action brought on 12 September 2021 — Swords v Commission | 48 |
| 2021/C 490/59 | Case T-628/21: Action brought on 29 September 2021 — Tequila Revolución v EUIPO — Horizons Group (London) (Revolution Vodka) | 49 |
| 2021/C 490/60 | Case T-650/21: Action brought on 7 October 2021 — Casa International v EUIPO — Interstyle (casa) | 50 |
| 2021/C 490/61 | Case T-662/21: Action brought on 15 October 2021 — Troy Chemical Company v Commission | 51 |
| 2021/C 490/62 | Case T-665/21: Action brought on 18 October 2021 — Civitta Eesti v Commission | 51 |
| 2021/C 490/63 | Case T-391/20: Order of the General Court of 27 September 2021 — Stena Line Scandinavia v Commission | 52 |
| 2021/C 490/64 | Case T-285/21: Order of the General Court of 1 October 2021 — Alliance française de Bruxelles Europe and Others v Commission | 52 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2021/C 490/02

Case C-668/19: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 October 2021 — European Commission v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 258 TFEU — Directive 91/271/EEC — Collecting and treatment of urban waste water — Article 3 to 5 and 10 — No collecting systems for urban water in certain agglomerations — No secondary treatment or equivalent treatment of urban waste water in certain agglomerations — Construction and operation of treatment plants — Control of discharges from such plants — Sensitive areas — More stringent treatment of waste water)

2

2021/C 490/03

Case C-717/19: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Boehringer Ingelheim RCV GmbH & Co. KG Magyarországi Fióktelepe v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 90(1) — Reduction of the taxable amount where the price is reduced after the supply takes place — Payments made by a pharmaceutical company to the State health insurance agency — Article 273 — Administrative formalities required by national legislation for the exercise of the right to reduction — Principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality)

6

2021/C 490/04

Case C-882/19: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona — Spain) — Sumal SL v Mercedes Benz Trucks España SL (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Competition — Compensation for harm caused by a practice prohibited under Article 101(1) TFEU — Determination of the undertakings liable to provide compensation — Action for compensation directed against the subsidiary of a parent company and brought following a decision finding only that the parent company participated in a cartel — Concept of an undertaking — Concept of economic unit)

7

2021/C 490/05

Case C-13/20: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Top System SA v Belgian State (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Copyright and related rights — Legal protection of computer programs — Directive 91/250/EEC — Article 5 — Exceptions to the restricted acts — Acts necessary to enable the lawful purchaser to correct errors — Concept — Article 6 — Decompilation — Conditions)

8

2021/C 490/06

Case C-35/20: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus — Finland) — Criminal proceedings against A (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Citizenship of the Union — Right of Union citizens to move freely within the territories of the Member States — Article 21 TFEU — Directive 2004/38/EC — Articles 4 and 5 — Obligation to carry an identity card or a passport — Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 (Schengen Borders Code) — Annex VI — Crossing the maritime border of a Member State on board a pleasure boat — Rules on sanctions applicable when moving between Member States without an identity card or passport — Rules on daily fines in criminal cases — Calculation of the fine based on the offender’s average monthly income — Proportionality — Severity of the sanction in relation to the offence)

9

2021/C 490/07

Case C-119/20: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) — Latvia) — Līga Šenfelde v Lauku atbalsta dienests (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common agricultural policy — European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) funding — National Rural Development Programme 2014-2020 — Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 — Article 19(1)(a) — Business start-up aid for young farmers — Aid for the development of small farms — Cumulation of aid — Possibility to refuse the cumulation)

10

2021/C 490/08

Case C-136/20: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Zalaegerszegi Járásbíróság — Hungary) — Proceedings relating to the recognition and enforcement of a financial penalty imposed on LU (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA — Enforcement of financial penalties — Principle of mutual recognition — Article 5(1) — Offences giving rise to the recognition and enforcement of penalty decisions without verification of the double criminality of the act — Article 5(3) — Offences in respect of which the Member State has the option of making the recognition and enforcement of penalty decisions subject to the double criminality of the act — Verification by the executing Member State of the legal characterisation given to the offence by the issuing Member State in the certificate accompanying the penalty decision)

10

2021/C 490/09

Case C-272/20 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 October 2021 — Sebastian Veit v European Central Bank (ECB) (Appeal — Civil service — European Central Bank (ECB) staff members — Remuneration — Competitions — Equality of treatment between internal and external candidates — Classification in step)

11

2021/C 490/10

Case C-338/20: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Łodzi-Śródmieścia w Łodzi — Poland) — Proceedings relating to the recognition and execution of a financial penalty imposed on D.P. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Mutual recognition — Financial penalties — Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA — Grounds for non-recognition and non-execution — Article 20(3) — Decision imposing a financial penalty — Observance of the rights of the defence — Notification of documents in a language not understood by the sentenced person — Translation of the essential elements of the decision)

11

2021/C 490/11

Case C-408/20 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 October 2021 — Danilo Poggiolini v European Parliament (Appeal — Institutional law — Single statute for Members of the European Parliament — Members of the European Parliament elected in Italian constituencies — Modification of pension entitlements — Act adversely affecting an official — Provisional position — Independent legal effects)

12

2021/C 490/12

Case C-431/20 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 October 2021 — Carlo Tognoli and Others v European Parliament (Appeal — Institutional law — Single statute for Members of the European Parliament — Members of the European Parliament elected in Italian constituencies — Modification of pension entitlements — Act adversely affecting an official — Provisional position — Independent legal effects)

13

2021/C 490/13

Case C-581/20: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven kasatsionen sad (Bulgaria) — Bulgaria) — Skarb Państwa Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej reprezentowany przez Generalnego Dyrektora Dróg Krajowych i Autostrad v TOTO SpA — Costruzioni Generali, Vianini Lavori SpA (Request for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Article 1(1) — Civil and commercial matters — Article 35 — Provisional, including protective, measures — Action based on a contract for the construction of a public expressway concluded between a public authority and two private law companies — Application for interim relief relating to penalties and guarantees arising from that contract — Decision on interim relief already given by a court having jurisdiction as to the substance)

14

2021/C 490/14

Case C-613/20: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 6 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Salzburg — Austria) — CS v Eurowings GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Article 5(3) — Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of cancellation or long delay of flights — Exemption from the obligation to pay compensation — Concept of extraordinary circumstances — Strike by airline staff — Strike by the staff of a subsidiary in solidarity with the staff of the parent company)

15

2021/C 490/15

Case C-419/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla m.st. Warszawy w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 8 July 2021 — X sp. z o.o., sp. k. v Z

15

2021/C 490/16

Case C-453/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 21 July 2021 — X-FAB Dresden GmbH & Co. KG v FC

16

2021/C 490/17

Case C-499/21 P: Appeal brought on 13 August 2021 by Joshua David Silver, Leona Catherine Bashow, Charles Nicholas Hilary Marquand, JY, JZ, Anthony Styles Clayton, Gillian Margaret Clayton against the order of the General Court (Tenth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 8 June 2021 in Case T-252/20, Silver and Others v Council

17

2021/C 490/18

Case C-504/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Stade (Germany) lodged on 17 August 2021 — Applicant 1 and Others v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

18

2021/C 490/19

Case C-527/21 P: Appeal brought on 20 August 2021 by XC against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 10 February 2021 in Case T-488/18, XC v Commission

20

2021/C 490/20

Case C-543/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 31 August 2021 — Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb e.V. v famila-Handelsmarkt Kiel GmbH & Co. KG

21

2021/C 490/21

Case C-553/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 8 September 2021 — Hauptzollamt Hamburg v Shell Deutschland Oil GmbH

22

2021/C 490/22

Case C-571/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 16 September 2021 — RWE Power Aktiengesellschaft v Hauptzollamt Duisburg

22

2021/C 490/23

Case C-594/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 27 September 2021 — VB v Sixt Leasing SE

23

2021/C 490/24

Case C-601/21: Action brought on 28 September 2021 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

23

2021/C 490/25

Case C-602/21: Action brought on 28 September 2021 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

24

General Court

2021/C 490/26

Case T-646/16 P-RENV-RX: Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2021 — Simpson v Council (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Refusal of the Council to reclassify the person concerned, after he passed an open competition, at the grade laid down in the competition notice — Dismissal of the action on the merits — Appeal — Judgment set aside — Appeal judgment reviewed by the Court of Justice and set aside — Referral back to the General Court as the appeal court — Obligation to state grounds — Equal treatment)

26

2021/C 490/27

Case T-827/17: Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2021 — Aeris Invest v ECB (Access to documents — Decision 2004/258/EC — Documents related to the adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español — Partial refusal to grant access — Exception relating to the protection of the confidentiality of the proceedings of the ECB’s decision-making bodies — Document reflecting the outcome of the proceedings of the ECB’s decision-making bodies — Obligation to state reasons — Exception relating to the protection of the financial, monetary or economic policy of the European Union or of a Member State — Exception relating to the protection of the confidentiality of information that is protected as such under EU law — Concept of confidential information — General presumption of confidentiality — Exemptions from the obligation of professional secrecy — Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights)

26

2021/C 490/28

Case T-15/18: Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2021 — OCU v ECB (Access to documents — Decision 2004/258/EC — Documents relating to the adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español — Refusal to grant access — Exception relating to the protection of the confidentiality of information that is protected as such under EU law — Concept of confidential information — Exemptions from the obligation of professional secrecy — Right to a fair hearing)

27

2021/C 490/29

Joined Cases T-351/18 and T-584/18: Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2021 — Ukrselhosprom PCF and Versobank v ECB (Economic and monetary policy — Prudential supervision of credit institutions — Specific supervisory tasks assigned to the ECB — Decision to withdraw a credit institution’s authorisation — Breach of legislation on combating money laundering and the financing of terrorism — Admissibility — Powers of the national competent authorities (NCAs) of participating Member States and of the ECB under the Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM) — Equal treatment — Proportionality — Protection of legitimate expectations — Legal certainty — Misuse of powers — Rights of the defence — Obligation to state reasons)

28

2021/C 490/30

Case T-655/18: Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2021 — Aupicon and Others v EEAS (Civil service — Officials — Members of the temporary staff — Members of the contract staff — Remuneration — EEAS staff posted to a third country — Article 10 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations — Annual assessment of the allowance for living conditions — Guidelines establishing the methodology to fix the living conditions allowances — Decision fixing the rate of the allowance for living conditions paid to staff posted to Ghana at 20 % — Failure to draw up the questionnaire required by the guidelines — Procedural irregularity — Manifest error of assessment)

29

2021/C 490/31

Case T-153/19: Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2021 — European Union Copper Task Force v Commission (Plant protection products — Active substance copper compounds — Renewal of approval for placing on the market — Candidates for substitution — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Associations — Proportionality — Precautionary principle — Manifest error of assessment — Expert’s report)

30

2021/C 490/32

Case T-279/19: Judgment of the General Court of 29 September 2021 — Front Polisario v Council (External relations — International agreements — Euro-Mediterranean Association Agreement EC-Morocco — Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters on the amendment of Protocols 1 and 4 to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement — Decision approving the conclusion of the agreement — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Capacity to be a party to legal proceedings — Direct concern — Individual concern — Territorial scope — Jurisdiction — Interpretation of international law adopted by the Court — Principle of self-determination — Principle of the relative effect of treaties — Possibility of relying thereon — Concept of consent — Implementation — Discretion — Limits — Maintaining the effects of the contested decision)

30

2021/C 490/33

Joined Cases T-344/19 and T-356/19: Judgment of the General Court of 29 September 2021 — Front Polisario v Council (External relations — International agreements — Euro-Mediterranean Association Agreement EC-Morocco — Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco — Implementation Protocol to the Partnership Agreement — Exchange of Letters accompanying the Partnership Agreement — Decision to conclude — Regulation on the allocation of fishing opportunities between Member States — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Capacity to be a party to legal proceedings — Direct concern — Individual concern — Territorial scope — Jurisdiction — Interpretation of international law adopted by the Court — Principle of self-determination — Principle of the relative effect of treaties — Possibility of relying thereon — Concept of consent — Implementation — Discretion — Limits — Maintaining the effects of the contested decision)

31

2021/C 490/34

Case T-1/20: Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2021 — M.I. Industries v EUIPO — Natural Instinct (INSTINCT) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark INSTINCT — No genuine use of the trade mark — Extent of use — Overall assessment of the evidence — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

32

2021/C 490/35

Case T-12/20: Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2021 –Schneider v EUIPO — Frutaria Comercial de Frutas y Hortalizas (Frutaria) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU figurative trade mark Frutaria — Genuine use of the trade mark — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Proof of genuine use — Nature of use)

33

2021/C 490/36

Case T-22/20: Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2021 — IB v EUIPO (Civil service — Officials — Disciplinary proceedings — Suspension of the invalidity procedure during the disciplinary proceedings — Removal from post — Invalidity procedure which has become devoid of purpose following removal from post — Action for annulment — Act adversely affecting an official — Admissibility — Principle of sound administration — Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials — Manifest error of assessment)

34

2021/C 490/37

Case T-43/20: Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2021 — AV and AW v Parliament (Civil service — Officials — Disciplinary proceedings — Disciplinary measure — Downgrading — Rights of the defence — Principle of good administration — Manifest error of assessment)

34

2021/C 490/38

Case T-88/20: Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2021 — Rivière and Others v Parliament (Institutional law — European Parliament — Measure adopted by the President of the European Parliament forbidding national flags being placed on the desks of Members of Parliament — Standards of conduct of Members of Parliament — Article 10(3) of the Parliament’s Rules of Procedure — Act not open to challenge — Inadmissibility)

35

2021/C 490/39

Case T-121/20: Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2021 — IP v Commission (Civil service — Members of the contract staff — OLAF investigation — Reimbursement of medical expenses — Disciplinary penalty — Termination of contract without notice — Article 10(h) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations — Reoffending — Article 27 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations — Decision granting a request that no mention of a previous penalty remain in the personal file — Article 26 of the Staff Regulations — Sanction cannot be enforced or invoked against the official if no mention of it remains in the personal file)

35

2021/C 490/40

Case T-124/20: Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2021 — M/S. Indeutsch International v EUIPO — 135 Kirkstall (Representation of chevrons between two parallel lines) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark representing chevrons between two parallel lines — Absolute ground for refusal — Sign of which an EU trade mark may consist — Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Obligation to rule on the action — Article 71(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Cross-claim)

36

2021/C 490/41

Case T-219/20: Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2021 — JK v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Commission staff working for the EEAS — Request for assistance — Article 24 of the Staff Regulations — Implied decision rejecting the request — Decision rejecting the complaint — Article 90 of the Staff Regulations — Competent Appointing Authority — Principle of sound administration)

37

2021/C 490/42

Case T-429/20: Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2021 — Sedus Stoll v EUIPO — Kappes (Sedus ergo+) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark Sedus ergo+ — Earlier national word mark ERGOPLUS — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

37

2021/C 490/43

Case T-436/20: Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2021 — Sedus Stoll v EUIPO — Kappes (Sedus ergo+) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark Sedus ergo+ — Earlier national and international word marks ERGOPLUS — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

38

2021/C 490/44

Case T-523/20: Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2021 — Setarcos Consulting v EUIPO (Blockchain Island) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark Blockchain Island — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

39

2021/C 490/45

Case T-591/20: Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2021 — Unimax Stationery v EUIPO — Mitsubishi Pencil (UNI-MAX) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark UNI-MAX — Earlier EU figurative marks uni and uni-ball — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

39

2021/C 490/46

Case T-668/20: Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2021 — NZ v Commission (Staff case — Officials — Recruitment — Internal competition COM/1/AD 10/18 — Decision not to include the applicant's name on the competition reserve list — Obligation to state reasons — Secrecy of the proceedings of the selection board — Broad discretionary power of the selection board — Failure to communicate the intermediate marks and the weighting of the components of the oral test)

40

2021/C 490/47

Case T-712/20: Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2021 — Škoda Investment v EUIPO — Škoda Auto (Representation of an arrow with wing) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for an EU figurative mark representing an arrow with wing — Earlier EU figurative mark representing an arrow with wing — Relative ground for refusal — Partial rejection of the opposition — Limited scope of the opposition in the context of the appeal before the Board of Appeal — Partial withdrawal of the opposition — Plea raised by the Board of Appeal of its own motion — Prohibition on ruling ultra petita)

40

2021/C 490/48

Case T-732/20: Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2021 — Freundlieb v EUIPO (CRYSTAL) (EU trade mark — EU word mark CRYSTAL — Failure to apply for renewal of the trade mark registration — Revocation of the trade mark on expiry of the registration — Application for restitutio in integrum — Article 104 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Duty of care — No review — Failure to comply with time limits)

41

2021/C 490/49

Case T-733/20: Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2021 — Freundlieb v EUIPO (BANDIT) (EU trade mark — EU word mark BANDIT — Failure to apply for renewal of the trade mark registration — Revocation of the trade mark on expiry of the registration — Application for restitutio in integrum — Article 104 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Duty of care — No review — Failure to comply with time limits)

42

2021/C 490/50

Case T-45/21: Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2021 — Ciano Trading & Services CT & S and Others v Commission (Public service contracts — Tendering procedure — Sustainable restoration for the Commission in Brussels and its surroundings — Annulment of the tendering procedure — Legitimate expectations — Abuse of rights)

42

2021/C 490/51

Case T-633/20: Order of the General Court of 27 September 2021 — CNMSE and Others v Parliament and Council (Action for annulment — Public health — Regulation (EU) 2020/1043 — Conduct of clinical trials with medicinal products for human use containing GMOs — Treatment or prevention of the coronavirus disease SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) — Concept of legislative act — Concept of regulatory act — No individual concern — Inadmissibility)

43

2021/C 490/52

Case T-648/20: Order of the General Court of 28 September 2021 — NB v Court of Justice of the European Union (Action for annulment — Civil service — Decision not to appoint the applicant to grade AST 10 — Time limit for lodging a complaint — Delay — Manifest inadmissibility)

44

2021/C 490/53

Case T-124/21: Order of the General Court of 30 September 2021 — Mariani and Others v Parliament (Action for annulment — Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2223 — Cooperation with the European Public Prosecutor’s Office and the effectiveness of OLAF investigations — Act not of individual concern — Non-regulatory act — Inadmissibility)

44

2021/C 490/54

Case T-148/21 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 8 October 2021 — Paccor Packaging v Commission (Interim relief — Environment — Directive (EU) 2019/904 — Reduction of the impact of certain plastic products on the environment — Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2151 — Harmonised marking specifications for beverage cups — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency)

45

2021/C 490/55

Case T-563/21: Action brought on 6 September 2021 — Zaytsev v Council

45

2021/C 490/56

Case T-564/21: Action brought on 6 September 2021 — Bremino-Grupp v Council

46

2021/C 490/57

Case T-566/21: Action brought on 7 September 2021 — Steinbach International v Commission

47

2021/C 490/58

Case T-586/21: Action brought on 12 September 2021 — Swords v Commission

48

2021/C 490/59

Case T-628/21: Action brought on 29 September 2021 — Tequila Revolución v EUIPO — Horizons Group (London) (Revolution Vodka)

49

2021/C 490/60

Case T-650/21: Action brought on 7 October 2021 — Casa International v EUIPO — Interstyle (casa)

50

2021/C 490/61

Case T-662/21: Action brought on 15 October 2021 — Troy Chemical Company v Commission

51

2021/C 490/62

Case T-665/21: Action brought on 18 October 2021 — Civitta Eesti v Commission

51

2021/C 490/63

Case T-391/20: Order of the General Court of 27 September 2021 — Stena Line Scandinavia v Commission

52

2021/C 490/64

Case T-285/21: Order of the General Court of 1 October 2021 — Alliance française de Bruxelles Europe and Others v Commission

52

---

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 6.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 490/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 490/1

---

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

(2021/C 490/01)

Last publication

OJ C 481, 29.11.2021.

Past publications

OJ C 471, 22.11.2021.

OJ C 462, 15.11.2021.

OJ C 452, 8.11.2021.

OJ C 431, 25.10.2021.

OJ C 422, 18.10.2021.

OJ C 412, 11.10.2021.

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 6.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 490/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 490/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 October 2021 — European Commission v Italian Republic

(Case C-668/19) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 258 TFEU - Directive 91/271/EEC - Collecting and treatment of urban waste water - Article 3 to 5 and 10 - No collecting systems for urban water in certain agglomerations - No secondary treatment or equivalent treatment of urban waste water in certain agglomerations - Construction and operation of treatment plants - Control of discharges from such plants - Sensitive areas - More stringent treatment of waste water)

(2021/C 490/02)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Manhaeve and L. Cimaglia, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and M. Russo, G. Di Leo and L. Simeoli, avvocati dello Stato)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to:






  — | provide collecting systems for urban waste water for the agglomerations of Lettomanoppello Capoluogo (Abruzzo), Agerola, Airola, Alife, Altavilla Silentina, Apice, Ascea, Baia e Latina, Baselice, Bonito, Buccino, Caggiano, Caiazzo, Calitri, Caposele, Casalbuono, Casalvelino 1, Caselle in Pittari, Castellabate, Castel San Lorenzo, Castelvolturno Nord, Centola 1, Ceppaloni, Colle Sannita, Contursi Terme, Flumeri, Fontanarosa, Gioia Sannitica, Grazzanise, Grottaminarda, Guardia Sanframondi, Lapio, Limatola, Lioni, Marzano Appio, Mignano Monte Lungo, Mirabella Eclano, Moiano, Mondragone, Montefalcione, Montesano sulla Marcellana, Morcone, Nocera Inferiore, Nocera Superiore, Padula, Pietradefusi, Pietrelcina, Pisciotta, Polla, Pollica, Postiglione, Pratola Serra, Procida, Roccabascerana, Roccagloriosa, Rofrano, San Bartolomeo in Galdo, San Giorgio del Sannio, San Giorgio la Molara, San Gregorio Magno, San Leucio del Sannio, San Marco dei Cavoti, San Mauro Cilento, San Salvatore Telesino, Santa Maria la Fossa, Sant’Angelo a Cupolo, Sant’Angelo dei Lombardi 1, Sant’Angelo dei Lombardi 2, Sanza, Sassano, Scafati, Sessa Aurunca, Sicignano degli Alburni, Summonte, Taurasi, Teano, Teggiano, Telese Terme, Tramonti, Vallata, Valle di Maddaloni, Venticano, Vitulano, Vitulazio (Campania), Acquaro, Aiello Calabro, Altomonte, Bocchigliero, Caccuri, Cardeto, Casabona, Catanzaro, Celico, Cerisano, Cerzeto, Chiaravalle Centrale, Cirò, Cirò Marina, Conflenti, Delianuova, Fiumefreddo Bruzio, Gioiosa Ionica, Grotteria, Ioppolo, Lago, Laino Borgo, Lattarico, Lungro, Luzzi, Maierato, Melissa, Mongrassano, Monasterace, Mottafollone, Palizzi, Paludi, Paola, Parghelia, Petilia Policastro, Placanica, Plataci, Platì, Polia, Rocca di Neto, San Benedetto Ullano, San Demetrio Corone, San Giorgio Albanese, San Gregorio d’Ippona, San Marco Argentano, San Martino di Finita, San Sosti, Santa Agata d’Esaro, Santa Caterina Albanese, Santa Severina, Santa Sofia d’Epiro, Scandale, Scigliano, Scilla, Seminara, Spilinga, Tarsia, Zambrone (Calabria), Maniago-Maniago (Friuli-Venezia Giulia), Calcinato — Ponte San Marco, Capriano del Colle — Fenili Belasi, Gazzada Schianno, Lonato, Rovato (Lombardy), Castrignano del Capo (Puglia), Borgetto, Butera, Castelvetrano-Marinella di Selinunte, Castiglione di Sicilia, Catenanuova, Mazzarrone, Nissoria, Pantelleria, Petrosino, Ravanusa, Realmonte, Regalbuto, Roccapalumba, San Vito lo Capo, Santa Ninfa (Sicily), Pont-Saint-Martin (Aosta Valley) and Isola della Scala (Veneto), |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to:

—

provide collecting systems for urban waste water for the agglomerations of Lettomanoppello Capoluogo (Abruzzo), Agerola, Airola, Alife, Altavilla Silentina, Apice, Ascea, Baia e Latina, Baselice, Bonito, Buccino, Caggiano, Caiazzo, Calitri, Caposele, Casalbuono, Casalvelino 1, Caselle in Pittari, Castellabate, Castel San Lorenzo, Castelvolturno Nord, Centola 1, Ceppaloni, Colle Sannita, Contursi Terme, Flumeri, Fontanarosa, Gioia Sannitica, Grazzanise, Grottaminarda, Guardia Sanframondi, Lapio, Limatola, Lioni, Marzano Appio, Mignano Monte Lungo, Mirabella Eclano, Moiano, Mondragone, Montefalcione, Montesano sulla Marcellana, Morcone, Nocera Inferiore, Nocera Superiore, Padula, Pietradefusi, Pietrelcina, Pisciotta, Polla, Pollica, Postiglione, Pratola Serra, Procida, Roccabascerana, Roccagloriosa, Rofrano, San Bartolomeo in Galdo, San Giorgio del Sannio, San Giorgio la Molara, San Gregorio Magno, San Leucio del Sannio, San Marco dei Cavoti, San Mauro Cilento, San Salvatore Telesino, Santa Maria la Fossa, Sant’Angelo a Cupolo, Sant’Angelo dei Lombardi 1, Sant’Angelo dei Lombardi 2, Sanza, Sassano, Scafati, Sessa Aurunca, Sicignano degli Alburni, Summonte, Taurasi, Teano, Teggiano, Telese Terme, Tramonti, Vallata, Valle di Maddaloni, Venticano, Vitulano, Vitulazio (Campania), Acquaro, Aiello Calabro, Altomonte, Bocchigliero, Caccuri, Cardeto, Casabona, Catanzaro, Celico, Cerisano, Cerzeto, Chiaravalle Centrale, Cirò, Cirò Marina, Conflenti, Delianuova, Fiumefreddo Bruzio, Gioiosa Ionica, Grotteria, Ioppolo, Lago, Laino Borgo, Lattarico, Lungro, Luzzi, Maierato, Melissa, Mongrassano, Monasterace, Mottafollone, Palizzi, Paludi, Paola, Parghelia, Petilia Policastro, Placanica, Plataci, Platì, Polia, Rocca di Neto, San Benedetto Ullano, San Demetrio Corone, San Giorgio Albanese, San Gregorio d’Ippona, San Marco Argentano, San Martino di Finita, San Sosti, Santa Agata d’Esaro, Santa Caterina Albanese, Santa Severina, Santa Sofia d’Epiro, Scandale, Scigliano, Scilla, Seminara, Spilinga, Tarsia, Zambrone (Calabria), Maniago-Maniago (Friuli-Venezia Giulia), Calcinato — Ponte San Marco, Capriano del Colle — Fenili Belasi, Gazzada Schianno, Lonato, Rovato (Lombardy), Castrignano del Capo (Puglia), Borgetto, Butera, Castelvetrano-Marinella di Selinunte, Castiglione di Sicilia, Catenanuova, Mazzarrone, Nissoria, Pantelleria, Petrosino, Ravanusa, Realmonte, Regalbuto, Roccapalumba, San Vito lo Capo, Santa Ninfa (Sicily), Pont-Saint-Martin (Aosta Valley) and Isola della Scala (Veneto),

| — | ensure that urban waste water entering collecting system is, before discharge, subject to secondary treatment or an equivalent treatment in the agglomerations of:






  — | Lettomanoppello Capoluogo (Abruzzo), Agerola, Airola, Alife, Altavilla Silentina, Apice, Ascea, Baia e Latina, Baselice, Bonito, Buccino, Caggiano, Caiazzo, Calitri, Caposele, Casalbuono, Casalvelino 1, Caselle in Pittari, Castellabate, Castel San Lorenzo, Castelvolturno Nord, Centola 1, Ceppaloni, Colle Sannita, Contursi Terme, Flumeri, Fontanarosa, Gioia Sannitica, Grazzanise, Grottaminarda, Guardia Sanframondi, Lapio, Limatola, Lioni, Marzano Appio, Mignano Monte Lungo, Mirabella Eclano, Moiano, Mondragone, Montefalcione, Montesano sulla Marcellana, Morcone, Nocera Inferiore, Nocera Superiore, Padula, Pietradefusi, Pietrelcina, Polla, Pollica, Postiglione, Pratola Serra, Procida, Roccabascerana, Roccagloriosa, Rofrano, San Bartolomeo in Galdo, San Giorgio del Sannio, San Giorgio la Molara, San Gregorio Magno, San Leucio del Sannio, San Marco dei Cavoti, San Mauro Cilento, San Salvatore Telesino, Santa Maria la Fossa, Sant’Angelo a Cupolo, Sant’Angelo dei Lombardi 1, Sant’Angelo dei Lombardi 2, Sanza, Sassano, Scafati, Sessa Aurunca, Sicignano degli Alburni, Summonte, Taurasi, Teano, Teggiano, Telese Terme, Vallata, Valle di Maddaloni, Venticano, Vitulano, Vitulazio (Campania), Acquaro, Aiello Calabro, Altomonte, Bocchigliero, Caccuri, Cardeto, Casabona, Catanzaro, Celico, Cerisano, Cerzeto, Chiaravalle Centrale, Cirò, Cirò Marina, Conflenti, Delianuova, Fiumefreddo Bruzio, Gioiosa Ionica, Grotteria, Ioppolo, Lago, Laino Borgo, Lattarico, Lungro, Luzzi, Maierato, Melissa, Mongrassano, Monasterace, Mottafollone, Palizzi, Paludi, Paola, Parghelia, Petilia Policastro, Placanica, Plataci, Platì, Polia, Rocca di Neto, San Benedetto Ullano, San Demetrio Corone, San Giorgio Albanese, San Gregorio d’Ippona, San Marco Argentano, San Martino di Finita, San Sosti, Santa Agata d’Esaro, Santa Caterina Albanese, Santa Severina, Santa Sofia d’Epiro, Scandale, Scigliano, Scilla, Seminara, Spilinga, Tarsia, Zambrone (Calabria), Maniago-Maniago (Friuli-Venezia Giulia), Lonato, Rovato (Lombardy), Castrignano del Capo (Puglia), Borgetto, Butera, Castiglione di Sicilia, Catenanuova, Nissoria, Pantelleria, Petrosino, Ravanusa, Roccapalumba, San Vito lo Capo, Santa Ninfa (Sicily), Pont-Saint-Martin (Aosta Valley), Atessa Capoluogo, Fara Filiorum Petri, Fossacesia, Loreto Aprutino, Manoppello Capoluogo-Scalo-Ripa Corbara, Tollo, Torino di Sangro-Borgata Marina (Abruzzo), Acerenza, Atella, Barile, Bella, Chiaromonte, Genzano di Lucania, Irsina, Pescopagano, Pietragalla, Pisticci, Pomarico, Salandra, Tricarico (Basilicata), Aprigliano, Belvedere Marittimo, Bianchi, Bisignano, Bonifati, Borgia, Briatico, Cardinale, Cariati, Carlopoli, Cerva, Cessaniti, Civita, Corigliano Calabro, Crosia, Crucoli, Dinami, Drapia, Fabrizia, Fagnano Castello, Feroleto Antico, Ferruzzano, Filadelfia, Firmo, Francavilla Angitola, Francavilla Marittima, Frascineto, Gerocarne, Gimigliano, Grimaldi, Guardavalle, Guardia Piemontese, Limbadi, Maida, Malvito, Mammola, Mandatoriccio, Marcellinara, Maropati, Mormanno, Nardodipace, Oppido Mamertina, Oriolo, Orsomarso, Parenti, Paterno Calabro, Pedace, Pentone, Piane Crati, Rende, Riace, Roccella Ionica, Roggiano Gravina, San Calogero, San Giovanni in Fiore, San Lorenzo del Vallo, San Nicola da Crissa, San Pietro Apostolo, San Pietro di Caridà, San Roberto, San Vincenzo La Costa, Santo Stefano in Aspromonte, Serra San Bruno, Serrastretta, Sersale, Spezzano Albanese, Tiriolo, Torano Castello, Verbicaro, Varapodio, Zungri (Calabria), Afragola, Altavilla Irpina, Bagnoli Irpino, Calabritto, Camerota, Foglianise, Gesualdo, Maiori, Mercato Sanseverino, Montecalvo Irpino, Montecorice, Montemiletto, Montesarchio, Naples West, Nola, Paduli, Perdifumo, Pignataro Maggiore, Riardo, Salerne, Solopaca, Torre del Greco, Vairano Patenora, Vibonati (Campania), Prata di Pordenone-Prata di Pordenone, Rivignano (Friuli-Venezia Giulia), Fontana Liri-Arce, Orte, Rome (Lazio), Alassio, Andora, Lavagna, Riva Trigoso (Liguria), Alfianello, Angolo Terme, Bagolino, Borno, Borgo San Giacomo, Calvisano, Capo di Ponte, Cedegolo, Concesio, Edolo, Leno, Lograto, Lumezzane, Mairano, Malonno, Marcheno, Montodine, Nuvolera, Oltre il Colle, Pompiano, Premana, Quinzano d’Oglio, Rudiano, San Paolo, Verolanuova, Vobarno (Lombardy), Castelfidardo, Cingoli, Corinaldo, Cupramontana, Fabriano, Falconara Marittima, Gallo Cappone, Macerata, Mogliano, Montappone-Massa Fermana, Montecchio, Montefano, Montelupone, Morrovalle, Orciano di Pesaro, Ostra, Potenza Picena, Recanati, Ripe, San Costanzo, Sarnano, Sassoferrato (Marche), Andria, Ascoli Satriano, Bari, Carlantino, Corato, Lucera, Montemesola, San Ferdinando di Puglia, San Severo, Volturino (Puglia), Badesi, Bono, Bortigali, Castelsardo, Cortoghiana, Lanusei, Mandas, Maracalagonis, Meana Sardo, Mores, Olmedo, Orosei, Pattada, Platamona, Settimo San Pietro, Sorgono, Tonara, Valledoria, Valledoria Zone turistiche (Sardinia), Acate, Aidone, Alcara Li Fusi, Alimena, Altofonte Centro, Aragona, Barrafranca, Belmonte Mezzagno, Bivona, Bolognetta, Bompietro, Burgio, Buseto Palazzolo, Calascibetta, Calatabiano, Caltabellotta, Caltanissetta-San Cataldo Consortile, Camastra, Cammarata-San Giovanni Gemini, Campofiorito, Campofranco, Canicattini Bagni, Capizzi, Casteldaccia, Castel di Judica, Castell’Umberto, Castell’Umberto-Sfaranda, Castronovo di Sicilia, Cattolica Eraclea, Centuripe, Cerami, Cesarò, Cianciana, Ciminna, Comiso, Comiso-Pedalino, Contessa Entellina, Corleone, Delia, Enna, Erice, Francofonte, Gaggi, Gagliano Castelferrato, Galati Mamertino, Gela, Grammichele, Graniti, Isnello, Ispica-Santa Maria Focallo, Joppolo Giancaxio, Lampedusa, Librizzi, Licata, Licodia Eubea, Linguaglossa, Lipari, Lipari-Vulcano, Lucca Sicula, Maletto, Maniace, Marianopoli, Mazzarino, Melilli-Villasmundo, Merì, Mezzojuso, Milena, Militello Rosmarino, Milo, Mirabella Imbaccari, Mistretta, Montedoro, Monterosso Almo, Montevago, Motta Sant’Anastasia, Naro, Nicosia, Nizza di Sicilia-Alì Terme, Noto, Pachino, Pantelleria-Scauri, Petralia Soprana-Fasanò, Petralia Sottana, Piana degli Albanesi, Piazza Armerina, Piedimonte Etneo, Pietraperzia, Prizzi, Racalmuto, Raddusa, Ramacca, Randazzo, Rocca di Caprileone, Rodi Milici, Salemi, Salemi-San Ciro, Sambuca di Sicilia, San Biagio Platani, San Cono, San Filippo del Mela, San Fratello, San Giuseppe Jato-San Cipirello, San Marco d’Alunzio, San Michele di Ganzaria, San Piero Patti, San Salvatore di Fitalia, Santa Croce Camerina — Zona costiera, Santa Lucia del Mela, Santa Margherita di Belice, Santa Maria di Licodia, Santo Stefano Quisquina, Serradifalco, Sinagra, Sommatino, Sortino, Sutera, Terme Vigliatore, Tortorici, Troina, Ucria, Ustica, Valderice-Bonagia, Valguarnera, Ventimiglia di Sicilia, Villalba, Villafranca Tirrena, Villarosa, Vizzini (Sicily), Agliana, Arcidosso, Barga, Bientina, Cascina, Cascine-La Croce, Cerreto Guidi, Foiano della Chiana, Impruneta, Montalcino, Montecalvoli, Montespertoli, Pisa, Pistoia, Pomarance, Rufina, Santa Maria a Monte, Strada in Chianti, Subbiano, Vicopisano, Zona-Firenze (Florence) (Tuscany), Borca di Cadore (Veneto), Matera, Rionero in Vulture (Basilicata) and Dolianova (Sardinia); |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

ensure that urban waste water entering collecting system is, before discharge, subject to secondary treatment or an equivalent treatment in the agglomerations of:

—

Lettomanoppello Capoluogo (Abruzzo), Agerola, Airola, Alife, Altavilla Silentina, Apice, Ascea, Baia e Latina, Baselice, Bonito, Buccino, Caggiano, Caiazzo, Calitri, Caposele, Casalbuono, Casalvelino 1, Caselle in Pittari, Castellabate, Castel San Lorenzo, Castelvolturno Nord, Centola 1, Ceppaloni, Colle Sannita, Contursi Terme, Flumeri, Fontanarosa, Gioia Sannitica, Grazzanise, Grottaminarda, Guardia Sanframondi, Lapio, Limatola, Lioni, Marzano Appio, Mignano Monte Lungo, Mirabella Eclano, Moiano, Mondragone, Montefalcione, Montesano sulla Marcellana, Morcone, Nocera Inferiore, Nocera Superiore, Padula, Pietradefusi, Pietrelcina, Polla, Pollica, Postiglione, Pratola Serra, Procida, Roccabascerana, Roccagloriosa, Rofrano, San Bartolomeo in Galdo, San Giorgio del Sannio, San Giorgio la Molara, San Gregorio Magno, San Leucio del Sannio, San Marco dei Cavoti, San Mauro Cilento, San Salvatore Telesino, Santa Maria la Fossa, Sant’Angelo a Cupolo, Sant’Angelo dei Lombardi 1, Sant’Angelo dei Lombardi 2, Sanza, Sassano, Scafati, Sessa Aurunca, Sicignano degli Alburni, Summonte, Taurasi, Teano, Teggiano, Telese Terme, Vallata, Valle di Maddaloni, Venticano, Vitulano, Vitulazio (Campania), Acquaro, Aiello Calabro, Altomonte, Bocchigliero, Caccuri, Cardeto, Casabona, Catanzaro, Celico, Cerisano, Cerzeto, Chiaravalle Centrale, Cirò, Cirò Marina, Conflenti, Delianuova, Fiumefreddo Bruzio, Gioiosa Ionica, Grotteria, Ioppolo, Lago, Laino Borgo, Lattarico, Lungro, Luzzi, Maierato, Melissa, Mongrassano, Monasterace, Mottafollone, Palizzi, Paludi, Paola, Parghelia, Petilia Policastro, Placanica, Plataci, Platì, Polia, Rocca di Neto, San Benedetto Ullano, San Demetrio Corone, San Giorgio Albanese, San Gregorio d’Ippona, San Marco Argentano, San Martino di Finita, San Sosti, Santa Agata d’Esaro, Santa Caterina Albanese, Santa Severina, Santa Sofia d’Epiro, Scandale, Scigliano, Scilla, Seminara, Spilinga, Tarsia, Zambrone (Calabria), Maniago-Maniago (Friuli-Venezia Giulia), Lonato, Rovato (Lombardy), Castrignano del Capo (Puglia), Borgetto, Butera, Castiglione di Sicilia, Catenanuova, Nissoria, Pantelleria, Petrosino, Ravanusa, Roccapalumba, San Vito lo Capo, Santa Ninfa (Sicily), Pont-Saint-Martin (Aosta Valley), Atessa Capoluogo, Fara Filiorum Petri, Fossacesia, Loreto Aprutino, Manoppello Capoluogo-Scalo-Ripa Corbara, Tollo, Torino di Sangro-Borgata Marina (Abruzzo), Acerenza, Atella, Barile, Bella, Chiaromonte, Genzano di Lucania, Irsina, Pescopagano, Pietragalla, Pisticci, Pomarico, Salandra, Tricarico (Basilicata), Aprigliano, Belvedere Marittimo, Bianchi, Bisignano, Bonifati, Borgia, Briatico, Cardinale, Cariati, Carlopoli, Cerva, Cessaniti, Civita, Corigliano Calabro, Crosia, Crucoli, Dinami, Drapia, Fabrizia, Fagnano Castello, Feroleto Antico, Ferruzzano, Filadelfia, Firmo, Francavilla Angitola, Francavilla Marittima, Frascineto, Gerocarne, Gimigliano, Grimaldi, Guardavalle, Guardia Piemontese, Limbadi, Maida, Malvito, Mammola, Mandatoriccio, Marcellinara, Maropati, Mormanno, Nardodipace, Oppido Mamertina, Oriolo, Orsomarso, Parenti, Paterno Calabro, Pedace, Pentone, Piane Crati, Rende, Riace, Roccella Ionica, Roggiano Gravina, San Calogero, San Giovanni in Fiore, San Lorenzo del Vallo, San Nicola da Crissa, San Pietro Apostolo, San Pietro di Caridà, San Roberto, San Vincenzo La Costa, Santo Stefano in Aspromonte, Serra San Bruno, Serrastretta, Sersale, Spezzano Albanese, Tiriolo, Torano Castello, Verbicaro, Varapodio, Zungri (Calabria), Afragola, Altavilla Irpina, Bagnoli Irpino, Calabritto, Camerota, Foglianise, Gesualdo, Maiori, Mercato Sanseverino, Montecalvo Irpino, Montecorice, Montemiletto, Montesarchio, Naples West, Nola, Paduli, Perdifumo, Pignataro Maggiore, Riardo, Salerne, Solopaca, Torre del Greco, Vairano Patenora, Vibonati (Campania), Prata di Pordenone-Prata di Pordenone, Rivignano (Friuli-Venezia Giulia), Fontana Liri-Arce, Orte, Rome (Lazio), Alassio, Andora, Lavagna, Riva Trigoso (Liguria), Alfianello, Angolo Terme, Bagolino, Borno, Borgo San Giacomo, Calvisano, Capo di Ponte, Cedegolo, Concesio, Edolo, Leno, Lograto, Lumezzane, Mairano, Malonno, Marcheno, Montodine, Nuvolera, Oltre il Colle, Pompiano, Premana, Quinzano d’Oglio, Rudiano, San Paolo, Verolanuova, Vobarno (Lombardy), Castelfidardo, Cingoli, Corinaldo, Cupramontana, Fabriano, Falconara Marittima, Gallo Cappone, Macerata, Mogliano, Montappone-Massa Fermana, Montecchio, Montefano, Montelupone, Morrovalle, Orciano di Pesaro, Ostra, Potenza Picena, Recanati, Ripe, San Costanzo, Sarnano, Sassoferrato (Marche), Andria, Ascoli Satriano, Bari, Carlantino, Corato, Lucera, Montemesola, San Ferdinando di Puglia, San Severo, Volturino (Puglia), Badesi, Bono, Bortigali, Castelsardo, Cortoghiana, Lanusei, Mandas, Maracalagonis, Meana Sardo, Mores, Olmedo, Orosei, Pattada, Platamona, Settimo San Pietro, Sorgono, Tonara, Valledoria, Valledoria Zone turistiche (Sardinia), Acate, Aidone, Alcara Li Fusi, Alimena, Altofonte Centro, Aragona, Barrafranca, Belmonte Mezzagno, Bivona, Bolognetta, Bompietro, Burgio, Buseto Palazzolo, Calascibetta, Calatabiano, Caltabellotta, Caltanissetta-San Cataldo Consortile, Camastra, Cammarata-San Giovanni Gemini, Campofiorito, Campofranco, Canicattini Bagni, Capizzi, Casteldaccia, Castel di Judica, Castell’Umberto, Castell’Umberto-Sfaranda, Castronovo di Sicilia, Cattolica Eraclea, Centuripe, Cerami, Cesarò, Cianciana, Ciminna, Comiso, Comiso-Pedalino, Contessa Entellina, Corleone, Delia, Enna, Erice, Francofonte, Gaggi, Gagliano Castelferrato, Galati Mamertino, Gela, Grammichele, Graniti, Isnello, Ispica-Santa Maria Focallo, Joppolo Giancaxio, Lampedusa, Librizzi, Licata, Licodia Eubea, Linguaglossa, Lipari, Lipari-Vulcano, Lucca Sicula, Maletto, Maniace, Marianopoli, Mazzarino, Melilli-Villasmundo, Merì, Mezzojuso, Milena, Militello Rosmarino, Milo, Mirabella Imbaccari, Mistretta, Montedoro, Monterosso Almo, Montevago, Motta Sant’Anastasia, Naro, Nicosia, Nizza di Sicilia-Alì Terme, Noto, Pachino, Pantelleria-Scauri, Petralia Soprana-Fasanò, Petralia Sottana, Piana degli Albanesi, Piazza Armerina, Piedimonte Etneo, Pietraperzia, Prizzi, Racalmuto, Raddusa, Ramacca, Randazzo, Rocca di Caprileone, Rodi Milici, Salemi, Salemi-San Ciro, Sambuca di Sicilia, San Biagio Platani, San Cono, San Filippo del Mela, San Fratello, San Giuseppe Jato-San Cipirello, San Marco d’Alunzio, San Michele di Ganzaria, San Piero Patti, San Salvatore di Fitalia, Santa Croce Camerina — Zona costiera, Santa Lucia del Mela, Santa Margherita di Belice, Santa Maria di Licodia, Santo Stefano Quisquina, Serradifalco, Sinagra, Sommatino, Sortino, Sutera, Terme Vigliatore, Tortorici, Troina, Ucria, Ustica, Valderice-Bonagia, Valguarnera, Ventimiglia di Sicilia, Villalba, Villafranca Tirrena, Villarosa, Vizzini (Sicily), Agliana, Arcidosso, Barga, Bientina, Cascina, Cascine-La Croce, Cerreto Guidi, Foiano della Chiana, Impruneta, Montalcino, Montecalvoli, Montespertoli, Pisa, Pistoia, Pomarance, Rufina, Santa Maria a Monte, Strada in Chianti, Subbiano, Vicopisano, Zona-Firenze (Florence) (Tuscany), Borca di Cadore (Veneto), Matera, Rionero in Vulture (Basilicata) and Dolianova (Sardinia);

| — | Calcinato — Ponte San Marco, Capriano del Colle — Fenili Belasi, Gazzada Schianno (Lombardy), Mazzarrone, Regalbuto (Sicily) and Isola della Scala (Veneto); |
| --- | --- |

—

Calcinato — Ponte San Marco, Capriano del Colle — Fenili Belasi, Gazzada Schianno (Lombardy), Mazzarrone, Regalbuto (Sicily) and Isola della Scala (Veneto);

| — | Collecorvino, Tocco da Casauria Capoluogo (Abruzzo), San Daniele del Friuli, Sappada (Friuli-Venezia Giulia), Bergamo, Bagnolo Mella, Castelli Calepio, Gonzaga, Mediavalle Ardenno, Miradolo Terme, Val Brembana, Vescovato, Tremosine, Vidigulfo, Gavardo, Muscoline, Pavone Mella, Pontoglio, San Zeno Naviglio, Poggio Rusco (Lombardy), Camerano, Civitanova Marche, Fermo, Grottazzolina, Mondolfo, Montecassiano, Montegranaro, Santa Maria Nuova (Marche), Castel Ritaldi, Città della Pieve (Umbria), Bitonto (Puglia), Manciano, Marina di Pisa-Tirrenia-Calambrone, Portoferraio, Volterra (Tuscany), Falcade (Veneto), Oppido Lucano (Basilicata), Baucina, Castelbuono, Castrofilippo, Lascari zona costiera, Leonforte, Montallegro, Polizzi Generosa, San Mauro Castelverde, Sciara, Valledolmo (Sicily), Bovino (Puglia), Caramanico Terme, Cepagatti Pianella (Abruzzo), Grassano, Stigliano (Basilicata), Molfetta (Puglia), Cala Liberotto, Rena Majore (Sardinia), Agira, Campofelice di Roccella, Campofelice di Roccella — Zona Costiera, Roccamena, Capaci Isola delle Femmine, Casteltermini, Chiusa Sclafani, Montemaggiore Belsito, Torretta, Villafrati (Sicily), Poppi, Chiusi, Chiusi Scalo and Comeana (Tuscany); |
| --- | --- |

—

Collecorvino, Tocco da Casauria Capoluogo (Abruzzo), San Daniele del Friuli, Sappada (Friuli-Venezia Giulia), Bergamo, Bagnolo Mella, Castelli Calepio, Gonzaga, Mediavalle Ardenno, Miradolo Terme, Val Brembana, Vescovato, Tremosine, Vidigulfo, Gavardo, Muscoline, Pavone Mella, Pontoglio, San Zeno Naviglio, Poggio Rusco (Lombardy), Camerano, Civitanova Marche, Fermo, Grottazzolina, Mondolfo, Montecassiano, Montegranaro, Santa Maria Nuova (Marche), Castel Ritaldi, Città della Pieve (Umbria), Bitonto (Puglia), Manciano, Marina di Pisa-Tirrenia-Calambrone, Portoferraio, Volterra (Tuscany), Falcade (Veneto), Oppido Lucano (Basilicata), Baucina, Castelbuono, Castrofilippo, Lascari zona costiera, Leonforte, Montallegro, Polizzi Generosa, San Mauro Castelverde, Sciara, Valledolmo (Sicily), Bovino (Puglia), Caramanico Terme, Cepagatti Pianella (Abruzzo), Grassano, Stigliano (Basilicata), Molfetta (Puglia), Cala Liberotto, Rena Majore (Sardinia), Agira, Campofelice di Roccella, Campofelice di Roccella — Zona Costiera, Roccamena, Capaci Isola delle Femmine, Casteltermini, Chiusa Sclafani, Montemaggiore Belsito, Torretta, Villafrati (Sicily), Poppi, Chiusi, Chiusi Scalo and Comeana (Tuscany);

| — | Castelcovati, Gardone Val Trompia, Nuvolento, Paitone, Prevalle, Polaveno, Remedello, Sarezzo, Serle, Urago d’Oglio and Villa Carcina (Lombardy), |
| --- | --- |

—

Castelcovati, Gardone Val Trompia, Nuvolento, Paitone, Prevalle, Polaveno, Remedello, Sarezzo, Serle, Urago d’Oglio and Villa Carcina (Lombardy),

| — | ensure that urban waste water entering collecting system is, before discharge, subject to a more stringent treatment than secondary treatment or an equivalent treatment in the agglomerations of Matera, Rionero in Vulture (Basilicata), Trieste-Muggia (Friuli-Venezia Giulia), Anagni (Lazio), Pesaro, Urbin (Marche), Dolianova (Sardinia) and Venice (Veneto), |
| --- | --- |

—

ensure that urban waste water entering collecting system is, before discharge, subject to a more stringent treatment than secondary treatment or an equivalent treatment in the agglomerations of Matera, Rionero in Vulture (Basilicata), Trieste-Muggia (Friuli-Venezia Giulia), Anagni (Lazio), Pesaro, Urbin (Marche), Dolianova (Sardinia) and Venice (Veneto),

| — | ensure that the minimum percentage of reduction of the overall load entering all urban waste water treatment plants is at least 75 % for total phosphorus and at least 75 % for total nitrogen in the sensitive areas of the catchment area of the Po and Adriatic delta, of Lake of Varese, of Lake Como (Lombardy), and of the catchment area of the Gulf of Castellammare (Sicily); |
| --- | --- |

—

ensure that the minimum percentage of reduction of the overall load entering all urban waste water treatment plants is at least 75 % for total phosphorus and at least 75 % for total nitrogen in the sensitive areas of the catchment area of the Po and Adriatic delta, of Lake of Varese, of Lake Como (Lombardy), and of the catchment area of the Gulf of Castellammare (Sicily);

| — | ensure that the urban waste water treatment plants are designed, constructed, operated and maintained to guarantee sufficient performance under all normal local climatic conditions and that their design takes into account seasonal variations in the agglomerations of:






  — | Lettomanoppello Capoluogo (Abruzzo), Agerola, Airola, Alife, Altavilla Silentina, Apice, Ascea, Baia e Latina, Baselice, Bonito, Buccino, Caggiano, Caiazzo, Calitri, Caposele, Casalbuono, Casalvelino 1, Caselle in Pittari, Castellabate, Castel San Lorenzo, Castelvolturno Nord, Centola 1, Ceppaloni, Colle Sannita, Contursi Terme, Flumeri, Fontanarosa, Gioia Sannitica, Grazzanise, Grottaminarda, Guardia Sanframondi, Lapio, Limatola, Lioni, Marzano Appio, Mignano Monte Lungo, Mirabella Eclano, Moiano, Mondragone, Montefalcione, Montesano sulla Marcellana, Morcone, Nocera Inferiore, Nocera Superiore, Padula, Pietradefusi, Pietrelcina, Polla, Pollica, Postiglione, Pratola Serra, Procida, Roccabascerana, Roccagloriosa, Rofrano, San Bartolomeo in Galdo, San Giorgio del Sannio, San Giorgio la Molara, San Gregorio Magno, San Leucio del Sannio, San Marco dei Cavoti, San Mauro Cilento, San Salvatore Telesino, Santa Maria la Fossa, Sant’Angelo a Cupolo, Sant’Angelo dei Lombardi 1, Sant’Angelo dei Lombardi 2, Sanza, Sassano, Scafati, Sessa Aurunca, Sicignano degli Alburni, Summonte, Taurasi, Teano, Teggiano, Telese Terme, Vallata, Valle di Maddaloni, Venticano, Vitulano, Vitulazio (Campania), Acquaro, Aiello Calabro, Altomonte, Bocchigliero, Caccuri, Cardeto, Casabona, Catanzaro, Celico, Cerisano, Cerzeto, Chiaravalle Centrale, Cirò, Cirò Marina, Conflenti, Delianuova, Fiumefreddo Bruzio, Gioiosa Ionica, Grotteria, Ioppolo, Lago, Laino Borgo, Lattarico, Lungro, Luzzi, Maierato, Melissa, Mongrassano, Monasterace, Mottafollone, Palizzi, Paludi, Paola, Parghelia, Petilia Policastro, Placanica, Plataci, Platì, Polia, Rocca di Neto, San Benedetto Ullano, San Demetrio Corone, San Giorgio Albanese, San Gregorio d’Ippona, San Marco Argentano, San Martino di Finita, San Sosti, Santa Agata d’Esaro, Santa Caterina Albanese, Santa Severina, Santa Sofia d’Epiro, Scandale, Scigliano, Scilla, Seminara, Spilinga, Tarsia, Zambrone (Calabria), Maniago-Maniago (Friuli-Venezia Giulia), Lonato, Rovato (Lombardy), Castrignano del Capo (Puglia), Borgetto, Butera, Castiglione di Sicilia, Catenanuova, Nissoria, Pantelleria, Petrosino, Ravanusa, Roccapalumba, San Vito lo Capo, Santa Ninfa (Sicily), Pont-Saint-Martin (Aosta Valley), Atessa Capoluogo, Fara Filiorum Petri, Fossacesia, Loreto Aprutino, Manoppello Capoluogo-Scalo-Ripa Corbara, Tollo, Torino di Sangro-Borgata Marina (Abruzzo), Acerenza, Atella, Barile, Bella, Chiaromonte, Genzano di Lucania, Irsina, Pescopagano, Pietragalla, Pisticci, Pomarico, Salandra, Tricarico (Basilicata), Aprigliano, Belvedere Marittimo, Bianchi, Bisignano, Bonifati, Borgia, Briatico, Cardinale, Cariati, Carlopoli, Cerva, Cessaniti, Civita, Corigliano Calabro, Crosia, Crucoli, Dinami, Drapia, Fabrizia, Fagnano Castello, Feroleto Antico, Ferruzzano, Filadelfia, Firmo, Francavilla Angitola, Francavilla Marittima, Frascineto, Gerocarne, Gimigliano, Grimaldi, Guardavalle, Guardia Piemontese, Limbadi, Maida, Malvito, Mammola, Mandatoriccio, Marcellinara, Maropati, Mormanno, Nardodipace, Oppido Mamertina, Oriolo, Orsomarso, Parenti, Paterno Calabro, Pedace, Pentone, Piane Crati, Rende, Riace, Roccella Ionica, Roggiano Gravina, San Calogero, San Giovanni in Fiore, San Lorenzo del Vallo, San Nicola da Crissa, San Pietro Apostolo, San Pietro di Caridà, San Roberto, San Vincenzo La Costa, Santo Stefano in Aspromonte, Serra San Bruno, Serrastretta, Sersale, Spezzano Albanese, Tiriolo, Torano Castello, Verbicaro, Varapodio, Zungri (Calabria), Afragola, Altavilla Irpina, Bagnoli Irpino, Calabritto, Camerota, Foglianise, Gesualdo, Maiori, Mercato Sanseverino, Montecalvo Irpino, Montecorice, Montemiletto, Montesarchio, Naples Ouest, Nola, Paduli, Perdifumo, Pignataro Maggiore, Riardo, Salerne, Solopaca, Torre del Greco, Vairano Patenora, Vibonati (Campania), Prata di Pordenone-Prata di Pordenone, Rivignano (Friuli-Venezia Giulia), Fontana Liri-Arce, Orte, Rome (Lazio), Alassio, Andora, Lavagna, Riva Trigoso (Liguria), Alfianello, Angolo Terme, Bagolino, Borno, Borgo San Giacomo, Calvisano, Capo di Ponte, Cedegolo, Concesio, Edolo, Leno, Lograto, Lumezzane, Mairano, Malonno, Marcheno, Montodine, Nuvolera, Oltre il Colle, Pompiano, Premana, Quinzano d’Oglio, Rudiano, San Paolo, Verolanuova, Vobarno (Lombardy), Castelfidardo, Cingoli, Corinaldo, Cupramontana, Fabriano, Falconara Marittima, Gallo Cappone, Macerata, Mogliano, Montappone-Massa Fermana, Montecchio, Montefano, Montelupone, Morrovalle, Orciano di Pesaro, Ostra, Potenza Picena, Recanati, Ripe, San Costanzo, Sarnano, Sassoferrato (Marche), Andria, Ascoli Satriano, Bari, Carlantino, Corato, Lucera, Montemesola, San Ferdinando di Puglia, San Severo, Volturino (Puglia), Badesi, Bono, Bortigali, Castelsardo, Cortoghiana, Lanusei, Mandas, Maracalagonis, Meana Sardo, Mores, Olmedo, Orosei, Pattada, Platamona, Settimo San Pietro, Sorgono, Tonara, Valledoria, Valledoria Zone turistiche (Sardinia), Acate, Aidone, Alcara Li Fusi, Alimena, Altofonte Centro, Aragona, Barrafranca, Belmonte Mezzagno, Bivona, Bolognetta, Bompietro, Burgio, Buseto Palazzolo, Calascibetta, Calatabiano, Caltabellotta, Caltanissetta-San Cataldo Consortile, Camastra, Cammarata-San Giovanni Gemini, Campofiorito, Campofranco, Canicattini Bagni, Capizzi, Casteldaccia, Castel di Judica, Castell’Umberto, Castell’Umberto-Sfaranda, Castronovo di Sicilia, Cattolica Eraclea, Centuripe, Cerami, Cesarò, Cianciana, Ciminna, Comiso, Comiso-Pedalino, Contessa Entellina, Corleone, Delia, Enna, Erice, Francofonte, Gaggi, Gagliano Castelferrato, Galati Mamertino, Gela, Grammichele, Graniti, Isnello, Ispica-Santa Maria Focallo, Joppolo Giancaxio, Lampedusa, Librizzi, Licata, Licodia Eubea, Linguaglossa, Lipari, Lipari-Vulcano, Lucca Sicula, Maletto, Maniace, Marianopoli, Mazzarino, Melilli-Villasmundo, Merì, Mezzojuso, Milena, Militello Rosmarino, Milo, Mirabella Imbaccari, Mistretta, Montedoro, Monterosso Almo, Montevago, Motta Sant’Anastasia, Naro, Nicosia, Nizza di Sicilia-Alì Terme, Noto, Pachino, Pantelleria-Scauri, Petralia Soprana-Fasanò, Petralia Sottana, Piana degli Albanesi, Piazza Armerina, Piedimonte Etneo, Pietraperzia, Prizzi, Racalmuto, Raddusa, Ramacca, Randazzo, Rocca di Caprileone, Rodi Milici, Salemi, Salemi-San Ciro, Sambuca di Sicilia, San Biagio Platani, San Cono, San Filippo del Mela, San Fratello, San Giuseppe Jato-San Cipirello, San Marco d’Alunzio, San Michele di Ganzaria, San Piero Patti, San Salvatore di Fitalia, Santa Croce Camerina — Zona costiera, Santa Lucia del Mela, Santa Margherita di Belice, Santa Maria di Licodia, Santo Stefano Quisquina, Serradifalco, Sinagra, Sommatino, Sortino, Sutera, Terme Vigliatore, Tortorici, Troina, Ucria, Ustica, Valderice-Bonagia, Valguarnera, Ventimiglia di Sicilia, Villalba, Villafranca Tirrena, Villarosa, Vizzini (Sicily), Agliana, Arcidosso, Barga, Bientina, Cascina, Cascine-La Croce, Cerreto Guidi, Foiano della Chiana, Impruneta, Montalcino, Montecalvoli, Montespertoli, Pisa, Pistoia, Pomarance, Rufina, Santa Maria a Monte, Strada in Chianti, Subbiano, Vicopisano, Zona-Firenze (Florence) (Tuscany), Borca di Cadore (Veneto), Matera, Rionero in Vulture (Basilicata) and Dolianova (Sardinia); |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

ensure that the urban waste water treatment plants are designed, constructed, operated and maintained to guarantee sufficient performance under all normal local climatic conditions and that their design takes into account seasonal variations in the agglomerations of:

—

Lettomanoppello Capoluogo (Abruzzo), Agerola, Airola, Alife, Altavilla Silentina, Apice, Ascea, Baia e Latina, Baselice, Bonito, Buccino, Caggiano, Caiazzo, Calitri, Caposele, Casalbuono, Casalvelino 1, Caselle in Pittari, Castellabate, Castel San Lorenzo, Castelvolturno Nord, Centola 1, Ceppaloni, Colle Sannita, Contursi Terme, Flumeri, Fontanarosa, Gioia Sannitica, Grazzanise, Grottaminarda, Guardia Sanframondi, Lapio, Limatola, Lioni, Marzano Appio, Mignano Monte Lungo, Mirabella Eclano, Moiano, Mondragone, Montefalcione, Montesano sulla Marcellana, Morcone, Nocera Inferiore, Nocera Superiore, Padula, Pietradefusi, Pietrelcina, Polla, Pollica, Postiglione, Pratola Serra, Procida, Roccabascerana, Roccagloriosa, Rofrano, San Bartolomeo in Galdo, San Giorgio del Sannio, San Giorgio la Molara, San Gregorio Magno, San Leucio del Sannio, San Marco dei Cavoti, San Mauro Cilento, San Salvatore Telesino, Santa Maria la Fossa, Sant’Angelo a Cupolo, Sant’Angelo dei Lombardi 1, Sant’Angelo dei Lombardi 2, Sanza, Sassano, Scafati, Sessa Aurunca, Sicignano degli Alburni, Summonte, Taurasi, Teano, Teggiano, Telese Terme, Vallata, Valle di Maddaloni, Venticano, Vitulano, Vitulazio (Campania), Acquaro, Aiello Calabro, Altomonte, Bocchigliero, Caccuri, Cardeto, Casabona, Catanzaro, Celico, Cerisano, Cerzeto, Chiaravalle Centrale, Cirò, Cirò Marina, Conflenti, Delianuova, Fiumefreddo Bruzio, Gioiosa Ionica, Grotteria, Ioppolo, Lago, Laino Borgo, Lattarico, Lungro, Luzzi, Maierato, Melissa, Mongrassano, Monasterace, Mottafollone, Palizzi, Paludi, Paola, Parghelia, Petilia Policastro, Placanica, Plataci, Platì, Polia, Rocca di Neto, San Benedetto Ullano, San Demetrio Corone, San Giorgio Albanese, San Gregorio d’Ippona, San Marco Argentano, San Martino di Finita, San Sosti, Santa Agata d’Esaro, Santa Caterina Albanese, Santa Severina, Santa Sofia d’Epiro, Scandale, Scigliano, Scilla, Seminara, Spilinga, Tarsia, Zambrone (Calabria), Maniago-Maniago (Friuli-Venezia Giulia), Lonato, Rovato (Lombardy), Castrignano del Capo (Puglia), Borgetto, Butera, Castiglione di Sicilia, Catenanuova, Nissoria, Pantelleria, Petrosino, Ravanusa, Roccapalumba, San Vito lo Capo, Santa Ninfa (Sicily), Pont-Saint-Martin (Aosta Valley), Atessa Capoluogo, Fara Filiorum Petri, Fossacesia, Loreto Aprutino, Manoppello Capoluogo-Scalo-Ripa Corbara, Tollo, Torino di Sangro-Borgata Marina (Abruzzo), Acerenza, Atella, Barile, Bella, Chiaromonte, Genzano di Lucania, Irsina, Pescopagano, Pietragalla, Pisticci, Pomarico, Salandra, Tricarico (Basilicata), Aprigliano, Belvedere Marittimo, Bianchi, Bisignano, Bonifati, Borgia, Briatico, Cardinale, Cariati, Carlopoli, Cerva, Cessaniti, Civita, Corigliano Calabro, Crosia, Crucoli, Dinami, Drapia, Fabrizia, Fagnano Castello, Feroleto Antico, Ferruzzano, Filadelfia, Firmo, Francavilla Angitola, Francavilla Marittima, Frascineto, Gerocarne, Gimigliano, Grimaldi, Guardavalle, Guardia Piemontese, Limbadi, Maida, Malvito, Mammola, Mandatoriccio, Marcellinara, Maropati, Mormanno, Nardodipace, Oppido Mamertina, Oriolo, Orsomarso, Parenti, Paterno Calabro, Pedace, Pentone, Piane Crati, Rende, Riace, Roccella Ionica, Roggiano Gravina, San Calogero, San Giovanni in Fiore, San Lorenzo del Vallo, San Nicola da Crissa, San Pietro Apostolo, San Pietro di Caridà, San Roberto, San Vincenzo La Costa, Santo Stefano in Aspromonte, Serra San Bruno, Serrastretta, Sersale, Spezzano Albanese, Tiriolo, Torano Castello, Verbicaro, Varapodio, Zungri (Calabria), Afragola, Altavilla Irpina, Bagnoli Irpino, Calabritto, Camerota, Foglianise, Gesualdo, Maiori, Mercato Sanseverino, Montecalvo Irpino, Montecorice, Montemiletto, Montesarchio, Naples Ouest, Nola, Paduli, Perdifumo, Pignataro Maggiore, Riardo, Salerne, Solopaca, Torre del Greco, Vairano Patenora, Vibonati (Campania), Prata di Pordenone-Prata di Pordenone, Rivignano (Friuli-Venezia Giulia), Fontana Liri-Arce, Orte, Rome (Lazio), Alassio, Andora, Lavagna, Riva Trigoso (Liguria), Alfianello, Angolo Terme, Bagolino, Borno, Borgo San Giacomo, Calvisano, Capo di Ponte, Cedegolo, Concesio, Edolo, Leno, Lograto, Lumezzane, Mairano, Malonno, Marcheno, Montodine, Nuvolera, Oltre il Colle, Pompiano, Premana, Quinzano d’Oglio, Rudiano, San Paolo, Verolanuova, Vobarno (Lombardy), Castelfidardo, Cingoli, Corinaldo, Cupramontana, Fabriano, Falconara Marittima, Gallo Cappone, Macerata, Mogliano, Montappone-Massa Fermana, Montecchio, Montefano, Montelupone, Morrovalle, Orciano di Pesaro, Ostra, Potenza Picena, Recanati, Ripe, San Costanzo, Sarnano, Sassoferrato (Marche), Andria, Ascoli Satriano, Bari, Carlantino, Corato, Lucera, Montemesola, San Ferdinando di Puglia, San Severo, Volturino (Puglia), Badesi, Bono, Bortigali, Castelsardo, Cortoghiana, Lanusei, Mandas, Maracalagonis, Meana Sardo, Mores, Olmedo, Orosei, Pattada, Platamona, Settimo San Pietro, Sorgono, Tonara, Valledoria, Valledoria Zone turistiche (Sardinia), Acate, Aidone, Alcara Li Fusi, Alimena, Altofonte Centro, Aragona, Barrafranca, Belmonte Mezzagno, Bivona, Bolognetta, Bompietro, Burgio, Buseto Palazzolo, Calascibetta, Calatabiano, Caltabellotta, Caltanissetta-San Cataldo Consortile, Camastra, Cammarata-San Giovanni Gemini, Campofiorito, Campofranco, Canicattini Bagni, Capizzi, Casteldaccia, Castel di Judica, Castell’Umberto, Castell’Umberto-Sfaranda, Castronovo di Sicilia, Cattolica Eraclea, Centuripe, Cerami, Cesarò, Cianciana, Ciminna, Comiso, Comiso-Pedalino, Contessa Entellina, Corleone, Delia, Enna, Erice, Francofonte, Gaggi, Gagliano Castelferrato, Galati Mamertino, Gela, Grammichele, Graniti, Isnello, Ispica-Santa Maria Focallo, Joppolo Giancaxio, Lampedusa, Librizzi, Licata, Licodia Eubea, Linguaglossa, Lipari, Lipari-Vulcano, Lucca Sicula, Maletto, Maniace, Marianopoli, Mazzarino, Melilli-Villasmundo, Merì, Mezzojuso, Milena, Militello Rosmarino, Milo, Mirabella Imbaccari, Mistretta, Montedoro, Monterosso Almo, Montevago, Motta Sant’Anastasia, Naro, Nicosia, Nizza di Sicilia-Alì Terme, Noto, Pachino, Pantelleria-Scauri, Petralia Soprana-Fasanò, Petralia Sottana, Piana degli Albanesi, Piazza Armerina, Piedimonte Etneo, Pietraperzia, Prizzi, Racalmuto, Raddusa, Ramacca, Randazzo, Rocca di Caprileone, Rodi Milici, Salemi, Salemi-San Ciro, Sambuca di Sicilia, San Biagio Platani, San Cono, San Filippo del Mela, San Fratello, San Giuseppe Jato-San Cipirello, San Marco d’Alunzio, San Michele di Ganzaria, San Piero Patti, San Salvatore di Fitalia, Santa Croce Camerina — Zona costiera, Santa Lucia del Mela, Santa Margherita di Belice, Santa Maria di Licodia, Santo Stefano Quisquina, Serradifalco, Sinagra, Sommatino, Sortino, Sutera, Terme Vigliatore, Tortorici, Troina, Ucria, Ustica, Valderice-Bonagia, Valguarnera, Ventimiglia di Sicilia, Villalba, Villafranca Tirrena, Villarosa, Vizzini (Sicily), Agliana, Arcidosso, Barga, Bientina, Cascina, Cascine-La Croce, Cerreto Guidi, Foiano della Chiana, Impruneta, Montalcino, Montecalvoli, Montespertoli, Pisa, Pistoia, Pomarance, Rufina, Santa Maria a Monte, Strada in Chianti, Subbiano, Vicopisano, Zona-Firenze (Florence) (Tuscany), Borca di Cadore (Veneto), Matera, Rionero in Vulture (Basilicata) and Dolianova (Sardinia);

| — | Calcinato — Ponte San Marco, Capriano del Colle — Fenili Belasi, Gazzada Schianno (Lombardy), Mazzarrone, Regalbuto (Sicily) and Isola della Scala (Veneto); |
| --- | --- |

—

Calcinato — Ponte San Marco, Capriano del Colle — Fenili Belasi, Gazzada Schianno (Lombardy), Mazzarrone, Regalbuto (Sicily) and Isola della Scala (Veneto);

| — | Collecorvino, Tocco da Casauria Capoluogo (Abruzzo), San Daniele del Friuli, Sappada (Friuli-Venezia Giulia), Bergamo, Bagnolo Mella, Castelli Calepio, Gonzaga, Mediavalle Ardenno, Miradolo Terme, Val Brembana, Vescovato, Tremosine, Vidigulfo, Gavardo, Muscoline, Pavone Mella, Pontoglio, San Zeno Naviglio, Poggio Rusco (Lombardy), Camerano, Civitanova Marche, Fermo, Grottazzolina, Mondolfo, Montecassiano, Montegranaro, Santa Maria Nuova (Marche), Castel Ritaldi, Città della Pieve (Umbria), Bitonto (Puglia), Manciano, Marina di Pisa-Tirrenia-Calambrone, Portoferraio, Volterra (Tuscany), Falcade (Veneto), Oppido Lucano (Basilicata), Baucina, Castelbuono, Castrofilippo, Lascari zona costiera, Leonforte, Montallegro, Polizzi Generosa, San Mauro Castelverde, Sciara, Valledolmo (Sicily), Bovino (Puglia), Caramanico Terme, Cepagatti Pianella (Abruzzo), Grassano, Stigliano (Basilicata), Molfetta (Puglia), Cala Liberotto, Rena Majore (Sardinia), Agira, Campofelice di Roccella, Campofelice di Roccella — Zona Costiera, Roccamena, Capaci Isola delle Femmine, Casteltermini, Chiusa Sclafani, Montemaggiore Belsito, Torretta, Villafrati (Sicily), Poppi, Chiusi, Chiusi Scalo and Comeana (Tuscany); |
| --- | --- |

—

Collecorvino, Tocco da Casauria Capoluogo (Abruzzo), San Daniele del Friuli, Sappada (Friuli-Venezia Giulia), Bergamo, Bagnolo Mella, Castelli Calepio, Gonzaga, Mediavalle Ardenno, Miradolo Terme, Val Brembana, Vescovato, Tremosine, Vidigulfo, Gavardo, Muscoline, Pavone Mella, Pontoglio, San Zeno Naviglio, Poggio Rusco (Lombardy), Camerano, Civitanova Marche, Fermo, Grottazzolina, Mondolfo, Montecassiano, Montegranaro, Santa Maria Nuova (Marche), Castel Ritaldi, Città della Pieve (Umbria), Bitonto (Puglia), Manciano, Marina di Pisa-Tirrenia-Calambrone, Portoferraio, Volterra (Tuscany), Falcade (Veneto), Oppido Lucano (Basilicata), Baucina, Castelbuono, Castrofilippo, Lascari zona costiera, Leonforte, Montallegro, Polizzi Generosa, San Mauro Castelverde, Sciara, Valledolmo (Sicily), Bovino (Puglia), Caramanico Terme, Cepagatti Pianella (Abruzzo), Grassano, Stigliano (Basilicata), Molfetta (Puglia), Cala Liberotto, Rena Majore (Sardinia), Agira, Campofelice di Roccella, Campofelice di Roccella — Zona Costiera, Roccamena, Capaci Isola delle Femmine, Casteltermini, Chiusa Sclafani, Montemaggiore Belsito, Torretta, Villafrati (Sicily), Poppi, Chiusi, Chiusi Scalo and Comeana (Tuscany);

| — | Castelcovati, Gardone Val Trompia, Nuvolento, Paitone, Prevalle, Polaveno, Remedello, Sarezzo, Serle, Urago d’Oglio and Villa Carcina (Lombardy); |
| --- | --- |

—

Castelcovati, Gardone Val Trompia, Nuvolento, Paitone, Prevalle, Polaveno, Remedello, Sarezzo, Serle, Urago d’Oglio and Villa Carcina (Lombardy);

| — | Trieste-Muggia (Friuli-Venezia Giulia), Anagni (Lazio), Pesaro, Urbin (Marche) and Venice (Veneto), |
| --- | --- |

—

Trieste-Muggia (Friuli-Venezia Giulia), Anagni (Lazio), Pesaro, Urbin (Marche) and Venice (Veneto),

the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3 to 5 and 10 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1137/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008;

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

2.

Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 363, 28.10.2019.

---

| 6.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 490/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 490/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Boehringer Ingelheim RCV GmbH & Co. KG Magyarországi Fióktelepe v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

(Case C-717/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 90(1) - Reduction of the taxable amount where the price is reduced after the supply takes place - Payments made by a pharmaceutical company to the State health insurance agency - Article 273 - Administrative formalities required by national legislation for the exercise of the right to reduction - Principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality)

(2021/C 490/03)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Boehringer Ingelheim RCV GmbH & Co. KG Magyarországi Fióktelepe

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 90(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, must be interpreted as precluding a national law that provides that a pharmaceutical company may not reduce its taxable amount for value added tax by the portion of its revenue obtained from the sale of medicinal products subsidised by the State health insurance agency which it reimburses to that organisation under a contract entered into by the State health insurance agency and that company, because the amounts paid in that regard were not set out in advance by that company in its commercial policy and because those payments were not made for promotional purposes. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 90(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, must be interpreted as precluding a national law that provides that a pharmaceutical company may not reduce its taxable amount for value added tax by the portion of its revenue obtained from the sale of medicinal products subsidised by the State health insurance agency which it reimburses to that organisation under a contract entered into by the State health insurance agency and that company, because the amounts paid in that regard were not set out in advance by that company in its commercial policy and because those payments were not made for promotional purposes.

| 2. | Article 90(1) and Article 273 of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as precluding a national law where the subsequent reduction of the taxable amount for value added tax is subject to the condition that the person entitled to the refund has an invoice in the relevant name providing proof of the transaction giving entitlement to that refund, even where such an invoice has not been issued and where proof of that transaction may be determined by other means. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 90(1) and Article 273 of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as precluding a national law where the subsequent reduction of the taxable amount for value added tax is subject to the condition that the person entitled to the refund has an invoice in the relevant name providing proof of the transaction giving entitlement to that refund, even where such an invoice has not been issued and where proof of that transaction may be determined by other means.

---

(1)  OJ C 95, 23.3.2020.

---

| 6.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 490/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 490/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona — Spain) — Sumal SL v Mercedes Benz Trucks España SL

(Case C-882/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Competition - Compensation for harm caused by a practice prohibited under Article 101(1) TFEU - Determination of the undertakings liable to provide compensation - Action for compensation directed against the subsidiary of a parent company and brought following a decision finding only that the parent company participated in a cartel - Concept of an ‘undertaking’ - Concept of ‘economic unit’)

(2021/C 490/04)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sumal SL

Defendant: Mercedes Benz Trucks España SL

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 101(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that the victim of an anticompetitive practice by an undertaking may bring an action for damages, without distinction, either against a parent company who has been punished by the Commission for that practice in a decision or against a subsidiary of that company which is not referred to in that decision, where those companies together constitute a single economic unit. The subsidiary company concerned must be able effectively to rely on its rights of the defence in order to show that it does not belong to that undertaking and, where no decision has been adopted by the Commission under Article 101 TFEU, it is also entitled to dispute the very existence of the conduct alleged to amount to an infringement; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 101(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that the victim of an anticompetitive practice by an undertaking may bring an action for damages, without distinction, either against a parent company who has been punished by the Commission for that practice in a decision or against a subsidiary of that company which is not referred to in that decision, where those companies together constitute a single economic unit. The subsidiary company concerned must be able effectively to rely on its rights of the defence in order to show that it does not belong to that undertaking and, where no decision has been adopted by the Commission under Article 101 TFEU, it is also entitled to dispute the very existence of the conduct alleged to amount to an infringement;

| 2. | Article 101(1) TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a national law which provides for the possibility of imputing liability for one company’s conduct to another company only in circumstances where the second company controls the first company. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 101(1) TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a national law which provides for the possibility of imputing liability for one company’s conduct to another company only in circumstances where the second company controls the first company.

---

(1)  OJ C 87, 16.3.2020.

---

| 6.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 490/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 490/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Top System SA v Belgian State

(Case C-13/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Copyright and related rights - Legal protection of computer programs - Directive 91/250/EEC - Article 5 - Exceptions to the restricted acts - Acts necessary to enable the lawful purchaser to correct errors - Concept - Article 6 - Decompilation - Conditions)

(2021/C 490/05)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Top System SA

Defendant: Belgian State

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 5(1) of Council Directive 91/250/EEC of 14 May 1991 on the legal protection of computer programs must be interpreted as meaning that the lawful purchaser of a computer program is entitled to decompile all or part of that program in order to correct errors affecting its operation, including where the correction consists in disabling a function that is affecting the proper operation of the application of which that program forms a part; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 5(1) of Council Directive 91/250/EEC of 14 May 1991 on the legal protection of computer programs must be interpreted as meaning that the lawful purchaser of a computer program is entitled to decompile all or part of that program in order to correct errors affecting its operation, including where the correction consists in disabling a function that is affecting the proper operation of the application of which that program forms a part;

| 2. | Article 5(1) of Directive 91/250 must be interpreted as meaning that the lawful purchaser of a computer program who wishes to decompile that program in order to correct errors affecting the operation thereof is not required to satisfy the requirements laid down in Article 6 of that directive. However, that purchaser is entitled to carry out such a decompilation only to the extent necessary to effect that correction and in compliance, where appropriate, with the conditions laid down in the contract with the holder of the copyright in that program. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 5(1) of Directive 91/250 must be interpreted as meaning that the lawful purchaser of a computer program who wishes to decompile that program in order to correct errors affecting the operation thereof is not required to satisfy the requirements laid down in Article 6 of that directive. However, that purchaser is entitled to carry out such a decompilation only to the extent necessary to effect that correction and in compliance, where appropriate, with the conditions laid down in the contract with the holder of the copyright in that program.

---

(1)  OJ C 87, 16.3.2020.

---

| 6.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 490/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 490/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus — Finland) — Criminal proceedings against A

(Case C-35/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Citizenship of the Union - Right of Union citizens to move freely within the territories of the Member States - Article 21 TFEU - Directive 2004/38/EC - Articles 4 and 5 - Obligation to carry an identity card or a passport - Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 (Schengen Borders Code) - Annex VI - Crossing the maritime border of a Member State on board a pleasure boat - Rules on sanctions applicable when moving between Member States without an identity card or passport - Rules on daily fines in criminal cases - Calculation of the fine based on the offender’s average monthly income - Proportionality - Severity of the sanction in relation to the offence)

(2021/C 490/06)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein oikeus

Party in the main proceedings

A

Intervening parties: Syyttäjä

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The right of Union citizens to free movement provided for in Article 21 TFEU and defined by Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC, must, having regard to the provisions on border crossing laid down by Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code), as amended by Regulation (EU) No 610/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013, be interpreted as not precluding national legislation by which a Member State obliges its nationals, on pain of criminal penalties, to carry a valid identity card or passport when travelling to another Member State, by whatever means of transport and by whatever route, provided that the detailed rules for those penalties comply with the general principles of EU law, including those of proportionality and non-discrimination; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The right of Union citizens to free movement provided for in Article 21 TFEU and defined by Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC, must, having regard to the provisions on border crossing laid down by Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code), as amended by Regulation (EU) No 610/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013, be interpreted as not precluding national legislation by which a Member State obliges its nationals, on pain of criminal penalties, to carry a valid identity card or passport when travelling to another Member State, by whatever means of transport and by whatever route, provided that the detailed rules for those penalties comply with the general principles of EU law, including those of proportionality and non-discrimination;

| 2. | The right of Union citizens to freedom of movement laid down in Article 21(1) TFEU, in the light of the provisions on the crossing of borders set out in Regulation No 562/2006, as amended by Regulation No 610/2013, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation by which a Member State requires its nationals to carry a valid identity card or passport, on pain of criminal sanctions, when they enter its territory from another Member State, provided that that obligation does not make the right of entry conditional and that the detailed rules on penalties for failure to comply with that obligation comply with the general principles of EU law, including those of proportionality and non-discrimination. A journey to the Member State concerned from another Member State made on board a pleasure boat and through international waters is listed, under the conditions laid down in the second paragraph of point 3.2.5 of Annex VI to that regulation, among the cases in which the submission of such a document may be requested; |
| --- | --- |

2.

The right of Union citizens to freedom of movement laid down in Article 21(1) TFEU, in the light of the provisions on the crossing of borders set out in Regulation No 562/2006, as amended by Regulation No 610/2013, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation by which a Member State requires its nationals to carry a valid identity card or passport, on pain of criminal sanctions, when they enter its territory from another Member State, provided that that obligation does not make the right of entry conditional and that the detailed rules on penalties for failure to comply with that obligation comply with the general principles of EU law, including those of proportionality and non-discrimination. A journey to the Member State concerned from another Member State made on board a pleasure boat and through international waters is listed, under the conditions laid down in the second paragraph of point 3.2.5 of Annex VI to that regulation, among the cases in which the submission of such a document may be requested;

| 3. | Article 21(1) TFEU and Articles 4 and 36 of Directive 2004/38, read in the light of Article 49(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as precluding rules on criminal sanctions by which a Member State makes the crossing of its national border without a valid identity card or passport punishable by a fine which may, by way of example, amount to 20 % of the offender’s net monthly income, where such a fine is not proportionate to the seriousness of the offence, which is of a minor nature. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 21(1) TFEU and Articles 4 and 36 of Directive 2004/38, read in the light of Article 49(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as precluding rules on criminal sanctions by which a Member State makes the crossing of its national border without a valid identity card or passport punishable by a fine which may, by way of example, amount to 20 % of the offender’s net monthly income, where such a fine is not proportionate to the seriousness of the offence, which is of a minor nature.

---

(1)  OJ C 103, 30.3.2020.

---

| 6.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 490/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 490/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) — Latvia) — Līga Šenfelde v Lauku atbalsta dienests

(Case C-119/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common agricultural policy - European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) funding - National Rural Development Programme 2014-2020 - Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 - Article 19(1)(a) - Business start-up aid for young farmers - Aid for the development of small farms - Cumulation of aid - Possibility to refuse the cumulation)

(2021/C 490/07)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa (Senāts)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Līga Šenfelde

Defendant: Lauku atbalsta dienests

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 19(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 must be interpreted as not precluding a farmer who has received business start-up aid for the development of small farms, provided for in point (a)(iii) of that provision, from cumulating that aid with business start-up aid for young farmers, provided for in point (a)(i) of that provision, in so far as the maximum amount of aid granted, as referred to in Article 19(6), is complied with; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 19(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 must be interpreted as not precluding a farmer who has received business start-up aid for the development of small farms, provided for in point (a)(iii) of that provision, from cumulating that aid with business start-up aid for young farmers, provided for in point (a)(i) of that provision, in so far as the maximum amount of aid granted, as referred to in Article 19(6), is complied with;

| 2. | Article 19(1) of Regulation No 1305/2013 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation under which the granting of business start-up aid for the development of small farms, provided for in point (a)(iii) of that provision, prevents the recipient from securing business start-up aid for young farmers, as provided for in point (a)(i) thereof. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 19(1) of Regulation No 1305/2013 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation under which the granting of business start-up aid for the development of small farms, provided for in point (a)(iii) of that provision, prevents the recipient from securing business start-up aid for young farmers, as provided for in point (a)(i) thereof.

---

(1)  OJ C 201, 15.6.2020.

---

| 6.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 490/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 490/10

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Zalaegerszegi Járásbíróság — Hungary) — Proceedings relating to the recognition and enforcement of a financial penalty imposed on LU

(Case C-136/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA - Enforcement of financial penalties - Principle of mutual recognition - Article 5(1) - Offences giving rise to the recognition and enforcement of penalty decisions without verification of the double criminality of the act - Article 5(3) - Offences in respect of which the Member State has the option of making the recognition and enforcement of penalty decisions subject to the double criminality of the act - Verification by the executing Member State of the legal characterisation given to the offence by the issuing Member State in the certificate accompanying the penalty decision)

(2021/C 490/08)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Zalaegerszegi Járásbíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Defendant: LU

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(1) of Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA of 24 February 2005 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that the authority of the executing State, apart from where one of the grounds for non-recognition or non-execution expressly provided for in that framework decision apply, may not, in principle, refuse to recognise and execute a decision imposing a final financial penalty where the authority of the issuing State has classified the offence in question, in the certificate provided for in Article 4 of that framework decision, as falling within one of the categories of offences in respect of which Article 5(1) of that framework decision does not provide for verification of the double criminality of the act.

---

(1)  OJ C 215, 29.6.2020.

---

| 6.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 490/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 490/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 October 2021 — Sebastian Veit v European Central Bank (ECB)

(Case C-272/20 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - European Central Bank (ECB) staff members - Remuneration - Competitions - Equality of treatment between internal and external candidates - Classification in step)

(2021/C 490/09)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Sebastian Veit (represented by: K. Kujath, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: F. von Lindeiner and M. Rötting, acting as Agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, Rechtsanwalt)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders the Mr Sebastian Veit to pay, in addition to his own costs, those incurred by the European Central Bank. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Mr Sebastian Veit to pay, in addition to his own costs, those incurred by the European Central Bank.

---

(1)  OJ C 371, 3.11.2020.

---

| 6.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 490/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 490/11

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Łodzi-Śródmieścia w Łodzi — Poland) — Proceedings relating to the recognition and execution of a financial penalty imposed on D.P.

(Case C-338/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Mutual recognition - Financial penalties - Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA - Grounds for non-recognition and non-execution - Article 20(3) - Decision imposing a financial penalty - Observance of the rights of the defence - Notification of documents in a language not understood by the sentenced person - Translation of the essential elements of the decision)

(2021/C 490/10)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy dla Łodzi-Śródmieścia w Łodzi

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: D.P.

Defendant: Prokuratura Rejonowa Łódź-Bałuty

Operative part of the judgment

Article 20(3) of Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA of 24 February 2005 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as allowing the authority of the executing Member State to refuse to execute a decision, within the meaning of Article 1(a) of the framework decision, imposing a financial penalty for a road traffic offence, where that decision has been notified to the addressee thereof without a translation, into a language which he or she understands, of the elements of the decision which are essential in order to enable him or her to understand the charge against him or her and fully to exercise his or her rights of the defence, and without that addressee being afforded the opportunity to obtain such a translation on request.

---

(1)  OJ C 19, 18.1.2021.

---

| 6.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 490/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 490/12

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 October 2021 — Danilo Poggiolini v European Parliament

(Case C-408/20 P) (1)

(Appeal - Institutional law - Single statute for Members of the European Parliament - Members of the European Parliament elected in Italian constituencies - Modification of pension entitlements - Act adversely affecting an official - Provisional position - Independent legal effects)

(2021/C 490/11)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Danilo Poggiolini (represented by: F. Sorrentino, A. Sandulli and B. Cimino, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: S. Alves and S. Seyr, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 3 July 2020, Falqui and Poggiolini v Parliament (T-347/19 and T-348/19, not published, EU:T:2020:303), in so far as it rejected the claims made by Mr Danilo Poggiolini in case T-348/19 for annulment of the note of 11 April 2019 drawn up by the Head of the ‘Members’ Salaries and Social Entitlements’ Unit of the European Parliament’s Directorate-General for Finance and concerning the adjustment of the amount of pension he receives following the entry into force, on 1 January 2019, of Decision No 14/2018 of the Ufficio di Presidenza della Camera dei deputati (Office of the President of the Chamber of Deputies, Italy) and of the decision of the European Parliament set out in the letter of 8 July 2019; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 3 July 2020, Falqui and Poggiolini v Parliament (T-347/19 and T-348/19, not published, EU:T:2020:303), in so far as it rejected the claims made by Mr Danilo Poggiolini in case T-348/19 for annulment of the note of 11 April 2019 drawn up by the Head of the ‘Members’ Salaries and Social Entitlements’ Unit of the European Parliament’s Directorate-General for Finance and concerning the adjustment of the amount of pension he receives following the entry into force, on 1 January 2019, of Decision No 14/2018 of the Ufficio di Presidenza della Camera dei deputati (Office of the President of the Chamber of Deputies, Italy) and of the decision of the European Parliament set out in the letter of 8 July 2019;

| 2. | Dismisses the plea of inadmissibility raised by the European Parliament before the General Court in Case T-348/19; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the plea of inadmissibility raised by the European Parliament before the General Court in Case T-348/19;

| 3. | Refers Case T-348/19 back to the General Court for a ruling on the claims made by Mr Danilo Poggiolini in Case T-348/19 for annulment of that note and that decision; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Refers Case T-348/19 back to the General Court for a ruling on the claims made by Mr Danilo Poggiolini in Case T-348/19 for annulment of that note and that decision;

| 4. | Reserves the costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Reserves the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 359, 26.10.2020.

---

| 6.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 490/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 490/13

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 October 2021 — Carlo Tognoli and Others v European Parliament

(Case C-431/20 P) (1)

(Appeal - Institutional law - Single statute for Members of the European Parliament - Members of the European Parliament elected in Italian constituencies - Modification of pension entitlements - Act adversely affecting an official - Provisional position - Independent legal effects)

(2021/C 490/12)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellants: Carlo Tognoli, Emma Allione, Luigi Alberto Colajanni, Claudio Martelli, Luciana Sbarbati, Carla Dimatore, as heir of Mario Rigo, Roberto Speciale, Loris Torbesi, as heir of Eugenio Melandri, Luciano Pettinari, Pietro Di Prima, Carla Barbarella, Carlo Alberto Graziani, Giorgio Rossetti, Giacomo Porrazzini, Guido Podestà, Roberto Barzanti, Rita Medici, Aldo Arroni, Franco Malerba, Roberto Mezzaroma (represented by: M. Merola and L. Florio, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: S. Alves and S. Seyr, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 3 July 2020, Tognoli and Others v Parliament (T-395/19, T-396/19, T-405/19, T-408/19, T-419/19, T-423/19, T-424/19, T-428/19, T-433/19, T-437/19, T-443/19, T-455/19, T-458/19 to T-462/19, T-464/19, T-469/19 and T-477/19, not published, EU:T:2020:302), in so far as it rejected the claims made by Mr Carlo Tognoli and Others for annulment of the notes of 11 April 2019 drawn up by the Head of the ‘Members’ Salaries and Social Entitlements’ Unit of the European Parliament’s Directorate-General for Finance and concerning the adjustment of the amount of the pensions they receive following the entry into force, on 1 January 2019, of Decision No 14/2018 of the Ufficio di Presidenza della Camera dei deputati (Office of the President of the Chamber of Deputies, Italy) and of the decisions of the European Parliament set out in the letters of 20 June (Case T-396/19), of 8 July (Cases T-405/19, T-408/19, T-443/19 and T-464/19), of 15 July (Cases T-419/19, T-433/19, T-455/19, T-458/19 to T-462/19, T-469/19 and T-477/19) and of 23 July 2019 (Cases T-395/19, T-423/19, T-424/19 and T-428/19); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 3 July 2020, Tognoli and Others v Parliament (T-395/19, T-396/19, T-405/19, T-408/19, T-419/19, T-423/19, T-424/19, T-428/19, T-433/19, T-437/19, T-443/19, T-455/19, T-458/19 to T-462/19, T-464/19, T-469/19 and T-477/19, not published, EU:T:2020:302), in so far as it rejected the claims made by Mr Carlo Tognoli and Others for annulment of the notes of 11 April 2019 drawn up by the Head of the ‘Members’ Salaries and Social Entitlements’ Unit of the European Parliament’s Directorate-General for Finance and concerning the adjustment of the amount of the pensions they receive following the entry into force, on 1 January 2019, of Decision No 14/2018 of the Ufficio di Presidenza della Camera dei deputati (Office of the President of the Chamber of Deputies, Italy) and of the decisions of the European Parliament set out in the letters of 20 June (Case T-396/19), of 8 July (Cases T-405/19, T-408/19, T-443/19 and T-464/19), of 15 July (Cases T-419/19, T-433/19, T-455/19, T-458/19 to T-462/19, T-469/19 and T-477/19) and of 23 July 2019 (Cases T-395/19, T-423/19, T-424/19 and T-428/19);

| 2. | Dismisses the pleas of inadmissibility raised by the European Parliament before the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the pleas of inadmissibility raised by the European Parliament before the General Court;

| 3. | Refers the cases back to the General Court for a ruling on the claims made by Mr Carlo Tognoli and Others for annulment of those notes and those decisions; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Refers the cases back to the General Court for a ruling on the claims made by Mr Carlo Tognoli and Others for annulment of those notes and those decisions;

| 4. | Reserves the costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Reserves the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 390, 16.11.2020.

---

| 6.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 490/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 490/14

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven kasatsionen sad (Bulgaria) — Bulgaria) — Skarb Państwa Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej reprezentowany przez Generalnego Dyrektora Dróg Krajowych i Autostrad v TOTO SpA — Costruzioni Generali, Vianini Lavori SpA

(Case C-581/20) (1)

(Request for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Article 1(1) - Civil and commercial matters - Article 35 - Provisional, including protective, measures - Action based on a contract for the construction of a public expressway concluded between a public authority and two private law companies - Application for interim relief relating to penalties and guarantees arising from that contract - Decision on interim relief already given by a court having jurisdiction as to the substance)

(2021/C 490/13)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven kasatsionen sad (Bulgaria)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Skarb Państwa Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej reprezentowany przez Generalnego Dyrektora Dróg Krajowych i Autostrad

Defendants: TOTO SpA — Costruzioni Generali, Vianini Lavori SpA

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 1(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that an action for interim relief brought and pursued, in accordance with the rules of ordinary law, before a court of a Member State relating to penalties in respect of the performance of a contract for the construction of a public expressway concluded at the end of a procurement procedure where the contracting authority is a public authority falls within the concept of ‘civil and commercial matters’ within the meaning of that provision. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 1(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that an action for interim relief brought and pursued, in accordance with the rules of ordinary law, before a court of a Member State relating to penalties in respect of the performance of a contract for the construction of a public expressway concluded at the end of a procurement procedure where the contracting authority is a public authority falls within the concept of ‘civil and commercial matters’ within the meaning of that provision.

| 2. | Article 35 of Regulation No 1215/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that a court of a Member State hearing an application for provisional, including protective, measures under that provision is not required to declare that it has no jurisdiction where the court of another Member State, which has jurisdiction as to the substance of the matter, has already given judgment in respect of proceedings involving the same cause of action and between the same parties. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 35 of Regulation No 1215/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that a court of a Member State hearing an application for provisional, including protective, measures under that provision is not required to declare that it has no jurisdiction where the court of another Member State, which has jurisdiction as to the substance of the matter, has already given judgment in respect of proceedings involving the same cause of action and between the same parties.

| 3. | Article 35 of Regulation No 1215/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that an application for provisional, including protective, measures must be examined in the light of the law of the Member State of the court seised and does not preclude national legislation which does not authorise an action for interim relief in respect of a pecuniary claim against the State or a public authority. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 35 of Regulation No 1215/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that an application for provisional, including protective, measures must be examined in the light of the law of the Member State of the court seised and does not preclude national legislation which does not authorise an action for interim relief in respect of a pecuniary claim against the State or a public authority.

---

(1)  OJ C 28, 25.1.2021.

---

| 6.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 490/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 490/15

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 6 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Salzburg — Austria) — CS v Eurowings GmbH

(Case C-613/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Article 5(3) - Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of cancellation or long delay of flights - Exemption from the obligation to pay compensation - Concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ - Strike by airline staff - Strike by the staff of a subsidiary in solidarity with the staff of the parent company)

(2021/C 490/14)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht Salzburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: CS

Respondent: Eurowings GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, must be interpreted as meaning that strike action intended to assert workers’ demands with regard to salary and/or social benefits, which is entered into upon a call by a trade union of the staff of an operating air carrier in solidarity with strike action which was launched against the parent company of which that air carrier is a subsidiary, which is observed by a category of the staff of that subsidiary whose presence is necessary to operate a flight and which continues beyond the period originally announced by the trade union which called the strike, in spite of the fact that an agreement has been reached in the meantime with the parent company, is not covered by the concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 35, 1.2.2021.

---

| 6.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 490/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 490/15

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla m.st. Warszawy w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 8 July 2021 — X sp. z o.o., sp. k. v Z

(Case C-419/21)

(2021/C 490/15)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy dla m.st. Warszawy w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: X sp. z o.o., sp. k.

Defendant: Z

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 6(1) of Directive 2011/7/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on combating late payment in commercial transactions (1) be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of a contract in which the parties provided for several deliveries of goods and in which payment for each delivery was due within a certain time limit after that delivery, a fixed sum of EUR 40, as a minimum, is payable for each late payment for an individual delivery, or does European Union law merely require that the creditor be paid a fixed sum of EUR 40 in respect of the entire commercial transaction which comprises several deliveries irrespective of the number of late payments for individual deliveries? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 6(1) of Directive 2011/7/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on combating late payment in commercial transactions (1) be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of a contract in which the parties provided for several deliveries of goods and in which payment for each delivery was due within a certain time limit after that delivery, a fixed sum of EUR 40, as a minimum, is payable for each late payment for an individual delivery, or does European Union law merely require that the creditor be paid a fixed sum of EUR 40 in respect of the entire commercial transaction which comprises several deliveries irrespective of the number of late payments for individual deliveries?

| 2. | Within the meaning of Article 2(1) of Directive 2011/7/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on combating late payment in commercial transactions, does a contract for the supply of goods that obliges the supplier to supply to the contracting authority, for a price agreed in that contract, a certain quantity of goods and at the same time grants the contracting authority the right to determine unilaterally the timing and volumes of the individual deliveries comprising execution of the subject of the contract, including the possibility of opting out from receiving some of the goods contracted for without suffering any negative consequences, and obliges the contracting authority to pay for each part delivery within a certain time limit calculated from receipt of that part delivery, constitute a single commercial transaction, or does each of those part deliveries, which are based on the contracting authority’s stated requirements, constitute a separate commercial transaction within the meaning of the directive, even though it does not constitute a separate contract under national law? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Within the meaning of Article 2(1) of Directive 2011/7/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on combating late payment in commercial transactions, does a contract for the supply of goods that obliges the supplier to supply to the contracting authority, for a price agreed in that contract, a certain quantity of goods and at the same time grants the contracting authority the right to determine unilaterally the timing and volumes of the individual deliveries comprising execution of the subject of the contract, including the possibility of opting out from receiving some of the goods contracted for without suffering any negative consequences, and obliges the contracting authority to pay for each part delivery within a certain time limit calculated from receipt of that part delivery, constitute a single commercial transaction, or does each of those part deliveries, which are based on the contracting authority’s stated requirements, constitute a separate commercial transaction within the meaning of the directive, even though it does not constitute a separate contract under national law?

---

(1)  OJ 2011 L 48, p. 1.

---

| 6.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 490/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 490/16

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 21 July 2021 — X-FAB Dresden GmbH & Co. KG v FC

(Case C-453/21)

(2021/C 490/16)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Defendant, appellant in first appeal and appellant on a point of law: X-FAB Dresden GmbH & Co. KG

Applicant, respondent in first appeal and respondent in the appeal on a point of law: FC

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the second sentence of Article 38(3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (1) (General Data Protection Regulation; ‘the GDPR’) to be interpreted as precluding a provision in national law, such as, in the present case, Paragraph 38(1) and (2) in conjunction with the first sentence of Paragraph 6(4) of the Bundesdatenschutzgesetz (Federal Law on data protection; ‘the BDSG’), which makes dismissal of the data protection officer by the controller, who is his employer, subject to the conditions set out therein, irrespective of whether such dismissal relates to the performance of his tasks?
  If the first question is answered in the affirmative: |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the second sentence of Article 38(3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (1) (General Data Protection Regulation; ‘the GDPR’) to be interpreted as precluding a provision in national law, such as, in the present case, Paragraph 38(1) and (2) in conjunction with the first sentence of Paragraph 6(4) of the Bundesdatenschutzgesetz (Federal Law on data protection; ‘the BDSG’), which makes dismissal of the data protection officer by the controller, who is his employer, subject to the conditions set out therein, irrespective of whether such dismissal relates to the performance of his tasks?

If the first question is answered in the affirmative:

| 2. | Does the second sentence of Article 38(3) of the GDPR also preclude such a provision in national law if the designation of the data protection officer is mandatory not in accordance with Article 37(1) of the GDPR, but only in accordance with the law of the Member State?
  If the first question is answered in the affirmative: |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the second sentence of Article 38(3) of the GDPR also preclude such a provision in national law if the designation of the data protection officer is mandatory not in accordance with Article 37(1) of the GDPR, but only in accordance with the law of the Member State?

If the first question is answered in the affirmative:

| 3. | Does the second sentence of Article 38(3) of the GDPR have sufficient legal basis, in particular in so far as it covers data protection officers that have an employment relationship with the controller?
  If the first question is answered in the negative: |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the second sentence of Article 38(3) of the GDPR have sufficient legal basis, in particular in so far as it covers data protection officers that have an employment relationship with the controller?

If the first question is answered in the negative:

| 4. | Is there a conflict of interests within the meaning of the second sentence of Article 38(6) of the GDPR if the data protection officer also holds the office of chairman of the works council established at the controlling body? Must specific tasks have been assigned within the works council in order for such a conflict of interests to be assumed to exist? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is there a conflict of interests within the meaning of the second sentence of Article 38(6) of the GDPR if the data protection officer also holds the office of chairman of the works council established at the controlling body? Must specific tasks have been assigned within the works council in order for such a conflict of interests to be assumed to exist?

---

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

---

| 6.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 490/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 490/17

---

Appeal brought on 13 August 2021 by Joshua David Silver, Leona Catherine Bashow, Charles Nicholas Hilary Marquand, JY, JZ, Anthony Styles Clayton, Gillian Margaret Clayton against the order of the General Court (Tenth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 8 June 2021 in Case T-252/20, Silver and Others v Council

(Case C-499/21 P)

(2021/C 490/17)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Joshua David Silver, Leona Catherine Bashow, Charles Nicholas Hilary Marquand, JY, JZ, Anthony Styles Clayton, Gillian Margaret Clayton (represented by: P. Tridimas, Δικηγόρος, A. von Westernhagen, D. Harrison, Solicitors)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The Applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | quash the order under appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

quash the order under appeal;

| — | declare the application in Case T-252/20 admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the application in Case T-252/20 admissible;

| — | grant the orders sought by the applicants in the proceedings before the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

grant the orders sought by the applicants in the proceedings before the General Court;

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

—

order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellants consider that the General Court erred in law by finding that:

| a) | the Appellants lack individual concern; |
| --- | --- |

a)

the Appellants lack individual concern;

| b) | Council Decision (EU) 2020/135 (1) on the conclusion of the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community is not a regulatory act. |
| --- | --- |

b)

Council Decision (EU) 2020/135 (1) on the conclusion of the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community is not a regulatory act.

The Appellants argue that they have individual concern on the ground that:

| a) | they are members of a closed group whose membership is fixed and cannot be added to after the entry into force of the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

a)

they are members of a closed group whose membership is fixed and cannot be added to after the entry into force of the contested decision;

| b) | the contested decision deprives them of their Union citizenship status and the rights attached thereto. Given the character of citizenship as the fundamental status of EU nationals, those are specific and exclusive acquired rights which are indefeasible and which cannot be abrogated upon the withdrawal of the United Kingdom. |
| --- | --- |

b)

the contested decision deprives them of their Union citizenship status and the rights attached thereto. Given the character of citizenship as the fundamental status of EU nationals, those are specific and exclusive acquired rights which are indefeasible and which cannot be abrogated upon the withdrawal of the United Kingdom.

The Appellants also argue that the contested decision is a regulatory act on the ground that:

| a) | According to the case law all acts of general application which are not legislative acts are regulatory acts; |
| --- | --- |

a)

According to the case law all acts of general application which are not legislative acts are regulatory acts;

| b) | The fact that the contested decision gives effect to the Withdrawal Agreement which ranks higher than acts adopted by the EU institutions is not material; |
| --- | --- |

b)

The fact that the contested decision gives effect to the Withdrawal Agreement which ranks higher than acts adopted by the EU institutions is not material;

| c) | The argument that the Withdrawal Agreement may be regarded as being the equivalent externally to a legislative act internally is erroneous; |
| --- | --- |

c)

The argument that the Withdrawal Agreement may be regarded as being the equivalent externally to a legislative act internally is erroneous;

| d) | The argument that the contested decision benefits from high democratic legitimation is incorrect. |
| --- | --- |

d)

The argument that the contested decision benefits from high democratic legitimation is incorrect.

---

(1)  Council Decision (EU) 2020/135 of 30 January 2020 (OJ 2020, L 29, p. 1).

---

| 6.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 490/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 490/18

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Stade (Germany) lodged on 17 August 2021 — Applicant 1 and Others v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-504/21)

(2021/C 490/18)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Stade

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Applicant 1, Applicant 2, Applicant 3, Applicant 4, Applicant 5

Party opposing the applications: Bundesrepublik Deutschland (represented by the Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge)

Questions referred

| a. | Justiciability







  1. | Is Article 27 of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 (‘the Dublin III Regulation’), (1) whether or not read in conjunction with Articles 47 and 51(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), and while noting the provisions of Directive 2003/86/EC, (2) to be interpreted as meaning that the requested Member State is obliged to provide applicants, including children, who are present in the requesting Member State and who are seeking a transfer pursuant to Articles 8, 9 or 10 of the Dublin III Regulation, or the members of their family in the requested Member State within the meaning of Articles 8, 9 or 10 of the Dublin III Regulation, with an effective remedy before a court in the requested Member State against refusal of the request to take charge? |
| --- | --- | --- |

a.

Justiciability

1.

Is Article 27 of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 (‘the Dublin III Regulation’), (1) whether or not read in conjunction with Articles 47 and 51(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), and while noting the provisions of Directive 2003/86/EC, (2) to be interpreted as meaning that the requested Member State is obliged to provide applicants, including children, who are present in the requesting Member State and who are seeking a transfer pursuant to Articles 8, 9 or 10 of the Dublin III Regulation, or the members of their family in the requested Member State within the meaning of Articles 8, 9 or 10 of the Dublin III Regulation, with an effective remedy before a court in the requested Member State against refusal of the request to take charge?

| 2. | In the event that Question a.1 is answered in the negative:
  In that case, does the right to an effective remedy referred to in a.1 arise directly from Article 47 of the Charter, whether or not read in conjunction with Articles 7, 9 and 33 of the Charter, in the absence of adequate regulation in the Dublin III Regulation (see the judgments of 7 June 2016, Ghezelbash, C-63/15, paragraphs 51 and 52, (3) and of 26 July 2017, Mengesteab, C-670/16, paragraph 58 (4))? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the event that Question a.1 is answered in the negative:

In that case, does the right to an effective remedy referred to in a.1 arise directly from Article 47 of the Charter, whether or not read in conjunction with Articles 7, 9 and 33 of the Charter, in the absence of adequate regulation in the Dublin III Regulation (see the judgments of 7 June 2016, Ghezelbash, C-63/15, paragraphs 51 and 52, (3) and of 26 July 2017, Mengesteab, C-670/16, paragraph 58 (4))?

| 3. | In the event that Question a.1. or Question a.2. is answered in the affirmative:
  Is Article 47 of the Charter, whether or not read in conjunction with the principle of sincere cooperation (see the judgment of 13 November 2018, X, C-47/17 and C-48/17, (5)), to be interpreted as meaning that the requested Member State is obliged to inform the requesting Member State about an appeal brought by the applicants against the refusal of the request to take charge, and that the requesting Member State is obliged to refrain from ruling on the merits of the applicants’ asylum application pending a negative outcome of the appeal proceedings? |
| --- | --- |

3.

In the event that Question a.1. or Question a.2. is answered in the affirmative:

Is Article 47 of the Charter, whether or not read in conjunction with the principle of sincere cooperation (see the judgment of 13 November 2018, X, C-47/17 and C-48/17, (5)), to be interpreted as meaning that the requested Member State is obliged to inform the requesting Member State about an appeal brought by the applicants against the refusal of the request to take charge, and that the requesting Member State is obliged to refrain from ruling on the merits of the applicants’ asylum application pending a negative outcome of the appeal proceedings?

| 4. | In the event that Question a.1. or Question a.2. is answered in the affirmative:
  Is Article 47 of the Charter, whether or not the assessments set out in recital 5 of the Dublin III Regulation are to be considered, to be interpreted in a case such as that described above as meaning that the courts of the requested Member State are obliged to guarantee legal protection by way of summary proceedings? Is there a period within which the courts in the requested Member State must take a decision on the appeal? |
| --- | --- |

4.

In the event that Question a.1. or Question a.2. is answered in the affirmative:

Is Article 47 of the Charter, whether or not the assessments set out in recital 5 of the Dublin III Regulation are to be considered, to be interpreted in a case such as that described above as meaning that the courts of the requested Member State are obliged to guarantee legal protection by way of summary proceedings? Is there a period within which the courts in the requested Member State must take a decision on the appeal?

| b. | Transfer of responsibilities







  1. | Does the third subparagraph of Article 21(1) of the Dublin III Regulation, read in conjunction with Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1560/2003, as amended by Regulation (EU) No 118/2014, (6) (‘the Implementing Regulation’) effect, in principle, a non-appealable transfer of responsibilities to the requesting Member State, if the requested Member State refuses both the original request from the [requesting] Member State and the application for reconsideration within the period (see the judgment of 13 November 2018, X, C-47/17 and C-48/17, EU:C:2018:900, paragraph 80)? |
| --- | --- | --- |

b.

Transfer of responsibilities

1.

Does the third subparagraph of Article 21(1) of the Dublin III Regulation, read in conjunction with Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1560/2003, as amended by Regulation (EU) No 118/2014, (6) (‘the Implementing Regulation’) effect, in principle, a non-appealable transfer of responsibilities to the requesting Member State, if the requested Member State refuses both the original request from the [requesting] Member State and the application for reconsideration within the period (see the judgment of 13 November 2018, X, C-47/17 and C-48/17, EU:C:2018:900, paragraph 80)?

| 2. | If Question b.1 is answered in the affirmative:
  Is that also the case if the refusal decisions of the requested Member State are unlawful? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If Question b.1 is answered in the affirmative:

Is that also the case if the refusal decisions of the requested Member State are unlawful?

| 3. | In the event that Question b.2 is answered in the negative:
  Can the applicant for asylum in the requesting Member State invoke a transfer of responsibility that was unlawful due to failure to comply with responsibility criteria relating to family unity (Articles 8 to 11, 16, 17(2) of the Dublin III Regulation) against the requested Member State? |
| --- | --- |

3.

In the event that Question b.2 is answered in the negative:

Can the applicant for asylum in the requesting Member State invoke a transfer of responsibility that was unlawful due to failure to comply with responsibility criteria relating to family unity (Articles 8 to 11, 16, 17(2) of the Dublin III Regulation) against the requested Member State?

| c. | Subsequent application







  1. | Are Article 7(2) and Article 20(1) of the Dublin III Regulation to be interpreted as not precluding the applicability of the provisions in Chapter III or the implementation of a procedure for taking charge within the meaning of Chapter VI, Section II, of the Dublin III Regulation in cases where the applicants have already lodged an asylum application in the requesting Member State, which was originally rejected as inadmissible by the requesting Member State on the basis of Article 33(2)(c), read in conjunction with Article 38, of Directive 2013/32/EU, (7) but — for example as a result of the de facto settlement in the ‘EU-Turkey Statement of 18 March 2016’ (see EN P-000604/2021, Answer given by Ms Johansson on 1 June 2021 on behalf of the European Commission) — an admissible subsequent application procedure has since been initiated in the requesting Member State? |
| --- | --- | --- |

c.

Subsequent application

1.

Are Article 7(2) and Article 20(1) of the Dublin III Regulation to be interpreted as not precluding the applicability of the provisions in Chapter III or the implementation of a procedure for taking charge within the meaning of Chapter VI, Section II, of the Dublin III Regulation in cases where the applicants have already lodged an asylum application in the requesting Member State, which was originally rejected as inadmissible by the requesting Member State on the basis of Article 33(2)(c), read in conjunction with Article 38, of Directive 2013/32/EU, (7) but — for example as a result of the de facto settlement in the ‘EU-Turkey Statement of 18 March 2016’ (see EN P-000604/2021, Answer given by Ms Johansson on 1 June 2021 on behalf of the European Commission) — an admissible subsequent application procedure has since been initiated in the requesting Member State?

| 2. | In the event that Question c.1 is answered in the negative:
  In the case described under c.1., are Article 7(2) and Article 20(1) of the Dublin III Regulation then to be interpreted in such a way that they do not preclude the applicability of the provisions in Chapter III and the implementation of a procedure to take charge pursuant to Chapter VI, Section II, of the Dublin III Regulation in cases involving responsibility criteria relating to family unity (Articles 8 to 11 and 16 of the Dublin III Regulation)? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the event that Question c.1 is answered in the negative:

In the case described under c.1., are Article 7(2) and Article 20(1) of the Dublin III Regulation then to be interpreted in such a way that they do not preclude the applicability of the provisions in Chapter III and the implementation of a procedure to take charge pursuant to Chapter VI, Section II, of the Dublin III Regulation in cases involving responsibility criteria relating to family unity (Articles 8 to 11 and 16 of the Dublin III Regulation)?

| 3. | Is Article 17(2) of the Dublin III Regulation still applicable in the case where the applicants have already lodged an asylum application in the requesting Member State, which was originally rejected as inadmissible by the requesting Member State on the basis of Article 33(2)(c), read in conjunction with Article 38, of Directive 2013/32/EU, but — for example as a result of the de facto settlement in the ‘EU-Turkey Statement of 18 March 2016’ (see EN P-000604/2021, Answer given by Ms Johansson on 1 June 2021 on behalf of the European Commission) — an admissible subsequent application procedure has since been initiated in the requesting Member State? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is Article 17(2) of the Dublin III Regulation still applicable in the case where the applicants have already lodged an asylum application in the requesting Member State, which was originally rejected as inadmissible by the requesting Member State on the basis of Article 33(2)(c), read in conjunction with Article 38, of Directive 2013/32/EU, but — for example as a result of the de facto settlement in the ‘EU-Turkey Statement of 18 March 2016’ (see EN P-000604/2021, Answer given by Ms Johansson on 1 June 2021 on behalf of the European Commission) — an admissible subsequent application procedure has since been initiated in the requesting Member State?

| 4. | If Question c.3 is answered in the affirmative:
  Does Article 17(2) of the Dublin III Regulation grant applicants for asylum an enforceable subjective right in the requested Member State? Does EU law lay down any stipulations regarding the exercise of administrative discretion by the national authorities in this regard — for example maintaining family unity, the best interests of children — or is this governed by national law alone? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If Question c.3 is answered in the affirmative:

Does Article 17(2) of the Dublin III Regulation grant applicants for asylum an enforceable subjective right in the requested Member State? Does EU law lay down any stipulations regarding the exercise of administrative discretion by the national authorities in this regard — for example maintaining family unity, the best interests of children — or is this governed by national law alone?

| d. | Subjective rights of a family member residing in the requested Member State

  Does a family member who is already resident in the requested Member State have a legally enforceable claim to ensure compliance with Article 8 et seq. of the Dublin III Regulation and the associated transfer rules (Articles 18 and 29 et seq. of the Dublin III Regulation, whether or not read in conjunction with recitals 13, 14 and 15 of the Dublin III Regulation, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter) or with Article 17(2) of the Dublin III Regulation? |
| --- | --- |

d.

Subjective rights of a family member residing in the requested Member State

Does a family member who is already resident in the requested Member State have a legally enforceable claim to ensure compliance with Article 8 et seq. of the Dublin III Regulation and the associated transfer rules (Articles 18 and 29 et seq. of the Dublin III Regulation, whether or not read in conjunction with recitals 13, 14 and 15 of the Dublin III Regulation, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter) or with Article 17(2) of the Dublin III Regulation?

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 31).

(2)  Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification (OJ 2003 L 251, p. 12).

(3)  EU:C:2016:409.

(4)  EU:C:2017:587.

(5)  EU:C:2018:900.

(6)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 118/2014 of 30 January 2014 amending Regulation (EC) No 1560/2003 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national (OJ 2014 L 39, p. 1).

(7)  Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 60).

---

| 6.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 490/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 490/20

---

Appeal brought on 20 August 2021 by XC against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 10 February 2021 in Case T-488/18, XC v Commission

(Case C-527/21 P)

(2021/C 490/19)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: XC (represented by: F. Rosi, avvocato)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 10 February 2021 in Case T-488/18, XC v Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 10 February 2021 in Case T-488/18, XC v Commission;

| — | annul the three decisions contested at first instance or, in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the three decisions contested at first instance or, in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court;

| — | order the Commission to pay compensation for harm suffered in an amount established at the discretion of the Court or, in the alternative, order that the case be referred back to the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay compensation for harm suffered in an amount established at the discretion of the Court or, in the alternative, order that the case be referred back to the General Court;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings or, in the alternative, reserve the matter of costs with referral back to the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings or, in the alternative, reserve the matter of costs with referral back to the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appeal is divided into four parts.

First part, concerning the dismissal of the application for annulment of the reserve list of open competition EPSO/AD/356/18 (paragraphs 173 to 182 of the judgment under appeal)

In this connection, the appellant alleges failure to observe the adversarial principle; failure to observe, and misapplication of, the principles established by case-law regarding the annulment of reserve lists of open competitions; infringement of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union regarding the right to effective judicial protection; failure to state adequate reasons and illogicality of the judgment under appeal; and distortion and misrepresentation of the facts of the case.

Second part, concerning the dismissal of the application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2018) 3969 of 19 June 2018 on access to documents (paragraphs 141 to 172 of the judgment under appeal)

The appellant alleges, in this regard, failure to observe the principles of law set out in Case T-515/14 P, Alexandrou v Commission; failure to observe the principles of the unity and consistency of EU law; infringement of Article 4 of Regulation No 1049/2001; (1) abuse of process consisting in the failure to give a ruling on part of the claim in the proceedings; and distortion and misrepresentation of the facts of the case.

Third part, concerning the dismissal of the application for annulment of the decision of the selection board of open competition EPSO/AD/338/17 of 4 December 2017 to exclude the appellant from the next phase of the competition (paragraphs 78 to 99 of the judgment under appeal)

The appellant alleges infringement and misapplication of Article 1d of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and of Article 8(1) of Directive 2000/43/EC; (2) manifest illogicality of the judgment under appeal; manifest error of assessment; and infringement of Article 1d of the Staff Regulations.

Fourth part, concerning compensation for harm suffered and the costs (paragraphs 183 to 198 of the judgment under appeal)

The appellant claims that the parts of the General Court’s judgment concerning compensation for harm suffered and the costs should also be annulled in so far as they are closely linked with the dismissal of the claims for annulment of the decisions at issue at first instance.

---

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

(2)  Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin (OJ 2000 L 180, p. 22).

---

| 6.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 490/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 490/21

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 31 August 2021 — Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb e.V. v famila-Handelsmarkt Kiel GmbH & Co. KG

(Case C-543/21)

(2021/C 490/20)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law: Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb e.V.

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: famila-Handelsmarkt Kiel GmbH & Co. KG

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the concept of ‘selling price’ within the meaning of Article 2(a) of Directive 98/6/EC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that it must include the deposit payable by the consumer when purchasing goods in bottles or jars which are returnable against a deposit? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the concept of ‘selling price’ within the meaning of Article 2(a) of Directive 98/6/EC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that it must include the deposit payable by the consumer when purchasing goods in bottles or jars which are returnable against a deposit?

| 2. | If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:
  Are the Member States authorised under Article 10 of Directive 98/6/EC to maintain a provision which deviates from Article 3(1) and (4) of Directive 98/6/EC, read in conjunction with Article 2(a) thereof, such as that in Paragraph 1(4) of the Preisangabenverordnung (Regulation on the indication of prices), in accordance with which, where a refundable security deposit is required in addition to the consideration for a product, the amount of that security deposit must be indicated in addition to the price for the product, and a total amount must not be formed, or does the approach of full harmonisation pursued by Directive 2005/29/EC (2) preclude that? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:

Are the Member States authorised under Article 10 of Directive 98/6/EC to maintain a provision which deviates from Article 3(1) and (4) of Directive 98/6/EC, read in conjunction with Article 2(a) thereof, such as that in Paragraph 1(4) of the Preisangabenverordnung (Regulation on the indication of prices), in accordance with which, where a refundable security deposit is required in addition to the consideration for a product, the amount of that security deposit must be indicated in addition to the price for the product, and a total amount must not be formed, or does the approach of full harmonisation pursued by Directive 2005/29/EC (2) preclude that?

---

(1)  Directive 98/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 on consumer protection in the indication of the prices of products offered to consumers (OJ 1998 L 80, p. 27).

(2)  Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Unfair Commercial Practices Directive) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22).

---

| 6.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 490/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 490/22

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 8 September 2021 — Hauptzollamt Hamburg v Shell Deutschland Oil GmbH

(Case C-553/21)

(2021/C 490/21)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant in the appeal on a point of law: Hauptzollamt Hamburg

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Shell Deutschland Oil GmbH

Question referred

Does the principle of proportionality under EU law apply also to the optional tax reduction provided for in the fourth indent of the first sentence of Article 5 of Directive 2003/96/EC, (1) such that the Member State may not refuse to grant the tax reduction after the period for making an application under national law has expired, if assessment has not yet been time-barred at the time the application is received by the competent authority?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity (OJ 2003 L 283, p. 51).

---

| 6.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 490/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 490/22

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 16 September 2021 — RWE Power Aktiengesellschaft v Hauptzollamt Duisburg

(Case C-571/21)

(2021/C 490/22)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: RWE Power Aktiengesellschaft

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Duisburg

Questions referred

| 1. | Having regard to the second sentence of Article 21(3) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC (1) of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity (Directive 2003/96), can the first sentence of Article 14(1)(a) of Directive 2003/96, in so far as it provides that electricity used to produce electricity is to be exempt from taxation, be interpreted as meaning that that exemption also covers operations in which energy products are extracted in opencast mines and made more suitable for use in power stations, such as the operations of breaking the products down, separating foreign matter from them and crushing them down to the size operationally required by the boiler? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Having regard to the second sentence of Article 21(3) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC (1) of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity (Directive 2003/96), can the first sentence of Article 14(1)(a) of Directive 2003/96, in so far as it provides that electricity used to produce electricity is to be exempt from taxation, be interpreted as meaning that that exemption also covers operations in which energy products are extracted in opencast mines and made more suitable for use in power stations, such as the operations of breaking the products down, separating foreign matter from them and crushing them down to the size operationally required by the boiler?

| 2. | Having regard to the third sentence of Article 21(3) of Directive 2003/96, can the first sentence of Article 14(1)(a) of Directive 2003/96, in so far as it provides that electricity used to maintain the ability to produce electricity is to be exempt from taxation, be interpreted as meaning that the use of electricity to operate bunker installations and means of transport necessary for the permanent operation of power stations must also be exempt from taxation under that provision? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Having regard to the third sentence of Article 21(3) of Directive 2003/96, can the first sentence of Article 14(1)(a) of Directive 2003/96, in so far as it provides that electricity used to maintain the ability to produce electricity is to be exempt from taxation, be interpreted as meaning that the use of electricity to operate bunker installations and means of transport necessary for the permanent operation of power stations must also be exempt from taxation under that provision?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity (OJ 2003 L 283, p. 51).

---

| 6.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 490/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 490/23

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 27 September 2021 — VB v Sixt Leasing SE

(Case C-594/21)

(2021/C 490/23)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: VB

Defendant: Sixt Leasing SE

Questions referred

| 1. | Do mileage-based motor vehicle leasing agreements with a term of 48 months that are concluded with a consumer constitute ‘car rental services’, and are they therefore covered by the exception from a right of withdrawal under the law on distance selling set out in Article 16(l) of Directive 2011/83/EU? (1)

  If Question 1 is answered in the negative: |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do mileage-based motor vehicle leasing agreements with a term of 48 months that are concluded with a consumer constitute ‘car rental services’, and are they therefore covered by the exception from a right of withdrawal under the law on distance selling set out in Article 16(l) of Directive 2011/83/EU? (1)

If Question 1 is answered in the negative:

| 2. | Do mileage-based motor vehicle leasing agreements concluded with a consumer constitute contracts for financial services within the meaning of Article 2(b) of Directive 2002/65/EC, (2) now incorporated in point 12 of Article 2 of Directive 2011/83/EU? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Do mileage-based motor vehicle leasing agreements concluded with a consumer constitute contracts for financial services within the meaning of Article 2(b) of Directive 2002/65/EC, (2) now incorporated in point 12 of Article 2 of Directive 2011/83/EU?

---

(1)  Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2011 L 304, p. 64).

(2)  Directive 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 concerning the distance marketing of consumer financial services and amending Council Directive 90/619/EEC and Directives 97/7/EC and 98/27/EC (OJ 2002 L 271, p. 16).

---

| 6.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 490/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 490/23

---

Action brought on 28 September 2021 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

(Case C-601/21)

(2021/C 490/24)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Stobiecka-Kuik, G. Wils and P. Ondrůšek, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Poland

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by adding exemptions, relating to the production of certain documents, printed matter and stamps and markings, which are not provided for in Directive 2014/24/EU on public procurement, (1) the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 1(1) and (3) and Article 15(2) and (3) of Directive 2014/24/EU, read in conjunction with Article 346(1)(a) TFEU; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by adding exemptions, relating to the production of certain documents, printed matter and stamps and markings, which are not provided for in Directive 2014/24/EU on public procurement, (1) the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 1(1) and (3) and Article 15(2) and (3) of Directive 2014/24/EU, read in conjunction with Article 346(1)(a) TFEU;

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

—

order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In transposing Directive 2014/24, Poland exempted the production of a wide range of documents, printed matter and stamps and markings from the scope of the procedures provided for in that directive. The exemptions introduced by Poland concern public documents (such as, for instance, national ID cards, passport documents and sailors’ service record books); excise stamps, legal markings and vehicle inspection stickers; ballot papers and holographic markings placed on voting rights certificates; microprocessors with software used for the management of public documents; and IT systems and databases essential for the use of public documents. According to the Commission, the introduction of those exemptions amounts to infringement of Directive 2014/24, since the scope of that directive has been limited in a manner that is not justified by the provisions of Directive 2014/24 or Article 346 TFEU. The Commission relies on the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-187/16, Commission v Austria, as an important precedent in that regard.

In the context of the pre-litigation procedure, Poland has argued that there is a need to protect the security of official documents. While agreeing that there is a need to guarantee the security and authenticity of those documents, the Commission considers that Poland has not demonstrated that the required protection, including protection against falsification or protection connected with the provisions on the protection of personal data, cannot be realised in the context of the public procurement procedure provided for in Directive 2014/24.

---

(1)  OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65.

---

| 6.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 490/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 490/24

---

Action brought on 28 September 2021 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

(Case C-602/21)

(2021/C 490/25)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

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

Defendant: Republic of Poland

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that:






  (1) | by requiring action plans for areas where permissible noise levels have not been exceeded to be drawn up no later than 18 July 2024, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8(1) and (2) of Directive 2002/49[/EC] of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise; (1) |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

declare that:

(1)

by requiring action plans for areas where permissible noise levels have not been exceeded to be drawn up no later than 18 July 2024, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8(1) and (2) of Directive 2002/49[/EC] of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise; (1)

| (2) | by not requiring action plans to include a record of the public consultations organised in accordance with Article 8(7) of Directive 2002/49, as well as an indication of the measures that the competent bodies intend to take in the following five years to protect quiet areas, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the seventh and ninth indents of point 1 of Annex V to that directive; |
| --- | --- |

(2)

by not requiring action plans to include a record of the public consultations organised in accordance with Article 8(7) of Directive 2002/49, as well as an indication of the measures that the competent bodies intend to take in the following five years to protect quiet areas, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the seventh and ninth indents of point 1 of Annex V to that directive;

| (3) | by not drawing up action plans for the 20 major railways listed in Annex A.3 to the application, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8(2) of Directive 2002/49; |
| --- | --- |

(3)

by not drawing up action plans for the 20 major railways listed in Annex A.3 to the application, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8(2) of Directive 2002/49;

| (4) | by not drawing up action plans for the 290 major roads listed in Annex A.4 to the application, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8(2) of Directive 2002/49; and |
| --- | --- |

(4)

by not drawing up action plans for the 290 major roads listed in Annex A.4 to the application, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8(2) of Directive 2002/49; and

| (5) | by not presenting summaries of the action plans for the 20 major railways listed in Annex A.3 to the application and the 290 major roads listed in Annex A.4 to the application, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil one of its obligations under Article 10(2) of Directive 2002/49, read in conjunction with Annex VI thereto; |
| --- | --- |

(5)

by not presenting summaries of the action plans for the 20 major railways listed in Annex A.3 to the application and the 290 major roads listed in Annex A.4 to the application, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil one of its obligations under Article 10(2) of Directive 2002/49, read in conjunction with Annex VI thereto;

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

—

order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its first plea in law, the Commission alleges that introducing a requirement whereby action plans for areas where permissible noise levels are not exceeded are to be drawn up no later than 18 July 2024 does not guarantee adequate protection of those areas and results in the Republic of Poland not fulfilling its obligations of drawing up action plans designed to manage, within its territory, noise issues and effects, including noise reduction; a situation which is incompatible with Article 8(1) and (2) of Directive 2002/49. The objectives of that directive relating to avoiding and preventing the harmful effects of environmental noise and preserving environmental noise quality can be achieved only if action plans are also designed for areas where noise limits are not exceeded.

By its second plea in law, the Commission alleges a failure to ensure in Polish law that the environmental protection programme also refers to measures whose objective is to preserve quiet areas, as required by Directive 2002/49. Polish law does not meet that requirement. Furthermore, Polish law does not introduce a requirement whereby presenting a record of the public consultations organised in accordance with Article 8(7) of Directive 2002/49 is a mandatory element of an action plan. Article 119a(5) of the ustawa Prawo ochrony środowiska (Law on the protection of the environment) requires only that the Marszałek (head of local government) responsible for the area or areas concerned conduct public consultations in accordance with the relevant provisions. However, there is no legal obligation to take into account a record of those public consultations in an action plan.

By its third plea in law, the Commission alleges a failure, by Poland, to draw up action plans for the 20 major railways previously notified to the Commission by Poland as major railways, resulting in the infringement, by Poland, of Article 8(2) of Directive 2002/49.

By its fourth plea in law, the Commission alleges a failure, by Poland, to draw up action plans for the 290 major roads previously notified to the Commission by Poland as major roads, resulting in the infringement, by Poland, of Article 8(2) of Directive 2002/49.

By its fifth plea in law, the Commission alleges a failure, by Poland, to present summaries of the action plans for those 20 major railways and 290 major roads, the result of which is an infringement of Article 10 of Directive 2002/49.

---

(1)  OJ 2002 L 189, p. 12.

---

General Court

| 6.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 490/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 490/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2021 — Simpson v Council

(Case T-646/16 P-RENV-RX) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Refusal of the Council to reclassify the person concerned, after he passed an open competition, at the grade laid down in the competition notice - Dismissal of the action on the merits - Appeal - Judgment set aside - Appeal judgment reviewed by the Court of Justice and set aside - Referral back to the General Court as the appeal court - Obligation to state grounds - Equal treatment)

(2021/C 490/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Erik Simpson (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

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

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 24 June 2016, Simpson v Council (F-142/11 RENV, EU:F:2016:136), and seeking to have that order set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Declares that Mr Erik Simpson is to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union in Case T-646/16 P; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that Mr Erik Simpson is to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union in Case T-646/16 P;

| 3. | Declares that each party is to bear its own costs in Cases T-441/18 RENV and T-646/16 P-RENV-RX. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Declares that each party is to bear its own costs in Cases T-441/18 RENV and T-646/16 P-RENV-RX.

---

(1)  OJ C 419, 14.11.2016.

---

| 6.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 490/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 490/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2021 — Aeris Invest v ECB

(Case T-827/17) (1)

(Access to documents - Decision 2004/258/EC - Documents related to the adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español - Partial refusal to grant access - Exception relating to the protection of the confidentiality of the proceedings of the ECB’s decision-making bodies - Document reflecting the outcome of the proceedings of the ECB’s decision-making bodies - Obligation to state reasons - Exception relating to the protection of the financial, monetary or economic policy of the European Union or of a Member State - Exception relating to the protection of the confidentiality of information that is protected as such under EU law - Concept of confidential information - General presumption of confidentiality - Exemptions from the obligation of professional secrecy - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights)

(2021/C 490/27)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Aeris Invest Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: R. Vallina Hoset and E. Galán Burgos, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: T. Filipova, D. Báez Seara and F. von Lindeiner, acting as Agents, and M. Kottmann, lawyer)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier, J. Rius, C. Ehrbar and A. Steiblytė, acting as Agents), Banco Santander, SA (Santander, Spain) (represented by: J. Rodríguez Cárcamo and A. Rodríguez Conde, lawyers)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the ECB’s decisions LS/MD/17/405, LS/MD/17/406 and LS/MD/17/419, of 7 November 2017, refusing full access to certain documents related to the adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español, SA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Decision LS/MD/17/406 of the European Central Bank (ECB) of 7 November 2017 in so far as it refuses access to the outcome of the vote in the Governing Council of the ECB contained in the minutes of the 447th meeting of the Governing Council of the ECB; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Decision LS/MD/17/406 of the European Central Bank (ECB) of 7 November 2017 in so far as it refuses access to the outcome of the vote in the Governing Council of the ECB contained in the minutes of the 447th meeting of the Governing Council of the ECB;

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the application; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the application;

| 3. | Orders Aeris Invest Sàrl to bear its own costs and to pay two thirds of the costs incurred by the ECB; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Aeris Invest Sàrl to bear its own costs and to pay two thirds of the costs incurred by the ECB;

| 4. | Orders the ECB to bear one third of its own costs; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the ECB to bear one third of its own costs;

| 5. | Orders the European Commission and Banco Santander, SA to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Orders the European Commission and Banco Santander, SA to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 63, 19.2.2018.

---

| 6.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 490/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 490/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2021 — OCU v ECB

(Case T-15/18) (1)

(Access to documents - Decision 2004/258/EC - Documents relating to the adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español - Refusal to grant access - Exception relating to the protection of the confidentiality of information that is protected as such under EU law - Concept of confidential information - Exemptions from the obligation of professional secrecy - Right to a fair hearing)

(2021/C 490/28)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Organización de Consumidores y Usuarios (OCU) (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E. Martínez Martínez and C. López-Mélida de Ramón, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: T. Filipova, D. Báez Seara and F. von Lindeiner, acting as Agents, and M. Kottmann, lawyer)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier, J. Rius, C. Ehrbar and A. Steiblytė, acting as Agents), Banco Santander, SA (Santander, Spain) (represented by: J. Rodríguez Cárcamo and A. Rodríguez Conde, lawyers)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for partial annulment of Decision LS/MD/17/428 of the ECB of 17 November 2017 refusing access to certain documents relating to the adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español, SA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the application; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application;

| 2. | Orders the Organización de Consumidores y Usuarios (OCU) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Central Bank (ECB); |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Organización de Consumidores y Usuarios (OCU) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Central Bank (ECB);

| 3. | Orders the European Commission and Banco Santander, SA to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission and Banco Santander, SA to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 83, 5.3.2018.

---

| 6.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 490/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 490/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2021 — Ukrselhosprom PCF and Versobank v ECB

(Joined Cases T-351/18 and T-584/18) (1)

(Economic and monetary policy - Prudential supervision of credit institutions - Specific supervisory tasks assigned to the ECB - Decision to withdraw a credit institution’s authorisation - Breach of legislation on combating money laundering and the financing of terrorism - Admissibility - Powers of the national competent authorities (NCAs) of participating Member States and of the ECB under the Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM) - Equal treatment - Proportionality - Protection of legitimate expectations - Legal certainty - Misuse of powers - Rights of the defence - Obligation to state reasons)

(2021/C 490/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Ukrselhosprom PCF LLC (Solone, Ukraine), Versobank AS (Tallinn, Estonia) (represented by: O. Behrends, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: C. Hernández Saseta and G. Marafioti, acting as Agents, and by B. Schneider, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Steiblytė, D. Triantafyllou and A. Nijenhuis, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment, first, of decision ECB_SSM_2018_EE_1 WHD_2017 0012 of the ECB of 26 March 2018, secondly, of decision ECB_SSM_2018_EE_2 WHD_2017 0012 of 17 July 2018, replacing decision ECB_SSM_2018_EE_1 WHD_2017 0012, by which the ECB withdrew Versobank’s authorisation to operate as a credit institution, and, thirdly, of decision ECB/SSM/2018 EE 3 of 14 August 2018 on the costs relating to the review procedure.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Orders that Cases T-351/18 and T-584/18 be joined for the purposes of the judgment; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Orders that Cases T-351/18 and T-584/18 be joined for the purposes of the judgment;

| 2. | Declares that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action in Case T-351/18; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action in Case T-351/18;

| 3. | Dismisses the action in Case T-584/18; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Dismisses the action in Case T-584/18;

| 4. | Orders Ukrselhosprom PCF LLC, Versobank AS, the European Central Bank (ECB) and the European Commission each to bear their own costs in Case T-351/18; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Ukrselhosprom PCF LLC, Versobank AS, the European Central Bank (ECB) and the European Commission each to bear their own costs in Case T-351/18;

| 5. | Orders Ukrselhosprom PCF and Versobank, in Case T-584/18, to bear their own costs and to pay those of the ECB; |
| --- | --- |

5.

Orders Ukrselhosprom PCF and Versobank, in Case T-584/18, to bear their own costs and to pay those of the ECB;

| 6. | Orders the Commission to bear its own costs in Case T-584/18. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Orders the Commission to bear its own costs in Case T-584/18.

---

(1)  OJ C 294, 20.8.2018.

---

| 6.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 490/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 490/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2021 — Aupicon and Others v EEAS

(Case T-655/18) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Members of the temporary staff - Members of the contract staff - Remuneration - EEAS staff posted to a third country - Article 10 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations - Annual assessment of the allowance for living conditions - ‘Guidelines establishing the methodology to fix the living conditions allowances’ - Decision fixing the rate of the allowance for living conditions paid to staff posted to Ghana at 20 % - Failure to draw up the questionnaire required by the guidelines - Procedural irregularity - Manifest error of assessment)

(2021/C 490/30)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Delphine Aupicon (Gaborone, Botswana) and the 10 other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the judgment (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European External Action Service (represented by: S. Marquardt and R. Spáč, acting as Agents, and M. Troncoso Ferrer, F.-M. Hislaire and C. García Fernández, lawyers)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment, first, of the decision of the EEAS Director-General for Budget and Administration of 19 December 2017 fixing the allowance for living conditions referred to in Article 10 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union for the financial year 2018, inasmuch as that decision fixes the rate of the allowance for living conditions paid to EU staff posted to Ghana at 20 % of the reference amount and, second, in so far as is necessary, of the applicants’ payslips for the month of January 2018, inasmuch as that decision is applied therein for the first time.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the European External Action Service (EEAS) Director-General for Budget and Administration of 19 December 2017 fixing the allowance for living conditions referred to in Article 10 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union for the financial year 2018, inasmuch as that decision fixes, with effect from 1 January 2018, the rate of the allowance for living conditions paid to EU staff posted to Ghana at 20 % of the reference amount; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the European External Action Service (EEAS) Director-General for Budget and Administration of 19 December 2017 fixing the allowance for living conditions referred to in Article 10 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union for the financial year 2018, inasmuch as that decision fixes, with effect from 1 January 2018, the rate of the allowance for living conditions paid to EU staff posted to Ghana at 20 % of the reference amount;

| 2. | Annuls the payslips of Ms Delphine Aupicon and of the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the judgment, issued by the EEAS for the month of January 2018, inasmuch as the decision of the EEAS of 19 December 2017 fixing, with effect from 1 January 2018, the rate of the allowance for living conditions paid to EU staff posted to Ghana at 20 % of the reference amount is applied to those payslips; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Annuls the payslips of Ms Delphine Aupicon and of the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the judgment, issued by the EEAS for the month of January 2018, inasmuch as the decision of the EEAS of 19 December 2017 fixing, with effect from 1 January 2018, the rate of the allowance for living conditions paid to EU staff posted to Ghana at 20 % of the reference amount is applied to those payslips;

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

3.

Orders the EEAS to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 25, 21.1.2019.

---

| 6.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 490/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 490/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2021 — European Union Copper Task Force v Commission

(Case T-153/19) (1)

(Plant protection products - Active substance ‘copper compounds’ - Renewal of approval for placing on the market - Candidates for substitution - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Associations - Proportionality - Precautionary principle - Manifest error of assessment - Expert’s report)

(2021/C 490/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Union Copper Task Force (Springfield, United Kingdom) (represented by: I. Moreno-Tapia Rivas and C. Vila Gisbert, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castilla Contreras and I. Naglis, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Parliament (represented by: L. Stefani, C. Ionescu Dima and A. Tamás, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: D. Kornilaki and E. Karlsson, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1981 of 13 December 2018 renewing the approval of the active substances copper compounds, as candidates for substitution, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 (OJ 2018 L 317, p. 16).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders European Union Copper Task Force to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders European Union Copper Task Force to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

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

3.

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

---

(1)  OJ C 155, 6.5.2019.

---

| 6.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 490/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 490/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 September 2021 — Front Polisario v Council

(Case T-279/19) (1)

(External relations - International agreements - Euro-Mediterranean Association Agreement EC-Morocco - Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters on the amendment of Protocols 1 and 4 to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement - Decision approving the conclusion of the agreement - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Capacity to be a party to legal proceedings - Direct concern - Individual concern - Territorial scope - Jurisdiction - Interpretation of international law adopted by the Court - Principle of self-determination - Principle of the relative effect of treaties - Possibility of relying thereon - Concept of consent - Implementation - Discretion - Limits - Maintaining the effects of the contested decision)

(2021/C 490/32)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Front populaire pour la libération de la Saguia el-Hamra et du Rio de oro (Front Polisario) (represented by: G. Devers, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: P. Plaza García and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: French Republic (represented by: A-L. Desjonquères, C. Mosser, J.-L. Carré and T. Stehelin, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, A. Bouquet and B. Eggers, acting as Agents), Confédération marocaine de l’agriculture et du développement rural (Comader) (Rabat, Morocco) (represented by: G. Forwood, N. Colin and A. Hublet, lawyers)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Council Decision (EU) 2019/217 of 28 January 2019 on the conclusion of the agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco on the amendment of Protocols 1 and 4 to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Kingdom of Morocco, of the other part (OJ 2019 L 34, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Council Decision (EU) 2019/217 of 28 January 2019 on the conclusion of the agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco on the amendment of Protocols 1 and 4 to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Kingdom of Morocco, of the other part; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Council Decision (EU) 2019/217 of 28 January 2019 on the conclusion of the agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco on the amendment of Protocols 1 and 4 to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Kingdom of Morocco, of the other part;

| 2. | Maintains the effects of Decision 2019/217 during a period not exceeding the period set out in the first paragraph of Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union or, if an appeal is lodged within that period, until the Court of Justice delivers judgment on that appeal; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Maintains the effects of Decision 2019/217 during a period not exceeding the period set out in the first paragraph of Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union or, if an appeal is lodged within that period, until the Court of Justice delivers judgment on that appeal;

| 3. | Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Front populaire pour la libération de la Saguia el-Hamra et du Rio de Oro (Front Polisario); |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Front populaire pour la libération de la Saguia el-Hamra et du Rio de Oro (Front Polisario);

| 4. | Orders the French Republic, the European Commission and the Confédération morocaine de l’agriculture et du développement rural (Comader) to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the French Republic, the European Commission and the Confédération morocaine de l’agriculture et du développement rural (Comader) to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 220, 1.7.2019.

---

| 6.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 490/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 490/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 September 2021 — Front Polisario v Council

(Joined Cases T-344/19 and T-356/19) (1)

(External relations - International agreements - Euro-Mediterranean Association Agreement EC-Morocco - Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco - Implementation Protocol to the Partnership Agreement - Exchange of Letters accompanying the Partnership Agreement - Decision to conclude - Regulation on the allocation of fishing opportunities between Member States - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Capacity to be a party to legal proceedings - Direct concern - Individual concern - Territorial scope - Jurisdiction - Interpretation of international law adopted by the Court - Principle of self-determination - Principle of the relative effect of treaties - Possibility of relying thereon - Concept of consent - Implementation - Discretion - Limits - Maintaining the effects of the contested decision)

(2021/C 490/33)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Front populaire pour la libération de la Saguia el-Hamra et du Rio de oro (Front Polisario) (represented by: G. Devers, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: F. Naert, P. Plaza García and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant in Cases T-344/19 and T-356/19: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: S. Centeno Huerta, acting as Agent)

Intervener in support of the defendant in Cases T-344/19 and T-356/19: French Republic (represented by: A.-L. Desjonquères, C. Mosser, J.-L. Carré and T. Stéhelin, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant in Cases T-344/19 and T-356/19: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, A. Bouquet and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant in Case T-344/19: Chambre des pêches maritimes de la Méditerranée (Tangier, Morocco), Chambre des pêches maritimes de l’Atlantique Nord (Casablanca, Morocco), Chambre des pêches maritimes de l’Atlantique Centre (Agadir, Morocco), Chambre des pêches maritimes de l’Atlantique Sud (Dakhla, Western Sahara) (represented by: G. Forwood, N. Colin and A. Hublet, lawyers)

Re:

In Case T-344/19, application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Council Decision (EU) 2019/441 of 4 March 2019 on the conclusion of the Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco, the Implementation Protocol thereto and the Exchange of Letters accompanying the Agreement (OJ 2019 L 77, p. 4) and, in Case T-356/19, application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Council Regulation (EU) 2019/440 of 29 November 2018 on the allocation of fishing opportunities under the Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco and the Implementation Protocol thereto (OJ 2019 L 77, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Council Decision (EU) 2019/441 of 4 March 2019 on the conclusion of the Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco, the Implementation Protocol thereto and the Exchange of Letters accompanying the Agreement; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Council Decision (EU) 2019/441 of 4 March 2019 on the conclusion of the Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco, the Implementation Protocol thereto and the Exchange of Letters accompanying the Agreement;

| 2. | Maintains the effects of Decision 2019/441 during a period not exceeding the period set out in the first paragraph of Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union or, if an appeal is lodged within that period, until the Court of Justice delivers judgment on that appeal; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Maintains the effects of Decision 2019/441 during a period not exceeding the period set out in the first paragraph of Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union or, if an appeal is lodged within that period, until the Court of Justice delivers judgment on that appeal;

| 3. | Dismisses the action in Case T-356/19; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Dismisses the action in Case T-356/19;

| 4. | Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Front populaire pour la libération de la Saguia el-Hamra et du Rio de Oro (Front Polisario) in Case T-344/19; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Front populaire pour la libération de la Saguia el-Hamra et du Rio de Oro (Front Polisario) in Case T-344/19;

| 5. | Orders Front Polisario to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Council in Case T-356/19; |
| --- | --- |

5.

Orders Front Polisario to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Council in Case T-356/19;

| 6. | Orders the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic and the European Commission to bear their own costs; |
| --- | --- |

6.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic and the European Commission to bear their own costs;

| 7. | Orders Chambre des pêches maritimes de la Méditerranée, Chambre des pêches maritimes de l’Atlantique Nord, Chambre des pêches maritimes de l’Atlantique Centre and Chambre des pêches maritimes de l’Atlantique Sud to bear their own costs in Case T-344/19. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Orders Chambre des pêches maritimes de la Méditerranée, Chambre des pêches maritimes de l’Atlantique Nord, Chambre des pêches maritimes de l’Atlantique Centre and Chambre des pêches maritimes de l’Atlantique Sud to bear their own costs in Case T-344/19.

---

(1)  OJ C 270, 12.8.2019

---

| 6.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 490/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 490/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2021 — M.I. Industries v EUIPO — Natural Instinct (INSTINCT)

(Case T-1/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark INSTINCT - No genuine use of the trade mark - Extent of use - Overall assessment of the evidence - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2021/C 490/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: M.I. Industries, Inc. (Lincoln, Nebraska, United States) (represented by: M. Montañá Mora and S. Sebé Marin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Natural Instinct Ltd (Camberley, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Newman, E. Yates, J.-M. Fearnley, Solicitors, and J. Moss, Barrister)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 October 2019 (Case R 178/2019-5), relating to revocation proceedings between Natural Instinct and M.I. Industries.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders M.I. Industries, Inc. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders M.I. Industries, Inc. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 68, 2.3.2020.

---

| 6.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 490/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 490/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2021 –Schneider v EUIPO — Frutaria Comercial de Frutas y Hortalizas (Frutaria)

(Case T-12/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU figurative trade mark Frutaria - Genuine use of the trade mark - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Proof of genuine use - Nature of use)

(2021/C 490/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Markus Schneider (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: M. Bergermann and D. Graetsch, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Walicka and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the Court: Frutaria Comercial de Frutas y Hortalizas, SL (Zaragoza, Spain) (represented by: J. Learte Álvarez and C. Anadón Giménez, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 October 2019 (Case R 284/2019-1), relating to revocation proceedings between M. Schneider and Frutaria Comercial de Frutas y Hortalizas.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Markus Schneider to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Markus Schneider to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 68, 2.3.2020.

---

| 6.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 490/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 490/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2021 — IB v EUIPO

(Case T-22/20) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Disciplinary proceedings - Suspension of the invalidity procedure during the disciplinary proceedings - Removal from post - Invalidity procedure which has become devoid of purpose following removal from post - Action for annulment - Act adversely affecting an official - Admissibility - Principle of sound administration - Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials - Manifest error of assessment)

(2021/C 490/36)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: IB (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Lukošiūtė, acting as Agent, and B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU seeking the annulment of the decision of EUIPO of 14 March 2019 in so far as, first, it removes the applicant from his post without reducing his entitlement to a pension and, second, it definitively closes the applicant’s invalidity procedure.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 14 March 2019 in so far as it definitively closes IB’s invalidity procedure; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 14 March 2019 in so far as it definitively closes IB’s invalidity procedure;

| 2. | Dismisses the application as to the remainder. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the application as to the remainder.

| 3. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 68, 2.3.2020.

---

| 6.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 490/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 490/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2021 — AV and AW v Parliament

(Case T-43/20) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Disciplinary proceedings - Disciplinary measure - Downgrading - Rights of the defence - Principle of good administration - Manifest error of assessment)

(2021/C 490/37)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: AV and AW (represented by: L. Levi, S. Rodrigues and J. Martins, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Scafarto and I. Lázaro Betancor, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of the Parliament’s decisions of 21 June 2019 imposing on one of the applicants a disciplinary penalty of downgrading by four grades, from AST 6 to AST 2, and, on the other applicant, a disciplinary penalty of downgrading by two grades, from AST 8 to AST 6, and, in so far as necessary, of the Parliament’s decisions of 28 November 2019 rejecting the applicants’ complaints of 17 July 2019 against the decisions of 21 June 2019.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders AV and AW to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders AV and AW to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 87, 16.3.2020.

---

| 6.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 490/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 490/35

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2021 — Rivière and Others v Parliament

(Case T-88/20) (1)

(Institutional law - European Parliament - Measure adopted by the President of the European Parliament forbidding national flags being placed on the desks of Members of Parliament - Standards of conduct of Members of Parliament - Article 10(3) of the Parliament’s Rules of Procedure - Act not open to challenge - Inadmissibility)

(2021/C 490/38)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Jérôme Rivière (Nice, France) and the 10 other applicants whose names appear in the annex to the judgment (represented by: F. Wagner, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Lorenz and T. Lukácsi, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicants: Gunnar Beck (Neuss, Germany), Philippe Olivier (Draveil, France) (represented by: F. Wagner, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of the measure adopted by the President of the European Parliament on 13 January 2020 forbidding Members of Parliament from displaying the national flag on their desks.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

| 2. | Orders Mr Jérôme Rivière and the 10 other applicants whose names appear in the annex to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Parliament; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Jérôme Rivière and the 10 other applicants whose names appear in the annex to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Parliament;

| 3. | Orders Mr Gunnar Beck and Mr Philippe Olivier to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Mr Gunnar Beck and Mr Philippe Olivier to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 114, 6.4.2020.

---

| 6.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 490/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 490/35

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2021 — IP v Commission

(Case T-121/20) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the contract staff - OLAF investigation - Reimbursement of medical expenses - Disciplinary penalty - Termination of contract without notice - Article 10(h) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations - Reoffending - Article 27 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations - Decision granting a request that no mention of a previous penalty remain in the personal file - Article 26 of the Staff Regulations - Sanction cannot be enforced or invoked against the official if no mention of it remains in the personal file)

(2021/C 490/39)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: IP (represented by: L. Levi, S. Rodrigues and J. Martins, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Brauhoff and A.-C. Simon, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of the Commission's decision of 21 August 2019 imposing on the applicant the disciplinary penalty of termination without notice of his employment.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 21 August 2019 imposing on IP the disciplinary penalty of termination without notice of his employment; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 21 August 2019 imposing on IP the disciplinary penalty of termination without notice of his employment;

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

2.

Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 129, 20.4.2020.

---

| 6.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 490/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 490/36

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2021 — M/S. Indeutsch International v EUIPO — 135 Kirkstall (Representation of chevrons between two parallel lines)

(Case T-124/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark representing chevrons between two parallel lines - Absolute ground for refusal - Sign of which an EU trade mark may consist - Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Obligation to rule on the action - Article 71(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Cross-claim)

(2021/C 490/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: M/S. Indeutsch International (Noida, India) (represented by: G. Glas, lawyer, D. Stone, A. Dykes, A. Leonelli, K. Hughes, Solicitors, and S. Malynicz QC)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: 135 Kirkstall, Inc., formerly Crafts Americana Group, Inc. (Vancouver, Washington, United States) (represented by: M. Edenborough QC, and J. Fish, Solicitor)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Grand Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 December 2019 (Case R 2672/2017-G), relating to invalidity proceedings between Crafts Americana Group and M/S. Indeutsch International.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Grand Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 December 2019 (Case R 2672/2017-G); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Grand Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 December 2019 (Case R 2672/2017-G);

| 2. | Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the main action; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the main action;

| 3. | Orders M/S. Indeutsch International and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to pay, in addition to their own costs, those incurred by 135 Kirkstall, Inc., formerly Crafts Americana Group, Inc., in relation to the cross-claim and the proceedings before the Board of Appeal; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders M/S. Indeutsch International and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to pay, in addition to their own costs, those incurred by 135 Kirkstall, Inc., formerly Crafts Americana Group, Inc., in relation to the cross-claim and the proceedings before the Board of Appeal;

| 4. | Orders 135 Kirkstall, formerly Crafts Americana Group, to bear its own costs relating to the main action. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders 135 Kirkstall, formerly Crafts Americana Group, to bear its own costs relating to the main action.

---

(1)  OJ C 137, 27.4.2020.

---

| 6.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 490/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 490/37

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2021 — JK v Commission

(Case T-219/20) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Commission staff working for the EEAS - Request for assistance - Article 24 of the Staff Regulations - Implied decision rejecting the request - Decision rejecting the complaint - Article 90 of the Staff Regulations - Competent Appointing Authority - Principle of sound administration)

(2021/C 490/41)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: JK (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

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

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the Commission’s implied decision of 5 June 2019 rejecting the applicant’s request for assistance brought under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and of its decision of 6 January 2020 rejecting the applicant’s complaint

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the implied decision of the European Commission of 5 June 2019 rejecting JK’s request for assistance brought under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and its decision of 6 January 2020 rejecting the applicant’s complaint; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the implied decision of the European Commission of 5 June 2019 rejecting JK’s request for assistance brought under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and its decision of 6 January 2020 rejecting the applicant’s complaint;

| 2. | Orders the Commission to bear, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by JK. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission to bear, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by JK.

---

(1)  OJ C 209, 22.6.2020.

---

| 6.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 490/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 490/37

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2021 — Sedus Stoll v EUIPO — Kappes (Sedus ergo+)

(Case T-429/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark Sedus ergo+ - Earlier national word mark ERGOPLUS - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2021/C 490/42)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Sedus Stoll AG (Dogern, Germany) (represented by: M. Goldmann and J. Thomsen, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Wolfgang Kappes (Bochum, Germany) (represented by: J. Schneiders, N. Gottschalk and B. Schneiders, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 March 2020 (Case R 1303/2019-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Kappes and Sedus Stoll.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 12 March 2020 (Case R 1303/2019-1); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 12 March 2020 (Case R 1303/2019-1);

| 2. | Dismisses the appeal brought before EUIPO by Wolfgang Kappes; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the appeal brought before EUIPO by Wolfgang Kappes;

| 3. | Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Sedus Stoll AG for the purposes of the proceedings before the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Sedus Stoll AG for the purposes of the proceedings before the General Court;

| 4. | Orders Mr Kappes to bear his own costs and to pay the expenses necessarily incurred by Sedus Stoll for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Mr Kappes to bear his own costs and to pay the expenses necessarily incurred by Sedus Stoll for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

---

(1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2020.

---

| 6.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 490/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 490/38

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2021 — Sedus Stoll v EUIPO — Kappes (Sedus ergo+)

(Case T-436/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark Sedus ergo+ - Earlier national and international word marks ERGOPLUS - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2021/C 490/43)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Sedus Stoll AG (Dogern, Germany) (represented by: M. Goldmann and J. Thomsen, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Wolfgang Kappes (Bochum, Germany) (represented by: J. Schneiders, N. Gottschalk and B. Schneiders, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 March 2020 (Case R 2194/2018-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Kappes and Sedus Stoll.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 12 March 2020 (Case R 2194/2018-1); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 12 March 2020 (Case R 2194/2018-1);

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Sedus Stoll AG for the purposes of the proceedings before the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Sedus Stoll AG for the purposes of the proceedings before the General Court;

| 4. | Orders Wolfgang Kappes to bear his own costs and to pay the expenses necessarily incurred by Sedus Stoll for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Wolfgang Kappes to bear his own costs and to pay the expenses necessarily incurred by Sedus Stoll for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

---

(1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2020.

---

| 6.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 490/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 490/39

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2021 — Setarcos Consulting v EUIPO (Blockchain Island)

(Case T-523/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark Blockchain Island - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2021/C 490/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Setarcos Consulting ltd. (Sliema, Malta) (represented by: S. Stafylakis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Walicka and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 June 2020 (Case R 2806/2019-5), regarding an application for registration of the word sign Blockchain Island as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Setarcos Consulting ltd. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Setarcos Consulting ltd. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 339, 12.10.2020.

---

| 6.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 490/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 490/39

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2021 — Unimax Stationery v EUIPO — Mitsubishi Pencil (UNI-MAX)

(Case T-591/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark UNI-MAX - Earlier EU figurative marks uni and uni-ball - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2021/C 490/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Unimax Stationery (Daman, India) (represented by: A. Hempel and C. Grünewald, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Mitsubishi Pencil Co. Ltd (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: J. Fesenmair, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 July 2020 (Case R 371/2020-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between Mitsubishi Pencil and Unimax Stationery.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Unimax Stationery to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Unimax Stationery to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 390, 16.11.2020.

---

| 6.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 490/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 490/40

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2021 — NZ v Commission

(Case T-668/20) (1)

(Staff case - Officials - Recruitment - Internal competition COM/1/AD 10/18 - Decision not to include the applicant's name on the competition reserve list - Obligation to state reasons - Secrecy of the proceedings of the selection board - Broad discretionary power of the selection board - Failure to communicate the intermediate marks and the weighting of the components of the oral test)

(2021/C 490/46)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: NZ (represented by: H. Tagaras, lawyer)

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

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of the decision of the selection board of 29 April 2020, taken after a review, not to include the applicant's name on the reserve list for internal competition COM/1/AD 10/18.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of 29 April 2020, by which the selection board for internal competition COM/1/AD 10/18 refused, after a review, to include the name of NZ on the reserve list for the recruitment of administrators at grade AD 10, in the field of ‘Coordination, communication, human resources and budgetary management, audit’; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of 29 April 2020, by which the selection board for internal competition COM/1/AD 10/18 refused, after a review, to include the name of NZ on the reserve list for the recruitment of administrators at grade AD 10, in the field of ‘Coordination, communication, human resources and budgetary management, audit’;

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

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 28, 25.1.2021.

---

| 6.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 490/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 490/40

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2021 — Škoda Investment v EUIPO — Škoda Auto (Representation of an arrow with wing)

(Case T-712/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for an EU figurative mark representing an arrow with wing - Earlier EU figurative mark representing an arrow with wing - Relative ground for refusal - Partial rejection of the opposition - Limited scope of the opposition in the context of the appeal before the Board of Appeal - Partial withdrawal of the opposition - Plea raised by the Board of Appeal of its own motion - Prohibition on ruling ultra petita)

(2021/C 490/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Škoda Investment a.s. (Plzeň, Czech Republic) (represented by: L. Lorenc, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Škoda Auto a.s. (Mladá Boleslav, Czech Republic) (represented by: J. Fesenmair, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 October 2020 (Case R 284/2020-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Škoda Investment and Škoda Auto.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Škoda Investment a.s. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and Škoda Auto a.s. in the proceedings before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Škoda Investment a.s. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and Škoda Auto a.s. in the proceedings before the General Court.

---

(1)  OJ C 35, 1.2.2021.

---

| 6.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 490/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 490/41

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2021 — Freundlieb v EUIPO (CRYSTAL)

(Case T-732/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - EU word mark CRYSTAL - Failure to apply for renewal of the trade mark registration - Revocation of the trade mark on expiry of the registration - Application for restitutio in integrum - Article 104 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Duty of care - No review - Failure to comply with time limits)

(2021/C 490/48)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Andreas Freundlieb (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: J. Vogtmeier, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 October 2020 (Case R 1056/2020-5), relating to an application for restitutio in integrum in relation to the right to apply for renewal of the EU word mark CRYSTAL.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Andreas Freundlieb to bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Andreas Freundlieb to bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 44, 8.2.2021.

---

| 6.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 490/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 490/42

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2021 — Freundlieb v EUIPO (BANDIT)

(Case T-733/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - EU word mark BANDIT - Failure to apply for renewal of the trade mark registration - Revocation of the trade mark on expiry of the registration - Application for restitutio in integrum - Article 104 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Duty of care - No review - Failure to comply with time limits)

(2021/C 490/49)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Andreas Freundlieb (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: J. Vogtmeier, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 October 2020 (Case R 730/2020-5), relating to an application for restitutio in integrum in relation to the right to apply for renewal of the EU word mark BANDIT.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Andreas Freundlieb to bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Andreas Freundlieb to bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 44, 8.2.2021.

---

| 6.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 490/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 490/42

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2021 — Ciano Trading & Services CT & S and Others v Commission

(Case T-45/21) (1)

(Public service contracts - Tendering procedure - Sustainable restoration for the Commission in Brussels and its surroundings - Annulment of the tendering procedure - Legitimate expectations - Abuse of rights)

(2021/C 490/50)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Ciano Trading & Services CT & S SpA (Fiumicino, Italy), Silvia Brizio (Venaria Reale, Italy), Laurence André (Grivegnée, Belgium), Lidia Pacitti (Neder-over-Heembeek, Belgium) (represented by: D. Gillet and S. Van Besien, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Van Noyen and M. Ilkova, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the Commission decision of 20 November 2020 annulling tendering procedure OIB/2019/CPN/0039 concerning sustainable restoration for the Commission in the Brussels-Capital Region and its surroundings.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Ciano Trading & Services CT & S SpA, Silvia Brizio, Laurence André and Lidia Pacitti to pay the costs relating to the main proceedings and to the proceedings for interim measures. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ciano Trading & Services CT & S SpA, Silvia Brizio, Laurence André and Lidia Pacitti to pay the costs relating to the main proceedings and to the proceedings for interim measures.

---

(1)  OJ C 88, 15.3.2021.

---

| 6.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 490/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 490/43

---

Order of the General Court of 27 September 2021 — CNMSE and Others v Parliament and Council

(Case T-633/20) (1)

(Action for annulment - Public health - Regulation (EU) 2020/1043 - Conduct of clinical trials with medicinal products for human use containing GMOs - Treatment or prevention of the coronavirus disease SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) - Concept of legislative act - Concept of regulatory act - No individual concern - Inadmissibility)

(2021/C 490/51)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Coordination nationale médicale santé — environnement (CNMSE) (Paris, France) and the five other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the order (represented by: G. Tumerelle, lawyer)

Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: J. Etienne and W. Kuzmienko, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Jaume and M. Moore, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Regulation (EU) 2020/1043 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2020 on the conduct of clinical trials with and supply of medicinal products for human use containing or consisting of genetically modified organisms intended to treat or prevent coronavirus disease (COVID-19) (OJ 2020 L 231, p. 12).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene submitted by the European Commission and the non-profit-making association ‘Groupe de Réflexion et d’Action Pour une Politique Ecologique’. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene submitted by the European Commission and the non-profit-making association ‘Groupe de Réflexion et d’Action Pour une Politique Ecologique’.

| 3. | The Coordination nationale médicale santé — environnement (CNMSE) and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex shall bear their own costs and those incurred by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Coordination nationale médicale santé — environnement (CNMSE) and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex shall bear their own costs and those incurred by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union.

| 4. | The Commission and the non-profit-making association ‘Groupe de Réflexion et d’Action Pour une Politique Ecologique’ shall bear the costs relating to their respective applications to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Commission and the non-profit-making association ‘Groupe de Réflexion et d’Action Pour une Politique Ecologique’ shall bear the costs relating to their respective applications to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 9, 11.1.2021.

---

| 6.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 490/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 490/44

---

Order of the General Court of 28 September 2021 — NB v Court of Justice of the European Union

(Case T-648/20) (1)

(Action for annulment - Civil service - Decision not to appoint the applicant to grade AST 10 - Time limit for lodging a complaint - Delay - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2021/C 490/52)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: NB (represented by: J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union (represented by: J. Inghelram and A. Ysebaert, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for annulment, first, of the decision not to appoint the applicant to grade AST 10; second, and so far as necessary, of the decision to appoint A to that grade; and, third, purely in the alternative, of all the decisions to appoint other officials to that grade.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

| 2. | NB shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

NB shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 443, 21.12.2020.

---

| 6.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 490/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 490/44

---

Order of the General Court of 30 September 2021 — Mariani and Others v Parliament

(Case T-124/21) (1)

(Action for annulment - Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2223 - Cooperation with the European Public Prosecutor’s Office and the effectiveness of OLAF investigations - Act not of individual concern - Non-regulatory act - Inadmissibility)

(2021/C 490/53)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Thierry Mariani (Paris, France) and the 22 other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the order (represented by: F. Wagner, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Görlitz and L. Tapper Brandberg, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Article 1 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2223 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 December 2020 amending Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013, as regards cooperation with the European Public Prosecutor’s Office and the effectiveness of the European Anti-Fraud Office investigations (OJ 2020 L 437, p. 49).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene made by the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene made by the Council of the European Union.

| 3. | Mr Thierry Mariani and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex shall, in addition to bearing their own costs, pay those incurred by the European Parliament. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Mr Thierry Mariani and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex shall, in addition to bearing their own costs, pay those incurred by the European Parliament.

| 4. | The Council shall bear its own costs relating to the application for leave to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Council shall bear its own costs relating to the application for leave to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 138, 19.4.2021.

---

| 6.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 490/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 490/45

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 8 October 2021 — Paccor Packaging v Commission

(Case T-148/21 R)

(Interim relief - Environment - Directive (EU) 2019/904 - Reduction of the impact of certain plastic products on the environment - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2151 - Harmonised marking specifications for beverage cups - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency)

(2021/C 490/54)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Paccor Packaging GmbH (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: P. Kugel and G. Dávid, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Bourgois and L. Haasbeek, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Articles 278 and 279 TFEU for suspension of the operation of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2151 of 17 December 2020 laying down rules on harmonised marking specifications on single-use plastic products listed in Part D of the Annex to Directive (EU) 2019/904 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the reduction of the impact of certain plastic products on the environment (OJ 2020 L 428, p. 57).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

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

2.

The costs are reserved.

---

| 6.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 490/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 490/45

---

Action brought on 6 September 2021 — Zaytsev v Council

(Case T-563/21)

(2021/C 490/55)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Alexander Zaytsev (Minsk, Belarus) (represented by: A. Shmagin, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2021/1002 of 21 June 2021 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus (OJ 2021 L 219I, p. 70), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/997 of 21 June 2021 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ 2021 L 219I, p. 3), in so far as those acts concern the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2021/1002 of 21 June 2021 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus (OJ 2021 L 219I, p. 70), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/997 of 21 June 2021 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ 2021 L 219I, p. 3), in so far as those acts concern the applicant;

| — | order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons






  — | The statement of reasons for including the applicant on the lists annexed to the contested measures does not meet the requirements of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU. It is vague and lacks detail. Reasons such as ‘access to the Lukashenka family’ and ‘procurement of lucrative contracts for his businesses’ as well as the ground that the applicant was supported by Mr Viktar Lukashenka are too general and vague. The claim that Bremino-Grupp OOO, in which the applicant in fact has a stake, received improper State support for the development of the ‘Bremino-Orsha’ special economic zone or ‘a number of financial and tax advantages’ is too imprecise to understand how the treatment of that economic zone differs from that of the other free economic zones existing in Belarus. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons

—

The statement of reasons for including the applicant on the lists annexed to the contested measures does not meet the requirements of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU. It is vague and lacks detail. Reasons such as ‘access to the Lukashenka family’ and ‘procurement of lucrative contracts for his businesses’ as well as the ground that the applicant was supported by Mr Viktar Lukashenka are too general and vague. The claim that Bremino-Grupp OOO, in which the applicant in fact has a stake, received improper State support for the development of the ‘Bremino-Orsha’ special economic zone or ‘a number of financial and tax advantages’ is too imprecise to understand how the treatment of that economic zone differs from that of the other free economic zones existing in Belarus.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging manifest errors of fact and assessment






  — | The defendant clearly proceeded on an incorrect factual basis. The applicant has never been an assistant of Mr Viktar Lukashenka. Neither the applicant nor the undertakings controlled by him have received any support from Mr Viktar Lukashenka. Bremino-Grupp OOO has never received any special advantage as a result of the alleged relations between its shareholders and the family of the Belarusian President. The applicant is also not the owner of Sohra Group OOO; he is only a minority shareholder. Moreover, Sohra Group OOO has not been granted any special distribution rights for Gulf and African States. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging manifest errors of fact and assessment

—

The defendant clearly proceeded on an incorrect factual basis. The applicant has never been an assistant of Mr Viktar Lukashenka. Neither the applicant nor the undertakings controlled by him have received any support from Mr Viktar Lukashenka. Bremino-Grupp OOO has never received any special advantage as a result of the alleged relations between its shareholders and the family of the Belarusian President. The applicant is also not the owner of Sohra Group OOO; he is only a minority shareholder. Moreover, Sohra Group OOO has not been granted any special distribution rights for Gulf and African States.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s rights of defence and his right to effective judicial protection






  — | The defendant failed to inform the applicant of the proposed listing and afforded him no opportunity to adduce evidence in order to rebut the allegations before the decision to impose restrictive measures against him was published. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s rights of defence and his right to effective judicial protection

—

The defendant failed to inform the applicant of the proposed listing and afforded him no opportunity to adduce evidence in order to rebut the allegations before the decision to impose restrictive measures against him was published.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the restrictive measures are disproportionate






  — | The contested measures constitute an unjustified and disproportionate interference with the applicant’s fundamental rights, in particular his right to property, his right to pursue an economic activity and his right to respect for his reputation under Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter. |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the restrictive measures are disproportionate

—

The contested measures constitute an unjustified and disproportionate interference with the applicant’s fundamental rights, in particular his right to property, his right to pursue an economic activity and his right to respect for his reputation under Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter.

---

| 6.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 490/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 490/46

---

Action brought on 6 September 2021 — Bremino-Grupp v Council

(Case T-564/21)

(2021/C 490/56)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Bremino-Grupp OOO (Minsk, Belarus) (represented by: A. Shmagin, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2021/1002 of 21 June 2021 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus (OJ 2021 L 219I, p. 70), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/997 of 21 June 2021 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ 2021 L 219I, p. 3), in so far as those acts concern the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2021/1002 of 21 June 2021 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus (OJ 2021 L 219I, p. 70), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/997 of 21 June 2021 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ 2021 L 219I, p. 3), in so far as those acts concern the applicant;

| — | order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons






  — | The statement of reasons for including the applicant on the lists annexed to the contested measures does not meet the requirements of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU. It is vague and insufficiently precise. First, it is not clear from the statement of reasons what State support the applicant supposedly received for the development of the Bremino-Orsha special economic zone. The statement of reasons relating to the grant of ‘a number of financial and tax advantages and other benefits’ in favour of the applicant is also unclear since it is not possible to understand which advantages are meant. The claim that the shareholders of Bremino-Grupp OOO are ‘the owners of Bremino-Orsha’ is simply false because it is legally impossible to be the owner of an economic zone. Furthermore, the allegation that all three of the applicant’s shareholders belong to the ‘inner circle of Lukashenka-related businessmen’ is too general and cannot constitute sufficient grounds for the imposition of sanctions. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons

—

The statement of reasons for including the applicant on the lists annexed to the contested measures does not meet the requirements of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU. It is vague and insufficiently precise. First, it is not clear from the statement of reasons what State support the applicant supposedly received for the development of the Bremino-Orsha special economic zone. The statement of reasons relating to the grant of ‘a number of financial and tax advantages and other benefits’ in favour of the applicant is also unclear since it is not possible to understand which advantages are meant. The claim that the shareholders of Bremino-Grupp OOO are ‘the owners of Bremino-Orsha’ is simply false because it is legally impossible to be the owner of an economic zone. Furthermore, the allegation that all three of the applicant’s shareholders belong to the ‘inner circle of Lukashenka-related businessmen’ is too general and cannot constitute sufficient grounds for the imposition of sanctions.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment






  — | The defendant clearly proceeded on an incorrect factual basis and the assessment made was therefore wrong. The fact that the ‘Bremino-Orsha’ economic zone was established by presidential decree does not constitute an advantage for the applicant, since this procedure is provided for in Belarusian legislation when establishing economic zones. The tax advantages associated with the special economic zone are available to any investor. It is unclear how the defendant defines the specific inner circle of Lukashenka-related businessmen and on what basis it includes the applicant’s shareholders in it. In addition, it is not clear from this reasoning how the applicant is concerned since it has not received any advantages in that regard. Nor has the applicant received any support from the President’s son, Mr Viktar Lukashenka. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment

—

The defendant clearly proceeded on an incorrect factual basis and the assessment made was therefore wrong. The fact that the ‘Bremino-Orsha’ economic zone was established by presidential decree does not constitute an advantage for the applicant, since this procedure is provided for in Belarusian legislation when establishing economic zones. The tax advantages associated with the special economic zone are available to any investor. It is unclear how the defendant defines the specific inner circle of Lukashenka-related businessmen and on what basis it includes the applicant’s shareholders in it. In addition, it is not clear from this reasoning how the applicant is concerned since it has not received any advantages in that regard. Nor has the applicant received any support from the President’s son, Mr Viktar Lukashenka.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s rights of defence and its right to effective judicial protection






  — | The defendant failed to inform the applicant of the proposed inclusion in the lists at issue and afforded it no opportunity to defend itself and, if necessary, to adduce evidence in order to rebut the allegations before the decision to impose restrictive measures against it was published. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s rights of defence and its right to effective judicial protection

—

The defendant failed to inform the applicant of the proposed inclusion in the lists at issue and afforded it no opportunity to defend itself and, if necessary, to adduce evidence in order to rebut the allegations before the decision to impose restrictive measures against it was published.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the restrictive measures are disproportionate






  — | The contested measures constitute an unjustified and disproportionate interference with the applicant’s fundamental rights, in particular its right to property, its right to pursue an economic activity and its right to respect for its reputation under Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter. |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the restrictive measures are disproportionate

—

The contested measures constitute an unjustified and disproportionate interference with the applicant’s fundamental rights, in particular its right to property, its right to pursue an economic activity and its right to respect for its reputation under Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter.

---

| 6.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 490/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 490/47

---

Action brought on 7 September 2021 — Steinbach International v Commission

(Case T-566/21)

(2021/C 490/57)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Steinbach International GmbH (Schwertberg, Austria) (represented by: J. Gesinn, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/957 of 31 May 2021 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (OJ 2021 L 211, p. 48).

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law: by classifying the Mesh Lounge under heading 6306 90 00 of Part 2 of Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1), the defendant changed the content of those tariff headings. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law: by classifying the Mesh Lounge under heading 6306 90 00 of Part 2 of Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1), the defendant changed the content of those tariff headings.

| 2. | Second plea in law: heading 9506 of the Combined Nomenclature is a heading under which the Mesh Lounge can be classified because it is another type of water sport equipment and can readily be compared to inflatable arm rings, which the defendant has previously decided are goods under heading 9506 29 00. Whether the Mesh Lounge is used for sporting activities is not decisive. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law: heading 9506 of the Combined Nomenclature is a heading under which the Mesh Lounge can be classified because it is another type of water sport equipment and can readily be compared to inflatable arm rings, which the defendant has previously decided are goods under heading 9506 29 00. Whether the Mesh Lounge is used for sporting activities is not decisive.

| 3. | Third plea in law: assuming that the Mesh Lounge cannot be classified under heading 9506 29 00 of the Combined Nomenclature, classification under heading 3926 9097 90 of the Combined Nomenclature (other articles manufactured from plastics or foil) is a possibility since the characteristic constituents are the air pillow and ring, and not the mesh. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law: assuming that the Mesh Lounge cannot be classified under heading 9506 29 00 of the Combined Nomenclature, classification under heading 3926 9097 90 of the Combined Nomenclature (other articles manufactured from plastics or foil) is a possibility since the characteristic constituents are the air pillow and ring, and not the mesh.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law: the overall assessment was carried out solely on the basis of use. The overall assessment must be carried out on the basis of other criteria, which leads to the result that the Mesh Lounge — leaving aside its classification under the other possible headings — would have to be classified under heading 3926 9097 90 of the Combined Nomenclature. The Mesh Lounge cannot be regarded as camping equipment. Alternatively, classification under heading 9503 0095 90 (other toys from plastics) of the Combined Nomenclature is a possibility if the Mesh Lounge is considered to be similar to air mattresses. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law: the overall assessment was carried out solely on the basis of use. The overall assessment must be carried out on the basis of other criteria, which leads to the result that the Mesh Lounge — leaving aside its classification under the other possible headings — would have to be classified under heading 3926 9097 90 of the Combined Nomenclature. The Mesh Lounge cannot be regarded as camping equipment. Alternatively, classification under heading 9503 0095 90 (other toys from plastics) of the Combined Nomenclature is a possibility if the Mesh Lounge is considered to be similar to air mattresses.

---

| 6.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 490/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 490/48

---

Action brought on 12 September 2021 — Swords v Commission

(Case T-586/21)

(2021/C 490/58)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Patrick Swords (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: G. Byrne, Barrister-at-Law)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the implied decision of the Commission dated 13 July 2021 refusing to grant access to documentation requested by the applicant; (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the implied decision of the Commission dated 13 July 2021 refusing to grant access to documentation requested by the applicant; (1)

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

—

order the defendant to pay costs to the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that, in refusing access to the documentation requested, the Commission has infringed the third indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001. (2)







  — | The applicant claims that, notwithstanding that an investigation is ongoing in respect of Ireland, that cannot by itself justify the application of the exception upon which the Commission has relied in refusing disclosure in this case. The fact that numerous fundamental rights of relevant members of the public have been so severely restricted in such an unprecedented and severe manner ought to have weighed against the decision to refuse disclosure in the context of this case. In that regard, the applicant asserts that the Commission failed to interpret and apply strictly the said restriction, given the hardship endured by relevant members of the public with respect to the extreme measures imposed by Ireland, which trespass upon civil liberties and fundamental rights in a manner entirely unprecedented in the history of the EU. The applicant claims that such considerations demonstrate that the principles of transparency and democracy in this case, together with the impediments on access to justice suffered by such members of the public, are issues of particularly pressing concern which should have prevailed over the reasons the Commission relied on to support its refusal to disclose the requested information. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that, in refusing access to the documentation requested, the Commission has infringed the third indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001. (2)

—

The applicant claims that, notwithstanding that an investigation is ongoing in respect of Ireland, that cannot by itself justify the application of the exception upon which the Commission has relied in refusing disclosure in this case. The fact that numerous fundamental rights of relevant members of the public have been so severely restricted in such an unprecedented and severe manner ought to have weighed against the decision to refuse disclosure in the context of this case. In that regard, the applicant asserts that the Commission failed to interpret and apply strictly the said restriction, given the hardship endured by relevant members of the public with respect to the extreme measures imposed by Ireland, which trespass upon civil liberties and fundamental rights in a manner entirely unprecedented in the history of the EU. The applicant claims that such considerations demonstrate that the principles of transparency and democracy in this case, together with the impediments on access to justice suffered by such members of the public, are issues of particularly pressing concern which should have prevailed over the reasons the Commission relied on to support its refusal to disclose the requested information.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that if, the exception claimed by the Commission was applicable, the Commission erred in failing to recognise that the applicant’s request arose in exceptional circumstances, and erred in holding that there was no overriding public interest in disclosure of the requested information. Thus, the applicant claims that the Commission’s decision constitutes an infringement of the last sentence of the third indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001.






  — | The extreme measures implemented by Ireland in relation to inter-EU travel trespassed upon civil liberties and fundamental rights in a manner entirely unprecedented in the history of the Union. As a result, several fundamental freedoms were severely affected, including the right to freedom of movement of persons, the right to engage in work and the right of access to justice. Given the unprecedented nature of the restrictions implemented, coupled with the gross infringements upon fundamental rights, the applicant claims that his request clearly arose in exceptional circumstances, which the Commission failed to consider in arriving at its decision to refuse disclosure. Further, the applicant claims that the Commission’s preference for confidentiality in the context of this case constitutes an abdication of duty to guarantee the right of relevant members of the public to seek an effective remedy and have a fair hearing within a reasonable time. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that if, the exception claimed by the Commission was applicable, the Commission erred in failing to recognise that the applicant’s request arose in exceptional circumstances, and erred in holding that there was no overriding public interest in disclosure of the requested information. Thus, the applicant claims that the Commission’s decision constitutes an infringement of the last sentence of the third indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001.

—

The extreme measures implemented by Ireland in relation to inter-EU travel trespassed upon civil liberties and fundamental rights in a manner entirely unprecedented in the history of the Union. As a result, several fundamental freedoms were severely affected, including the right to freedom of movement of persons, the right to engage in work and the right of access to justice. Given the unprecedented nature of the restrictions implemented, coupled with the gross infringements upon fundamental rights, the applicant claims that his request clearly arose in exceptional circumstances, which the Commission failed to consider in arriving at its decision to refuse disclosure. Further, the applicant claims that the Commission’s preference for confidentiality in the context of this case constitutes an abdication of duty to guarantee the right of relevant members of the public to seek an effective remedy and have a fair hearing within a reasonable time.

| — | By refusing to disseminate the documentation at issue, relevant citizens are placed at a significant disadvantage and such refusal has grossly impeded their ability to effectively challenge the purported grounds for suspending fundamental rights related to travel within the EU. Moreover, the applicant claims that, by failing to disclose the documentation sought, the Commission has unjustifiably obstructed the ability of relevant EU citizens to hold their government to account for the severe infringements imposed upon on their rights guaranteed under EU law, and as such, this factor should have weighed in favour of honouring the principle of transparency as envisaged by the Treaties and Regulation No 1049/2001. |
| --- | --- |

—

By refusing to disseminate the documentation at issue, relevant citizens are placed at a significant disadvantage and such refusal has grossly impeded their ability to effectively challenge the purported grounds for suspending fundamental rights related to travel within the EU. Moreover, the applicant claims that, by failing to disclose the documentation sought, the Commission has unjustifiably obstructed the ability of relevant EU citizens to hold their government to account for the severe infringements imposed upon on their rights guaranteed under EU law, and as such, this factor should have weighed in favour of honouring the principle of transparency as envisaged by the Treaties and Regulation No 1049/2001.

| — | The applicant asserts, finally, that it is common case that the right of access to information is a vital tool for defending fundamental rights and civil liberties in the EU, for ensuring access to justice in general and in environmental matters such as in the instant matter and for holding governments to account. In this case, the documentation at issue will either disclose concrete benefit(s) to public health (as envisaged by relevant Council Recommendations), which justify the measures implemented to tackle COVID-19, or it will not. In light of the fact that the impugned measures are unprecedented, extreme and onerous on relevant EU citizens wishing to exercise their right to freedom of movement and/or engage in work within the EU, access to the requested documentation is a matter of pressing public interest that will facilitate members of the relative public to take action to defend and protect their fundamental rights and hold the Government of Ireland to account for the extreme measures it has implemented. |
| --- | --- |

—

The applicant asserts, finally, that it is common case that the right of access to information is a vital tool for defending fundamental rights and civil liberties in the EU, for ensuring access to justice in general and in environmental matters such as in the instant matter and for holding governments to account. In this case, the documentation at issue will either disclose concrete benefit(s) to public health (as envisaged by relevant Council Recommendations), which justify the measures implemented to tackle COVID-19, or it will not. In light of the fact that the impugned measures are unprecedented, extreme and onerous on relevant EU citizens wishing to exercise their right to freedom of movement and/or engage in work within the EU, access to the requested documentation is a matter of pressing public interest that will facilitate members of the relative public to take action to defend and protect their fundamental rights and hold the Government of Ireland to account for the extreme measures it has implemented.

---

(1)  Editorial note: the documents to which the applicant seeks access are those received by the European Commission from Ireland in relation to the supposed benefits to public health resulting from the inter-EU travel restrictions in place since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic.

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

---

| 6.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 490/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 490/49

---

Action brought on 29 September 2021 — Tequila Revolución v EUIPO — Horizons Group (London) (Revolution Vodka)

(Case T-628/21)

(2021/C 490/59)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Tequila Revolución (Mexico City, Mexico) (represented by: M. Pomares Caballero, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

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

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 the EU word mark Revolution Vodka — Application for registration No 17 948 886

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 July 2021 in Case R 2266/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | find that the contested decision unfounded; |
| --- | --- |

—

find that the contested decision unfounded;

| — | find that the contested decision must be annulled and that the use of the applicant’s trade mark is real and sufficient; |
| --- | --- |

—

find that the contested decision must be annulled and that the use of the applicant’s trade mark is real and sufficient;

| — | where appropriate, find that the opposition to the trade mark Revolution Vodka is well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

where appropriate, find that the opposition to the trade mark Revolution Vodka is well founded;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(a) and (b) in conjunction with Article 18(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(a) and (b) in conjunction with Article 18(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 6.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 490/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 490/50

---

Action brought on 7 October 2021 — Casa International v EUIPO — Interstyle (casa)

(Case T-650/21)

(2021/C 490/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Casa International (Olen, Belgium) (represented by: F. Cornette and T. Poels-Ryckeboer, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Interstyle BV (Utrecht, Netherlands)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark casa in green and white — European Union trade mark No 3 017 662

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 July 2021 in Case R 1280/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the present application admissible and well-founded; and therefore, to annul the contested decision in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the present application admissible and well-founded; and therefore, to annul the contested decision in its entirety;

| — | order EUIPO as well as the other party, should the other party intervene in the proceedings, to bear the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO as well as the other party, should the other party intervene in the proceedings, to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 51(2) in conjunction with Article 7(3) of Council Regulation (EC) 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 51(2) in conjunction with Article 7(3) of Council Regulation (EC) 207/2009.

---

| 6.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 490/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 490/51

---

Action brought on 15 October 2021 — Troy Chemical Company v Commission

(Case T-662/21)

(2021/C 490/61)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Troy Chemical Company BV (Delft, Netherlands) (represented by: D. Abrahams, Ł. Gorywoda and Z. Romata, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the defendant’s decision C (2021) 5968 final of 5 August 2021 partially refusing access to documents requested by the applicant under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1), in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the defendant’s decision C (2021) 5968 final of 5 August 2021 partially refusing access to documents requested by the applicant under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1), in its entirety;

| — | grand the request for an expedited procedure under Art. 151 and 152 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

grand the request for an expedited procedure under Art. 151 and 152 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court;

| — | take such other or further measure as justice may require; |
| --- | --- |

—

take such other or further measure as justice may require;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed the second indent of Article 4 (2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — which is an infringement of both ‘an essential procedural requirement’ and a ‘rule of law’. It is alleged that the facts of the present case do not justify the exemptions claimed by the defendant for refusal to disclose redacted sections of the requested documents and, in any event, the overriding public interest in transparency and openness of the legislative process favors the full disclosure of the documents request of the applicant.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43-48).

---

| 6.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 490/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 490/51

---

Action brought on 18 October 2021 — Civitta Eesti v Commission

(Case T-665/21)

(2021/C 490/62)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Civitta Eesti AS (Tartu, Estonia) (represented by: C. Ginter, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the defendant’s decision of 12 October 2021 (1) to reject the applicant’s tender in the procurement procedure MOVE/2020/OP/0008 ‘Legal, socio-economic and technical assistance in the fields of Energy and Mobility and Transport’, lot 5: ‘socio-economic assistance activities in the field of mobility and transport’; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the defendant’s decision of 12 October 2021 (1) to reject the applicant’s tender in the procurement procedure MOVE/2020/OP/0008 ‘Legal, socio-economic and technical assistance in the fields of Energy and Mobility and Transport’, lot 5: ‘socio-economic assistance activities in the field of mobility and transport’;

| — | annul every consequent, intended or related measure, including even measures as yet unknown taken by the defendant in lot 5 of the aforementioned procurement procedure, and, in particular, annul the tender evaluation reports and any contract entered to with the successful tenderer; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul every consequent, intended or related measure, including even measures as yet unknown taken by the defendant in lot 5 of the aforementioned procurement procedure, and, in particular, annul the tender evaluation reports and any contract entered to with the successful tenderer; and

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the defendant made a manifest error of assessment by rejecting the applicant’s tender and thus infringed Article 168 (6) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046. (2) |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant made a manifest error of assessment by rejecting the applicant’s tender and thus infringed Article 168 (6) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046. (2)

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union by rejecting the applicant’s tender and not considering the applicant’s explanations regarding the existence and integrity of its technical offer. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union by rejecting the applicant’s tender and not considering the applicant’s explanations regarding the existence and integrity of its technical offer.

---

(1)  As notified to the applicant by the defendant’s letter no Ares (2021) 6214855 of 12 October 2021.

(2)  Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, amending Regulations (EU) No 1296/2013, (EU) No 1301/2013, (EU) No 1303/2013, (EU) No 1304/2013, (EU) No 1309/2013, (EU) No 1316/2013, (EU) No 223/2014, (EU) No 283/2014, and Decision No 541/2014/EU and repealing Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 (OJ 2018 L 193, p. 1-222).

---

| 6.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 490/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 490/52

---

Order of the General Court of 27 September 2021 — Stena Line Scandinavia v Commission

(Case T-391/20) (1)

(2021/C 490/63)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2020.

---

| 6.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 490/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 490/52

---

Order of the General Court of 1 October 2021 — Alliance française de Bruxelles Europe and Others v Commission

(Case T-285/21) (1)

(2021/C 490/64)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 278, 12.7.2021.

---