# Official Journal C 289/19 J

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 289 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6419 July 2021 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 289

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6419 July 2021

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2021/C 289/01 | 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 289/01

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 289/02 | Case C-635/18: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 3 June 2021 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environment — Directive 2008/50/EC — Ambient air quality — Article 13(1) and Annex XI — Systematic and constant exceedance of the limit values for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) in certain zones and agglomerations of Germany — Article 23(1) — Annex XV — Exceedance period to be as short as possible — Appropriate measures) | 2 |
| 2021/C 289/03 | Case C-650/18: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 3 June 2021 — Hungary v European Parliament (Action for annulment — Article 7(1) TEU — European Parliament resolution on a proposal calling on the Council of the European Union to determine the existence of a clear risk of a serious breach of the values on which the European Union is founded — Articles 263 and 269 TFEU — Jurisdiction of the Court — Admissibility of the appeal — Challengeable act — Article 354 TFEU — Rules for counting votes in the Parliament — Rules of Procedure of the Parliament — Rule 178(3) — Concept of votes cast — Abstentions — Principles of legal certainty, equal treatment, democracy and sincere cooperation) | 3 |
| 2021/C 289/04 | Joined Cases C-818/18 P and C-6/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 June 2021 — The Yokohama Rubber Co. Ltd v Pirelli Tyre SpA (C-818/18 P), European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) v Pirelli Tyre SpA (C-6/19 P) (Appeal — EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal or invalidity of registration — Sign consisting exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 7(1)(e)(ii) — Sign consisting of a shape which does not represent a significant part of the goods) | 3 |
| 2021/C 289/05 | Case C-326/19: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 3 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — EB v Presidenza dei Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca — MIUR, Università degli Studi Roma Tre (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 1999/70/EC — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Clause 5 — Successive fixed-term employment contracts or relationships — Misuse — Preventive measures — Fixed-term employment contracts in the public sector — University researchers) | 4 |
| 2021/C 289/06 | Case C-546/19: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — BZ v Westerwaldkreis (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Immigration policy — Return of illegally staying third-country nationals — Directive 2008/115/EC — Article 2(1) — Scope — Third-country national — Criminal conviction in the Member State — Article 3(6) — Entry ban — Grounds of public policy and public security — Withdrawal of the return decision — Lawfulness of the entry ban) | 5 |
| 2021/C 289/07 | Case C-563/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 3 June 2021 — Recylex SA, Fonderie et Manufacture de Métaux SA, Harz-Metall GmbH v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for car battery recycling — 2006 Leniency Notice — Point 26 — Partial immunity — Additional facts increasing the gravity or the duration of the infringement — Elements known to the European Commission — Reduction of the amount of the fine — Ranking for the purposes of the reduction — Chronological order) | 6 |
| 2021/C 289/08 | Case C-624/19: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 3 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Watford Employment Tribunal — United Kingdom) — K and Others, L, M, N and Others, O, P, Q, R, S, T v Tesco Stores Ltd (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Equal pay for male and female workers — Article 157 TFEU — Direct effect — Concept of work of equal value — Claims seeking equal pay for work of equal value — Single source — Workers of different sex having the same employer — Different establishments — Comparison) | 6 |
| 2021/C 289/09 | Case C-726/19: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 3 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid — Spain) — Instituto Madrileño de Investigación y Desarrollo Rural, Agrario y Alimentario v JN (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 1999/70/EC — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Clause 5 — Applicability — Concept of successive fixed-term employment contracts or relationships — Fixed-term employment contracts in the public sector — Measures to prevent and penalise the misuse of successive fixed-term employment contracts or relationships — Concept of objective reasons justifying such contracts — Equivalent legal measures — Obligation to interpret national law in conformity with EU law — Economic crisis) | 7 |
| 2021/C 289/10 | Case C-762/19: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rīgas apgabaltiesas Civillietu tiesas kolēģija — Latvia) — CV-Online Latvia SIA v Melons SIA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Legal protection of databases — Directive 96/9/EC — Article 7 — Sui generis right of makers of databases — Prohibition on any third party to extract or re-utilise, without the maker’s permission, the whole or a substantial part of the contents of the database — Database freely accessible on the internet — Meta search engine specialising in job advertisement searches — Extraction and/or re-utilisation of the contents of a database — Risk to the substantial investment in the obtaining, verification or presentation of the content of a database) | 8 |
| 2021/C 289/11 | Case C-784/19: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 3 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna — Bulgaria) — TEAM POWER EUROPE EOOD v Direktor na Teritorialna direktsia na Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite — Varna (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Migrant workers — Social security — Legislation applicable — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Article 12(1) — Posting of workers — Temporary agency workers — Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 — Article 14(2) — A1 certificate — Determination of the Member State in which the employer normally carries out its activities — Concept of substantial activities, other than purely internal management activities — No assignment of temporary agency workers in the territory of the Member State in which the employer is established) | 8 |
| 2021/C 289/12 | Case C-822/19: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 3 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia — Romania) — Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Braşov, Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcţia Generală a Vămilor — Direcţia Regională Vamală Braşov — Biroul Vamal de Interior Sibiu v Flavourstream SRL (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs union — Common Customs Tariff — Combined Nomenclature — Tariff classification — Tariff subheadings 1702 90 95, 2912 49 00 and 3824 90 92 — Aqueous solution) | 9 |
| 2021/C 289/13 | Case C-910/19: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 June 2021 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Bankia SA v Unión Mutua Asistencial de Seguros (UMAS) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2003/71/EC — Prospectus when securities are offered to the public or admitted to trading — Article 3(2) — Article 6 — Offer addressed to both retail investors and qualified investors — Content of information given in the prospectus — Action for damages — Retail investors and qualified investors — Awareness of the issuer’s economic situation) | 10 |
| 2021/C 289/14 | Case C-914/19: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 3 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Ministero della Giustizia v GN (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Principle of equal treatment in employment and occupation — Directive 2000/78/EC — Article 6(1) — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 21 — Prohibition of all discrimination on the basis of age — National legislation setting 50 years of age as the age limit for access to the profession of notary — Justification) | 11 |
| 2021/C 289/15 | Case C-931/19: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 3 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzgericht — Austria) — Titanium Ltd v Finanzamt Österreich, formerly Finanzamt Wien (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 43 and 45 — Directive 2006/112/EC, as amended by Directive 2008/8/EC — Articles 44, 45 and 47 — Provision of services — Point of reference for tax purposes — Concept of a fixed establishment — Letting a property in a Member State — Owner of a property with its registered office on the island of Jersey) | 11 |
| 2021/C 289/16 | Case C-942/19: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 3 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Aragón — Spain) — Servicio Aragonés de Salud v LB (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Clause 4 — Principle of non-discrimination — Rejection of a request for leave of absence by reason of employment in the public sector provided for permanent staff regulated under administrative law — National legislation excluding entitlement to such leave when taking up temporary employment — Scope — Inapplicability of clause 4 — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court) | 12 |
| 2021/C 289/17 | Case C-39/20: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Jumbocarry Trading GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 — Union Customs Code — First subparagraph of Article 22(6), read in conjunction with Article 29 — Communication of the grounds to the person concerned before taking a decision which would adversely affect that person — Article 103(1) and Article 103(3)(b) — Limitation of the customs debt — Period for notification of the customs debt — Suspension of the period — Article 124(1)(a) — Extinguishment of the customs debt where it is time-barred — Temporal application of the provision governing the grounds for suspension — Principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations) | 13 |
| 2021/C 289/18 | Case C-76/20: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna — Bulgaria) — BalevBio EOOD v Teritorialna direktsia Severna morska, Agentsia Mitnitsi (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common customs tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Goods made of different materials — Plant fibres — Melamine resin — Headings 3924 and 4419 — Goods described as bamboo beakers) | 13 |
| 2021/C 289/19 | Case C-182/20: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Suceava — Romania) — BE, DT v Administraţia Judeţeană a Finanţelor Publice Suceava, Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Iaşi, Accer Ipurl Suceava — acting as court-appointed liquidator of BE, EP (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Right to deduct — Adjustment of deductions — Insolvency proceedings — National legislation providing for automatic refusal to allow deduction of VAT in respect of taxable transactions that occurred prior to the initiation of those proceedings) | 14 |
| 2021/C 289/20 | Case C-194/20: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — BY, CX, FU, DW, EV v Stadt Duisburg (Reference for a preliminary ruling — EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Decision No 1/80 — Articles 6 and 7 — Legal employment — Article 9 — Access to education for children of a Turkish worker — Right of residence — Refusal) | 15 |
| 2021/C 289/21 | Case C-210/20: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 3 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Rad Service Srl Unipersonale, Cosmo Ambiente Srl, Cosmo Scavi Srl v Del Debbio SpA, Gruppo Sei Srl, Ciclat Val di Cecina Soc. Coop., DAF Costruzioni stradali Srl (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement of service, supply and works contracts — Directive 2014/24/EU — Conduct of the tendering procedure — Choice of participants and award of contracts — Article 63 — Tenderer relying on the capacities of another entity in order to meet the requirements of the contracting authority — Article 57(4), (6) and (7) — Untruthful declarations submitted by that entity — Exclusion of that tenderer without requiring or permitting it to replace that entity — Principle of proportionality) | 15 |
| 2021/C 289/22 | Case C-280/20: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski Rayonen sad — Bulgaria) — ZN v Generalno konsulstvo na Republika Bulgaria v grad Valensia, Kralstvo Ispania (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Determination of international jurisdiction of the courts of a Member State — Article 5(1) — Employee residing in a Member State — Contract concluded with a consular representation of that Member State in another Member State — Functions of the employee — No exercise of public powers) | 16 |
| 2021/C 289/23 | Case C-364/19: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Galați — Romania) — XU, YV, ZW, AU, BZ, CA, DB, EC, NL v SC Credit Europe Ipotecar IFN SA, Credit Europe Bank NV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Consumer protection — Unfair terms — Directive 93/13/EEC — Article 1(2) — Exclusion from the scope of that directive of contractual terms which reflect mandatory provisions of national law — Article 4(2) — Exception to the assessment of whether a term is unfair — Credit agreement denominated in a foreign currency — Alleged infringement of the obligation of information borne by a seller or supplier — Examination to be carried out by the national court as a matter of priority in the light of Article 1(2)) | 17 |
| 2021/C 289/24 | Case C-108/20: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 14 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Berlin-Brandenburg — Germany) — HR v Finanzamt Wilmersdorf (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 167 and 168 — Right to deduct input VAT — Refusal — Fraud — Supply chain — Refusal of the right to deduct where the taxable person knew or should have known that, by his or her purchase, he or she was participating in a transaction connected to VAT fraud) | 17 |
| 2021/C 289/25 | Case C-471/20: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 23 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Mons — Belgium) — Centre d’Enseignement Secondaire Saint-Vincent de Soignies ASBL v FS (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) and Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Social policy — Protection of the safety and health of workers — Organisation of working time — Directive 2003/88/EC — Maximum weekly working time — Reference period — Article 16 — Derogations — Articles 17 and 18 — Supervisor-teacher at a boarding school undertaking night duty — Compensatory rest conditions) | 18 |
| 2021/C 289/26 | Case C-573/20: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Parma — Italy) — Casa di Cura Città di Parma SpA v Agenzia delle Entrate (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 53(2) and 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Taxation — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC — Article 17(2)(a) — Mixed taxable person — Deductible proportion — Public or private health structures carrying out exempt activities — National legislation excluding the deduction of VAT relating to the purchase of goods or services used for the requirements of those exempt activities) | 19 |
| 2021/C 289/27 | Case C-594/20: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Markkinaoikeus — Finland) — Kuluttaja-asiamies v MiGame Oy (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Directive 2011/83/EU — Consumer contracts — Article 21 — Communication by telephone — Telephone line operated by a trader so that consumers may contact it for matters relating to a previously concluded contract — Provision by a company, as part of the after-sales service for previously concluded contracts, of two telephone lines, namely a premium-rate landline and a mobile telephone line that is free of charge — Media content targeted at customers — Acceptability of a helpline which charges customers at a rate exceeding the basic rate — Concept of basic rate) | 19 |
| 2021/C 289/28 | Case C-92/21: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Liège — Belgium) — VW v Agence fédérale pour l’Accueil des demandeurs d’asile (Fedasil) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Border controls, asylum and immigration — Asylum policy — Criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection — Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 (Dublin III) — Article 27 — Remedies against a transfer decision — Suspensive effect of the remedy — Article 29 — Modalities and time limits for transfers — Standards for the reception of applicants for international protection — Directive 2013/33/EU — Article 18 — National measure allocating to an applicant in respect of whom a transfer decision has been made a place in a specific reception facility where those accommodated receive support in preparing to be transferred) | 20 |
| 2021/C 289/29 | Case C-40/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Timișoara (Romania) lodged on 26 January 2021 — T.A.C. v ANI | 21 |
| 2021/C 289/30 | Case C-109/21 P: Appeal brought on 22 February 2021 by H.R. Participations SA against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 16 December 2020 in Case T-535/19, H.R. Participations v EUIPO — Hottinger Investment Management (JCE HOTTINGUER) | 21 |
| 2021/C 289/31 | Case C-181/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Katowicach (Poland) lodged on 23 March 2021 — G. v M.S. | 22 |
| 2021/C 289/32 | Case C-208/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Woli w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 23 March 2021 — K.D. v Towarzystwo Ubezpieczeń Ż S.A. | 23 |
| 2021/C 289/33 | Case C-213/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 6 April 2021 — Italy Emergenza Cooperativa Sociale v Azienda Sanitaria Locale Barletta-Andria-Trani | 24 |
| 2021/C 289/34 | Case C-214/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 6 April 2021 — Italy Emergenza Cooperativa Sociale v Azienda Sanitaria Provinciale di Cosenza | 24 |
| 2021/C 289/35 | Case C-243/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 14 April 2021 — TOYA Sp. z o.o., Polska Izba Informatyki i Telekomunikacji v Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej | 25 |
| 2021/C 289/36 | Case C-250/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 21 April 2021 — Szef Krajowej Administracji Skarbowej v O. Fundusz Inwestycyjny Zamknięty represented by O. SA | 26 |
| 2021/C 289/37 | Case C-253/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 22 April 2021 — TUIfly GmbH v FI, RE | 26 |
| 2021/C 289/38 | Case C-269/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Krakowie (Poland) lodged on 27 April 2021 — BC and DC v X | 27 |
| 2021/C 289/39 | Case C-289/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria) lodged on 5 May 2021 — IG v Varhoven administrativen sad | 28 |
| 2021/C 289/40 | Case C-293/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 7 May 2021 — Vittamed technologijos UAB, in liquidation v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija | 29 |
| 2021/C 289/41 | Case C-295/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 10 May 2021 — Allianz Benelux SA v État belge, SPF Finances | 29 |
| 2021/C 289/42 | Case C-296/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 7 May 2021 — A | 30 |
| 2021/C 289/43 | Case C-121/20: Order of the President of the Court of 26 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Amsterdam — Netherlands) — VG v Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken | 31 |
| 2021/C 289/44 | Case C-317/20: Order of the President of the Court of 26 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Mainz — Germany) — KX v PY GmbH | 31 |
| 2021/C 289/45 | Case C-336/20: Order of the President of the Court of 27 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Ravensburg — Germany) — QY v Bank 11 für Privatkunden und Handel GmbH | 31 |
| 2021/C 289/46 | Joined Cases C-442/20 to C-445/20: Order of the President of the Court of 16 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Nürnberg — Germany) — Flightright GmbH (C-442/20, C-443/20 and C-444/20), PN and LM (C-445/20) v Ryanair Designated Activity Company | 31 |
| 2021/C 289/47 | Case C-591/20: Order of the President of the Court of 11 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Reprensus GmbH v S-V Pavlovi Trejd EOOD | 32 |
| | General Court |
| 2021/C 289/48 | Case T-718/17: Judgment of the General Court of 2 June 2021 — Italy v Commission (Rules on languages — Notice of Open Competitions for the recruitment of administrators and assistants in the buildings sector — Knowledge of languages — Restriction of the choice of language 2 of the competitions to three languages — Regulation No 1 — Article 1d(1), Article 27 and Article 28(f) of the Staff Regulations — Discrimination based on language — Interests of the service — Proportionality) | 33 |
| 2021/C 289/49 | Case T-71/18: Judgment of the General Court of 2 June 2021 — Italy v Commission (Rules on languages — Notice of Open Competition for the recruitment of administrators in the fields of financial economics and macroeconomics — Knowledge of languages — Restriction of the choice of language 2 of the competition to three languages — Regulation No 1 — Article 1d(1), Article 27 and Article 28(f) of the Staff Regulations — Discrimination based on language — Interests of the service — Proportionality) | 33 |
| 2021/C 289/50 | Case T-169/19: Judgment of the General Court of 2 June 2021 — Style & Taste v EUIPO — The Polo/Lauren Company (Representation of a polo player) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark representing a polo player — Earlier national design — Relative ground for invalidity — Article 52(2)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 60(2)(d) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 34 |
| 2021/C 289/51 | Case T-436/17: Order of the General Court of 2 June 2021 — ClientEarth and Others v Commission (REACH — Commission decision granting an authorisation for some uses of lead sulfochromate yellow and of lead chromate molybdate sulfate red — Article 64 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 — Internal review of a marketing authorisation decision — Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 — No longer any legal interest in bringing proceedings — No need to adjudicate) | 35 |
| 2021/C 289/52 | Case T-260/18: Order of the General Court of 28 May 2021 — Makhlouf v Commission and ECB (Non-contractual liability — Economic and monetary policy — Stability support programme for Cyprus — Memorandum of Understanding of 26 April 2013 on Specific Economic Policy Conditionality concluded between the Republic of Cyprus and the European Stability Mechanism — Applicant having ceased to reply to the Court’s requests — No need to adjudicate) | 36 |
| 2021/C 289/53 | Case T-332/20: Order of the General Court of 31 May 2021 — König Ludwig International v EUIPO (Royal Bavarian Beer) (EU trade mark — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark Royal Bavarian Beer — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Right to be heard — Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Unitary character of the EU trade mark — Article 1(2) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law) | 37 |
| 2021/C 289/54 | Case T-244/21: Action brought on 4 May 2021 — Luossavaara-Kiirunavaara v Commission | 37 |
| 2021/C 289/55 | Case T-261/21: Action brought on 17 May 2021 — Sturz v EUIPO — Clatronic International (STEAKER) | 39 |
| 2021/C 289/56 | Case T-281/21: Action brought on 21 May 2021 — Nowhere v EUIPO — Junguo Ye (APE TEES) | 40 |
| 2021/C 289/57 | Case T-282/21: Action brought on 21 May 2021 — SS and ST v Frontex | 40 |
| 2021/C 289/58 | Case T-291/21: Action brought on 25 May 2021 — Cathay Pacific Airways v Commission | 41 |
| 2021/C 289/59 | Case T-292/21: Action brought on 25 May 2021 — Singapore Airlines Cargo v Commission | 42 |
| 2021/C 289/60 | Case T-297/21: Action brought on 21 May 2021 — Troy Chemical and Troy v Commission | 44 |
| 2021/C 289/61 | Case T-302/21: Action brought on 27 May 2021 — ABOCA and Others v Commission | 45 |
| 2021/C 289/62 | Case T-303/21: Action brought on 31 May 2021 — FC v EASO | 46 |
| 2021/C 289/63 | Case T-307/21: Action brought on 1 June 2021 — Classen Holz Kontor v EUIPO — Deutsche Steinzeug Cremer & Breuer AG (DRYTILE) | 46 |
| 2021/C 289/64 | Case T-308/21: Action brought on 1 June 2021 — Classen Holz Kontor v EUIPO — Deutsche Steinzeug Cremer & Breuer (new type tiling DRYTILE) | 47 |
| 2021/C 289/65 | Case T-310/21: Action brought on 2 June 2021 — Air Canada v Commission | 48 |
| 2021/C 289/66 | Case T-313/21: Action brought on 3 June 2021 — SAS Cargo Group and Others v Commission | 49 |
| 2021/C 289/67 | Case T-314/21: Action brought on 4 June 2021 — TA v Parliament | 50 |
| 2021/C 289/68 | Case T-315/21: Action brought on 4 June 2021 — Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — Nordesta (APIAL) | 50 |
| 2021/C 289/69 | Case T-316/21: Action brought on 6 June 2021 — Worldwide Machinery v EUIPO — Scaip (SUPERIOR MANUFACTURING) | 51 |
| 2021/C 289/70 | Case T-317/21: Action brought on 7 June 2021 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Brito & Pereira (TINTAS BRICOR) | 52 |
| 2021/C 289/71 | Case T-680/20: Order of the General Court of 4 June 2021 — Novelis v Commission | 53 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2021/C 289/02

Case C-635/18: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 3 June 2021 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environment — Directive 2008/50/EC — Ambient air quality — Article 13(1) and Annex XI — Systematic and constant exceedance of the limit values for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) in certain zones and agglomerations of Germany — Article 23(1) — Annex XV — Exceedance period to be as short as possible — Appropriate measures)

2

2021/C 289/03

Case C-650/18: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 3 June 2021 — Hungary v European Parliament (Action for annulment — Article 7(1) TEU — European Parliament resolution on a proposal calling on the Council of the European Union to determine the existence of a clear risk of a serious breach of the values on which the European Union is founded — Articles 263 and 269 TFEU — Jurisdiction of the Court — Admissibility of the appeal — Challengeable act — Article 354 TFEU — Rules for counting votes in the Parliament — Rules of Procedure of the Parliament — Rule 178(3) — Concept of votes cast — Abstentions — Principles of legal certainty, equal treatment, democracy and sincere cooperation)

3

2021/C 289/04

Joined Cases C-818/18 P and C-6/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 June 2021 — The Yokohama Rubber Co. Ltd v Pirelli Tyre SpA (C-818/18 P), European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) v Pirelli Tyre SpA (C-6/19 P) (Appeal — EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal or invalidity of registration — Sign consisting exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 7(1)(e)(ii) — Sign consisting of a shape which does not represent a significant part of the goods)

3

2021/C 289/05

Case C-326/19: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 3 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — EB v Presidenza dei Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca — MIUR, Università degli Studi Roma Tre (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 1999/70/EC — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Clause 5 — Successive fixed-term employment contracts or relationships — Misuse — Preventive measures — Fixed-term employment contracts in the public sector — University researchers)

4

2021/C 289/06

Case C-546/19: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — BZ v Westerwaldkreis (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Immigration policy — Return of illegally staying third-country nationals — Directive 2008/115/EC — Article 2(1) — Scope — Third-country national — Criminal conviction in the Member State — Article 3(6) — Entry ban — Grounds of public policy and public security — Withdrawal of the return decision — Lawfulness of the entry ban)

5

2021/C 289/07

Case C-563/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 3 June 2021 — Recylex SA, Fonderie et Manufacture de Métaux SA, Harz-Metall GmbH v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for car battery recycling — 2006 Leniency Notice — Point 26 — Partial immunity — Additional facts increasing the gravity or the duration of the infringement — Elements known to the European Commission — Reduction of the amount of the fine — Ranking for the purposes of the reduction — Chronological order)

6

2021/C 289/08

Case C-624/19: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 3 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Watford Employment Tribunal — United Kingdom) — K and Others, L, M, N and Others, O, P, Q, R, S, T v Tesco Stores Ltd (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Equal pay for male and female workers — Article 157 TFEU — Direct effect — Concept of work of equal value — Claims seeking equal pay for work of equal value — Single source — Workers of different sex having the same employer — Different establishments — Comparison)

6

2021/C 289/09

Case C-726/19: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 3 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid — Spain) — Instituto Madrileño de Investigación y Desarrollo Rural, Agrario y Alimentario v JN (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 1999/70/EC — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Clause 5 — Applicability — Concept of successive fixed-term employment contracts or relationships — Fixed-term employment contracts in the public sector — Measures to prevent and penalise the misuse of successive fixed-term employment contracts or relationships — Concept of objective reasons justifying such contracts — Equivalent legal measures — Obligation to interpret national law in conformity with EU law — Economic crisis)

7

2021/C 289/10

Case C-762/19: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rīgas apgabaltiesas Civillietu tiesas kolēģija — Latvia) — CV-Online Latvia SIA v Melons SIA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Legal protection of databases — Directive 96/9/EC — Article 7 — Sui generis right of makers of databases — Prohibition on any third party to extract or re-utilise, without the maker’s permission, the whole or a substantial part of the contents of the database — Database freely accessible on the internet — Meta search engine specialising in job advertisement searches — Extraction and/or re-utilisation of the contents of a database — Risk to the substantial investment in the obtaining, verification or presentation of the content of a database)

8

2021/C 289/11

Case C-784/19: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 3 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna — Bulgaria) — TEAM POWER EUROPE EOOD v Direktor na Teritorialna direktsia na Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite — Varna (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Migrant workers — Social security — Legislation applicable — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Article 12(1) — Posting of workers — Temporary agency workers — Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 — Article 14(2) — A1 certificate — Determination of the Member State in which the employer normally carries out its activities — Concept of substantial activities, other than purely internal management activities — No assignment of temporary agency workers in the territory of the Member State in which the employer is established)

8

2021/C 289/12

Case C-822/19: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 3 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia — Romania) — Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Braşov, Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcţia Generală a Vămilor — Direcţia Regională Vamală Braşov — Biroul Vamal de Interior Sibiu v Flavourstream SRL (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs union — Common Customs Tariff — Combined Nomenclature — Tariff classification — Tariff subheadings 1702 90 95, 2912 49 00 and 3824 90 92 — Aqueous solution)

9

2021/C 289/13

Case C-910/19: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 June 2021 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Bankia SA v Unión Mutua Asistencial de Seguros (UMAS) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2003/71/EC — Prospectus when securities are offered to the public or admitted to trading — Article 3(2) — Article 6 — Offer addressed to both retail investors and qualified investors — Content of information given in the prospectus — Action for damages — Retail investors and qualified investors — Awareness of the issuer’s economic situation)

10

2021/C 289/14

Case C-914/19: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 3 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Ministero della Giustizia v GN (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Principle of equal treatment in employment and occupation — Directive 2000/78/EC — Article 6(1) — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 21 — Prohibition of all discrimination on the basis of age — National legislation setting 50 years of age as the age limit for access to the profession of notary — Justification)

11

2021/C 289/15

Case C-931/19: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 3 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzgericht — Austria) — Titanium Ltd v Finanzamt Österreich, formerly Finanzamt Wien (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 43 and 45 — Directive 2006/112/EC, as amended by Directive 2008/8/EC — Articles 44, 45 and 47 — Provision of services — Point of reference for tax purposes — Concept of a fixed establishment — Letting a property in a Member State — Owner of a property with its registered office on the island of Jersey)

11

2021/C 289/16

Case C-942/19: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 3 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Aragón — Spain) — Servicio Aragonés de Salud v LB (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Clause 4 — Principle of non-discrimination — Rejection of a request for leave of absence by reason of employment in the public sector provided for permanent staff regulated under administrative law — National legislation excluding entitlement to such leave when taking up temporary employment — Scope — Inapplicability of clause 4 — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

12

2021/C 289/17

Case C-39/20: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Jumbocarry Trading GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 — Union Customs Code — First subparagraph of Article 22(6), read in conjunction with Article 29 — Communication of the grounds to the person concerned before taking a decision which would adversely affect that person — Article 103(1) and Article 103(3)(b) — Limitation of the customs debt — Period for notification of the customs debt — Suspension of the period — Article 124(1)(a) — Extinguishment of the customs debt where it is time-barred — Temporal application of the provision governing the grounds for suspension — Principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations)

13

2021/C 289/18

Case C-76/20: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna — Bulgaria) — BalevBio EOOD v Teritorialna direktsia Severna morska, Agentsia Mitnitsi (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common customs tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Goods made of different materials — Plant fibres — Melamine resin — Headings 3924 and 4419 — Goods described as bamboo beakers)

13

2021/C 289/19

Case C-182/20: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Suceava — Romania) — BE, DT v Administraţia Judeţeană a Finanţelor Publice Suceava, Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Iaşi, Accer Ipurl Suceava — acting as court-appointed liquidator of BE, EP (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Right to deduct — Adjustment of deductions — Insolvency proceedings — National legislation providing for automatic refusal to allow deduction of VAT in respect of taxable transactions that occurred prior to the initiation of those proceedings)

14

2021/C 289/20

Case C-194/20: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — BY, CX, FU, DW, EV v Stadt Duisburg (Reference for a preliminary ruling — EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Decision No 1/80 — Articles 6 and 7 — Legal employment — Article 9 — Access to education for children of a Turkish worker — Right of residence — Refusal)

15

2021/C 289/21

Case C-210/20: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 3 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Rad Service Srl Unipersonale, Cosmo Ambiente Srl, Cosmo Scavi Srl v Del Debbio SpA, Gruppo Sei Srl, Ciclat Val di Cecina Soc. Coop., DAF Costruzioni stradali Srl (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement of service, supply and works contracts — Directive 2014/24/EU — Conduct of the tendering procedure — Choice of participants and award of contracts — Article 63 — Tenderer relying on the capacities of another entity in order to meet the requirements of the contracting authority — Article 57(4), (6) and (7) — Untruthful declarations submitted by that entity — Exclusion of that tenderer without requiring or permitting it to replace that entity — Principle of proportionality)

15

2021/C 289/22

Case C-280/20: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski Rayonen sad — Bulgaria) — ZN v Generalno konsulstvo na Republika Bulgaria v grad Valensia, Kralstvo Ispania (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Determination of international jurisdiction of the courts of a Member State — Article 5(1) — Employee residing in a Member State — Contract concluded with a consular representation of that Member State in another Member State — Functions of the employee — No exercise of public powers)

16

2021/C 289/23

Case C-364/19: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Galați — Romania) — XU, YV, ZW, AU, BZ, CA, DB, EC, NL v SC Credit Europe Ipotecar IFN SA, Credit Europe Bank NV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Consumer protection — Unfair terms — Directive 93/13/EEC — Article 1(2) — Exclusion from the scope of that directive of contractual terms which reflect mandatory provisions of national law — Article 4(2) — Exception to the assessment of whether a term is unfair — Credit agreement denominated in a foreign currency — Alleged infringement of the obligation of information borne by a seller or supplier — Examination to be carried out by the national court as a matter of priority in the light of Article 1(2))

17

2021/C 289/24

Case C-108/20: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 14 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Berlin-Brandenburg — Germany) — HR v Finanzamt Wilmersdorf (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 167 and 168 — Right to deduct input VAT — Refusal — Fraud — Supply chain — Refusal of the right to deduct where the taxable person knew or should have known that, by his or her purchase, he or she was participating in a transaction connected to VAT fraud)

17

2021/C 289/25

Case C-471/20: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 23 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Mons — Belgium) — Centre d’Enseignement Secondaire Saint-Vincent de Soignies ASBL v FS (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) and Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Social policy — Protection of the safety and health of workers — Organisation of working time — Directive 2003/88/EC — Maximum weekly working time — Reference period — Article 16 — Derogations — Articles 17 and 18 — Supervisor-teacher at a boarding school undertaking night duty — Compensatory rest conditions)

18

2021/C 289/26

Case C-573/20: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Parma — Italy) — Casa di Cura Città di Parma SpA v Agenzia delle Entrate (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 53(2) and 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Taxation — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC — Article 17(2)(a) — Mixed taxable person — Deductible proportion — Public or private health structures carrying out exempt activities — National legislation excluding the deduction of VAT relating to the purchase of goods or services used for the requirements of those exempt activities)

19

2021/C 289/27

Case C-594/20: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Markkinaoikeus — Finland) — Kuluttaja-asiamies v MiGame Oy (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Directive 2011/83/EU — Consumer contracts — Article 21 — Communication by telephone — Telephone line operated by a trader so that consumers may contact it for matters relating to a previously concluded contract — Provision by a company, as part of the after-sales service for previously concluded contracts, of two telephone lines, namely a premium-rate landline and a mobile telephone line that is free of charge — Media content targeted at customers — Acceptability of a helpline which charges customers at a rate exceeding the basic rate — Concept of basic rate)

19

2021/C 289/28

Case C-92/21: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Liège — Belgium) — VW v Agence fédérale pour l’Accueil des demandeurs d’asile (Fedasil) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Border controls, asylum and immigration — Asylum policy — Criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection — Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 (Dublin III) — Article 27 — Remedies against a transfer decision — Suspensive effect of the remedy — Article 29 — Modalities and time limits for transfers — Standards for the reception of applicants for international protection — Directive 2013/33/EU — Article 18 — National measure allocating to an applicant in respect of whom a transfer decision has been made a place in a specific reception facility where those accommodated receive support in preparing to be transferred)

20

2021/C 289/29

Case C-40/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Timișoara (Romania) lodged on 26 January 2021 — T.A.C. v ANI

21

2021/C 289/30

Case C-109/21 P: Appeal brought on 22 February 2021 by H.R. Participations SA against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 16 December 2020 in Case T-535/19, H.R. Participations v EUIPO — Hottinger Investment Management (JCE HOTTINGUER)

21

2021/C 289/31

Case C-181/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Katowicach (Poland) lodged on 23 March 2021 — G. v M.S.

22

2021/C 289/32

Case C-208/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Woli w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 23 March 2021 — K.D. v Towarzystwo Ubezpieczeń Ż S.A.

23

2021/C 289/33

Case C-213/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 6 April 2021 — Italy Emergenza Cooperativa Sociale v Azienda Sanitaria Locale Barletta-Andria-Trani

24

2021/C 289/34

Case C-214/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 6 April 2021 — Italy Emergenza Cooperativa Sociale v Azienda Sanitaria Provinciale di Cosenza

24

2021/C 289/35

Case C-243/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 14 April 2021 — TOYA Sp. z o.o., Polska Izba Informatyki i Telekomunikacji v Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej

25

2021/C 289/36

Case C-250/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 21 April 2021 — Szef Krajowej Administracji Skarbowej v O. Fundusz Inwestycyjny Zamknięty represented by O. SA

26

2021/C 289/37

Case C-253/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 22 April 2021 — TUIfly GmbH v FI, RE

26

2021/C 289/38

Case C-269/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Krakowie (Poland) lodged on 27 April 2021 — BC and DC v X

27

2021/C 289/39

Case C-289/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria) lodged on 5 May 2021 — IG v Varhoven administrativen sad

28

2021/C 289/40

Case C-293/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 7 May 2021 — Vittamed technologijos UAB, in liquidation v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija

29

2021/C 289/41

Case C-295/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 10 May 2021 — Allianz Benelux SA v État belge, SPF Finances

29

2021/C 289/42

Case C-296/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 7 May 2021 — A

30

2021/C 289/43

Case C-121/20: Order of the President of the Court of 26 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Amsterdam — Netherlands) — VG v Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken

31

2021/C 289/44

Case C-317/20: Order of the President of the Court of 26 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Mainz — Germany) — KX v PY GmbH

31

2021/C 289/45

Case C-336/20: Order of the President of the Court of 27 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Ravensburg — Germany) — QY v Bank 11 für Privatkunden und Handel GmbH

31

2021/C 289/46

Joined Cases C-442/20 to C-445/20: Order of the President of the Court of 16 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Nürnberg — Germany) — Flightright GmbH (C-442/20, C-443/20 and C-444/20), PN and LM (C-445/20) v Ryanair Designated Activity Company

31

2021/C 289/47

Case C-591/20: Order of the President of the Court of 11 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Reprensus GmbH v S-V Pavlovi Trejd EOOD

32

General Court

2021/C 289/48

Case T-718/17: Judgment of the General Court of 2 June 2021 — Italy v Commission (Rules on languages — Notice of Open Competitions for the recruitment of administrators and assistants in the buildings sector — Knowledge of languages — Restriction of the choice of language 2 of the competitions to three languages — Regulation No 1 — Article 1d(1), Article 27 and Article 28(f) of the Staff Regulations — Discrimination based on language — Interests of the service — Proportionality)

33

2021/C 289/49

Case T-71/18: Judgment of the General Court of 2 June 2021 — Italy v Commission (Rules on languages — Notice of Open Competition for the recruitment of administrators in the fields of financial economics and macroeconomics — Knowledge of languages — Restriction of the choice of language 2 of the competition to three languages — Regulation No 1 — Article 1d(1), Article 27 and Article 28(f) of the Staff Regulations — Discrimination based on language — Interests of the service — Proportionality)

33

2021/C 289/50

Case T-169/19: Judgment of the General Court of 2 June 2021 — Style & Taste v EUIPO — The Polo/Lauren Company (Representation of a polo player) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark representing a polo player — Earlier national design — Relative ground for invalidity — Article 52(2)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 60(2)(d) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

34

2021/C 289/51

Case T-436/17: Order of the General Court of 2 June 2021 — ClientEarth and Others v Commission (REACH — Commission decision granting an authorisation for some uses of lead sulfochromate yellow and of lead chromate molybdate sulfate red — Article 64 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 — Internal review of a marketing authorisation decision — Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 — No longer any legal interest in bringing proceedings — No need to adjudicate)

35

2021/C 289/52

Case T-260/18: Order of the General Court of 28 May 2021 — Makhlouf v Commission and ECB (Non-contractual liability — Economic and monetary policy — Stability support programme for Cyprus — Memorandum of Understanding of 26 April 2013 on Specific Economic Policy Conditionality concluded between the Republic of Cyprus and the European Stability Mechanism — Applicant having ceased to reply to the Court’s requests — No need to adjudicate)

36

2021/C 289/53

Case T-332/20: Order of the General Court of 31 May 2021 — König Ludwig International v EUIPO (Royal Bavarian Beer) (EU trade mark — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark Royal Bavarian Beer — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Right to be heard — Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Unitary character of the EU trade mark — Article 1(2) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

37

2021/C 289/54

Case T-244/21: Action brought on 4 May 2021 — Luossavaara-Kiirunavaara v Commission

37

2021/C 289/55

Case T-261/21: Action brought on 17 May 2021 — Sturz v EUIPO — Clatronic International (STEAKER)

39

2021/C 289/56

Case T-281/21: Action brought on 21 May 2021 — Nowhere v EUIPO — Junguo Ye (APE TEES)

40

2021/C 289/57

Case T-282/21: Action brought on 21 May 2021 — SS and ST v Frontex

40

2021/C 289/58

Case T-291/21: Action brought on 25 May 2021 — Cathay Pacific Airways v Commission

41

2021/C 289/59

Case T-292/21: Action brought on 25 May 2021 — Singapore Airlines Cargo v Commission

42

2021/C 289/60

Case T-297/21: Action brought on 21 May 2021 — Troy Chemical and Troy v Commission

44

2021/C 289/61

Case T-302/21: Action brought on 27 May 2021 — ABOCA and Others v Commission

45

2021/C 289/62

Case T-303/21: Action brought on 31 May 2021 — FC v EASO

46

2021/C 289/63

Case T-307/21: Action brought on 1 June 2021 — Classen Holz Kontor v EUIPO — Deutsche Steinzeug Cremer & Breuer AG (DRYTILE)

46

2021/C 289/64

Case T-308/21: Action brought on 1 June 2021 — Classen Holz Kontor v EUIPO — Deutsche Steinzeug Cremer & Breuer (new type tiling DRYTILE)

47

2021/C 289/65

Case T-310/21: Action brought on 2 June 2021 — Air Canada v Commission

48

2021/C 289/66

Case T-313/21: Action brought on 3 June 2021 — SAS Cargo Group and Others v Commission

49

2021/C 289/67

Case T-314/21: Action brought on 4 June 2021 — TA v Parliament

50

2021/C 289/68

Case T-315/21: Action brought on 4 June 2021 — Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — Nordesta (APIAL)

50

2021/C 289/69

Case T-316/21: Action brought on 6 June 2021 — Worldwide Machinery v EUIPO — Scaip (SUPERIOR MANUFACTURING)

51

2021/C 289/70

Case T-317/21: Action brought on 7 June 2021 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Brito & Pereira (TINTAS BRICOR)

52

2021/C 289/71

Case T-680/20: Order of the General Court of 4 June 2021 — Novelis v Commission

53

---

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 19.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/1

---

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

(2021/C 289/01)

Last publication

OJ C 278, 12.7.2021

Past publications

OJ C 263, 5.7.2021

OJ C 252, 28.6.2021

OJ C 242, 21.6.2021

OJ C 228, 14.6.2021

OJ C 217, 7.6.2021

OJ C 206, 31.5.2021

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 19.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 3 June 2021 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-635/18) (1)

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

(2021/C 289/02)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: C. Hermes, E. Manhaeve and A. C. Becker, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented initially by: T. Henze and S. Eisenberg, acting as Agents, and U. Karpenstein, F. Fellenberg and K. Dingemann, Rechtsanwälte, and subsequently by J. Möller and S. Eisenberg, acting as Agents, and U. Karpenstein, F. Fellenberg and K. Dingemann, Rechtsanwälte)

Intervener in support of the defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: F. Shibli, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that the Federal Republic of Germany,






  — | by having systematically and persistently exceeded, from 1 January 2010 up to and including 2016, first, the annual limit value for Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) in 26 zones and agglomerations situated in German territory, namely, zones DEZBXX0001A (agglomeration of Berlin), DEZCXX0007A (agglomeration of Stuttgart), DEZCXX0043S (district of Tübingen), DEZCXX0063S (district of Stuttgart (without agglomeration)), DEZCXX0004A (agglomeration of Freiburg), DEZCXX0041S (district of Karlsruhe (without agglomerations)), DEZCXX0006A (agglomeration of Mannheim/Heidelberg), DEZDXX0001A (agglomeration of Munich), DEZDXX0003A (agglomeration of Nuremberg/Fürth/Erlangen), DEZFXX0005S (Zone III Central and Northern Hesse), DEZFXX0001A (agglomeration I (Rhine-Main)), DEZFXX0002A (agglomeration II (Kassel)), DEZGLX0001A (agglomeration of Hamburg), DEZJXX0015A (Grevenbroich (Rhineland mining area)), DEZJXX0004A (Cologne), DEZJXX0009A (Düsseldorf), DEZJXX0006A (Essen), DEZJXX0017A (Duisburg, Oberhausen, Mülheim), DEZJXX0005A (Hagen), DEZJXX0008A (Dortmund), DEZJXX0002A (Wuppertal), DEZJXX0011A (Aachen), DEZJXX0016S (urban and rural areas in North Rhine-Westphalia), DEZKXX0006S (Mainz), DEZKXX0007S (Worms/Frankenthal/Ludwigshafen), DEZKXX0004S (Koblenz/Neuwied), and, secondly, the hourly limit value for NO2 in two of those zones, namely, agglomerations DEZCXX0007A (agglomeration of Stuttgart) and DEZFXX0001A (agglomeration I (Rhine-Main)), has failed to fulfil its obligations under the combined provisions of Article 13(1) and Annex XI to Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe,
  and |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Declares that the Federal Republic of Germany,

—

by having systematically and persistently exceeded, from 1 January 2010 up to and including 2016, first, the annual limit value for Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) in 26 zones and agglomerations situated in German territory, namely, zones DEZBXX0001A (agglomeration of Berlin), DEZCXX0007A (agglomeration of Stuttgart), DEZCXX0043S (district of Tübingen), DEZCXX0063S (district of Stuttgart (without agglomeration)), DEZCXX0004A (agglomeration of Freiburg), DEZCXX0041S (district of Karlsruhe (without agglomerations)), DEZCXX0006A (agglomeration of Mannheim/Heidelberg), DEZDXX0001A (agglomeration of Munich), DEZDXX0003A (agglomeration of Nuremberg/Fürth/Erlangen), DEZFXX0005S (Zone III Central and Northern Hesse), DEZFXX0001A (agglomeration I (Rhine-Main)), DEZFXX0002A (agglomeration II (Kassel)), DEZGLX0001A (agglomeration of Hamburg), DEZJXX0015A (Grevenbroich (Rhineland mining area)), DEZJXX0004A (Cologne), DEZJXX0009A (Düsseldorf), DEZJXX0006A (Essen), DEZJXX0017A (Duisburg, Oberhausen, Mülheim), DEZJXX0005A (Hagen), DEZJXX0008A (Dortmund), DEZJXX0002A (Wuppertal), DEZJXX0011A (Aachen), DEZJXX0016S (urban and rural areas in North Rhine-Westphalia), DEZKXX0006S (Mainz), DEZKXX0007S (Worms/Frankenthal/Ludwigshafen), DEZKXX0004S (Koblenz/Neuwied), and, secondly, the hourly limit value for NO2 in two of those zones, namely, agglomerations DEZCXX0007A (agglomeration of Stuttgart) and DEZFXX0001A (agglomeration I (Rhine-Main)), has failed to fulfil its obligations under the combined provisions of Article 13(1) and Annex XI to Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe,

and

| — | by not having adopted, from 11 June 2010, appropriate measures to ensure compliance with the limit values for NO2 in all those zones, failed to fulfil its obligations under the combined provisions of Article 23(1), read alone and in conjunction with Section A of Annex XV to Directive 2008/50 and in particular the obligation laid down in the second subparagraph of Article 23(1) of that directive, to ensure that the period of exceedance of limit values is kept as short as possible; |
| --- | --- |

—

by not having adopted, from 11 June 2010, appropriate measures to ensure compliance with the limit values for NO2 in all those zones, failed to fulfil its obligations under the combined provisions of Article 23(1), read alone and in conjunction with Section A of Annex XV to Directive 2008/50 and in particular the obligation laid down in the second subparagraph of Article 23(1) of that directive, to ensure that the period of exceedance of limit values is kept as short as possible;

| 2. | Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission;

| 3. | Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 436, 3.12.2018.

---

| 19.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 3 June 2021 — Hungary v European Parliament

(Case C-650/18) (1)

(Action for annulment - Article 7(1) TEU - European Parliament resolution on a proposal calling on the Council of the European Union to determine the existence of a clear risk of a serious breach of the values on which the European Union is founded - Articles 263 and 269 TFEU - Jurisdiction of the Court - Admissibility of the appeal - Challengeable act - Article 354 TFEU - Rules for counting votes in the Parliament - Rules of Procedure of the Parliament - Rule 178(3) - Concept of ‘votes cast’ - Abstentions - Principles of legal certainty, equal treatment, democracy and sincere cooperation)

(2021/C 289/03)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: Hungary (represented: initially by M.Z. Fehér, G. Tornyai and Zs. Wagner, and subsequently by M.Z. Fehér, acting as Agents)

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

Intervener in support of the applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Hungary to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Hungary to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament;

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

3.

Orders the Republic of Poland to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 436, 3.12.2018.

---

| 19.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 June 2021 — The Yokohama Rubber Co. Ltd v Pirelli Tyre SpA (C-818/18 P), European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) v Pirelli Tyre SpA (C-6/19 P)

(Joined Cases C-818/18 P and C-6/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - EU trade mark - Absolute grounds for refusal or invalidity of registration - Sign consisting exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 7(1)(e)(ii) - Sign consisting of a shape which does not represent a significant part of the goods)

(2021/C 289/04)

Language of the case: English

Parties

(Case C-818/18 P)

Appellant: The Yokohama Rubber Co. Ltd (represented by: D. Martucci and F. Boscariol de Roberto, avvocati)

Other parties to the proceedings: Pirelli Tyre SpA (represented by: T.M. Müller and F. Togo, Rechtsanwälte), European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: J. Ivanauskas, acting as Agent)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Association of Trade Mark Owners (Marques) (represented by: M. Viefhues, Rechtsanwalt)

(Case C-6/19 P)

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

Other parties to the proceedings: Pirelli Tyre SpA (represented by: T.M. Müller and F. Togo, Rechtsanwälte), The Yokohama Rubber Co. Ltd (represented by: D. Martucci and F. Boscariol de Roberto, avvocati)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Association of Trade Mark Owners (Marques) (represented by: M. Viefhues, Rechtsanwalt)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeals in Cases C-818/18 P and C-6/19 P; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeals in Cases C-818/18 P and C-6/19 P;

| 2. | Orders The Yokohama Rubber Co. Ltd and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear their own costs in relation to the appeal proceedings in Cases C-818/18 P and C-6/19 P and to pay, in equal parts, the costs incurred by Pirelli Tyre SpA in relation to those proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders The Yokohama Rubber Co. Ltd and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear their own costs in relation to the appeal proceedings in Cases C-818/18 P and C-6/19 P and to pay, in equal parts, the costs incurred by Pirelli Tyre SpA in relation to those proceedings;

| 3. | Orders the European Association of Trade Mark Owners (Marques) to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Association of Trade Mark Owners (Marques) to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 148, 29.4.2019.

---

| 19.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 3 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — EB v Presidenza dei Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca — MIUR, Università degli Studi ‘Roma Tre’

(Case C-326/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 1999/70/EC - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Clause 5 - Successive fixed-term employment contracts or relationships - Misuse - Preventive measures - Fixed-term employment contracts in the public sector - University researchers)

(2021/C 289/05)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: EB

Defendants: Presidenza dei Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca — MIUR, Università degli Studi ‘Roma Tre’

Intervening parties: Federazione Lavoratori della Conoscenza — CGIL (FLC-CGIL), Confederazione Generale Italiana del Lavoro (CGIL), Anief — Associazione Professionale e Sindacale, Confederazione Generale Sindacale, Cipur — Coordinamento Intersedi Professori Universitari di Ruolo

Operative part of the judgment

Clause 5 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999 which is annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation under which provision is made, in respect of the recruitment of university researchers, for the conclusion of a fixed-term contract for a period of three years, with a single possibility of extension, for a maximum period of two years, making the conclusion of such contracts subject, first, to the condition that resources are available ‘for planning for the purposes of carrying out research, teaching, non-curricular activities and student service activities’, and, second, that such contracts are extended on condition that there is a ‘positive appraisal of the teaching and research activities carried out’, without it being necessary for those rules to define objective and transparent criteria making it possible to verify that the conclusion and renewal of such contracts do indeed meet a genuine need, and that they are likely to achieve the objective pursued and are necessary for that purpose.

---

(1)  OJ C 288, 26.8.2019.

---

| 19.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — BZ v Westerwaldkreis

(Case C-546/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Immigration policy - Return of illegally staying third-country nationals - Directive 2008/115/EC - Article 2(1) - Scope - Third-country national - Criminal conviction in the Member State - Article 3(6) - Entry ban - Grounds of public policy and public security - Withdrawal of the return decision - Lawfulness of the entry ban)

(2021/C 289/06)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: BZ

Defendant: Westerwaldkreis

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 2(1) of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals must be interpreted as meaning that that directive applies to a ban on entry and stay, imposed by a Member State, which has not made use of the option provided for in Article 2(2)(b) of that directive, against a third-country national who is on its territory and is the subject of an expulsion order on grounds of public security and public policy, on the basis of a previous criminal conviction. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 2(1) of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals must be interpreted as meaning that that directive applies to a ban on entry and stay, imposed by a Member State, which has not made use of the option provided for in Article 2(2)(b) of that directive, against a third-country national who is on its territory and is the subject of an expulsion order on grounds of public security and public policy, on the basis of a previous criminal conviction.

| 2. | Directive 2008/115 must be interpreted as precluding the maintenance in force of a ban on entry and stay, issued by a Member State against a third-country national who is on its territory and is the subject of an expulsion order, which has become final, adopted on grounds of public security and public policy on the basis of a previous criminal conviction, where the return decision adopted in respect of that third-country national by that state has been withdrawn, even if that expulsion order has become final. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Directive 2008/115 must be interpreted as precluding the maintenance in force of a ban on entry and stay, issued by a Member State against a third-country national who is on its territory and is the subject of an expulsion order, which has become final, adopted on grounds of public security and public policy on the basis of a previous criminal conviction, where the return decision adopted in respect of that third-country national by that state has been withdrawn, even if that expulsion order has become final.

---

(1)  OJ C 348, 14.10.2019.

---

| 19.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 3 June 2021 — Recylex SA, Fonderie et Manufacture de Métaux SA, Harz-Metall GmbH v European Commission

(Case C-563/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for car battery recycling - 2006 Leniency Notice - Point 26 - Partial immunity - Additional facts increasing the gravity or the duration of the infringement - Elements known to the European Commission - Reduction of the amount of the fine - Ranking for the purposes of the reduction - Chronological order)

(2021/C 289/07)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Recylex SA, Fonderie et Manufacture de Métaux SA, Harz-Metall GmbH (represented by: M. Wellinger, avocat, and by S. Reinart and K. Bongs, Rechtsanwältinnen)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Szczodrowski, I. Rogalski, and F. van Schaik, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Recylex SA, Fonderie et Manufacture de Métaux SA and Harz-Metall GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Recylex SA, Fonderie et Manufacture de Métaux SA and Harz-Metall GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 312, 16.9.2019.

---

| 19.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 3 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Watford Employment Tribunal — United Kingdom) — K and Others, L, M, N and Others, O, P, Q, R, S, T v Tesco Stores Ltd

(Case C-624/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Equal pay for male and female workers - Article 157 TFEU - Direct effect - Concept of ‘work of equal value’ - Claims seeking equal pay for work of equal value - Single source - Workers of different sex having the same employer - Different establishments - Comparison)

(2021/C 289/08)

Language of the case: English

Referring tribunal

Watford Employment Tribunal

Parties to the main proceedings

Claimants: K and Others, L, M, N and Others, O, P, Q, R, S, T

Respondent: Tesco Stores Ltd

Operative part of the judgment

Article 157 TFEU must be interpreted as having direct effect in proceedings between individuals in which failure to observe the principle of equal pay for male and female workers for ‘work of equal value’, as referred to in that article, is pleaded.

---

(1)  OJ C 357, 21.10.2019.

---

| 19.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 3 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid — Spain) — Instituto Madrileño de Investigación y Desarrollo Rural, Agrario y Alimentario v JN

(Case C-726/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 1999/70/EC - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Clause 5 - Applicability - Concept of ‘successive fixed-term employment contracts or relationships’ - Fixed-term employment contracts in the public sector - Measures to prevent and penalise the misuse of successive fixed-term employment contracts or relationships - Concept of ‘objective reasons’ justifying such contracts - Equivalent legal measures - Obligation to interpret national law in conformity with EU law - Economic crisis)

(2021/C 289/09)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Instituto Madrileño de Investigación y Desarrollo Rural, Agrario y Alimentario

Respondent: JN

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Clause 5(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999 which is annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, as interpreted by the national court, which, first, allows, pending the completion of recruitment procedures initiated to fill definitively vacant posts of workers in the public sector, the renewal of fixed-term contracts, without specifying a precise time limit for the completion of those procedures, and, second, prohibits both the assimilation of those workers to ‘workers having non-permanent contracts of indefinite duration’ and the granting of compensation to those workers. It appears that that national legislation, subject to the checks which it is for the national court to carry out, does not include any measure to prevent and, where appropriate, to penalise the misuse of successive fixed-term contracts. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Clause 5(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999 which is annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, as interpreted by the national court, which, first, allows, pending the completion of recruitment procedures initiated to fill definitively vacant posts of workers in the public sector, the renewal of fixed-term contracts, without specifying a precise time limit for the completion of those procedures, and, second, prohibits both the assimilation of those workers to ‘workers having non-permanent contracts of indefinite duration’ and the granting of compensation to those workers. It appears that that national legislation, subject to the checks which it is for the national court to carry out, does not include any measure to prevent and, where appropriate, to penalise the misuse of successive fixed-term contracts.

| 2. | Clause 5(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999 which is annexed to Directive 1999/70 must be interpreted as meaning that purely economic considerations, related to the economic crisis of 2008, cannot justify the absence, in national law, of any measure to prevent and penalise the use of successive fixed-term employment contracts. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Clause 5(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999 which is annexed to Directive 1999/70 must be interpreted as meaning that purely economic considerations, related to the economic crisis of 2008, cannot justify the absence, in national law, of any measure to prevent and penalise the use of successive fixed-term employment contracts.

---

(1)  OJ C 432, 23.12.2019.

---

| 19.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rīgas apgabaltiesas Civillietu tiesas kolēģija — Latvia) — ‘CV-Online Latvia’ SIA v ‘Melons’ SIA

(Case C-762/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Legal protection of databases - Directive 96/9/EC - Article 7 - Sui generis right of makers of databases - Prohibition on any third party to ‘extract’ or ‘re-utilise’, without the maker’s permission, the whole or a substantial part of the contents of the database - Database freely accessible on the internet - Meta search engine specialising in job advertisement searches - Extraction and/or re-utilisation of the contents of a database - Risk to the substantial investment in the obtaining, verification or presentation of the content of a database)

(2021/C 289/10)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Rīgas apgabaltiesas Civillietu tiesas kolēģija

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘CV-Online Latvia’ SIA

Defendant:‘Melons’ SIA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(1) and (2) of Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases must be interpreted as meaning that an internet search engine specialising in searching the contents of databases, which copies and indexes the whole or a substantial part of a database freely accessible on the internet and then allows its users to search that database on its own website according to criteria relevant to its content, is ‘extracting’ and ‘re-utilising’ that content within the meaning of that provision, which may be prohibited by the maker of such a database where those acts adversely affect its investment in the obtaining, verification or presentation of that content, namely that they constitute a risk to the possibility of redeeming that investment through the normal operation of the database in question, which it is for the referring court to verify.

---

(1)  OJ C 423, 16.12.2019.

---

| 19.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 3 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna — Bulgaria) — ‘TEAM POWER EUROPE’ EOOD v Direktor na Teritorialna direktsia na Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite — Varna

(Case C-784/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Migrant workers - Social security - Legislation applicable - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Article 12(1) - Posting of workers - Temporary agency workers - Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 - Article 14(2) - A1 certificate - Determination of the Member State in which the employer normally carries out its activities - Concept of ‘substantial activities, other than purely internal management activities’ - No assignment of temporary agency workers in the territory of the Member State in which the employer is established)

(2021/C 289/11)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad — Varna

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘TEAM POWER EUROPE’ EOOD

Defendant: Direktor na Teritorialna direktsia na Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite — Varna

Operative part of the judgment

Article 14(2) of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems must be interpreted as meaning that a temporary-work agency established in a Member State must, in order for it to be considered that it ‘normally carries out its activities’, within the meaning of Article 12(1) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems as amended by Regulation (EU) No 465/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012, in that Member State, carry out a significant part of its activities of assigning temporary agency workers for the benefit of user undertakings established and carrying out their activities in the territory of that Member State.

---

(1)  OJ C 27, 27.1.2020.

---

| 19.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 3 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia — Romania) — Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Braşov, Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcţia Generală a Vămilor — Direcţia Regională Vamală Braşov — Biroul Vamal de Interior Sibiu v Flavourstream SRL

(Case C-822/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs union - Common Customs Tariff - Combined Nomenclature - Tariff classification - Tariff subheadings 1702 90 95, 2912 49 00 and 3824 90 92 - Aqueous solution)

(2021/C 289/12)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Braşov, Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcţia Generală a Vămilor — Direcţia Regională Vamală Braşov — Biroul Vamal de Interior Sibiu

Respondent: Flavourstream SRL

Operative part of the judgment

The Combined Nomenclature set out in 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, in the version resulting from Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1101/2014 of 16 October 2014, must be interpreted as meaning that an aqueous solution obtained by thermal decomposition of dextrose, composed in particular of water-soluble aldehydes and ketones, does not come either under subheading 1702 90 95 of that nomenclature, which covers inter alia invert sugar and other sugar and sugar syrup blends with fructose content, in the dry state, of 50 % by weight, not classified under other subheadings of heading 1702 of that nomenclature, or under subheading 2912 49 00 thereof, which refers to ‘other’ aldehyde-alcohols, aldehyde-ethers, aldehyde-phenols and aldehydes with other oxygen function, but under subheading 3824 90 92 of that nomenclature, which refers to ‘Chemical products or preparations, predominantly composed of organic compounds, not elsewhere specified or included’, ‘in the form of a liquid at 20 oC’, provided that any potential nutritive value of that solution is merely incidental to that solution’s function as a chemical product and food additive.

---

(1)  OJ C 54, 17.2.2020.

---

| 19.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 June 2021 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Bankia SA v Unión Mutua Asistencial de Seguros (UMAS)

(Case C-910/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2003/71/EC - Prospectus when securities are offered to the public or admitted to trading - Article 3(2) - Article 6 - Offer addressed to both retail investors and qualified investors - Content of information given in the prospectus - Action for damages - Retail investors and qualified investors - Awareness of the issuer’s economic situation)

(2021/C 289/13)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bankia SA

Defendant: Unión Mutua Asistencial de Seguros (UMAS)

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 6 of Directive 2003/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 on the prospectus to be published when securities are offered to the public or admitted to trading and amending Directive 2001/34/EC, as amended by Directive 2008/11/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2008, read in conjunction with Article 3(2)(a) of that directive, as amended by Directive 2008/11, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of an offer of shares to the public for subscription which is addressed to both retail investors and qualified investors, an action for damages on the grounds of the information given in the prospectus may be brought not only by retail investors but also by qualified investors; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 6 of Directive 2003/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 on the prospectus to be published when securities are offered to the public or admitted to trading and amending Directive 2001/34/EC, as amended by Directive 2008/11/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2008, read in conjunction with Article 3(2)(a) of that directive, as amended by Directive 2008/11, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of an offer of shares to the public for subscription which is addressed to both retail investors and qualified investors, an action for damages on the grounds of the information given in the prospectus may be brought not only by retail investors but also by qualified investors;

| 2. | Article 6(2) of Directive 2003/71, as amended by Directive 2008/11, must be interpreted as not precluding provisions of national law which, in the context of an action for damages brought by a qualified investor on the grounds of the information given in the prospectus, allow, or even require, the court to take account of the fact that that investor was, or ought to have been, aware of the economic situation of the issuer of the offer of shares to the public, on the basis of its relations with that issuer and otherwise than through the prospectus, in so far as those provisions are no less favourable than those governing similar actions under national law and do not, in practice, make it impossible or excessively difficult to bring that action. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 6(2) of Directive 2003/71, as amended by Directive 2008/11, must be interpreted as not precluding provisions of national law which, in the context of an action for damages brought by a qualified investor on the grounds of the information given in the prospectus, allow, or even require, the court to take account of the fact that that investor was, or ought to have been, aware of the economic situation of the issuer of the offer of shares to the public, on the basis of its relations with that issuer and otherwise than through the prospectus, in so far as those provisions are no less favourable than those governing similar actions under national law and do not, in practice, make it impossible or excessively difficult to bring that action.

---

(1)  OJ C 95, 23.3.2020.

---

| 19.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 3 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Ministero della Giustizia v GN

(Case C-914/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Principle of equal treatment in employment and occupation - Directive 2000/78/EC - Article 6(1) - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 21 - Prohibition of all discrimination on the basis of age - National legislation setting 50 years of age as the age limit for access to the profession of notary - Justification)

(2021/C 289/14)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Ministero della Giustizia

Respondent: GN

Intervening parties: HM, JL, JJ

Operative part of the judgment

Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 6(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which sets 50 years of age as the age limit for participation in the competition for access to the profession of notary, in so far as such legislation does not appear to pursue the aims of ensuring that that profession is practised in a stable manner for a significant period before retirement, of safeguarding the proper functioning of notarial privileges and of facilitating the natural turnover and rejuvenation of that profession and, in any event, goes beyond what is necessary to achieve those aims, which is a matter for the referring court to determine.

---

(1)  OJ C 87, 16.3.2020.

---

| 19.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 3 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzgericht — Austria) — Titanium Ltd v Finanzamt Österreich, formerly Finanzamt Wien

(Case C-931/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 43 and 45 - Directive 2006/112/EC, as amended by Directive 2008/8/EC - Articles 44, 45 and 47 - Provision of services - Point of reference for tax purposes - Concept of a ‘fixed establishment’ - Letting a property in a Member State - Owner of a property with its registered office on the island of Jersey)

(2021/C 289/15)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Titanium Ltd

Defendant: Finanzamt Österreich, formerly Finanzamt Wien

Operative part of the judgment

A property which is let in a Member State, in the circumstance where the owner of that property does not have his or her own staff to perform services relating to the letting does not constitute a fixed establishment within the meaning of Article 43 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax and of Articles 44 and 45 of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Council Directive 2008/8/EC of 12 February 2008.

---

(1)  OJ C 87, 16.3.2020.

---

| 19.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 3 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Aragón — Spain) — Servicio Aragonés de Salud v LB

(Case C-942/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Clause 4 - Principle of non-discrimination - Rejection of a request for leave of absence by reason of employment in the public sector provided for permanent staff regulated under administrative law - National legislation excluding entitlement to such leave when taking up temporary employment - Scope - Inapplicability of clause 4 - Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

(2021/C 289/16)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Aragón

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Servicio Aragonés de Salud

Respondent: LB

Operative part of the judgment

The Court of Justice of the European Union has no jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Aragón (High Court of Justice, Aragon, Spain), in its order for reference of 17 December 2019.

---

(1)  OJ C 103, 30.3.2020.

---

| 19.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Jumbocarry Trading GmbH

(Case C-39/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 - Union Customs Code - First subparagraph of Article 22(6), read in conjunction with Article 29 - Communication of the grounds to the person concerned before taking a decision which would adversely affect that person - Article 103(1) and Article 103(3)(b) - Limitation of the customs debt - Period for notification of the customs debt - Suspension of the period - Article 124(1)(a) - Extinguishment of the customs debt where it is time-barred - Temporal application of the provision governing the grounds for suspension - Principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations)

(2021/C 289/17)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant in the appeal on a point of law: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Jumbocarry Trading GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 103(3)(b) and Article 124(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code, read in the light of the principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations, must be interpreted as applying to a customs debt incurred before 1 May 2016 and not yet time-barred at that date.

---

(1)  OJ C 201, 15.6.2020.

---

| 19.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna — Bulgaria) — ‘BalevBio’ EOOD v Teritorialna direktsia Severna morska, Agentsia ‘Mitnitsi’

(Case C-76/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common customs tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Goods made of different materials - Plant fibres - Melamine resin - Headings 3924 and 4419 - Goods described as ‘bamboo beakers’)

(2021/C 289/18)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad — Varna

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘BalevBio’ EOOD

Defendant: Teritorialna direktsia Severna morska, Agentsia ‘Mitnitsi’

Intervener: Okrazhna prokuratura — Varnenska

Operative part of the judgment

The Combined Nomenclature set out in 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, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation 2016/1821 of 6 October 2016, must be interpreted as meaning that goods described as ‘bamboo beakers’, made up of 72,33 % plant fibres and 25,2 % melamine resin, must, subject to the referring court’s assessment of all the facts available to it, be classified under heading 3924 of that nomenclature, in particular under subheading 3924 10 00.

---

(1)  OJ C 161, 11.5.2020.

---

| 19.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Suceava — Romania) — BE, DT v Administraţia Judeţeană a Finanţelor Publice Suceava, Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Iaşi, Accer Ipurl Suceava — acting as court-appointed liquidator of BE, EP

(Case C-182/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Right to deduct - Adjustment of deductions - Insolvency proceedings - National legislation providing for automatic refusal to allow deduction of VAT in respect of taxable transactions that occurred prior to the initiation of those proceedings)

(2021/C 289/19)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Suceava

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: BE, DT

Defendants: Administraţia Judeţeană a Finanţelor Publice Suceava, Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Iaşi, Accer Ipurl Suceava — acting as court-appointed liquidator of BE, EP

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 184 to 186 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as precluding national legislation or practice whereby the initiation of insolvency proceedings in respect of an economic operator, entailing the liquidation of its assets for the benefit of its creditors, automatically places an obligation on that operator to adjust the value added tax deductions which it has made in respect of goods and services acquired before it was declared insolvent, where the initiation of those proceedings is not such as to prevent that operator’s economic activity, within the meaning of Article 9 of that directive, from being continued, in particular for the purposes of the liquidation of the undertaking concerned.

---

(1)  OJ C 297, 7.9.2020.

---

| 19.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/15

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — BY, CX, FU, DW, EV v Stadt Duisburg

(Case C-194/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Decision No 1/80 - Articles 6 and 7 - Legal employment - Article 9 - Access to education for children of a Turkish worker - Right of residence - Refusal)

(2021/C 289/20)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: BY, CX, FU, DW, EV

Defendant: Stadt Duisburg

Operative part of the judgment

The first sentence of Article 9 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey must be interpreted as meaning that it cannot be relied on by Turkish children whose parents do not satisfy the conditions laid down in Articles 6 and 7 of that decision.

---

(1)  OJ C 262, 10.8.2020.

---

| 19.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/15

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 3 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Rad Service Srl Unipersonale, Cosmo Ambiente Srl, Cosmo Scavi Srl v Del Debbio SpA, Gruppo Sei Srl, Ciclat Val di Cecina Soc. Coop., DAF Costruzioni stradali Srl

(Case C-210/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement of service, supply and works contracts - Directive 2014/24/EU - Conduct of the tendering procedure - Choice of participants and award of contracts - Article 63 - Tenderer relying on the capacities of another entity in order to meet the requirements of the contracting authority - Article 57(4), (6) and (7) - Untruthful declarations submitted by that entity - Exclusion of that tenderer without requiring or permitting it to replace that entity - Principle of proportionality)

(2021/C 289/21)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Rad Service Srl Unipersonale, Cosmo Ambiente Srl, Cosmo Scavi Srl

Defendants: Del Debbio SpA, Gruppo Sei Srl, Ciclat Val di Cecina Soc. Coop., DAF Costruzioni stradali Srl

other party: Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale USL Toscana Centro

Operative part of the judgment

Article 63 of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC, read in conjunction with Article 57(4)(h) of that directive and in the light of the principle of proportionality, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which the contracting authority must automatically exclude a tenderer from a public procurement procedure in the case where an ancillary undertaking on whose capacities that tenderer intends to rely made an untruthful declaration as to the existence of criminal convictions that have become final, without being able to require or, at the very least, in such a case, permit that tenderer to replace that entity.

---

(1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2020.

---

| 19.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski Rayonen sad — Bulgaria) — ZN v Generalno konsulstvo na Republika Bulgaria v grad Valensia, Kralstvo Ispania

(Case C-280/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Determination of international jurisdiction of the courts of a Member State - Article 5(1) - Employee residing in a Member State - Contract concluded with a consular representation of that Member State in another Member State - Functions of the employee - No exercise of public powers)

(2021/C 289/22)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski Rayonen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ZN

Defendant: Generalno konsulstvo na Republika Bulgaria v grad Valensia, Kralstvo Ispania

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(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, read in conjunction with recital 3 of that regulation, must be interpreted as meaning that it applies for the purposes of determining the international jurisdiction of the courts of a Member State to hear and rule on a dispute between an employee from a Member State who does not carry out duties involving the exercise of public powers and a consular authority of that Member State situated in the territory of another Member State.

---

(1)  OJ C 287, 31.8.2020.

---

| 19.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/17

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Galați — Romania) — XU, YV, ZW, AU, BZ, CA, DB, EC, NL v SC Credit Europe Ipotecar IFN SA, Credit Europe Bank NV

(Case C-364/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Consumer protection - Unfair terms - Directive 93/13/EEC - Article 1(2) - Exclusion from the scope of that directive of contractual terms which reflect mandatory provisions of national law - Article 4(2) - Exception to the assessment of whether a term is unfair - Credit agreement denominated in a foreign currency - Alleged infringement of the obligation of information borne by a seller or supplier - Examination to be carried out by the national court as a matter of priority in the light of Article 1(2))

(2021/C 289/23)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Galați

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: XU, YV, ZW, AU, BZ, CA, DB, EC, NL

Defendants: SC Credit Europe Ipotecar IFN SA, Credit Europe Bank NV

Operative part of the order

Article 1(2) and Article 4(2) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that, where a court of a Member State is hearing a dispute relating to an allegedly unfair contractual term which reflects a provision of national law which is supplementary in nature, it is required to examine, as a matter of priority, the effect of the exclusion from the scope of that directive laid down in Article 1(2) thereof, and not the effect of the exception to the assessment of whether contractual terms are unfair provided for in Article 4(2) of that directive.

---

(1)  OJ C 288, 26.8.2019.

---

| 19.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/17

---

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 14 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Berlin-Brandenburg — Germany) — HR v Finanzamt Wilmersdorf

(Case C-108/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 167 and 168 - Right to deduct input VAT - Refusal - Fraud - Supply chain - Refusal of the right to deduct where the taxable person knew or should have known that, by his or her purchase, he or she was participating in a transaction connected to VAT fraud)

(2021/C 289/24)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Berlin-Brandenburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant HR

Defendant: Finanzamt Wilmersdorf

Operative part of the order

Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as not precluding a national practice whereby the right to deduct input value added tax (VAT) paid is refused to a taxable person who has acquired goods having been the subject of input VAT fraud committed upstream in the supply chain and who knew or should have known of it, even though he or she did not actively participate in that fraud.

---

(1)  OJ C 201, 15.6.2020.

---

| 19.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/18

---

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 23 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Mons — Belgium) — Centre d’Enseignement Secondaire Saint-Vincent de Soignies ASBL v FS

(Case C-471/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) and Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Social policy - Protection of the safety and health of workers - Organisation of working time - Directive 2003/88/EC - Maximum weekly working time - Reference period - Article 16 - Derogations - Articles 17 and 18 - Supervisor-teacher at a boarding school undertaking night duty - Compensatory rest conditions)

(2021/C 289/25)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour du travail de Mons

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Centre d'Enseignement Secondaire Saint-Vincent de Soignies ASBL

Defendant: FS

Operative part of the order

Article 17(3)(b) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time must be interpreted as meaning that the work of a teacher at a boarding school, who is responsible for the supervision of boarders during the night, falls within the scope of that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 9, 11.1.2021.

---

| 19.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/19

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Parma — Italy) — Casa di Cura Città di Parma SpA v Agenzia delle Entrate

(Case C-573/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 53(2) and 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Taxation - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC - Article 17(2)(a) - Mixed taxable person - Deductible proportion - Public or private health structures carrying out exempt activities - National legislation excluding the deduction of VAT relating to the purchase of goods or services used for the requirements of those exempt activities)

(2021/C 289/26)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione tributaria provinciale di Parma

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Casa di Cura Città di Parma SpA

Defendant: Agenzia delle Entrate

Operative part of the order

Article 17(2)(a) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which does not permit the deduction of input value added tax (VAT) paid for the purchase of goods and services used for the requirements of exempt activities and which provides, consequently, that the right of a mixed taxable person to deduct VAT is calculated on the basis of a proportion corresponding to the ratio of the amount of the transactions in respect of which there is a right to deduct and the total amount of the transactions carried out over the course of the year concerned, including the exempt medical-healthcare services.

---

(1)  OJ C 35, 1.2.2021.

---

| 19.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/19

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Markkinaoikeus — Finland) — Kuluttaja-asiamies v MiGame Oy

(Case C-594/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Directive 2011/83/EU - Consumer contracts - Article 21 - ‘Communication by telephone’ - Telephone line operated by a trader so that consumers may contact it for matters relating to a previously concluded contract - Provision by a company, as part of the after-sales service for previously concluded contracts, of two telephone lines, namely a premium-rate landline and a mobile telephone line that is free of charge - Media content targeted at customers - Acceptability of a helpline which charges customers at a rate exceeding the basic rate - Concept of ‘basic rate’)

(2021/C 289/27)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Markkinaoikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Kuluttaja-asiamies

Defendant: MiGame Oy

Operative part of the order

The first subparagraph of Article 21 of 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 must be interpreted as precluding a trader from providing customers with, in addition to a telephone number charged at no more than the basic rate, a telephone number charged at a rate exceeding that rate which may be used by consumers who concluded a contract with that trader.

---

(1)  OJ C 35, 1.2.2021.

---

| 19.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/20

---

Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Liège — Belgium) — VW v Agence fédérale pour l’Accueil des demandeurs d’asile (Fedasil)

(Case C-92/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Border controls, asylum and immigration - Asylum policy - Criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection - Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 (Dublin III) - Article 27 - Remedies against a transfer decision - Suspensive effect of the remedy - Article 29 - Modalities and time limits for transfers - Standards for the reception of applicants for international protection - Directive 2013/33/EU - Article 18 - National measure allocating to an applicant in respect of whom a transfer decision has been made a place in a specific reception facility where those accommodated receive support in preparing to be transferred)

(2021/C 289/28)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal du travail de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: VW

Defendant: Agence fédérale pour l’Accueil des demandeurs d’asile (Fedasil)

Operative part of the order

Article 27 of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person, is to be interpreted as not precluding a Member State from adopting, in relation to an applicant who has brought an appeal against a decision to transfer him to another Member State as referred to in Article 26(1) of that regulation, measures preparatory to such a transfer, such as the allocation of a place in a specific reception facility where those accommodated receive support in preparing for their transfer.

---

(1)  OJ C 138, 19.4.2021.

---

| 19.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/21

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Timișoara (Romania) lodged on 26 January 2021 — T.A.C. v ANI

(Case C-40/21)

(2021/C 289/29)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Timișoara

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: T.A.C.

Defendant: ANI

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the principle of the proportionality of penalties, enshrined in Article 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to be interpreted as also applying to facts other than those which are formally defined as criminal offences under national law, but which may be regarded as ‘criminal charges’ within the meaning of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, in the light of the criteria developed by the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, in particular the criterion of the severity of the penalty, as in the case in the main proceedings in so far as concerns the appraisal of conflicts of interests which may result in the application of an additional penalty consisting in a prohibition on holding elective public office for a period of three years? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the principle of the proportionality of penalties, enshrined in Article 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to be interpreted as also applying to facts other than those which are formally defined as criminal offences under national law, but which may be regarded as ‘criminal charges’ within the meaning of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, in the light of the criteria developed by the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, in particular the criterion of the severity of the penalty, as in the case in the main proceedings in so far as concerns the appraisal of conflicts of interests which may result in the application of an additional penalty consisting in a prohibition on holding elective public office for a period of three years?

| 2. | In the event that the first question is answered in the affirmative, is the principle of the proportionality of penalties, enshrined in Article 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to be interpreted as precluding a provision of national implementing law pursuant to which, in the case where a person holding an elective public office is found to have acted under a conflict of interests, an additional penalty consisting in a prohibition on holding elective public office for a period of three years applies automatically, by operation of law, without there being any possibility of imposing a penalty that is proportionate to the infringement committed? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the event that the first question is answered in the affirmative, is the principle of the proportionality of penalties, enshrined in Article 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to be interpreted as precluding a provision of national implementing law pursuant to which, in the case where a person holding an elective public office is found to have acted under a conflict of interests, an additional penalty consisting in a prohibition on holding elective public office for a period of three years applies automatically, by operation of law, without there being any possibility of imposing a penalty that is proportionate to the infringement committed?

| 3. | Are the right to engage in work, guaranteed by Article 15(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial, guaranteed by Article 47 of the Charter, to be interpreted a precluding a provision of national implementing law pursuant to which, in the case where a person holding an elective public office is found to have acted under a conflict of interests, an additional penalty consisting in a prohibition on holding elective public office for a period of three years applies automatically, by operation of law, without there being any possibility of imposing a penalty that is proportionate to the infringement committed? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Are the right to engage in work, guaranteed by Article 15(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial, guaranteed by Article 47 of the Charter, to be interpreted a precluding a provision of national implementing law pursuant to which, in the case where a person holding an elective public office is found to have acted under a conflict of interests, an additional penalty consisting in a prohibition on holding elective public office for a period of three years applies automatically, by operation of law, without there being any possibility of imposing a penalty that is proportionate to the infringement committed?

---

| 19.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/21

---

Appeal brought on 22 February 2021 by H.R. Participations SA against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 16 December 2020 in Case T-535/19, H.R. Participations v EUIPO — Hottinger Investment Management (JCE HOTTINGUER)

(Case C-109/21 P)

(2021/C 289/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: H.R. Participations SA (represented by: P. Wilhelm and J. Rossi, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Hottinger Investment Management Ltd

By order of 2 June 2021, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal was not allowed to proceed and that H.R. Participations SA should bear its own costs.

---

| 19.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/22

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Katowicach (Poland) lodged on 23 March 2021 — G. v M.S.

(Case C-181/21)

(2021/C 289/31)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Katowicach

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: G.

Defendant: M.S.

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Articles 2 and 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union (‘the TEU’) and Article 6(1) to (3) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (‘the CFR’), be interpreted as meaning that:






  (a) | where a court includes in its composition a person appointed to a judicial post in that court as a result of a procedure which does not provide for the participation of judicial self-government bodies, which bodies are appointed largely independently of the executive and the legislature, in a situation where, in the light of the constitutional acquis of the Member State, the participation of a judicial self-government body meeting those requirements in the judicial appointment procedure is necessary, that court is not a tribunal established by law within the meaning of European Union law, having regard to the institutional and structural context and given that:






  — | there was a requirement for an assembly of judges to give an opinion on the candidate’s suitability for the judicial post, which requirement was deliberately disregarded contrary to national law and the position of that judicial self-government body; |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.

Must Articles 2 and 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union (‘the TEU’) and Article 6(1) to (3) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (‘the CFR’), be interpreted as meaning that:

(a)

where a court includes in its composition a person appointed to a judicial post in that court as a result of a procedure which does not provide for the participation of judicial self-government bodies, which bodies are appointed largely independently of the executive and the legislature, in a situation where, in the light of the constitutional acquis of the Member State, the participation of a judicial self-government body meeting those requirements in the judicial appointment procedure is necessary, that court is not a tribunal established by law within the meaning of European Union law, having regard to the institutional and structural context and given that:

—

there was a requirement for an assembly of judges to give an opinion on the candidate’s suitability for the judicial post, which requirement was deliberately disregarded contrary to national law and the position of that judicial self-government body;

| — | the current Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa (National Council of the Judiciary), which was elected contrary to Polish constitutional and statutory provisions, is not an independent body and no representatives of the judiciary were elected to it independently of the executive and the legislature, and therefore no motion for appointment to the post of judge was effectively lodged as required under national law; |
| --- | --- |

—

the current Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa (National Council of the Judiciary), which was elected contrary to Polish constitutional and statutory provisions, is not an independent body and no representatives of the judiciary were elected to it independently of the executive and the legislature, and therefore no motion for appointment to the post of judge was effectively lodged as required under national law;

| — | the participants in the competition for appointment to the post had no right of appeal to a court within the meaning of Articles 2 and 19(1) TEU and Article 6(1) to (3) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. |
| --- | --- |

—

the participants in the competition for appointment to the post had no right of appeal to a court within the meaning of Articles 2 and 19(1) TEU and Article 6(1) to (3) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

| (b) | where a court includes in its composition a person appointed to a judicial post in that court as a result of a procedure which is subject to arbitrary interference by the executive and omits the participation of judicial self-government bodies, which bodies are appointed largely independently of the executive and the legislature, or of another body ensuring an objective assessment of the candidate, in view of the fact that the participation of judicial self-government bodies or of another body independent of the executive and the legislature which ensures an objective assessment of the candidate in the judicial appointment procedure is, in the context of the European legal tradition which is rooted in the aforementioned provisions of the TEU and the CFR and which underpins a union of law such as the European Union, necessary to ensure that the national court guarantees the required level of effective judicial protection in cases governed by European Union law, and consequently that the principles of separation and balance of powers and of the rule of law are safeguarded, that court does not satisfy the requirements of an independent tribunal established by law; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

where a court includes in its composition a person appointed to a judicial post in that court as a result of a procedure which is subject to arbitrary interference by the executive and omits the participation of judicial self-government bodies, which bodies are appointed largely independently of the executive and the legislature, or of another body ensuring an objective assessment of the candidate, in view of the fact that the participation of judicial self-government bodies or of another body independent of the executive and the legislature which ensures an objective assessment of the candidate in the judicial appointment procedure is, in the context of the European legal tradition which is rooted in the aforementioned provisions of the TEU and the CFR and which underpins a union of law such as the European Union, necessary to ensure that the national court guarantees the required level of effective judicial protection in cases governed by European Union law, and consequently that the principles of separation and balance of powers and of the rule of law are safeguarded, that court does not satisfy the requirements of an independent tribunal established by law;

| 2. | Must Article 2 and Article 19(1) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the CFR, be interpreted as meaning that, where a court includes in its composition a person appointed in the circumstances described in point 1 above:






  (a) | those provisions preclude the application of provisions of national law which place the review of the lawfulness of the appointment of such a person to a judicial post within the exclusive jurisdiction of a chamber of the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court, Poland) which is composed exclusively of persons appointed to judicial posts in the circumstances described in point 1 above and which provisions of national law also require that any objections concerning the appointment to a judicial post be disregarded, having regard to the institutional and systemic context; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Must Article 2 and Article 19(1) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the CFR, be interpreted as meaning that, where a court includes in its composition a person appointed in the circumstances described in point 1 above:

(a)

those provisions preclude the application of provisions of national law which place the review of the lawfulness of the appointment of such a person to a judicial post within the exclusive jurisdiction of a chamber of the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court, Poland) which is composed exclusively of persons appointed to judicial posts in the circumstances described in point 1 above and which provisions of national law also require that any objections concerning the appointment to a judicial post be disregarded, having regard to the institutional and systemic context;

| (b) | those provisions require, in order to ensure the effectiveness of European Union law, provisions of national law to be interpreted in a manner that allows a court to exclude, of its own motion, such a person from hearing the case on the basis of the rules, applicable by analogy, which govern the exclusion of a judge who is incapable of deciding cases (iudex inhabilis). |
| --- | --- |

(b)

those provisions require, in order to ensure the effectiveness of European Union law, provisions of national law to be interpreted in a manner that allows a court to exclude, of its own motion, such a person from hearing the case on the basis of the rules, applicable by analogy, which govern the exclusion of a judge who is incapable of deciding cases (iudex inhabilis).

---

| 19.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/23

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Woli w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 23 March 2021 — K.D. v Towarzystwo Ubezpieczeń Ż S.A.

(Case C-208/21)

(2021/C 289/32)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Woli w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: K.D.

Defendant: Towarzystwo Ubezpieczeń Ż S.A.

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 3(1) of Directive 2005/29/EC, (1) in conjunction with Article 2(d) thereof, be interpreted as concentrating the meaning of the term ‘unfair commercial practice’ only around the circumstances relating to the conclusion of a contract and the presentation of the product to the consumer, or must the formulation, by the trader who is creator of the product, of the misleading standard contract which underlies the functioning of the sales offering prepared by another trader, and is therefore not directly related to the marketing of the product, also be understood as falling with the scope of the directive and thus the term ‘unfair commercial practice’? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 3(1) of Directive 2005/29/EC, (1) in conjunction with Article 2(d) thereof, be interpreted as concentrating the meaning of the term ‘unfair commercial practice’ only around the circumstances relating to the conclusion of a contract and the presentation of the product to the consumer, or must the formulation, by the trader who is creator of the product, of the misleading standard contract which underlies the functioning of the sales offering prepared by another trader, and is therefore not directly related to the marketing of the product, also be understood as falling with the scope of the directive and thus the term ‘unfair commercial practice’?

| 2. | If the first question is answered in the affirmative, must it be concluded that the trader responsible under Directive 2005/29/EC for the use of an unfair commercial practice is the trader responsible for formulating the misleading standard contract or the trader who, on the basis of that standard contract, presents the product to the consumer and is directly responsible for marketing the product, or must it be concluded that both traders bear responsibility under Directive 2005/29/EC? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the first question is answered in the affirmative, must it be concluded that the trader responsible under Directive 2005/29/EC for the use of an unfair commercial practice is the trader responsible for formulating the misleading standard contract or the trader who, on the basis of that standard contract, presents the product to the consumer and is directly responsible for marketing the product, or must it be concluded that both traders bear responsibility under Directive 2005/29/EC?

| 3. | Does Article 3(2) of Directive 2005/29/EC preclude a rule of national law (interpretation of national law), which confers on the consumer the right to apply for annulment by a national court of a contract concluded with a trader, with mutual refund of payments, where the consumer’s declaration of intent to conclude the contract was made under the influence of the trader’s unfair commercial practice? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does Article 3(2) of Directive 2005/29/EC preclude a rule of national law (interpretation of national law), which confers on the consumer the right to apply for annulment by a national court of a contract concluded with a trader, with mutual refund of payments, where the consumer’s declaration of intent to conclude the contract was made under the influence of the trader’s unfair commercial practice?

| 4. | If the third question is answered in the affirmative, must it be held that the appropriate legal basis for assessing the action of a trader, consisting in the use of unintelligible and unclear standard contract in relation to a consumer, will be Directive 93/13, (2) and consequently must the requirement that contractual terms be drafted in plain, intelligible language, laid down in Article 5 of Directive 93/13, be interpreted as meaning that in unit-linked assurance contracts concluded with consumers this requirement is met by a non-individually negotiated contractual term which does expressly define the scale of the investment risk during the term of the assurance contract and merely provides information about the possibility of the loss of part of the first premium paid and on-going premiums in the event of withdrawal from the assurance before the end of the liability period? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If the third question is answered in the affirmative, must it be held that the appropriate legal basis for assessing the action of a trader, consisting in the use of unintelligible and unclear standard contract in relation to a consumer, will be Directive 93/13, (2) and consequently must the requirement that contractual terms be drafted in plain, intelligible language, laid down in Article 5 of Directive 93/13, be interpreted as meaning that in unit-linked assurance contracts concluded with consumers this requirement is met by a non-individually negotiated contractual term which does expressly define the scale of the investment risk during the term of the assurance contract and merely provides information about the possibility of the loss of part of the first premium paid and on-going premiums in the event of withdrawal from the assurance before the end of the liability period?

---

(1)  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.

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

---

| 19.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/24

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 6 April 2021 — Italy Emergenza Cooperativa Sociale v Azienda Sanitaria Locale Barletta-Andria-Trani

(Case C-213/21)

(2021/C 289/33)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant and appellant: Italy Emergenza Cooperativa Sociale

Defendant and respondent: Azienda Sanitaria Locale Barletta-Andria-Trani

Question referred

Does Article 10(h) of Directive 2014/24/EU (1) — together with recital 28 of that directive — preclude national legislation which provides that contracts for the provision of emergency ambulance transport services may be directly awarded, on a preferential basis, solely to voluntary organisations — provided that they have been registered for at least six months in the national third sector register, belong to a network of associations and are accredited under the relevant sectoral regional legislation (if any) and on the condition that such an award ensures that the service can be provided within a framework of effective contributions to social goals, which pursues objectives of solidarity, in an economically efficient and appropriate manner and in accordance with the principles of transparency and non-discrimination — to the exclusion of other non-profit organisations, and more specifically social cooperatives, such as non-profit-making social enterprises?

---

(1)  Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65).

---

| 19.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/24

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 6 April 2021 — Italy Emergenza Cooperativa Sociale v Azienda Sanitaria Provinciale di Cosenza

(Case C-214/21)

(2021/C 289/34)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant and appellant: Italy Emergenza Cooperativa Sociale

Defendant and respondent: Azienda Sanitaria Provinciale di Cosenza

Intervener: ANPAS — Associazione Nazionale Pubbliche Assistenze Odv

Question referred

Does Article 10(h) of Directive 2014/24/EU (1) — together with recital 28 of that directive — preclude national legislation which provides that contracts for the provision of emergency ambulance transport services may be directly awarded, on a preferential basis, solely to voluntary organisations — provided that they have been registered for at least six months in the national third sector register, belong to a network of associations and are accredited under the relevant sectoral regional legislation (if any) and on the condition that such an award ensures that the service can be provided within a framework of effective contributions to social goals, which pursues objectives of solidarity, in an economically efficient and appropriate manner and in accordance with the principles of transparency and non-discrimination — to the exclusion of other non-profit organisations, and more specifically social cooperatives, such as non-profit-making social enterprises, including social cooperatives which offer rebates to their members in relation to activities of general interest, within the meaning of Article 3(2a) of Legislative Decree No 112/2017?

---

(1)  Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65).

---

| 19.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/25

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 14 April 2021 — TOYA Sp. z o.o., Polska Izba Informatyki i Telekomunikacji v Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej

(Case C-243/21)

(2021/C 289/35)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: TOYA Sp. z o.o., Polska Izba Informatyki i Telekomunikacji

Defendant: Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 8(3) of Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities, (1) read in conjunction with Article 3(5) and Article 1(3) and (4) of Directive 2014/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on measures to reduce the cost of deploying high-speed electronic communications networks (2) be interpreted as precluding a national regulatory authority from imposing on an operator which owns physical infrastructure and is at the same time a provider of publicly available electronic communications services or networks, but has not been designated as having significant market power, the obligation to apply the conditions for access to that operator’s physical infrastructure determined ex ante by that authority, including the rules and procedures for entering into contracts and the applicable access fees, irrespective of the existence of a dispute over access to that operator’s physical infrastructure and the existence of effective competition in the market?
  Alternatively (version II): |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 8(3) of Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities, (1) read in conjunction with Article 3(5) and Article 1(3) and (4) of Directive 2014/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on measures to reduce the cost of deploying high-speed electronic communications networks (2) be interpreted as precluding a national regulatory authority from imposing on an operator which owns physical infrastructure and is at the same time a provider of publicly available electronic communications services or networks, but has not been designated as having significant market power, the obligation to apply the conditions for access to that operator’s physical infrastructure determined ex ante by that authority, including the rules and procedures for entering into contracts and the applicable access fees, irrespective of the existence of a dispute over access to that operator’s physical infrastructure and the existence of effective competition in the market?

Alternatively (version II):

| 2. | Must Article 67(1) and (3) read in conjunction with Article 68(2) and (3) of Directive 2018/1972 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 establishing the European Electronic Communications Code, (3) read in conjunction with Article 3(5) and Article 1(3) and (4) of Directive 2014/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on measures to reduce the cost of deploying high-speed electronic communications networks be interpreted as precluding a national regulatory authority from imposing on an operator which owns physical infrastructure and is at the same time a provider of publicly available electronic communications services or networks, but has not been designated as having significant market power, the obligation to apply the conditions for access to that operator’s physical infrastructure determined ex ante by that authority, including the rules and procedures for entering into contracts and the applicable access fees, irrespective of the existence of a dispute over access to that operator’s physical infrastructure and the existence of effective competition in the market? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must Article 67(1) and (3) read in conjunction with Article 68(2) and (3) of Directive 2018/1972 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 establishing the European Electronic Communications Code, (3) read in conjunction with Article 3(5) and Article 1(3) and (4) of Directive 2014/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on measures to reduce the cost of deploying high-speed electronic communications networks be interpreted as precluding a national regulatory authority from imposing on an operator which owns physical infrastructure and is at the same time a provider of publicly available electronic communications services or networks, but has not been designated as having significant market power, the obligation to apply the conditions for access to that operator’s physical infrastructure determined ex ante by that authority, including the rules and procedures for entering into contracts and the applicable access fees, irrespective of the existence of a dispute over access to that operator’s physical infrastructure and the existence of effective competition in the market?

---

(1)  OJ 2002 L 108, p. 7.

(2)  OJ 2014 L 155, p. 1.

(3)  OJ 2018 L 321, p. 36.

---

| 19.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/26

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 21 April 2021 — Szef Krajowej Administracji Skarbowej v O. Fundusz Inwestycyjny Zamknięty represented by O. SA

(Case C-250/21)

(2021/C 289/36)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Szef Krajowej Administracji Skarbowej

Respondent: O. Fundusz Inwestycyjny Zamknięty represented by O. SA

Question referred

Must Article 135(1)(b) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) be interpreted as meaning that the exemption which that provision provides for in respect of transactions concerning the granting and the negotiation of credit and the management of credit is applicable to the subparticipation agreement described in the main proceedings?

---

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

---

| 19.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/26

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 22 April 2021 — TUIfly GmbH v FI, RE

(Case C-253/21)

(2021/C 289/37)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: TUIfly GmbH

Respondents: FI, RE

Question referred

Must Article 5(1)(c)(iii), Article 7(1) and Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) be interpreted as meaning that, in the case where a flight lands at an airport of arrival other than that for which the booking was made, which is not located in the same city, town or region as the airport of arrival for which the booking was made, and the passengers are subsequently transferred from that airport by coach to the airport of arrival for which the original booking was made, which the passengers reach with a delay in arrival of less than three hours, there is a cancellation of the flight?

---

(1)  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 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).

---

| 19.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/27

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Krakowie (Poland) lodged on 27 April 2021 — BC and DC v X

(Case C-269/21)

(2021/C 289/38)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Krakowie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: BC and DC

Defendant: X

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 2 and Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union (‘the TEU’), as well as Article 6(1) to (3) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (‘the CFR’), be interpreted as meaning that:






  (a) | where a court includes in its composition a person appointed to a judicial post in that court as a result of a procedure which does not provide for the participation of judicial self-government bodies, which bodies are appointed largely independently of the executive and the legislature, in a situation where, in the light of the constitutional acquis of the Member State, the participation of a judicial self-government body meeting those requirements in the judicial appointment procedure is necessary, that court is not a tribunal established by law within the meaning of EU law, having regard to the institutional and structural context and given that:






  — | there was a requirement for the college of that court — a body that was composed in such a way that most of its members were appointed by a representative of the executive (the Minister Sprawiedliwości (Minister for Justice), who is also the Prokurator Generalny (Public Prosecutor General)) — to give an opinion on candidates’ suitability for the judicial post; |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 2 and Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union (‘the TEU’), as well as Article 6(1) to (3) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (‘the CFR’), be interpreted as meaning that:

(a)

where a court includes in its composition a person appointed to a judicial post in that court as a result of a procedure which does not provide for the participation of judicial self-government bodies, which bodies are appointed largely independently of the executive and the legislature, in a situation where, in the light of the constitutional acquis of the Member State, the participation of a judicial self-government body meeting those requirements in the judicial appointment procedure is necessary, that court is not a tribunal established by law within the meaning of EU law, having regard to the institutional and structural context and given that:

—

there was a requirement for the college of that court — a body that was composed in such a way that most of its members were appointed by a representative of the executive (the Minister Sprawiedliwości (Minister for Justice), who is also the Prokurator Generalny (Public Prosecutor General)) — to give an opinion on candidates’ suitability for the judicial post;

| — | the current Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa (National Council of the Judiciary), which was elected contrary to Polish constitutional and statutory provisions, is not an independent body and no representatives of the judiciary were elected to it independently of the executive and the legislature, and therefore no motion for appointment to the post of judge was effectively lodged as required under national law; |
| --- | --- |

—

the current Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa (National Council of the Judiciary), which was elected contrary to Polish constitutional and statutory provisions, is not an independent body and no representatives of the judiciary were elected to it independently of the executive and the legislature, and therefore no motion for appointment to the post of judge was effectively lodged as required under national law;

| — | the participants in the competition for appointment to the post had no right of appeal to a court within the meaning of Article 2 and Article 19(1) TEU, as well as Article 6(1) to (3) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the CFR? |
| --- | --- |

—

the participants in the competition for appointment to the post had no right of appeal to a court within the meaning of Article 2 and Article 19(1) TEU, as well as Article 6(1) to (3) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the CFR?

| (b) | where a court includes in its composition a person appointed to a judicial post in that court as a result of a procedure which is subject to arbitrary interference by the executive and omits the participation of judicial self-government bodies, which bodies are appointed largely independently of the executive and the legislature, or of another body ensuring an objective assessment of the candidate, in view of the fact that the participation of judicial self-government bodies or of another body independent of the executive and the legislature which ensures an objective assessment of the candidate in the judicial appointment procedure is, in the context of the European legal tradition which is rooted in the aforementioned provisions of the TEU and the CFR and which underpins a union of law such as the European Union, necessary to ensure that the national court guarantees the required level of effective judicial protection in cases governed by EU law, and consequently that the principles of separation and balance of powers and of the rule of law are safeguarded, that court does not satisfy the requirements of an independent tribunal established by law? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

where a court includes in its composition a person appointed to a judicial post in that court as a result of a procedure which is subject to arbitrary interference by the executive and omits the participation of judicial self-government bodies, which bodies are appointed largely independently of the executive and the legislature, or of another body ensuring an objective assessment of the candidate, in view of the fact that the participation of judicial self-government bodies or of another body independent of the executive and the legislature which ensures an objective assessment of the candidate in the judicial appointment procedure is, in the context of the European legal tradition which is rooted in the aforementioned provisions of the TEU and the CFR and which underpins a union of law such as the European Union, necessary to ensure that the national court guarantees the required level of effective judicial protection in cases governed by EU law, and consequently that the principles of separation and balance of powers and of the rule of law are safeguarded, that court does not satisfy the requirements of an independent tribunal established by law?

| 2. | Must Article 2 and Article 19(1) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the CFR, be interpreted as meaning that, where a court includes in its composition a person appointed in the circumstances described in point 1 above:






  (a) | those provisions preclude the application of provisions of national law which place the review of the lawfulness of the appointment of such a person to a judicial post within the exclusive jurisdiction of a chamber of the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court, Poland) which is composed exclusively of persons appointed to judicial posts in the circumstances described in point 1 above and which provisions of national law also require that any objections concerning the appointment to a judicial post be disregarded, having regard to the institutional and systemic context? |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Must Article 2 and Article 19(1) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the CFR, be interpreted as meaning that, where a court includes in its composition a person appointed in the circumstances described in point 1 above:

(a)

those provisions preclude the application of provisions of national law which place the review of the lawfulness of the appointment of such a person to a judicial post within the exclusive jurisdiction of a chamber of the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court, Poland) which is composed exclusively of persons appointed to judicial posts in the circumstances described in point 1 above and which provisions of national law also require that any objections concerning the appointment to a judicial post be disregarded, having regard to the institutional and systemic context?

| (b) | those provisions require, in order to ensure the effectiveness of EU law, provisions of national law to be interpreted in a manner that allows a court to exclude, of its own motion, such a person from hearing the case on the basis of the rules, applicable by analogy, which govern the exclusion of a judge who is incapable of deciding cases (iudex inhabilis)? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

those provisions require, in order to ensure the effectiveness of EU law, provisions of national law to be interpreted in a manner that allows a court to exclude, of its own motion, such a person from hearing the case on the basis of the rules, applicable by analogy, which govern the exclusion of a judge who is incapable of deciding cases (iudex inhabilis)?

---

| 19.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/28

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria) lodged on 5 May 2021 — IG v Varhoven administrativen sad

(Case C-289/21)

(2021/C 289/39)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Sofia-grad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: IG

Defendant: Varhoven administrativen sad

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the amendment of a provision of a national normative legal act previously declared by a court of appeal to be incompatible with an applicable provision of EU law relieve the Court of Cassation of the obligation to examine the provision applicable prior to the amendment and accordingly to assess whether it is compatible with EU law? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the amendment of a provision of a national normative legal act previously declared by a court of appeal to be incompatible with an applicable provision of EU law relieve the Court of Cassation of the obligation to examine the provision applicable prior to the amendment and accordingly to assess whether it is compatible with EU law?

| 2. | Does the presumption that the provision at issue has been withdrawn constitute an effective remedy with regard to rights and freedoms guaranteed by EU law (in casu, Articles 9 and 10 of Directive 2012/27/EU), (1) or does the possibility provided for in national law to examine whether the national provision in question was compatible with EU law before it was amended constitute such a remedy if it exists only if the competent court is seised of a specific action for damages on account of that provision and only in relation to the person who brought the action? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the presumption that the provision at issue has been withdrawn constitute an effective remedy with regard to rights and freedoms guaranteed by EU law (in casu, Articles 9 and 10 of Directive 2012/27/EU), (1) or does the possibility provided for in national law to examine whether the national provision in question was compatible with EU law before it was amended constitute such a remedy if it exists only if the competent court is seised of a specific action for damages on account of that provision and only in relation to the person who brought the action?

| 3. | If Question 2 is answered in the affirmative, is it permissible for the provision in question to continue to regulate, during the period between its adoption and its amendment, legal relationships in respect of an unlimited group of persons who have not brought actions for damages on account of that provision, or for the assessment of the compatibility of the national rule with the EU law provision in respect of the period prior to the amendment not to have been carried out in relation to those persons? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If Question 2 is answered in the affirmative, is it permissible for the provision in question to continue to regulate, during the period between its adoption and its amendment, legal relationships in respect of an unlimited group of persons who have not brought actions for damages on account of that provision, or for the assessment of the compatibility of the national rule with the EU law provision in respect of the period prior to the amendment not to have been carried out in relation to those persons?

---

(1)  Directive 2012/27/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on energy efficiency, amending Directives 2009/125/EC and 2010/30/EU and repealing Directives 2004/8/EC and 2006/32/EC (OJ 2012 L 315, p. 1).

---

| 19.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/29

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 7 May 2021 — ‘Vittamed technologijos’ UAB, in liquidation v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija

(Case C-293/21)

(2021/C 289/40)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant:‘Vittamed technologijos’ UAB, in liquidation

Respondent: Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija

Question referred

Are Articles 184 to 187 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax to be interpreted as meaning that a taxable person is (or is not) obliged to adjust deductions of value added tax (VAT) charged on the acquisition of goods and services for the purposes of producing capital goods in the case where those goods are no longer intended to be used in the course of taxable economic activities because the owner (shareholder) of the taxable person decides to place it in liquidation and that taxable person submits a request that it be removed from the register of VAT payers? Is the answer to that question affected by the reasons for deciding to liquidate the taxable person, namely the fact that the decision to place that person in liquidation was taken due to growing losses, the absence of orders and the shareholder’s doubts as to the profitability of the planned (intended) economic activity?

---

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

---

| 19.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/29

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 10 May 2021 — Allianz Benelux SA v État belge, SPF Finances

(Case C-295/21)

(2021/C 289/41)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Allianz Benelux SA

Respondent: État belge, SPF Finances

Question referred

Is Article 4(1) of Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States, (1) whether or not read in conjunction with the provisions of Directives 78/855/EEC (Third Directive) (2) and 82/891/EEC (Sixth Directive) (3) on company law, to be interpreted as precluding national legislation which provides that the distributed benefits covered by the Directive are included in the basis of assessment of the company receiving the dividends before 95 % of their total is deducted from that basis and, as the case may be, carried forward to subsequent tax years but which, in the absence of a specific provision stating, in the case of an operation involving the reorganisation of companies, that the deductions thus carried forward in the hand of the transferring company are transferred in full to the receiving company, has the effect that the profits covered are indirectly taxed at the time of that operation on account of the application of a provision which limits the transfer of those deductions in proportion to the share represented by the net tax assets before the operation involving the absorbed parts of the transferring company in the total, once again before the operation, of the net tax assets of the absorbing company and of the net tax value of the absorbed parts?

---

(1)  OJ 1990 L 225, p. 6.

(2)  Third Council Directive 78/855/EEC of 9 October 1978 based on Article 54(3)(g) of the Treaty concerning mergers of public limited liability companies (OJ 1978 L 295, p. 36).

(3)  Sixth Council Directive 82/891/EEC of 17 December 1982 based on Article 54(3)(g) of the Treaty, concerning the division of public limited liability companies (OJ 1982 L 378, p. 47).

---

| 19.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/30

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 7 May 2021 — A

(Case C-296/21)

(2021/C 289/42)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: A

Defendants: Helsingin poliisilaitos and Poliisihallitus

Questions referred

In the case of transfers of deactivated firearms within the Union, taking into account the provisions of Council Directive 91/477/EEC of 18 June 1991 on control of the acquisition and possession of weapons, as amended by Directive 2008/51/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008, and the provisions of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2403 (2) of 15 December 2015 establishing common guidelines on deactivation standards and techniques for ensuring that deactivated firearms are rendered irreversibly inoperable, in particular Article 3(1) of that regulation:

| (a) | can a verifying entity which has been confirmed by a national authority and has issued a deactivation certificate be regarded as an entity within the meaning of the Weapons Directive and Articles 3 and 7 of the Deactivation Regulation even though it is not included in the list published by the Commission pursuant to Article 3(3), where various authorities of that Member State have notified the transferor of the weapons that the verifying entity, operating in the legal form of a limited liability company (GmbH), which issued the certificate is authorised to do so under that regulation; and |
| --- | --- |

(a)

can a verifying entity which has been confirmed by a national authority and has issued a deactivation certificate be regarded as an entity within the meaning of the Weapons Directive and Articles 3 and 7 of the Deactivation Regulation even though it is not included in the list published by the Commission pursuant to Article 3(3), where various authorities of that Member State have notified the transferor of the weapons that the verifying entity, operating in the legal form of a limited liability company (GmbH), which issued the certificate is authorised to do so under that regulation; and

| (b) | can a verifying entity designated by a Member State for the purposes of the deactivation of weapons also be validated by means of other evidence obtained from a national authority instead of by means of inclusion in the list published on the Commission’s website within the meaning of Article 3(3) of the regulation, such that a deactivation certificate issued by that verifying entity meets the requirements laid down in that regulation to the effect that a Member State must recognise a deactivation certificate issued in another Member State in accordance with Article 7(2) of the regulation? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

can a verifying entity designated by a Member State for the purposes of the deactivation of weapons also be validated by means of other evidence obtained from a national authority instead of by means of inclusion in the list published on the Commission’s website within the meaning of Article 3(3) of the regulation, such that a deactivation certificate issued by that verifying entity meets the requirements laid down in that regulation to the effect that a Member State must recognise a deactivation certificate issued in another Member State in accordance with Article 7(2) of the regulation?

---

(1)  Directive 2008/51/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 amending Council Directive 91/477/EEC on control of the acquisition and possession of weapons (OJ 2008 L 179, p. 5).

(2)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2403 of 15 December 2015 establishing common guidelines on deactivation standards and techniques for ensuring that deactivated firearms are rendered irreversibly inoperable (OJ 2015 L 333, p. 62).

---

| 19.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/31

---

Order of the President of the Court of 26 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Amsterdam — Netherlands) — VG v Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken

(Case C-121/20) (1)

(2021/C 289/43)

Language of the case: Dutch

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

---

(1)  OJ C 209, 22.6.2020.

---

| 19.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/31

---

Order of the President of the Court of 26 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Mainz — Germany) — KX v PY GmbH

(Case C-317/20) (1)

(2021/C 289/44)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 348, 19.10.2020.

---

| 19.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/31

---

Order of the President of the Court of 27 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Ravensburg — Germany) — QY v Bank 11 für Privatkunden und Handel GmbH

(Case C-336/20) (1)

(2021/C 289/45)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 423, 7.12.2020.

---

| 19.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/31

---

Order of the President of the Court of 16 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Nürnberg — Germany) — Flightright GmbH (C-442/20, C-443/20 and C-444/20), PN and LM (C-445/20) v Ryanair Designated Activity Company

(Joined Cases C-442/20 to C-445/20) (1)

(2021/C 289/46)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 433, 14.12.2020.

---

| 19.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/32

---

Order of the President of the Court of 11 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Reprensus GmbH v S-V Pavlovi Trejd EOOD

(Case C-591/20) (1)

(2021/C 289/47)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 35, 1.2.2021.

---

General Court

| 19.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 2 June 2021 — Italy v Commission

(Case T-718/17) (1)

(Rules on languages - Notice of Open Competitions for the recruitment of administrators and assistants in the buildings sector - Knowledge of languages - Restriction of the choice of language 2 of the competitions to three languages - Regulation No 1 - Article 1d(1), Article 27 and Article 28(f) of the Staff Regulations - Discrimination based on language - Interests of the service - Proportionality)

(2021/C 289/48)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara, D. Milanowska and L. Vernier, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: S. Jiménez García, acting as Agent)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the Notice of Open Competitions EPSO/AD/342/17 (AD 6) organised to draw up a reserve list of building management engineers (including environmental and services engineers), and EPSO/AST/141/17 (AST 3) organised to draw up a reserve list of, first, building construction coordinators and technicians (profile 1), second, building coordinators and technicians in air conditioning and electromechanical and electrical engineering (profile 2) and, third, occupational safety and building safety assistants (profile 3) (OJ 2017 C 242 A, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the Notice of Open Competitions EPSO/AD/342/17 (AD 6) organised to draw up a reserve list of building management engineers (including environmental and services engineers), and EPSO/AST/141/17 (AST 3) organised to draw up a reserve list of, first, building construction coordinators and technicians (profile 1), second, building coordinators and technicians in air conditioning and electromechanical and electrical engineering (profile 2) and, third, occupational safety and building safety assistants (profile 3); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the Notice of Open Competitions EPSO/AD/342/17 (AD 6) organised to draw up a reserve list of building management engineers (including environmental and services engineers), and EPSO/AST/141/17 (AST 3) organised to draw up a reserve list of, first, building construction coordinators and technicians (profile 1), second, building coordinators and technicians in air conditioning and electromechanical and electrical engineering (profile 2) and, third, occupational safety and building safety assistants (profile 3);

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

2.

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

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

3.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 424, 11.12.2017.

---

| 19.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 2 June 2021 — Italy v Commission

(Case T-71/18) (1)

(Rules on languages - Notice of Open Competition for the recruitment of administrators in the fields of financial economics and macroeconomics - Knowledge of languages - Restriction of the choice of language 2 of the competition to three languages - Regulation No 1 - Article 1d(1), Article 27 and Article 28(f) of the Staff Regulations - Discrimination based on language - Interests of the service - Proportionality)

(2021/C 289/49)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent and P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Vernier, G. Gattinara and D. Milanowska, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: S. Jiménez García, acting as Agent)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the Notice of Open Competition EPSO/AD/339/17 organised to draw up a reserve list of administrators (AD 7) in the following fields: 1. Financial economics and 2. Macroeconomics (OJ 2017 C 386 A, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the Notice of Open Competition EPSO/AD/339/17 organised to draw up a reserve list of administrators (AD 7) in the following fields: 1. Financial economics and 2. Macroeconomics; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the Notice of Open Competition EPSO/AD/339/17 organised to draw up a reserve list of administrators (AD 7) in the following fields: 1. Financial economics and 2. Macroeconomics;

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

2.

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

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

3.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 112, 26.3.2018.

---

| 19.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 2 June 2021 — Style & Taste v EUIPO — The Polo/Lauren Company (Representation of a polo player)

(Case T-169/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark representing a polo player - Earlier national design - Relative ground for invalidity - Article 52(2)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 60(2)(d) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2021/C 289/50)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Style & Taste, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: L. Plaza Fernández-Villa, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: The Polo/Lauren Company LP (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: M. Garayalde Niño, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 January 2019 (Case R 1272/2018-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between Style & Taste and The Polo/Lauren Company.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Style & Taste, SL to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Style & Taste, SL to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 155, 6.5.2019.

---

| 19.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/35

---

Order of the General Court of 2 June 2021 — ClientEarth and Others v Commission

(Case T-436/17) (1)

(REACH - Commission decision granting an authorisation for some uses of lead sulfochromate yellow and of lead chromate molybdate sulfate red - Article 64 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 - Internal review of a marketing authorisation decision - Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 - No longer any legal interest in bringing proceedings - No need to adjudicate)

(2021/C 289/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: ClientEarth, (London, United Kingdom), European Environmental Bureau (EEB) (Brussels, Belgium), The International Chemical Secretariat (Gothenburg, Sweden), International POPs Elimination Network (IPEN) (Gothenburg) (represented by: A. Jones, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara, R. Lindenthal and K. Mifsud-Bonnici, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicants: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: C. Meyer-Seitz, H. Shev, L. Zettergren, A. Alriksson, J. Lundberg and H. Eklinder, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Chemicals Agency (represented by: M. Heikkilä, W. Broere and F. Becker, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment, (i), of Commission Decision C(2017) 2914 final of 2 May 2017, rejecting a request for internal review, made under Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13), of Commission Implementing Decision C(2016) 5644 final granting an authorisation for some uses of lead sulfochromate yellow and of lead chromate molybdate sulfate red under Article 60(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1, corrigendum OJ 2007 L 136, p. 3) and, (ii), of that implementing decision.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The European Commission shall bear its own costs and shall pay those incurred by ClientEarth, European Environmental Bureau (EEB), The International Chemical Secretariat and International POPs Elimination Network (IPEN). |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Commission shall bear its own costs and shall pay those incurred by ClientEarth, European Environmental Bureau (EEB), The International Chemical Secretariat and International POPs Elimination Network (IPEN).

| 3. | The Kingdom of Sweden and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) shall each bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Kingdom of Sweden and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) shall each bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 300, 11.9.2017.

---

| 19.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/36

---

Order of the General Court of 28 May 2021 — Makhlouf v Commission and ECB

(Case T-260/18) (1)

(Non-contractual liability - Economic and monetary policy - Stability support programme for Cyprus - Memorandum of Understanding of 26 April 2013 on Specific Economic Policy Conditionality concluded between the Republic of Cyprus and the European Stability Mechanism - Applicant having ceased to reply to the Court’s requests - No need to adjudicate)

(2021/C 289/52)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Rami Makhlouf (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

Defendants: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, T. Materne and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents), European Central Bank (represented by: O. Heinz, G. Várhelyi and P. Papapaschalis, acting as Agents, and by H.-G. Kamann, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the Memorandum of Understanding of 26 April 2013 on Specific Economic Policy Conditionality concluded between the Republic of Cyprus and the European Stability Mechanism (ESM).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action.

| 2. | Mr Rami Makhlouf shall bear his own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Central Bank (ECB). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Rami Makhlouf shall bear his own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Central Bank (ECB).

| 3. | The European Commission shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The European Commission shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 240, 9.7.2018.

---

| 19.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/37

---

Order of the General Court of 31 May 2021 — König Ludwig International v EUIPO (Royal Bavarian Beer)

(Case T-332/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark Royal Bavarian Beer - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Right to be heard - Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Unitary character of the EU trade mark - Article 1(2) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

(2021/C 289/53)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: König Ludwig International GmbH & Co. KG (Geltendorf, Germany) (represented by: O. Spuhler and J. Stock, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 April 2020 (Case R 1714/2019-4), relating to the international registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark Royal Bavarian Beer.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

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

| 2. | König Ludwig International GmbH & Co. KG shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

König Ludwig International GmbH & Co. KG shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 255, 3.8.2020.

---

| 19.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/37

---

Action brought on 4 May 2021 — Luossavaara-Kiirunavaara v Commission

(Case T-244/21)

(2021/C 289/54)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Luossavaara-Kiirunavaara AB (Luleå, Sweden) (represented by: A. Bryngelsson, F. Sjövall and A. Johansson, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Article 1(3) of the decision of the European Commission of 25 February 2021 concerning national implementation measures for the transitional free allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances in accordance with Article 11(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003; (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Article 1(3) of the decision of the European Commission of 25 February 2021 concerning national implementation measures for the transitional free allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances in accordance with Article 11(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003; (1)

| — | order that the Commission pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order that the Commission pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes the law governing the Emissions Trading System (ETS), in particular Annex 1 to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/331 of 19 December 2018 (2) and Article 10a(1) of Directive 2003/87/EC. (3)







  — | The applicant submits that the contested decision, and in particular its recital 13, Article 1(3), and Annex III, infringes Article 10a(1) of Directive 2003/87/EC and Annex 1 to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/331. The product benchmark for sintered ore set out in Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/331 must be interpreted in conformity with Directive 2003/87/EC, the treaties and general principles of EU law. According to that Directive and case-law, substitute products and alternative production methods should be included under the same product benchmark, in order to promote the most climate-efficient technologies. As demonstrated by the evidence submitted, sintered iron ore pellets and sintered iron ore fines are immediate substitutes for each other. By refusing the inclusion of the applicant’s sintered pellets production installations under the benchmark, it is argued that the Commission misapplied Directive 2003/87/EC and Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/331 and made a manifest error of assessment. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes the law governing the Emissions Trading System (ETS), in particular Annex 1 to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/331 of 19 December 2018 (2) and Article 10a(1) of Directive 2003/87/EC. (3)

—

The applicant submits that the contested decision, and in particular its recital 13, Article 1(3), and Annex III, infringes Article 10a(1) of Directive 2003/87/EC and Annex 1 to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/331. The product benchmark for sintered ore set out in Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/331 must be interpreted in conformity with Directive 2003/87/EC, the treaties and general principles of EU law. According to that Directive and case-law, substitute products and alternative production methods should be included under the same product benchmark, in order to promote the most climate-efficient technologies. As demonstrated by the evidence submitted, sintered iron ore pellets and sintered iron ore fines are immediate substitutes for each other. By refusing the inclusion of the applicant’s sintered pellets production installations under the benchmark, it is argued that the Commission misapplied Directive 2003/87/EC and Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/331 and made a manifest error of assessment.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination.






  — | The contested decision, it is argued, infringes the cited principles by discriminating between companies and sectors in such a way as to unduly favour certain undertakings. This concerns both the treatment of sintered fines versus sintered pellets production, and the treatment of the applicant’s pellet production versus other pellet production. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination.

—

The contested decision, it is argued, infringes the cited principles by discriminating between companies and sectors in such a way as to unduly favour certain undertakings. This concerns both the treatment of sintered fines versus sintered pellets production, and the treatment of the applicant’s pellet production versus other pellet production.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes the EU’s international environmental law obligations.






  — | With its third plea in law, the applicant submits that the contested decision is contrary to the explicit commitments made by the EU in its nationally determined contribution under the 2015 Paris Agreement. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes the EU’s international environmental law obligations.

—

With its third plea in law, the applicant submits that the contested decision is contrary to the explicit commitments made by the EU in its nationally determined contribution under the 2015 Paris Agreement.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes the duty of the competent institution to examine carefully and impartially all the relevant aspects of the individual case.






  — | The contested decision reflects a policy position adopted by the European Commission which is, the applicant maintains, not grounded in an objective in-depth technical assessment on the substitutability of the products and techniques in question, but which instead merely relies on the claims by one of the parties affected by the determination, namely a steel industry organisation, without evaluating the technical objections raised by, inter alia, the applicant and the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, or consulting any neutral third party. |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes the duty of the competent institution to examine carefully and impartially all the relevant aspects of the individual case.

—

The contested decision reflects a policy position adopted by the European Commission which is, the applicant maintains, not grounded in an objective in-depth technical assessment on the substitutability of the products and techniques in question, but which instead merely relies on the claims by one of the parties affected by the determination, namely a steel industry organisation, without evaluating the technical objections raised by, inter alia, the applicant and the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, or consulting any neutral third party.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes the obligation under Article 296 TFEU to state reasons.






  — | The contested decision has, according to the applicant, failed to provide the slightest explanation regarding the technical substitutability between sintered pellets and sintered fines or of the application of the principle of equal treatment, but instead refers merely to the benchmark being ‘tailored to’ exclude (the applicant’s) sintered pellets production. As a result, it is impossible for persons concerned to ascertain the reasons for the determination from the decision itself. |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes the obligation under Article 296 TFEU to state reasons.

—

The contested decision has, according to the applicant, failed to provide the slightest explanation regarding the technical substitutability between sintered pellets and sintered fines or of the application of the principle of equal treatment, but instead refers merely to the benchmark being ‘tailored to’ exclude (the applicant’s) sintered pellets production. As a result, it is impossible for persons concerned to ascertain the reasons for the determination from the decision itself.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, that Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/331 must be declared invalid insofar as it applies to the contested decision from the date of the judgment, under Article 277 TFEU.






  — | By its sixth plea, which is alternative to the pleas above, the applicant submits that, if Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/331 must be interpreted to exclude the applicant’s sintered pellets (but not the sintered pellets of a named competing producer), (4) that Regulation itself must be declared invalid, by being in breach of Directive 2003/87/EC and general principles of EU law. |
| --- | --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, that Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/331 must be declared invalid insofar as it applies to the contested decision from the date of the judgment, under Article 277 TFEU.

—

By its sixth plea, which is alternative to the pleas above, the applicant submits that, if Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/331 must be interpreted to exclude the applicant’s sintered pellets (but not the sintered pellets of a named competing producer), (4) that Regulation itself must be declared invalid, by being in breach of Directive 2003/87/EC and general principles of EU law.

---

(1)  Commission Decision (EU) 2021/355 of 25 February 2021 concerning national implementation measures for the transitional free allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances in accordance with Article 11(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2021 L 68, p. 221).

(2)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/331 of 19 December 2018 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2019 L 59, p. 8).

(3)  Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32).

(4)  Editorial note: the name of that producer has been omitted.

---

| 19.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/39

---

Action brought on 17 May 2021 — Sturz v EUIPO — Clatronic International (STEAKER)

(Case T-261/21)

(2021/C 289/55)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Manfred Sturz (Schorndorf, Germany) (represented by: B. Bittner, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Clatronic International GmbH (Kempen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘STEAKER’ — European Union trade mark No 16 707 465

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 March 2021 in Case R 214/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs;

| — | order any intervener to bear its own costs; |
| --- | --- |

—

order any intervener to bear its own costs;

| — | in the further alternative, refer the case back to the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

in the further alternative, refer the case back to the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

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

—

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

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

—

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

| — | Denial of right to be heard within the meaning of Article 94 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Denial of right to be heard within the meaning of Article 94 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Failure to carry out a full examination and distortion of facts and evidence pursuant to Article 72(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Failure to carry out a full examination and distortion of facts and evidence pursuant to Article 72(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Misuse of power by the Board of Appeal in not admitting evidence. |
| --- | --- |

—

Misuse of power by the Board of Appeal in not admitting evidence.

---

| 19.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/40

---

Action brought on 21 May 2021 — Nowhere v EUIPO — Junguo Ye (APE TEES)

(Case T-281/21)

(2021/C 289/56)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Nowhere Co. Ltd (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: R. Kunze, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Junguo Ye (Elche, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark APE TEES in colours black and brown — Application for registration No 14 319 578

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 February 2021 in Case R 2474/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred before the Board of Appeal as well as the Opposition Division. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred before the Board of Appeal as well as the Opposition Division.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 19.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/40

---

Action brought on 21 May 2021 — SS and ST v Frontex

(Case T-282/21)

(2021/C 289/57)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: SS, ST (represented by: M. Van den Broeck and L. Lambert, lawyers)

Defendant: European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex)

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | Admit the case and consider it on its merits; |
| --- | --- |

—

Admit the case and consider it on its merits;

| — | Declare that after Frontex was called upon to act in accordance with the procedure specified in Art. 265 TFEU, it has failed to act either by withdrawing the financing, suspending or terminating, part or whole of its activities in the Aegean Sea Region (Art. 46(4) EBCG Regulation (1)), or by providing duly justified grounds for not activating the relevant measure under Art. 46(6), or otherwise to define its position in response to the Applicants’ preliminary request; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that after Frontex was called upon to act in accordance with the procedure specified in Art. 265 TFEU, it has failed to act either by withdrawing the financing, suspending or terminating, part or whole of its activities in the Aegean Sea Region (Art. 46(4) EBCG Regulation (1)), or by providing duly justified grounds for not activating the relevant measure under Art. 46(6), or otherwise to define its position in response to the Applicants’ preliminary request;

| — | Declare this failure to act to be in infringement of the Treaties in the meaning of Art. 265 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare this failure to act to be in infringement of the Treaties in the meaning of Art. 265 TFEU.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging the existence of serious or persisting violations of fundamental rights and international protection obligations in the Aegean Sea Region, related to the activities of Frontex, following which the Executive Director was obliged to suspend or terminate the said activities within the meaning of Article 46 EBCG Regulation. The applicants submit that the gathered evidence establishes that ‘new tactics’ in the context of border control operations in the Aegean Sea Region, introduced in March 2020, amount to a State (Greece) and organizational (Frontex) policy of systematic and widespread attack directed against civilian populations seeking asylum in the EU, in violation of, inter alia, the right to life, the prohibition on collective expulsion, the principle of non-refoulement, and the right to asylum. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging the existence of serious or persisting violations of fundamental rights and international protection obligations in the Aegean Sea Region, related to the activities of Frontex, following which the Executive Director was obliged to suspend or terminate the said activities within the meaning of Article 46 EBCG Regulation. The applicants submit that the gathered evidence establishes that ‘new tactics’ in the context of border control operations in the Aegean Sea Region, introduced in March 2020, amount to a State (Greece) and organizational (Frontex) policy of systematic and widespread attack directed against civilian populations seeking asylum in the EU, in violation of, inter alia, the right to life, the prohibition on collective expulsion, the principle of non-refoulement, and the right to asylum.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that Frontex has failed to fulfil its positive obligations under the Charter of Fundamental Rights with respect to preventing foreseeable violations of the above-mentioned fundamental rights, occurring in the Aegean Sea Region in the context of its operation. Frontex has failed to act upon concrete manifestations of its positive obligations, explicitly prescribed in articles other than article 46 of the EBCG Regulation, such as monitoring and reporting obligations, and are related to or even intertwined with the application of Art. 46. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that Frontex has failed to fulfil its positive obligations under the Charter of Fundamental Rights with respect to preventing foreseeable violations of the above-mentioned fundamental rights, occurring in the Aegean Sea Region in the context of its operation. Frontex has failed to act upon concrete manifestations of its positive obligations, explicitly prescribed in articles other than article 46 of the EBCG Regulation, such as monitoring and reporting obligations, and are related to or even intertwined with the application of Art. 46.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the failure of the Agency to act in the context of Art. 265 TFEU concerns the applicants directly and individually, as their situation has been prejudiced already multiple times by the new State and organizational policy of systematic and widespread practices of either abduction from EU soil and forcible transfer back to sea, or interception at sea; abandonment at sea on unworthy vessels causing serious risk to life; unlawful refoulement, collective expulsion, and prevention of access to asylum. The continued failure of Frontex to take appropriate measures in order to prevent these violations — including the suspension or termination of its activities as Article 46 Commands — significantly increases the risk of the Applicants to be subjected again, for the 6th time, to the very same infringements of the Treaties, as well as of international and European customary and treaty law. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the failure of the Agency to act in the context of Art. 265 TFEU concerns the applicants directly and individually, as their situation has been prejudiced already multiple times by the new State and organizational policy of systematic and widespread practices of either abduction from EU soil and forcible transfer back to sea, or interception at sea; abandonment at sea on unworthy vessels causing serious risk to life; unlawful refoulement, collective expulsion, and prevention of access to asylum. The continued failure of Frontex to take appropriate measures in order to prevent these violations — including the suspension or termination of its activities as Article 46 Commands — significantly increases the risk of the Applicants to be subjected again, for the 6th time, to the very same infringements of the Treaties, as well as of international and European customary and treaty law.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2019 on the European Border and Coast Guard and repealing Regulations (EU) No 1052/2013 and (EU) 2016/1624 (OJ 2019, L 295, p. 1).

---

| 19.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/41

---

Action brought on 25 May 2021 — Cathay Pacific Airways v Commission

(Case T-291/21)

(2021/C 289/58)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd (Hong-Kong, China) (represented by: M. Rees and E. Estellon, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | Pursuant to Articles 268 and 340 TFEU, order the European Union (represented by the European Commission) to pay:






  — | Financial compensation corresponding to the default interest on the sum of EUR 57 120 000 at the ECB interest rate for its refinancing operations on 1 November 2010 (i.e. 1,0 percentage point), increased by 3,5 percentage points, for the period between 10 February 2011 and 4 February 2016, which results in an amount of EUR 14 211 026,51or, failing that, at the interest rate the Court considers appropriate; and |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

Pursuant to Articles 268 and 340 TFEU, order the European Union (represented by the European Commission) to pay:

—

Financial compensation corresponding to the default interest on the sum of EUR 57 120 000 at the ECB interest rate for its refinancing operations on 1 November 2010 (i.e. 1,0 percentage point), increased by 3,5 percentage points, for the period between 10 February 2011 and 4 February 2016, which results in an amount of EUR 14 211 026,51or, failing that, at the interest rate the Court considers appropriate; and

| — | Compound interest on the amount of default interest for the period between 5 February 2016 (or, failing that, from the date the Court will consider appropriate) and the date of actual payment by the European Commission of the amount claimed in that preceding subparagraph at the ECB interest rate for its refinancing operations, increased by 3,5 percentage points or, failing that, at the interest rate the Court considers appropriate; |
| --- | --- |

—

Compound interest on the amount of default interest for the period between 5 February 2016 (or, failing that, from the date the Court will consider appropriate) and the date of actual payment by the European Commission of the amount claimed in that preceding subparagraph at the ECB interest rate for its refinancing operations, increased by 3,5 percentage points or, failing that, at the interest rate the Court considers appropriate;

| — | Pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

Pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, annul the contested decision;

| — | Order the European Commission to pay the entirety of the Applicant’s costs of the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the European Commission to pay the entirety of the Applicant’s costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action for damages, the applicant relies on a single plea in law. The applicant alleges that the European Union is liable pursuant to Articles 266, 268 and 340 TFEU to pay non-contractual damages to the applicant amounting to default interest for the reference period.

In support of its action for annulment, the applicant relies on four pleas in law

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Court shall annul the contested decision as its basis for rejecting the application as time-barred constitutes an error in law. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Court shall annul the contested decision as its basis for rejecting the application as time-barred constitutes an error in law.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes Commission Regulation No 2342/2002 (1) interpreted in accordance with Article 266 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes Commission Regulation No 2342/2002 (1) interpreted in accordance with Article 266 TFEU.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes Delegated Regulation No 1268/2012 (2) interpreted in accordance with Article 266 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes Delegated Regulation No 1268/2012 (2) interpreted in accordance with Article 266 TFEU.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Court shall annul the contested decision (3) because it is insufficiently motivated. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Court shall annul the contested decision (3) because it is insufficiently motivated.

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 357, p. 1).

(2)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 of 29 October 2012 on the rules of application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (OJ 2012 L 362, p. 1).

(3)  No Ares(2021)2113498 of 25 March 2021.

---

| 19.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/42

---

Action brought on 25 May 2021 — Singapore Airlines Cargo v Commission

(Case T-292/21)

(2021/C 289/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Singapore Airlines Cargo Pte Ltd (Singapore, Singapore) (represented by: J. Wileur, J. Poitras, J. Ruiz Calzado and N. Solárová, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the Application admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the Application admissible;

| — | order the European Union, represented by the Commission, to redress the damage sustained by the Applicant because of the Commission’s failure to pay the default interest pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 266 TFEU, in compliance with the judgment of 16 December 2015 in Case T-43/11 Singapore Airlines Cargo Pte Ltd and Singapore Airlines Limited v Commission, and therefore pay the following amounts, pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU, Article 268 TFEU, and the second paragraph of Article 266 TFEU:






  — | (i) an amount equal to the unpaid default interest, i.e., interest on the sum of EUR 74 800 000, at the European Central Bank interest rate for its refinancing operations on 1 November 2010 (namely 1 %), increased by 3,5 %, for the period between 11 February 2011 and 8 February 2016, less the amount already paid by the Commission (EUR 1 635 368), which results in an amount of EUR 15 185 410 or, failing that, for the time period and at the interest rate the General Court considers appropriate; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

order the European Union, represented by the Commission, to redress the damage sustained by the Applicant because of the Commission’s failure to pay the default interest pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 266 TFEU, in compliance with the judgment of 16 December 2015 in Case T-43/11 Singapore Airlines Cargo Pte Ltd and Singapore Airlines Limited v Commission, and therefore pay the following amounts, pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU, Article 268 TFEU, and the second paragraph of Article 266 TFEU:

—

(i) an amount equal to the unpaid default interest, i.e., interest on the sum of EUR 74 800 000, at the European Central Bank interest rate for its refinancing operations on 1 November 2010 (namely 1 %), increased by 3,5 %, for the period between 11 February 2011 and 8 February 2016, less the amount already paid by the Commission (EUR 1 635 368), which results in an amount of EUR 15 185 410 or, failing that, for the time period and at the interest rate the General Court considers appropriate;

| — | (ii) an amount equal to the interest due on the unpaid default interest for the period between 9 February 2016 and 1 February 2021 calculated based on the European Central Bank interest rate for its refinancing operations on 1 November 2010 (namely 1 %), increased by 3,5 %, which results in an additional interest amount of EUR 3 407 356 or, failing that, for the time period and at the interest rate the General Court considers appropriate; and |
| --- | --- |

—

(ii) an amount equal to the interest due on the unpaid default interest for the period between 9 February 2016 and 1 February 2021 calculated based on the European Central Bank interest rate for its refinancing operations on 1 November 2010 (namely 1 %), increased by 3,5 %, which results in an additional interest amount of EUR 3 407 356 or, failing that, for the time period and at the interest rate the General Court considers appropriate; and

| — | (iii) compound interest, i.e., compound interest (‘capitalisation des intérêts’) on the amount of the unpaid default interest and additional interest amount totaling EUR 18 592 766 (or any other amount which the General Court considers appropriate), for the period between 2 February 2021 and the date of actual payment by the Commission of all unpaid interest amounts at the European Central Bank interest rate for its refinancing operations on 1 November 2010 (namely, 1 %), increased by 3,5 % or, failing that, for the time period and at the interest rate the General Court considers appropriate. |
| --- | --- |

—

(iii) compound interest, i.e., compound interest (‘capitalisation des intérêts’) on the amount of the unpaid default interest and additional interest amount totaling EUR 18 592 766 (or any other amount which the General Court considers appropriate), for the period between 2 February 2021 and the date of actual payment by the Commission of all unpaid interest amounts at the European Central Bank interest rate for its refinancing operations on 1 November 2010 (namely, 1 %), increased by 3,5 % or, failing that, for the time period and at the interest rate the General Court considers appropriate.

| — | in addition or in the alternative, annul in whole or in part pursuant to Article 263 TFEU the Decision of the European Commission of 25 March 2021 rejecting the applicant’s claim for compensation for failing to pay default interest and compound interest. |
| --- | --- |

—

in addition or in the alternative, annul in whole or in part pursuant to Article 263 TFEU the Decision of the European Commission of 25 March 2021 rejecting the applicant’s claim for compensation for failing to pay default interest and compound interest.

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

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action for damages, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging that the European Union, represented by the Commission, is non-contractually liable to pay compensation, pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU, Article 268 TFEU, and the second paragraph of Article 266 TFEU, equivalent to the amount of default interest, which the Commission should have paid to the applicant pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 266 TFEU when repaying the principal amount of the fine provisionally paid in complying with the Commission decision in Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight, after that decision was annulled by the judgment of the Court in Case T-43/11 Singapore Airlines Cargo Pte Ltd and Singapore Airlines Limited v Commission. The applicant also requests compensation equal to the interest on the amount of default interest, which the Commission failed to pay, and compound interest from the date of the applicant’s request to the Commission to pay the interest amounts owing.

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the decision of the European Commission of 25 March 2021 rejecting the applicant’s request for interest erred in law in finding that the applicant’s request was time-barred. The European Commission’s finding is inconsistent with the case-law and unsupported by the judgment of the Court of 20 January 2021 in the Case C-301/19 Commission v Printeos (‘Printeos’) (EU:C:2021:39). |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the decision of the European Commission of 25 March 2021 rejecting the applicant’s request for interest erred in law in finding that the applicant’s request was time-barred. The European Commission’s finding is inconsistent with the case-law and unsupported by the judgment of the Court of 20 January 2021 in the Case C-301/19 Commission v Printeos (‘Printeos’) (EU:C:2021:39).

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the decision of the European Commission erred in law in relying exclusively on Article 85a(2) of Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 357, p. 1.) and failed to take into account the first paragraph of Article 266 TFEU as interpreted by the EU Courts in Printeos. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the decision of the European Commission erred in law in relying exclusively on Article 85a(2) of Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 357, p. 1.) and failed to take into account the first paragraph of Article 266 TFEU as interpreted by the EU Courts in Printeos.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the decision of the European Commission of 25 March 2021 is insufficiently motivated as it lacks an adequate statement of reasons in breach of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the decision of the European Commission of 25 March 2021 is insufficiently motivated as it lacks an adequate statement of reasons in breach of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU.

---

| 19.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/44

---

Action brought on 21 May 2021 — Troy Chemical and Troy v Commission

(Case T-297/21)

(2021/C 289/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Troy Chemical Co. BV (Delft, Netherlands) and Troy Corp. (Florham Park, New Jersey, United States) (represented by: D. Abrahams, H. Widemann and Ł. Gorywoda, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul the defendant’s Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/348 of 25 February 2021 (1) in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the defendant’s Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/348 of 25 February 2021 (1) in its entirety;

| — | take such other or further measure as justice may require; and |
| --- | --- |

—

take such other or further measure as justice may require; and

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that, in setting the three-year approval period for carbendazim, the defendant committed an error of law, misused its powers, breached legitimate expectations (derived from applicable guidance), breached the principle of non-discrimination and committed a manifest error of appraisal. |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that, in reaching the conclusion that ‘specific conditions’ were required to ban biocidal product authorisations for use in paints and plasters to be used outdoors, the defendant committed a manifest error of appraisal and a misuse of its powers. |
| --- | --- |

2.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that, in reaching the conclusion that ‘specific conditions’ were required to ban placing on the market of specific treated articles (paints and plasters treated with/incorporating carbendazim) for use outdoors, the defendant committed a manifest error of appraisal as well as an error of law. |
| --- | --- |

3.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that, in reaching the conclusion that ‘specific conditions’ were required for labelling of paints and plasters treated with/incorporating carbendazim for use outdoors to remind users of a ban on use outdoors, the defendant committed a manifest error of law and fact. |
| --- | --- |

4.

---

(1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/348 of 25 February 2021 approving carbendazim as an existing active substance for use in biocidal products of product-types 7 and 10 (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2021 L 68, p. 174-177).

---

| 19.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/45

---

Action brought on 27 May 2021 — ABOCA and Others v Commission

(Case T-302/21)

(2021/C 289/61)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: ABOCA SpA Società Agricola (Sansepolcro, Italy), Coswell SpA (Funo di Argelato, Italy), Associação portuguesa de suplementos alimentares (Apard) (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: B. Kelly, Solicitor, K. Ewert, lawyer, D. Scannell, and C. Thomas, Barristers-at-law)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should annul the Commission Regulation (EU) 2021/468 of 18 March 2021 amending Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards botanical species containing hydroxyanthracene derivatives (1) (‘the contested Regulation’), in full or (alternatively) in part, and order the payment of their costs by the Commission.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s decision to proceed under Regulation (EC) 1925/2006 (the ‘Additions Regulation’) is unlawful:






  — | The contested Regulation’s use of the word ‘preparations’ appears to seek to prohibit the use of whole–plant ingredients and natural botanical extracts as foods. The Additions Regulation does not provide the Commission the power to ban foodstuffs. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s decision to proceed under Regulation (EC) 1925/2006 (the ‘Additions Regulation’) is unlawful:

—

The contested Regulation’s use of the word ‘preparations’ appears to seek to prohibit the use of whole–plant ingredients and natural botanical extracts as foods. The Additions Regulation does not provide the Commission the power to ban foodstuffs.

| — | The Commission should have followed the stricter procedure and legal test under Directive 2002/46/EC. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Commission should have followed the stricter procedure and legal test under Directive 2002/46/EC.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the contested Regulation is legally uncertain:






  — | The applicants cannot determine if their products are subject to additional scrutiny under Article 1(2) of the contested Regulation because the meaning of ‘preparations’ in the context of the Additions Regulation is unclear. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested Regulation is legally uncertain:

—

The applicants cannot determine if their products are subject to additional scrutiny under Article 1(2) of the contested Regulation because the meaning of ‘preparations’ in the context of the Additions Regulation is unclear.

| — | The relationship between the two articles of the Additions Regulation is unclear. |
| --- | --- |

—

The relationship between the two articles of the Additions Regulation is unclear.

| — | In any event, the contested Regulation breaches the principle of non-discrimination by targeting the applicants’ products and not the many food products, which also contain HADs in similar quantities. |
| --- | --- |

—

In any event, the contested Regulation breaches the principle of non-discrimination by targeting the applicants’ products and not the many food products, which also contain HADs in similar quantities.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the 2017 analysis of the European Food Safety Agency (‘EFSA’) is not capable of satisfying the legal test required under the Additions Regulation:






  — | The applicable legal test requires an identifiable harmful effect on human health to place the relevant substances in the Annex to the Additions Regulation. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the 2017 analysis of the European Food Safety Agency (‘EFSA’) is not capable of satisfying the legal test required under the Additions Regulation:

—

The applicable legal test requires an identifiable harmful effect on human health to place the relevant substances in the Annex to the Additions Regulation.

| — | EFSA’s conclusions did not identify a harmful effect on human health. |
| --- | --- |

—

EFSA’s conclusions did not identify a harmful effect on human health.

| — | The Commission’s approach is disproportionate because it does not meet the test of ‘necessity’ set out in the Additions Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Commission’s approach is disproportionate because it does not meet the test of ‘necessity’ set out in the Additions Regulation.

| — | The Commission did not consider data published since 2017, which demonstrates no harmful effect on human health from consuming the relevant substances. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Commission did not consider data published since 2017, which demonstrates no harmful effect on human health from consuming the relevant substances.

---

(1)  OJ 2021, L 96, p. 6.

---

| 19.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/46

---

Action brought on 31 May 2021 — FC v EASO

(Case T-303/21)

(2021/C 289/62)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: FC (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Asylum Support Office (EASO)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul the contested measure rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 26 March 2021 under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested measure rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 26 March 2021 under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union; and

| — | order the defendant to pay the entirety of the costs incurred by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the entirety of the costs incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

The contested measure is vitiated by a breach of the principle of procedural economy and by an infringement of the applicant’s right to effective judicial protection, on the following grounds:

| 1. | infringement of the applicant’s right of defence, since the defendant continues not to connect the disciplinary proceedings with errors and infringements of fundamental rights committed by the defendant at the earlier stage — that is to say, at the pre-disciplinary stage — which also produce effects at the subsequent stage of the disciplinary proceedings; and |
| --- | --- |

1.

infringement of the applicant’s right of defence, since the defendant continues not to connect the disciplinary proceedings with errors and infringements of fundamental rights committed by the defendant at the earlier stage — that is to say, at the pre-disciplinary stage — which also produce effects at the subsequent stage of the disciplinary proceedings; and

| 2. | infringement of the applicant’s right to be heard. |
| --- | --- |

2.

infringement of the applicant’s right to be heard.

---

| 19.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/46

---

Action brought on 1 June 2021 — Classen Holz Kontor v EUIPO — Deutsche Steinzeug Cremer & Breuer AG (DRYTILE)

(Case T-307/21)

(2021/C 289/63)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Classen Holz Kontor GmbH (Kaisersesch, Germany) (represented by: M. Bergermann and D. Graetsch, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Deutsche Steinzeug Cremer & Breuer AG (Alfter, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word element ‘DRYTILE’ — Application for registration No 17 999 950

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 March 2021 in Case R 1226/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

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

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 19.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/47

---

Action brought on 1 June 2021 — Classen Holz Kontor v EUIPO — Deutsche Steinzeug Cremer & Breuer (new type tiling DRYTILE)

(Case T-308/21)

(2021/C 289/64)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Classen Holz Kontor GmbH (Kaisersesch, Germany) (represented by: M. Bergermann and D. Graetsch, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Deutsche Steinzeug Cremer & Breuer AG (Alfter, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Application for registration of European Union figurative mark new type tiling DRYTILE — Application for registration No 18 000 526

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 March 2021 in Case R 1227/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

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

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 19.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/48

---

Action brought on 2 June 2021 — Air Canada v Commission

(Case T-310/21)

(2021/C 289/65)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Air Canada (Saint-Laurent, Quebec, Canada) (represented by: T. Soames, I.-Z. Prodromou-Stamoudi, lawyers, and T. Johnston, Barrister)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | Order the European Union, represented by the Commission, to redress the damage sustained by Air Canada because of the Commission’s failure to pay the default interest and compound interest owing pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 266 TFEU, in order to give effect to the judgment of 16 December 2015, Air Canada v Commission (Case T-9/11) and therefore pay the following amounts, pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 266 TFEU, Article 268 TFEU and the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU:






  — | an amount equal to the default interest owing, i.e. interest on the sum of EUR 21 037 500,00 at the European Central Bank interest rate for its refinancing operations on 1 November 2010 (namely, 1 %), increased by 3,5 %, for the period between 10 February 2011 and 8 February 2016, less the guaranteed return already paid of EUR 468 540,80 which results in an amount of EUR 4 264 896,70 or, failing that, at the interest rate the General Court considers appropriate; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

Order the European Union, represented by the Commission, to redress the damage sustained by Air Canada because of the Commission’s failure to pay the default interest and compound interest owing pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 266 TFEU, in order to give effect to the judgment of 16 December 2015, Air Canada v Commission (Case T-9/11) and therefore pay the following amounts, pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 266 TFEU, Article 268 TFEU and the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU:

—

an amount equal to the default interest owing, i.e. interest on the sum of EUR 21 037 500,00 at the European Central Bank interest rate for its refinancing operations on 1 November 2010 (namely, 1 %), increased by 3,5 %, for the period between 10 February 2011 and 8 February 2016, less the guaranteed return already paid of EUR 468 540,80 which results in an amount of EUR 4 264 896,70 or, failing that, at the interest rate the General Court considers appropriate;

| — | an amount equal to the interest owing on the sum of EUR 4 264 896,70 at the default rate, for the period between 9 February 2016 and the date of the Interest Application (4 February 2021) at the European Central Bank interest rate for its refinancing operations on 1 November 2010 (namely, 1 %), increased by 3,5 %, which results in an amount of EUR 958 550,14 (or, failing that, at the interest rate and for the time period that the General Court considers appropriate); and |
| --- | --- |

—

an amount equal to the interest owing on the sum of EUR 4 264 896,70 at the default rate, for the period between 9 February 2016 and the date of the Interest Application (4 February 2021) at the European Central Bank interest rate for its refinancing operations on 1 November 2010 (namely, 1 %), increased by 3,5 %, which results in an amount of EUR 958 550,14 (or, failing that, at the interest rate and for the time period that the General Court considers appropriate); and

| — | an amount equal to the compound interest owing on the amount of unpaid interest on the sum owing at the date of the Interest Application (EUR 4 264 896,70 + EUR 958 550,14: EUR 5 223 446,84 or any other amount that the Court considers appropriate) for the period between 5 February 2021 and the date on which the Commission reimburses Air Canada the amounts of interest owing, at the European Central Bank interest rate for its refinancing operations on 1 November 2010 (namely, 1 %), increased by 3,5 %, or, failing that, for the time period and at the interest rate that the General Court considers appropriate. |
| --- | --- |

—

an amount equal to the compound interest owing on the amount of unpaid interest on the sum owing at the date of the Interest Application (EUR 4 264 896,70 + EUR 958 550,14: EUR 5 223 446,84 or any other amount that the Court considers appropriate) for the period between 5 February 2021 and the date on which the Commission reimburses Air Canada the amounts of interest owing, at the European Central Bank interest rate for its refinancing operations on 1 November 2010 (namely, 1 %), increased by 3,5 %, or, failing that, for the time period and at the interest rate that the General Court considers appropriate.

| — | Further and/or alternatively annul the Contested Decision; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Further and/or alternatively annul the Contested Decision; and

| — | Order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the applicant’s 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 European Union is non-contractually liable to pay certain sums in outstanding interest. The applicant states that on 8 February 2016 the Commission paid the applicant a sum of interest to reflect the ‘guaranteed return’ on a provisional payment paid by the applicant on 10 February 2011. The applicant alleges that the ‘guaranteed return’ did not reflect the sums owing to the applicant by way of default interest. Accordingly, the applicant alleges that the Commission acted in breach of Article 268 TFEU and the applicant seeks an order requiring the Commission to repay the default and compound interest. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the European Union is non-contractually liable to pay certain sums in outstanding interest. The applicant states that on 8 February 2016 the Commission paid the applicant a sum of interest to reflect the ‘guaranteed return’ on a provisional payment paid by the applicant on 10 February 2011. The applicant alleges that the ‘guaranteed return’ did not reflect the sums owing to the applicant by way of default interest. Accordingly, the applicant alleges that the Commission acted in breach of Article 268 TFEU and the applicant seeks an order requiring the Commission to repay the default and compound interest.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the interest application was not time barred and, therefore the Court shall annul Commission Decision of 25 March 2021 (1). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the interest application was not time barred and, therefore the Court shall annul Commission Decision of 25 March 2021 (1).

---

(1)  Ref. Ares(2021)2113744 of 25 March 2021

---

| 19.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/49

---

Action brought on 3 June 2021 — SAS Cargo Group and Others v Commission

(Case T-313/21)

(2021/C 289/66)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: SAS Cargo Group A/S (Kastrup, Denmark), Scandinavian Airlines System Denmark-Norway-Sweden (Stockholm, Sweden), SAS AB (Stockholm) (represented by: B. Creve, M. Kofmann, J. Killick and G. Forwood, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | Order the European Union, represented by the European Commission:






  (a) | to pay to the applicants compensation in the sum of EUR 14 438 793,21 for the damage caused by the Commission’s failure to pay the correct interest amount on the reimbursed fine for the period between 15 February 2011 and 8 March 2016, pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 266 TFEU, in compliance with the judgment of 16 December 2015, SAS Cargo Group A/S and Others v Commission (Case T-56/11) or, failing that, a compensation amount for the time period and at the interest rate that the Court considers appropriate; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

Order the European Union, represented by the European Commission:

(a)

to pay to the applicants compensation in the sum of EUR 14 438 793,21 for the damage caused by the Commission’s failure to pay the correct interest amount on the reimbursed fine for the period between 15 February 2011 and 8 March 2016, pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 266 TFEU, in compliance with the judgment of 16 December 2015, SAS Cargo Group A/S and Others v Commission (Case T-56/11) or, failing that, a compensation amount for the time period and at the interest rate that the Court considers appropriate;

| (b) | To pay to the applicants interest at the rate set by the European Central Bank (ECB) for its main refinancing operations, plus 3.5 percentage points, on the compensation referred to in point (a) from 8 March 2016 until payment in full, with the interest being simple interest until 4 February 2021 and compound interest from 5 February 2021, or, failing that, to pay interest on the compensation referred to in point (a) for the time period, at the interest rate and according to the calculation method (simple or compound) that the Court considers appropriate. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

To pay to the applicants interest at the rate set by the European Central Bank (ECB) for its main refinancing operations, plus 3.5 percentage points, on the compensation referred to in point (a) from 8 March 2016 until payment in full, with the interest being simple interest until 4 February 2021 and compound interest from 5 February 2021, or, failing that, to pay interest on the compensation referred to in point (a) for the time period, at the interest rate and according to the calculation method (simple or compound) that the Court considers appropriate.

| — | Annul the decision of the European Commission of 25 March 2021 rejecting the applicants’ application for compensation for non-contractual damages. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the European Commission of 25 March 2021 rejecting the applicants’ application for compensation for non-contractual damages.

| — | Order the European Commission to pay its costs and those of the applicants. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the European Commission to pay its costs and those of the applicants.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action for damages, the applicants rely on a single plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to pay the applicants the correct amount of interest following the annulment of the Commission’s Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to proceedings under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case A.39258 — Airfreight).

In support of the action for annulment, the applicants rely on two pleas in law:

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision erred in law by finding that the applicants’ claim for non-contractual liability under Article 340 TFEU was time-barred under Article 46 of the Statute. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision erred in law by finding that the applicants’ claim for non-contractual liability under Article 340 TFEU was time-barred under Article 46 of the Statute.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision erred in law by relying on Article 85a(2) of the Commission Regulation No 2342/2002 to reject the applicants’ request for compensation, in the situation where (i) Regulation No 2342/2002 was not applicable at the relevant time, and (ii) compliance with Article 90 of Regulation No 1268/2012 (and mutatis mutandis Article 85a(2) of Commission Regulation No 2342/2002) does not relieve the Commission from its obligation to pay default interest in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 266 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision erred in law by relying on Article 85a(2) of the Commission Regulation No 2342/2002 to reject the applicants’ request for compensation, in the situation where (i) Regulation No 2342/2002 was not applicable at the relevant time, and (ii) compliance with Article 90 of Regulation No 1268/2012 (and mutatis mutandis Article 85a(2) of Commission Regulation No 2342/2002) does not relieve the Commission from its obligation to pay default interest in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 266 TFEU.

---

| 19.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/50

---

Action brought on 4 June 2021 — TA v Parliament

(Case T-314/21)

(2021/C 289/67)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: TA (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

declare the present action admissible;

| — | order the annulment of the applicant’s appraisal report for 2019 and, in so far as necessary, the annulment of Mr Welle’s decision of 29 March 2021 in response to the complaint within the meaning of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the annulment of the applicant’s appraisal report for 2019 and, in so far as necessary, the annulment of Mr Welle’s decision of 29 March 2021 in response to the complaint within the meaning of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations;

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

—

order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’), Article 5(2) and Article 6(11) of the internal rules on the application of the general provisions for implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations, and infringement of Articles 15(2) and 87(1) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union. The applicant submits, in particular, that, by failing to take into account the absence of objectives set for 2019, the assessors disregarded the abovementioned provisions. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’), Article 5(2) and Article 6(11) of the internal rules on the application of the general provisions for implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations, and infringement of Articles 15(2) and 87(1) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union. The applicant submits, in particular, that, by failing to take into account the absence of objectives set for 2019, the assessors disregarded the abovementioned provisions.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging material inaccuracies in the facts which gave rise to a manifest error of assessment. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging material inaccuracies in the facts which gave rise to a manifest error of assessment.

---

| 19.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/50

---

Action brought on 4 June 2021 — Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — Nordesta (APIAL)

(Case T-315/21)

(2021/C 289/68)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Laboratorios Ern, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: I. Miralles Llorca, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nordesta GmbH (Munich, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark APIAL — Application for registration No 17 958 998

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 March 2021 in Case R 1560/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | revoke the contested decision and reject the granting of the European Union trade mark Noo17 958 998 APIAL for all goods in class 3, 4 and 5; |
| --- | --- |

—

revoke the contested decision and reject the granting of the European Union trade mark Noo17 958 998 APIAL for all goods in class 3, 4 and 5;

| — | order EUIPO and, in case Nordesta GmbH decides to intervene in the present proceedings, Nordesta GmbH, to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and, in case Nordesta GmbH decides to intervene in the present proceedings, Nordesta GmbH, to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

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

—

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

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

—

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

---

| 19.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/51

---

Action brought on 6 June 2021 — Worldwide Machinery v EUIPO — Scaip (SUPERIOR MANUFACTURING)

(Case T-316/21)

(2021/C 289/69)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Worldwide Machinery Ltd (Channelview, Texas, United States) (represented by: B. Woltering, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Scaip SpA (Parma, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark SUPERIOR MANUFACTURING — European Union trade mark No 11 385 333

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 March 2021 in Case R 873/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision in its entirety and the decision of the Cancellation Division of 12 March 2020 in Cancellation [Proceedings] No 28 762 C in so far that the request for revocation of the European Union trade mark (No 11 385 333) was rejected; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in its entirety and the decision of the Cancellation Division of 12 March 2020 in Cancellation [Proceedings] No 28 762 C in so far that the request for revocation of the European Union trade mark (No 11 385 333) was rejected;

| — | revoke the challenged European Union trade mark in relation to the following goods: Class 12: Self-propelled machines for creating oil pipelines, gas and water conduits; land vehicles, namely self-propelled equipment for placing pipes; kits for converting crawler land vehicles to land vehicles comprising self-propelled equipment for placing pipes; sifting buckets; suction cups for lifter; hydraulic chucks; self-propelled pipe bending machines; |
| --- | --- |

—

revoke the challenged European Union trade mark in relation to the following goods: Class 12: Self-propelled machines for creating oil pipelines, gas and water conduits; land vehicles, namely self-propelled equipment for placing pipes; kits for converting crawler land vehicles to land vehicles comprising self-propelled equipment for placing pipes; sifting buckets; suction cups for lifter; hydraulic chucks; self-propelled pipe bending machines;

| — | order for reimbursement of its costs in the proceedings before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order for reimbursement of its costs in the proceedings before the General Court.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 58 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 58 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 19.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/52

---

Action brought on 7 June 2021 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Brito & Pereira (TINTAS BRICOR)

(Case T-317/21)

(2021/C 289/70)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Brito & Pereira (Vizela, Portugal)

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 registration of the EU figurative mark TINTAS BRICOR — Application for registration No 17 944 336

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 March 2021 in Case R 882/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision in that, by dismissing the appeal brought by the opponent, it confirms the decision of the Opposition Division handed down in opposition proceedings B 3 070 825, granting EU trade mark No 17 944 336 TINTAS BRICOR (figurative) for certain goods and services in Classes 2 and 35; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in that, by dismissing the appeal brought by the opponent, it confirms the decision of the Opposition Division handed down in opposition proceedings B 3 070 825, granting EU trade mark No 17 944 336 TINTAS BRICOR (figurative) for certain goods and services in Classes 2 and 35;

| — | order the party or parties opposing this action to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the party or parties opposing this action to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Incorrect assessment of the proof of use of the marks relied on in support of the opposition; |
| --- | --- |

—

Incorrect assessment of the proof of use of the marks relied on in support of the opposition;

| — | Inconsistency in the statement of reasons on account of its incoherence or internal contradiction, with regard to what the applicant claims to be clear contradictions between paragraphs such as paragraphs 44, 45 and 46 and the final conclusion, in that the promotional, advertising and business management activity in respect of the BRICOR trade mark recognised in those paragraphs is denied in paragraph 56. |
| --- | --- |

—

Inconsistency in the statement of reasons on account of its incoherence or internal contradiction, with regard to what the applicant claims to be clear contradictions between paragraphs such as paragraphs 44, 45 and 46 and the final conclusion, in that the promotional, advertising and business management activity in respect of the BRICOR trade mark recognised in those paragraphs is denied in paragraph 56.

---

| 19.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/53

---

Order of the General Court of 4 June 2021 — Novelis v Commission

(Case T-680/20) (1)

(2021/C 289/71)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 19, 18.1.2021.

---