# Official Journal C 240/20 J

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 240 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6320 July 2020 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 240

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6320 July 2020

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2020/C 240/01 | 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

2020/C 240/01

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 |
| 2020/C 240/02 | Case C-650/17: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 30 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht — Germany) — Royalty Pharma Collection Trust v Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual and industrial property — Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 — Supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products — Conditions for obtaining such a certificate — Article 3(a) — Concept of a product protected by a basic patent in force — Assessment criteria) | 2 |
| 2020/C 240/03 | Case C-446/18: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 May 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — AGROBET CZ, s.r.o. v Finanční úřad pro Středočeský kraj (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Deduction of input VAT — Excess VAT — Retention of the excess following the initiation of a tax inspection procedure — Request for a refund of the excess part relating to transactions not covered by that procedure) | 3 |
| 2020/C 240/04 | Case C-547/18: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 May 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu — Poland) — Dong Yang Electronics sp. z o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej we Wrocławiu (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 44 — Implementing Regulation (EU) No 282/2011 — Article 11(1) — Supply of services — Point of reference for tax purposes — Concept of a fixed establishment — Taxable person for VAT purposes — Subsidiary of a company of a non-Member State located in a Member State) | 3 |
| 2020/C 240/05 | Case C-560/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 30 April 2020 — Izba Gospodarcza Producentów i Operatorów Urządzeń Rozrywkowych v European Commission, Kingdom of Sweden, Republic of Poland (Appeal — Access to documents of the institutions — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Article 4(2), third indent — Exceptions to the right of access — Exception relating to protection of the purpose of investigations — Documents concerning pending infringement proceedings — Detailed opinions issued in the course of a notification procedure under Directive 98/34/EC — Request for access — Refusal — Disclosure of documents requested in the course of the proceedings before the General Court of the European Union — Disclosure — Inadmissibility — Interest in bringing proceedings — Continuation) | 4 |
| 2020/C 240/06 | Case C-565/18: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 30 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Regionale per la Lombardia — Italy) — Société Générale S.A. v Agenzia delle Enrate — Direzione Regionale Lombardia Ufficio Contenzioso (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 63 TFEU — Free movement of capital — Financial transaction tax — Transactions in derivative financial instruments having as an underlying security a security issued by a company resident in the Member State of taxation — Tax due regardless of the place of conclusion of the transaction — Administrative and declaratory obligations) | 5 |
| 2020/C 240/07 | Case C-584/18: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 30 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Eparchiako Dikastirio Larnakas — Cyprus) — D. Z. v Blue Air — Airline Management Solutions SRL and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Border controls, asylum and immigration — Decision No 565/2014/EU — Simplified regime for the control of persons at the external borders — Third country national in possession of a temporary residence permit issued by a Member State — Article 3 — Recognition by Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus and Romania of certain documents as equivalent to their national visas — Whether a decision can be invoked against a State — Direct effect — Recognition of a private law entity as a State emanation — Conditions — Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 — Schengen Borders Code — Article 13 — Refusal of entry to the territory of a Member State — Obligation to state reasons — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Compensation and assistance to air passengers in the event of denied boarding — Article 2(j) — Denied boarding on the basis of allegedly inadequate travel documents — Article 15 — Air carriers’ obligations to passengers — Inadmissibility of derogations laid down in the contract of carriage or other documents) | 5 |
| 2020/C 240/08 | Case C-607/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 14 May 2020 — NKT Verwaltungs GmbH, formerly nkt cables GmbH, NKT A/S, formerly NKT Holding A/S v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for underground and submarine power cables — Market allocation in connection with projects — Fines — Rights of the defence — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 27(1) — Consistency between the statement of objections and the decision at issue — Access to the file — Single and continuous infringement — Burden of proof — Distortion of arguments and evidence) | 7 |
| 2020/C 240/09 | Case C-615/18: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 May 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Kehl — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against UY (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Right to information in criminal proceedings — Directive 2012/13/EU — Article 6 — Right to be informed of a charge — Criminal prosecution for driving a vehicle without a driving licence — Driving prohibition resulting from a previous penalty order of which the person concerned is unaware — Notification of that order to the person concerned by service on a legal representative only — Acquisition of the force of res judicata — Possible negligence on the part of the person concerned) | 8 |
| 2020/C 240/10 | Case C-627/18: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 30 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal de Coimbra — Portugal) — Nelson Antunes da Cunha, Lda v Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas IP (IFAP) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — State aids — Article 108 TFEU — Aid scheme incompatible with the internal market — European Commission decision ordering the recovery of unlawful aid — Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 — Article 17(1) — Limitation period of 10 years — Application to the Commission’s recovery powers — Article 16(2) and (3) — Limitation period of a lesser duration provided for by national law — Principle of effectiveness) | 8 |
| 2020/C 240/11 | Case C-638/18: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 April 2020 — European Commission v Romania (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 micro particles (PM10) in Zone RO32101 (Bucharest, Romania) — Article 23(1) — Annex XV — Exceedance period as short as possible — Appropriate measures) | 9 |
| 2020/C 240/12 | Case C-641/18: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 May 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova — Italy) — LG and Others v Rina SpA, Ente Registro Italiano Navale (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Article 1(1) — Concepts of civil and commercial matters and administrative matters — Scope — Activities of ship classification and certification societies — Acta iure imperii and acta iure gestionis — Public powers — Immunity from jurisdiction) | 10 |
| 2020/C 240/13 | Case C-661/18: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) — Portugal) — CTT — Correios de Portugal v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Deduction of input tax — Article 173 — Mixed taxable person — Deduction methods — Pro rata method — Deduction on the basis of actual use — Article 184 to Article 186 — Adjustment of deductions — Change in the factors used to determine the amount to be deducted — Output transaction incorrectly regarded as VAT-exempt — National measure prohibiting a change in the deduction method for years that have already elapsed — Limitation period — Principles of fiscal neutrality, legal certainty, effectiveness, and proportionality) | 10 |
| 2020/C 240/14 | Case C-667/18: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 May 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof — Belgium) — Orde van Vlaamse Balies, Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone v Ministerraad (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2009/138/EC — Legal expenses insurance — Article 201 — Insured person’s right freely to choose a lawyer — Proceedings — Meaning — Mediation proceedings) | 11 |
| 2020/C 240/15 | Case C-749/18: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 May 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative — Luxembourg) — B and Others v Administration des contributions directes (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 49 and 54 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Tax legislation — Corporate taxes — Parent companies and subsidiaries — Vertical and horizontal tax integration) | 12 |
| 2020/C 240/16 | Case C-772/18: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 30 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus — Finland) — A v B (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Trade marks — Directive 2008/95/EC — Article 5(1) — Article 5(3)(b)and (c) — Infringement — Concept of use in the course of trade — Goods released for free circulation — Imports — Storage — Retention of goods for marketing — Exports) | 13 |
| 2020/C 240/17 | Case C-797/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 30 April 2020 — Hellenic Republic v European Commission (Appeal — European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) — Expenditure excluded from EU financing — Expenditure incurred by the Hellenic Republic — Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 — Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 — Regulation (EC) No 1120/2009 — Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 — Area-related aid scheme — Concept of permanent pasture — Flat-rate financial corrections — Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 — Assessment of the eligibility of expenditure — Managing authority — Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 — Expenses covered by the 24-month period — Regulation (EC) No 817/2004 — System of effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties — Method of calculating the correction) | 13 |
| 2020/C 240/18 | Case C-810/18: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Trnave — Slovakia) — DHL Logistics (Slovakia) spol. s r. o. v Finančné riaditeľstvo SR (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 — Customs Union and Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Subheading 8525 80 91 — Digital cameras — Video camera recorders — Digital video camera recorder capable of capturing and recording still images and sequences of video with a resolution quality of less than 800 × 600 pixels) | 14 |
| 2020/C 240/19 | Case C-5/19: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 30 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — Оvergas Mrezhi AD, Sdruzhenie s nestopanska tsel, Balgarska gazova asotsiatsia v Komisia za energiyno i vodno regulirane (KEVR) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common rules for the internal market in natural gas — Directive 2009/73/EC — Article 3(1) to (3) and Article 41(16) — Public service obligations — Natural gas storage obligations for the purposes of ensuring the security and regularity of supply — National legislation providing that the financial burden of the public service obligations imposed on the natural gas undertakings is to be passed on to their customers — Conditions — Adoption of a legal act by a national regulatory authority imposing a public service obligation — Procedure — Articles 36 and 38 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union) | 15 |
| 2020/C 240/20 | Case C-15/19: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 May 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — AMA — Azienda Municipale Ambiente SpA v Consorzio Laziale Rifiuti — Co.La.Ri. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Waste — Directive 1999/31/EC — Existing landfill sites — Period of responsibility for after-care of the landfill following closure — Extension — Costs of the landfill of waste — Polluter pays principle — Temporal scope of the directive) | 16 |
| 2020/C 240/21 | Case C-17/19: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 May 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Criminal proceedings against Bouygues travaux publics, Elco construct Bucarest, Welbond armatures (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Migrant workers — Social security — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Legislation applicable — Article 14(1)(a) and (2)(b) — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Article 12(1) — Article 13(1)(a) — Posted workers — Workers employed in two or more Member States — Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 — Article 11(1)(a) — Article 12a(2)(a) and(4)(a) — Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 — Article 19(2) — E 101 and A 1 Certificates — Binding effect — Consequences — Social security — Employment law) | 17 |
| 2020/C 240/22 | Case C-96/19: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 May 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Niederösterreich — Austria) — VO v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Tulln (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Road transport — Working days and rest days — Digital tachographs — Regulation (EU) No 165/2014 — Working days not recorded on a driver card and no record sheets kept — National legislation requiring the driver to present an attestation from his employer in such circumstances — Validity of the form annexed to Decision 2009/959/EU) | 17 |
| 2020/C 240/23 | Case C-148/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 May 2020 — BTB Holding Investments SA, Duferco Participations Holding SA v European Commission, Foreign Strategic Investments Holding (FSIH) (Appeal — State aid — Regional aid to the steel industry — Decision declaring that aid incompatible with the common market — Concept of State aid — Advantage — Private operator test — Manifest error — Burden of proof — Limits of judicial review) | 18 |
| 2020/C 240/24 | Joined Cases C-168/19 and C-169/19: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 30 April 2020 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Corte dei conti — Sezione Giurisdizionale per la Regione Puglia — Italy) — HB (C-168/19), IC (C-169/19) v Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of movement for persons — Article 21 TFEU — Principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality — Article 18 TFEU — Convention for the avoidance of double taxation — Public sector workers — Pensioner residing in a Member State other than that paying retirement pension and who does not have the nationality of the Member State of residence — Income tax — Alleged loss of tax advantages — Alleged impediment to freedom of movement and alleged discrimination) | 19 |
| 2020/C 240/25 | Case C-184/19: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti — Romania) — Hecta Viticol SRL v Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală (ANAF) — Direcţia Generală de Soluţionare a Contestaţiilor, Biroul Vamal de Interior Buzău, Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Galaţi (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directives 92/83/EEC and 92/84/EEC — Rates of excise duty on wine and still fermented beverages other than wine and beer — Differentiated rates of excise duty — Principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations) | 19 |
| 2020/C 240/26 | Case C-189/19: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 May 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Spenner GmbH & Co. KG v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the European Union — Directive 2003/87/EC — Article 10a — Transitional system of free allocation of allowances — Decision 2011/278/EU — Article 9 — Determining the historical activity level — Significant change in the capacity of an installation that took place before the baseline period — Determining the relevant baseline period) | 20 |
| 2020/C 240/27 | Case C-191/19: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 30 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main — Germany) — OI v Air Nostrum Líneas Aéreas del Mediterráneo SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Compensation for air passengers in the event of denied boarding — Denied boarding — Cancellation — Connecting flights — Change of the reservation in respect of one of the flights comprising the journey by air against the passenger’s will — Arrival of the passenger without delay at his or her final destination) | 21 |
| 2020/C 240/28 | Case C-208/19: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 May 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Graz — Austria) — NK v MS, AS (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Consumer rights — Directive 2011/83/EU — Scope — Article 3(3)(f) — Concept of contracts for the construction of new buildings — Article 16(c) — Concept of goods made to the consumer’s specifications or clearly personalised — Contract between an architect and a consumer concerning the drawing up of a plan for a new single-family house) | 21 |
| 2020/C 240/29 | Case C-211/19: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 30 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Miskolci Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — UO v Készenléti Rendőrség (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Protection of the safety and health of workers — Directive 2003/88/EC — Scope — Derogation — Article 1(3) — Directive 89/391/EEC — Article 2(2) — Activities of rapid intervention police officers) | 22 |
| 2020/C 240/30 | Case C-258/19: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 30 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — EUROVIA Ipari, Kereskedelmi, Szállítmányozási és Idegenforgalmi Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax — Directive 77/388/EEC — First and third subparagraphs of Article 10(2), Article 17(1) and first subparagraph of Article 18(2) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 63, Article 64(1), subparagraphs (a) to (c) of the first paragraph of Article 66, Article 167 and the first paragraph of Article 179 — Services supplied before Hungary acceded to the European Union — Exact price of that supply determined after accession — Invoice relating to that supply issued and paid after accession — Refusal on the grounds of limitation of the right of deduction based on that invoice — Jurisdiction of the Court) | 23 |
| 2020/C 240/31 | Case C-263/19: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 May 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) –T-Systems Magyarország Zrt., BKK Budapesti Közlekedési Központ Zrt. v Közbeszerzési Hatóság Közbeszerzési Döntőbizottság (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Award of public contracts — Directive 2014/24/EU — Article 1(2) and Article 72 — Directive 2014/25/EU — Article 1(2) and Article 89 — Review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts — Directive 89/665/EEC — Article 2e(2) — Procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors — Directive 92/13/EEC — Article 2e(2) — Modification of a contract concluded following a public procurement procedure — No new public procurement procedure — Fines imposed on the contracting authority and the tenderer — Principle of proportionality) | 23 |
| 2020/C 240/32 | Case C-266/19: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 May 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — EIS GmbH v TO (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 2011/83/EU — Article 6(1)(c) and (h), and Article 6(4) — Annex I.A — Right of withdrawal — Information to be provided by traders in relation to the conditions, time limit and procedures for exercising the right of withdrawal — Obligation for traders to provide a telephone number where available — Scope) | 24 |
| 2020/C 240/33 | Joined Cases C-267/19 and C-323/19: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 May 2020 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Trgovački sud u Zagrebu — Croatia) — PARKING d.o.o. v SAWAL d.o.o. (C-267/19), Interplastics s. r. o. v Letifico d.o.o. (C-323/19) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Notaries acting in enforcement proceedings based on an authentic document — Non adversarial proceedings — Principle of non-discrimination — Article 18 TFEU — Right to a fair trial — Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union) | 25 |
| 2020/C 240/34 | Case C-276/19: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 May 2020 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Derogations — Simplification measures and measures to prevent tax evasion or avoidance — Article 395(2) — Obligation incumbent on Member States to notify the European Commission of special measures intended to simplify the procedure for charging VAT — Substantial amendment of the measure initially notified) | 26 |
| 2020/C 240/35 | Joined Cases C-924/19 PPU and C-925/19 PPU: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 May 2020 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Szegedi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — FMS, FNZ (C-924/19 PPU), SA and SA junior (C-925/19 PPU) v Országos Idegenrendészeti Főigazgatóság Dél-alföldi Regionális Igazgatóság, Országos Idegenrendészeti Főigazgatóság, (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Asylum and immigration policy — Directive 2013/32/EU — Application for international protection — Article 33(2) — Grounds of inadmissibility — Article 40 — Subsequent applications — Article 43 — Border procedures — Directive 2013/33/EU — Article 2(h) and Articles 8 and 9 — Detention — Whether lawful — Directive 2008/115/EU — Article 13 — Effective remedies — Article 15 — Detention — Whether lawful — Right to an effective remedy — Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Principle of primacy of EU law) | 26 |
| | General Court |
| 2020/C 240/36 | Case T-310/20: Action brought on 28 May 2020 — Comercializadora Eloro v EUIPO — Zumex Group (JUMEX) | 29 |
| 2020/C 240/37 | Case T-311/20: Action brought on 26 May 2020 — France Agro v EUIPO — Chafay (Choumicha Saveurs) | 29 |
| 2020/C 240/38 | Case T-317/20: Action brought on 27 May 2020 — EnergieVerbund Dresden v Commission | 30 |
| 2020/C 240/39 | Case T-318/20: Action brought on 27 May 2020 — eins energie in sachsen v Commission | 31 |
| 2020/C 240/40 | Case T-319/20: Action brought on 27 May 2020 — GGEW v Commission | 31 |
| 2020/C 240/41 | Case T-323/20: Action brought on 27 May 2020 — Hell Energy Magyarország v EUIPO (HELL) | 32 |
| 2020/C 240/42 | Case T-327/20: Action brought on 28 May 2020 — Group Nivelles v EUIPO — Easy Sanitary Solutions (Douchegoot) | 32 |
| 2020/C 240/43 | Case T-328/20: Action brought on 29 May 2020 — Electrodomesticos Taurus v EUIPO — Shenzhen Aukey E-Business (AICOOK) | 33 |
| 2020/C 240/44 | Case T-336/20: Action brought on 30 May 2020 — Hypo Vorarlberg Bank v SRB | 34 |
| 2020/C 240/45 | Case T-339/20: Action brought on 2 June 2020 — Portigon v SRB | 34 |
| 2020/C 240/46 | Case T-590/18: Order of the General Court of 30 April 2020 — Antonakopoulos v Parliament | 36 |
| 2020/C 240/47 | Case T-591/18: Order of the General Court of 30 April 2020 — ZD v Parliament | 36 |
| 2020/C 240/48 | Case T-603/18: Order of the General Court of 30 April 2020 — ZE v Parlement | 36 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2020/C 240/02

Case C-650/17: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 30 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht — Germany) — Royalty Pharma Collection Trust v Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual and industrial property — Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 — Supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products — Conditions for obtaining such a certificate — Article 3(a) — Concept of a product protected by a basic patent in force — Assessment criteria)

2

2020/C 240/03

Case C-446/18: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 May 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — AGROBET CZ, s.r.o. v Finanční úřad pro Středočeský kraj (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Deduction of input VAT — Excess VAT — Retention of the excess following the initiation of a tax inspection procedure — Request for a refund of the excess part relating to transactions not covered by that procedure)

3

2020/C 240/04

Case C-547/18: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 May 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu — Poland) — Dong Yang Electronics sp. z o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej we Wrocławiu (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 44 — Implementing Regulation (EU) No 282/2011 — Article 11(1) — Supply of services — Point of reference for tax purposes — Concept of a fixed establishment — Taxable person for VAT purposes — Subsidiary of a company of a non-Member State located in a Member State)

3

2020/C 240/05

Case C-560/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 30 April 2020 — Izba Gospodarcza Producentów i Operatorów Urządzeń Rozrywkowych v European Commission, Kingdom of Sweden, Republic of Poland (Appeal — Access to documents of the institutions — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Article 4(2), third indent — Exceptions to the right of access — Exception relating to protection of the purpose of investigations — Documents concerning pending infringement proceedings — Detailed opinions issued in the course of a notification procedure under Directive 98/34/EC — Request for access — Refusal — Disclosure of documents requested in the course of the proceedings before the General Court of the European Union — Disclosure — Inadmissibility — Interest in bringing proceedings — Continuation)

4

2020/C 240/06

Case C-565/18: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 30 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Regionale per la Lombardia — Italy) — Société Générale S.A. v Agenzia delle Enrate — Direzione Regionale Lombardia Ufficio Contenzioso (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 63 TFEU — Free movement of capital — Financial transaction tax — Transactions in derivative financial instruments having as an underlying security a security issued by a company resident in the Member State of taxation — Tax due regardless of the place of conclusion of the transaction — Administrative and declaratory obligations)

5

2020/C 240/07

Case C-584/18: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 30 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Eparchiako Dikastirio Larnakas — Cyprus) — D. Z. v Blue Air — Airline Management Solutions SRL and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Border controls, asylum and immigration — Decision No 565/2014/EU — Simplified regime for the control of persons at the external borders — Third country national in possession of a temporary residence permit issued by a Member State — Article 3 — Recognition by Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus and Romania of certain documents as equivalent to their national visas — Whether a decision can be invoked against a State — Direct effect — Recognition of a private law entity as a State emanation — Conditions — Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 — Schengen Borders Code — Article 13 — Refusal of entry to the territory of a Member State — Obligation to state reasons — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Compensation and assistance to air passengers in the event of denied boarding — Article 2(j) — Denied boarding on the basis of allegedly inadequate travel documents — Article 15 — Air carriers’ obligations to passengers — Inadmissibility of derogations laid down in the contract of carriage or other documents)

5

2020/C 240/08

Case C-607/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 14 May 2020 — NKT Verwaltungs GmbH, formerly nkt cables GmbH, NKT A/S, formerly NKT Holding A/S v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for underground and submarine power cables — Market allocation in connection with projects — Fines — Rights of the defence — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 27(1) — Consistency between the statement of objections and the decision at issue — Access to the file — Single and continuous infringement — Burden of proof — Distortion of arguments and evidence)

7

2020/C 240/09

Case C-615/18: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 May 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Kehl — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against UY (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Right to information in criminal proceedings — Directive 2012/13/EU — Article 6 — Right to be informed of a charge — Criminal prosecution for driving a vehicle without a driving licence — Driving prohibition resulting from a previous penalty order of which the person concerned is unaware — Notification of that order to the person concerned by service on a legal representative only — Acquisition of the force of res judicata — Possible negligence on the part of the person concerned)

8

2020/C 240/10

Case C-627/18: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 30 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal de Coimbra — Portugal) — Nelson Antunes da Cunha, Lda v Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas IP (IFAP) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — State aids — Article 108 TFEU — Aid scheme incompatible with the internal market — European Commission decision ordering the recovery of unlawful aid — Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 — Article 17(1) — Limitation period of 10 years — Application to the Commission’s recovery powers — Article 16(2) and (3) — Limitation period of a lesser duration provided for by national law — Principle of effectiveness)

8

2020/C 240/11

Case C-638/18: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 April 2020 — European Commission v Romania (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 micro particles (PM10) in Zone RO32101 (Bucharest, Romania) — Article 23(1) — Annex XV — Exceedance period as short as possible — Appropriate measures)

9

2020/C 240/12

Case C-641/18: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 May 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova — Italy) — LG and Others v Rina SpA, Ente Registro Italiano Navale (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Article 1(1) — Concepts of civil and commercial matters and administrative matters — Scope — Activities of ship classification and certification societies — Acta iure imperii and acta iure gestionis — Public powers — Immunity from jurisdiction)

10

2020/C 240/13

Case C-661/18: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) — Portugal) — CTT — Correios de Portugal v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Deduction of input tax — Article 173 — Mixed taxable person — Deduction methods — Pro rata method — Deduction on the basis of actual use — Article 184 to Article 186 — Adjustment of deductions — Change in the factors used to determine the amount to be deducted — Output transaction incorrectly regarded as VAT-exempt — National measure prohibiting a change in the deduction method for years that have already elapsed — Limitation period — Principles of fiscal neutrality, legal certainty, effectiveness, and proportionality)

10

2020/C 240/14

Case C-667/18: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 May 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof — Belgium) — Orde van Vlaamse Balies, Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone v Ministerraad (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2009/138/EC — Legal expenses insurance — Article 201 — Insured person’s right freely to choose a lawyer — Proceedings — Meaning — Mediation proceedings)

11

2020/C 240/15

Case C-749/18: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 May 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative — Luxembourg) — B and Others v Administration des contributions directes (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 49 and 54 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Tax legislation — Corporate taxes — Parent companies and subsidiaries — Vertical and horizontal tax integration)

12

2020/C 240/16

Case C-772/18: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 30 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus — Finland) — A v B (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Trade marks — Directive 2008/95/EC — Article 5(1) — Article 5(3)(b)and (c) — Infringement — Concept of use in the course of trade — Goods released for free circulation — Imports — Storage — Retention of goods for marketing — Exports)

13

2020/C 240/17

Case C-797/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 30 April 2020 — Hellenic Republic v European Commission (Appeal — European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) — Expenditure excluded from EU financing — Expenditure incurred by the Hellenic Republic — Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 — Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 — Regulation (EC) No 1120/2009 — Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 — Area-related aid scheme — Concept of permanent pasture — Flat-rate financial corrections — Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 — Assessment of the eligibility of expenditure — Managing authority — Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 — Expenses covered by the 24-month period — Regulation (EC) No 817/2004 — System of effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties — Method of calculating the correction)

13

2020/C 240/18

Case C-810/18: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Trnave — Slovakia) — DHL Logistics (Slovakia) spol. s r. o. v Finančné riaditeľstvo SR (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 — Customs Union and Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Subheading 8525 80 91 — Digital cameras — Video camera recorders — Digital video camera recorder capable of capturing and recording still images and sequences of video with a resolution quality of less than 800 × 600 pixels)

14

2020/C 240/19

Case C-5/19: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 30 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — Оvergas Mrezhi AD, Sdruzhenie s nestopanska tsel, Balgarska gazova asotsiatsia v Komisia za energiyno i vodno regulirane (KEVR) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common rules for the internal market in natural gas — Directive 2009/73/EC — Article 3(1) to (3) and Article 41(16) — Public service obligations — Natural gas storage obligations for the purposes of ensuring the security and regularity of supply — National legislation providing that the financial burden of the public service obligations imposed on the natural gas undertakings is to be passed on to their customers — Conditions — Adoption of a legal act by a national regulatory authority imposing a public service obligation — Procedure — Articles 36 and 38 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)

15

2020/C 240/20

Case C-15/19: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 May 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — AMA — Azienda Municipale Ambiente SpA v Consorzio Laziale Rifiuti — Co.La.Ri. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Waste — Directive 1999/31/EC — Existing landfill sites — Period of responsibility for after-care of the landfill following closure — Extension — Costs of the landfill of waste — Polluter pays principle — Temporal scope of the directive)

16

2020/C 240/21

Case C-17/19: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 May 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Criminal proceedings against Bouygues travaux publics, Elco construct Bucarest, Welbond armatures (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Migrant workers — Social security — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Legislation applicable — Article 14(1)(a) and (2)(b) — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Article 12(1) — Article 13(1)(a) — Posted workers — Workers employed in two or more Member States — Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 — Article 11(1)(a) — Article 12a(2)(a) and(4)(a) — Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 — Article 19(2) — E 101 and A 1 Certificates — Binding effect — Consequences — Social security — Employment law)

17

2020/C 240/22

Case C-96/19: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 May 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Niederösterreich — Austria) — VO v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Tulln (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Road transport — Working days and rest days — Digital tachographs — Regulation (EU) No 165/2014 — Working days not recorded on a driver card and no record sheets kept — National legislation requiring the driver to present an attestation from his employer in such circumstances — Validity of the form annexed to Decision 2009/959/EU)

17

2020/C 240/23

Case C-148/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 May 2020 — BTB Holding Investments SA, Duferco Participations Holding SA v European Commission, Foreign Strategic Investments Holding (FSIH) (Appeal — State aid — Regional aid to the steel industry — Decision declaring that aid incompatible with the common market — Concept of State aid — Advantage — Private operator test — Manifest error — Burden of proof — Limits of judicial review)

18

2020/C 240/24

Joined Cases C-168/19 and C-169/19: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 30 April 2020 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Corte dei conti — Sezione Giurisdizionale per la Regione Puglia — Italy) — HB (C-168/19), IC (C-169/19) v Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of movement for persons — Article 21 TFEU — Principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality — Article 18 TFEU — Convention for the avoidance of double taxation — Public sector workers — Pensioner residing in a Member State other than that paying retirement pension and who does not have the nationality of the Member State of residence — Income tax — Alleged loss of tax advantages — Alleged impediment to freedom of movement and alleged discrimination)

19

2020/C 240/25

Case C-184/19: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti — Romania) — Hecta Viticol SRL v Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală (ANAF) — Direcţia Generală de Soluţionare a Contestaţiilor, Biroul Vamal de Interior Buzău, Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Galaţi (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directives 92/83/EEC and 92/84/EEC — Rates of excise duty on wine and still fermented beverages other than wine and beer — Differentiated rates of excise duty — Principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations)

19

2020/C 240/26

Case C-189/19: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 May 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Spenner GmbH & Co. KG v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the European Union — Directive 2003/87/EC — Article 10a — Transitional system of free allocation of allowances — Decision 2011/278/EU — Article 9 — Determining the historical activity level — Significant change in the capacity of an installation that took place before the baseline period — Determining the relevant baseline period)

20

2020/C 240/27

Case C-191/19: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 30 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main — Germany) — OI v Air Nostrum Líneas Aéreas del Mediterráneo SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Compensation for air passengers in the event of denied boarding — Denied boarding — Cancellation — Connecting flights — Change of the reservation in respect of one of the flights comprising the journey by air against the passenger’s will — Arrival of the passenger without delay at his or her final destination)

21

2020/C 240/28

Case C-208/19: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 May 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Graz — Austria) — NK v MS, AS (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Consumer rights — Directive 2011/83/EU — Scope — Article 3(3)(f) — Concept of contracts for the construction of new buildings — Article 16(c) — Concept of goods made to the consumer’s specifications or clearly personalised — Contract between an architect and a consumer concerning the drawing up of a plan for a new single-family house)

21

2020/C 240/29

Case C-211/19: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 30 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Miskolci Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — UO v Készenléti Rendőrség (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Protection of the safety and health of workers — Directive 2003/88/EC — Scope — Derogation — Article 1(3) — Directive 89/391/EEC — Article 2(2) — Activities of rapid intervention police officers)

22

2020/C 240/30

Case C-258/19: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 30 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — EUROVIA Ipari, Kereskedelmi, Szállítmányozási és Idegenforgalmi Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax — Directive 77/388/EEC — First and third subparagraphs of Article 10(2), Article 17(1) and first subparagraph of Article 18(2) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 63, Article 64(1), subparagraphs (a) to (c) of the first paragraph of Article 66, Article 167 and the first paragraph of Article 179 — Services supplied before Hungary acceded to the European Union — Exact price of that supply determined after accession — Invoice relating to that supply issued and paid after accession — Refusal on the grounds of limitation of the right of deduction based on that invoice — Jurisdiction of the Court)

23

2020/C 240/31

Case C-263/19: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 May 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) –T-Systems Magyarország Zrt., BKK Budapesti Közlekedési Központ Zrt. v Közbeszerzési Hatóság Közbeszerzési Döntőbizottság (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Award of public contracts — Directive 2014/24/EU — Article 1(2) and Article 72 — Directive 2014/25/EU — Article 1(2) and Article 89 — Review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts — Directive 89/665/EEC — Article 2e(2) — Procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors — Directive 92/13/EEC — Article 2e(2) — Modification of a contract concluded following a public procurement procedure — No new public procurement procedure — Fines imposed on the contracting authority and the tenderer — Principle of proportionality)

23

2020/C 240/32

Case C-266/19: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 May 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — EIS GmbH v TO (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 2011/83/EU — Article 6(1)(c) and (h), and Article 6(4) — Annex I.A — Right of withdrawal — Information to be provided by traders in relation to the conditions, time limit and procedures for exercising the right of withdrawal — Obligation for traders to provide a telephone number where available — Scope)

24

2020/C 240/33

Joined Cases C-267/19 and C-323/19: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 May 2020 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Trgovački sud u Zagrebu — Croatia) — PARKING d.o.o. v SAWAL d.o.o. (C-267/19), Interplastics s. r. o. v Letifico d.o.o. (C-323/19) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Notaries acting in enforcement proceedings based on an authentic document — Non adversarial proceedings — Principle of non-discrimination — Article 18 TFEU — Right to a fair trial — Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)

25

2020/C 240/34

Case C-276/19: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 May 2020 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Derogations — Simplification measures and measures to prevent tax evasion or avoidance — Article 395(2) — Obligation incumbent on Member States to notify the European Commission of special measures intended to simplify the procedure for charging VAT — Substantial amendment of the measure initially notified)

26

2020/C 240/35

Joined Cases C-924/19 PPU and C-925/19 PPU: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 May 2020 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Szegedi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — FMS, FNZ (C-924/19 PPU), SA and SA junior (C-925/19 PPU) v Országos Idegenrendészeti Főigazgatóság Dél-alföldi Regionális Igazgatóság, Országos Idegenrendészeti Főigazgatóság, (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Asylum and immigration policy — Directive 2013/32/EU — Application for international protection — Article 33(2) — Grounds of inadmissibility — Article 40 — Subsequent applications — Article 43 — Border procedures — Directive 2013/33/EU — Article 2(h) and Articles 8 and 9 — Detention — Whether lawful — Directive 2008/115/EU — Article 13 — Effective remedies — Article 15 — Detention — Whether lawful — Right to an effective remedy — Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Principle of primacy of EU law)

26

General Court

2020/C 240/36

Case T-310/20: Action brought on 28 May 2020 — Comercializadora Eloro v EUIPO — Zumex Group (JUMEX)

29

2020/C 240/37

Case T-311/20: Action brought on 26 May 2020 — France Agro v EUIPO — Chafay (Choumicha Saveurs)

29

2020/C 240/38

Case T-317/20: Action brought on 27 May 2020 — EnergieVerbund Dresden v Commission

30

2020/C 240/39

Case T-318/20: Action brought on 27 May 2020 — eins energie in sachsen v Commission

31

2020/C 240/40

Case T-319/20: Action brought on 27 May 2020 — GGEW v Commission

31

2020/C 240/41

Case T-323/20: Action brought on 27 May 2020 — Hell Energy Magyarország v EUIPO (HELL)

32

2020/C 240/42

Case T-327/20: Action brought on 28 May 2020 — Group Nivelles v EUIPO — Easy Sanitary Solutions (Douchegoot)

32

2020/C 240/43

Case T-328/20: Action brought on 29 May 2020 — Electrodomesticos Taurus v EUIPO — Shenzhen Aukey E-Business (AICOOK)

33

2020/C 240/44

Case T-336/20: Action brought on 30 May 2020 — Hypo Vorarlberg Bank v SRB

34

2020/C 240/45

Case T-339/20: Action brought on 2 June 2020 — Portigon v SRB

34

2020/C 240/46

Case T-590/18: Order of the General Court of 30 April 2020 — Antonakopoulos v Parliament

36

2020/C 240/47

Case T-591/18: Order of the General Court of 30 April 2020 — ZD v Parliament

36

2020/C 240/48

Case T-603/18: Order of the General Court of 30 April 2020 — ZE v Parlement

36

---

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 20.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 240/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 240/1

---

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

(2020/C 240/01)

Last publication

OJ C 230, 13.7.2020

Past publications

OJ C 222, 6.7.2020

OJ C 215, 29.6.2020

OJ C 209, 22.6.2020

OJ C 201, 15.6.2020

OJ C 191, 8.6.2020

OJ C 175, 25.5.2020

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 20.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 240/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 240/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 30 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht — Germany) — Royalty Pharma Collection Trust v Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt

(Case C-650/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual and industrial property - Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 - Supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products - Conditions for obtaining such a certificate - Article 3(a) - Concept of a ‘product protected by a basic patent in force’ - Assessment criteria)

(2020/C 240/02)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundespatentgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Royalty Pharma Collection Trust

Defendant: Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 3(a) of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products must be interpreted as meaning that a product is protected by a basic patent in force, within the meaning of that provision, if it corresponds to a general functional definition used by one of the claims of the basic patent and necessarily comes within the scope of the invention covered by that patent, but is not otherwise indicated in individualised form as a specific embodiment of the method of that patent, provided that it is specifically identifiable, in the light of all the information disclosed by that patent, by a person skilled in the art, based on that person’s general knowledge in the relevant field at the filing date or priority date of the basic patent and on the prior art at that date. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 3(a) of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products must be interpreted as meaning that a product is protected by a basic patent in force, within the meaning of that provision, if it corresponds to a general functional definition used by one of the claims of the basic patent and necessarily comes within the scope of the invention covered by that patent, but is not otherwise indicated in individualised form as a specific embodiment of the method of that patent, provided that it is specifically identifiable, in the light of all the information disclosed by that patent, by a person skilled in the art, based on that person’s general knowledge in the relevant field at the filing date or priority date of the basic patent and on the prior art at that date.

| 2. | Article 3(a) of Regulation No 469/2009 must be interpreted as meaning that a product is not protected by a basic patent in force, within the meaning of that provision, if, although it is covered by the functional definition given in the claims of that patent, it was developed after the filing date of the application for the basic patent, following an independent inventive step. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 3(a) of Regulation No 469/2009 must be interpreted as meaning that a product is not protected by a basic patent in force, within the meaning of that provision, if, although it is covered by the functional definition given in the claims of that patent, it was developed after the filing date of the application for the basic patent, following an independent inventive step.

---

(1)  OJ C 52, 12.2.2018.

---

| 20.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 240/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 240/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 May 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — AGROBET CZ, s.r.o. v Finanční úřad pro Středočeský kraj

(Case C-446/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Deduction of input VAT - Excess VAT - Retention of the excess following the initiation of a tax inspection procedure - Request for a refund of the excess part relating to transactions not covered by that procedure)

(2020/C 240/03)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: AGROBET CZ, s.r.o.

Defendant: Finanční úřad pro Středočeský kraj

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 179, 183 and 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in the light of the principle of fiscal neutrality, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which does not allow the tax authority, before the end of a tax inspection procedure relating to a value added tax (VAT) return showing an excess for a given tax period, to refund that part of the excess relating to transactions which are not covered by that procedure at the time it was initiated, provided that it is not possible to establish in a clear, precise and unequivocal manner that a VAT excess, the amount of which may potentially be lower than the amount relating to the transactions not covered by that procedure, will exist regardless of the outcome of that procedure, which is a matter for the referring court to ascertain.

---

(1)  OJ C 328, 17.9.2018.

---

| 20.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 240/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 240/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 May 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu — Poland) — Dong Yang Electronics sp. z o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej we Wrocławiu

(Case C-547/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 44 - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 282/2011 - Article 11(1) - Supply of services - Point of reference for tax purposes - Concept of a ‘fixed establishment’ - Taxable person for VAT purposes - Subsidiary of a company of a non-Member State located in a Member State)

(2020/C 240/04)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Dong Yang Electronics sp. z o.o.

Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej we Wrocławiu

Operative part of the judgment

Article 44 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2008/8/EC of 12 February 2008, and Article 11(1) and Article 22(1) of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 282/2011 of 15 March 2011 laying down implementing measures for Directive 2006/112, must be interpreted as meaning that the existence, in the territory of a Member State, of a fixed establishment of a company established in a non-Member State may not be inferred by a supplier of services from the mere fact that that company has a subsidiary there, and that supplier is not required to inquire, for the purposes of such an assessment, into contractual relationships between the two entities.

---

(1)  OJ C 44, 4.2.2019.

---

| 20.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 240/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 240/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 30 April 2020 — Izba Gospodarcza Producentów i Operatorów Urządzeń Rozrywkowych v European Commission, Kingdom of Sweden, Republic of Poland

(Case C-560/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Access to documents of the institutions - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Article 4(2), third indent - Exceptions to the right of access - Exception relating to protection of the purpose of investigations - Documents concerning pending infringement proceedings - Detailed opinions issued in the course of a notification procedure under Directive 98/34/EC - Request for access - Refusal - Disclosure of documents requested in the course of the proceedings before the General Court of the European Union - Disclosure - Inadmissibility - Interest in bringing proceedings - Continuation)

(2020/C 240/05)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Izba Gospodarcza Producentów i Operatorów Urządzeń Rozrywkowych (represented by: P. Hoffman, adwokat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: M. Konstantinidis and A. Spina, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: C. Meyer-Seitz, A. Falk, H. Shev, J. Lundberg and H. Eklinder, acting as Agents), Republic of Poland (represented by: D. Lutostańska and M. Kamejsza-Kozłowska, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Izba Gospodarcza Producentów i Operatorów Urządzeń Rozrywkowych to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Izba Gospodarcza Producentów i Operatorów Urządzeń Rozrywkowych to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders the Kingdom of Sweden and the Republic of Poland to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Kingdom of Sweden and the Republic of Poland to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 112, 25.3.2019.

---

| 20.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 240/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 240/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 30 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Regionale per la Lombardia — Italy) — Société Générale S.A. v Agenzia delle Enrate — Direzione Regionale Lombardia Ufficio Contenzioso

(Case C-565/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 63 TFEU - Free movement of capital - Financial transaction tax - Transactions in derivative financial instruments having as an underlying security a security issued by a company resident in the Member State of taxation - Tax due regardless of the place of conclusion of the transaction - Administrative and declaratory obligations)

(2020/C 240/06)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione Tributaria Regionale per la Lombardia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Société Générale S.A.

Defendant: Agenzia delle Enrate — Direzione Regionale Lombardia Ufficio Contenzioso

Operative part of the judgment

Article 63 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State which imposes a tax on financial transactions involving derivative financial instruments to be paid by the parties to the transaction, regardless of the place where the transaction took place or of the State of residence of those parties and of any intermediary involved in the execution of that transaction, provided that those instruments have as an underlying security a security issued by a company incorporated in that Member State. The administrative and declaratory obligations accompanying that tax incumbent upon non-resident entities, however, must not go beyond what is necessary to recover that tax.

---

(1)  OJ C 436, 3.12.2018.

---

| 20.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 240/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 240/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 30 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Eparchiako Dikastirio Larnakas — Cyprus) — D. Z. v Blue Air — Airline Management Solutions SRL and Others

(Case C-584/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Border controls, asylum and immigration - Decision No 565/2014/EU - Simplified regime for the control of persons at the external borders - Third country national in possession of a temporary residence permit issued by a Member State - Article 3 - Recognition by Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus and Romania of certain documents as equivalent to their national visas - Whether a decision can be invoked against a State - Direct effect - Recognition of a private law entity as a State emanation - Conditions - Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 - Schengen Borders Code - Article 13 - Refusal of entry to the territory of a Member State - Obligation to state reasons - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Compensation and assistance to air passengers in the event of denied boarding - Article 2(j) - Denied boarding on the basis of allegedly inadequate travel documents - Article 15 - Air carriers’ obligations to passengers - Inadmissibility of derogations laid down in the contract of carriage or other documents)

(2020/C 240/07)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Eparchiako Dikastirio Larnakas

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: D. Z.

Defendants: Blue Air — Airline Management Solutions SRL and Others

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Art. 3(1) of Decision No 565/2014/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 introducing a simplified regime for the control of persons at the external borders based on the unilateral recognition by Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus and Romania of certain documents as equivalent to their national visas for transit through or intended stays on their territories not exceeding 90 days in any 180-day period and repealing Decisions No 895/2006/EC and No 582/2008/EC must be interpreted as producing direct effect in the form of rights that third country nationals can assert against the Member State of destination, in particular, the right not to be required to have a visa to enter the territory of that Member State, where those nationals are in possession of a visa or residence permit included in the list of visas and residence permits recognised on the basis of that decision, which that Member State has undertaken to apply; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Art. 3(1) of Decision No 565/2014/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 introducing a simplified regime for the control of persons at the external borders based on the unilateral recognition by Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus and Romania of certain documents as equivalent to their national visas for transit through or intended stays on their territories not exceeding 90 days in any 180-day period and repealing Decisions No 895/2006/EC and No 582/2008/EC must be interpreted as producing direct effect in the form of rights that third country nationals can assert against the Member State of destination, in particular, the right not to be required to have a visa to enter the territory of that Member State, where those nationals are in possession of a visa or residence permit included in the list of visas and residence permits recognised on the basis of that decision, which that Member State has undertaken to apply;

| 2. | EU law must be interpreted, where an air carrier directly or through its authorised and designated representatives at the airport of the Member State of departure denies boarding to a passenger, giving as its reason that the authorities of the Member State of destination have refused him or her entry, as precluding that air carrier from being considered as acting as an emanation of that State, such that Decision No 565/2014/EU cannot be cited against it by the passenger concerned before the courts of the Member State of departure in order to claim compensation for infringement of his or her right to enter the territory of the Member State of destination without requiring a visa issued by that Member State; |
| --- | --- |

2.

EU law must be interpreted, where an air carrier directly or through its authorised and designated representatives at the airport of the Member State of departure denies boarding to a passenger, giving as its reason that the authorities of the Member State of destination have refused him or her entry, as precluding that air carrier from being considered as acting as an emanation of that State, such that Decision No 565/2014/EU cannot be cited against it by the passenger concerned before the courts of the Member State of departure in order to claim compensation for infringement of his or her right to enter the territory of the Member State of destination without requiring a visa issued by that Member State;

| 3. | EU law, in particular Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code), as amended by Regulation (EU) No 610/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013, must be interpreted as precluding an air carrier from relying upon a decision of the authorities of the Member State of destination deny a third country national entry to the territory of that State to refuse to allow that person to board the aircraft, where he or she has not previously been notified of the decision to deny entry by means of a written decision providing reasons therefor; |
| --- | --- |

3.

EU law, in particular Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code), as amended by Regulation (EU) No 610/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013, must be interpreted as precluding an air carrier from relying upon a decision of the authorities of the Member State of destination deny a third country national entry to the territory of that State to refuse to allow that person to board the aircraft, where he or she has not previously been notified of the decision to deny entry by means of a written decision providing reasons therefor;

| 4. | 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, in particular, Article 2(j) of that regulation, must be interpreted, where boarding is denied by an air carrier due to supposedly inadequate travel documentation, as meaning that that denial of boarding does not, in itself, deprive the passenger of the protection provided for under that regulation. In the event of a claim on the part of that passenger, it is for the competent court to assess, based on the circumstances of the case, whether that denial of boarding was reasonably justified in the light of this provision; |
| --- | --- |

4.

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, in particular, Article 2(j) of that regulation, must be interpreted, where boarding is denied by an air carrier due to supposedly inadequate travel documentation, as meaning that that denial of boarding does not, in itself, deprive the passenger of the protection provided for under that regulation. In the event of a claim on the part of that passenger, it is for the competent court to assess, based on the circumstances of the case, whether that denial of boarding was reasonably justified in the light of this provision;

| 5. | Regulation (EC) No 261/2004, in particular Article 15 thereof, must be interpreted as precluding a clause applicable to passengers, which is included in the standard terms that are published in advance and govern the operation of or provision of services by the air carrier, and which limits or precludes the liability of that air carrier in the event of a passenger being denied boarding by reason of supposedly inadequate travel documentation and thus depriving that passenger of his or her right to compensation. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Regulation (EC) No 261/2004, in particular Article 15 thereof, must be interpreted as precluding a clause applicable to passengers, which is included in the standard terms that are published in advance and govern the operation of or provision of services by the air carrier, and which limits or precludes the liability of that air carrier in the event of a passenger being denied boarding by reason of supposedly inadequate travel documentation and thus depriving that passenger of his or her right to compensation.

---

(1)  OJ C 445, 10.12.2018.

---

| 20.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 240/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 240/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 14 May 2020 — NKT Verwaltungs GmbH, formerly nkt cables GmbH, NKT A/S, formerly NKT Holding A/S v European Commission

(Case C-607/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for underground and submarine power cables - Market allocation in connection with projects - Fines - Rights of the defence - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 27(1) - Consistency between the statement of objections and the decision at issue - Access to the file - Single and continuous infringement - Burden of proof - Distortion of arguments and evidence)

(2020/C 240/08)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: NKT Verwaltungs GmbH, formerly nkt cables GmbH, NKT A/S, formerly NKT Holding A/S (represented by: M. Kofmann and B. Creve, advokater)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet, S. Baches Opi and T. Franchoo, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside point 1 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 12 July 2018, NKT Verwaltungs and NKT v Commission (T-447/14, not published, EU:T:2018:443) to the extent that the General Court thereby dismissed the action brought by NKT Verwaltungs GmbH and NKT A/S for annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 final of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39610 — Power cables) in so far as that decision finds those companies liable for an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992, and in so far as that infringement concerns, first, conduct related to sales in countries that are not members of the European Union or the European Economic Area (EEA); second, a collective refusal to supply accessories and technical assistance to competitors not participating in the cartel at issue; and, third, as regards the period from 3 July 2002 to 21 November 2002, the allocation of underground power cable projects in the EEA; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside point 1 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 12 July 2018, NKT Verwaltungs and NKT v Commission (T-447/14, not published, EU:T:2018:443) to the extent that the General Court thereby dismissed the action brought by NKT Verwaltungs GmbH and NKT A/S for annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 final of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39610 — Power cables) in so far as that decision finds those companies liable for an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992, and in so far as that infringement concerns, first, conduct related to sales in countries that are not members of the European Union or the European Economic Area (EEA); second, a collective refusal to supply accessories and technical assistance to competitors not participating in the cartel at issue; and, third, as regards the period from 3 July 2002 to 21 November 2002, the allocation of underground power cable projects in the EEA;

| 2. | Sets aside point 1 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 12 July 2018, NKT Verwaltungs and NKT v Commission (T-447/14, not published, EU:T:2018:443) also to the extent that the General Court thereby dismissed the application of NKT Verwaltungs GmbH and NKT A/S for a reduction in the amount of the fine imposed on them, and point 2 of the operative part of that judgment; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Sets aside point 1 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 12 July 2018, NKT Verwaltungs and NKT v Commission (T-447/14, not published, EU:T:2018:443) also to the extent that the General Court thereby dismissed the application of NKT Verwaltungs GmbH and NKT A/S for a reduction in the amount of the fine imposed on them, and point 2 of the operative part of that judgment;

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

3.

Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder;

| 4. | Annuls Decision C(2014) 2139 final in so far as it finds NKT Verwaltungs GmbH, formerly nkt cables GmbH, and NKT A/S, formerly NKT Holding A/S, liable for an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992, and in so far as that infringement concerns, first, conduct related to sales in countries that are not members of the European Union or the European Economic Area (EEA); second, a collective refusal to supply accessories and technical assistance to competitors not participating in the cartel at issue; and, third, as regards the period from 3 July 2002 to 21 November 2002, the allocation of underground power cable projects in the EEA; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Annuls Decision C(2014) 2139 final in so far as it finds NKT Verwaltungs GmbH, formerly nkt cables GmbH, and NKT A/S, formerly NKT Holding A/S, liable for an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992, and in so far as that infringement concerns, first, conduct related to sales in countries that are not members of the European Union or the European Economic Area (EEA); second, a collective refusal to supply accessories and technical assistance to competitors not participating in the cartel at issue; and, third, as regards the period from 3 July 2002 to 21 November 2002, the allocation of underground power cable projects in the EEA;

| 5. | Fixes the amount of the fine imposed on NKT Verwaltungs GmbH, formerly nkt cables GmbH, and on NKT A/S, formerly NKT Holding A/S, in Article 2(e) of Decision C(2014) 2139 final at EUR 3 687 000; |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fixes the amount of the fine imposed on NKT Verwaltungs GmbH, formerly nkt cables GmbH, and on NKT A/S, formerly NKT Holding A/S, in Article 2(e) of Decision C(2014) 2139 final at EUR 3 687 000;

| 6. | Orders NKT Verwaltungs GmbH, NKT A/S and the European Commission to bear their own costs of the proceedings at first instance and of the appeal. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Orders NKT Verwaltungs GmbH, NKT A/S and the European Commission to bear their own costs of the proceedings at first instance and of the appeal.

---

(1)  OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.

---

| 20.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 240/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 240/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 May 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Kehl — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against UY

(Case C-615/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Right to information in criminal proceedings - Directive 2012/13/EU - Article 6 - Right to be informed of a charge - Criminal prosecution for driving a vehicle without a driving licence - Driving prohibition resulting from a previous penalty order of which the person concerned is unaware - Notification of that order to the person concerned by service on a legal representative only - Acquisition of the force of res judicata - Possible negligence on the part of the person concerned)

(2020/C 240/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Kehl

Party in the main proceedings

UY

In the presence of: Staatsanwaltschaft Offenburg

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6 of Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings must be interpreted as:

| — | not precluding the legislation of a Member State under which a two-week period for lodging an objection against a penalty order imposing a driving ban on a person begins to run from service of the order on their authorised person, provided that, as soon as that person becomes aware of it, they can benefit from the two-week period for lodging an objection to the order and where appropriate, following or in the context of the procedure for a person’s position being restored to the status quo ante without having to show that they have taken the necessary steps to inform themselves as soon as possible from their authorised person of the existence of that order, and that the effects of that order are suspended during that period, |
| --- | --- |

—

not precluding the legislation of a Member State under which a two-week period for lodging an objection against a penalty order imposing a driving ban on a person begins to run from service of the order on their authorised person, provided that, as soon as that person becomes aware of it, they can benefit from the two-week period for lodging an objection to the order and where appropriate, following or in the context of the procedure for a person’s position being restored to the status quo ante without having to show that they have taken the necessary steps to inform themselves as soon as possible from their authorised person of the existence of that order, and that the effects of that order are suspended during that period,

| — | precluding the legislation of a Member State under which a person residing in another Member State is liable to a criminal penalty if he or she fails to comply with an order imposing a driving ban from the date on which it acquired the force of res judicata, even though that person was unaware of the existence of such an order on the date on which he or she infringed that ban. |
| --- | --- |

—

precluding the legislation of a Member State under which a person residing in another Member State is liable to a criminal penalty if he or she fails to comply with an order imposing a driving ban from the date on which it acquired the force of res judicata, even though that person was unaware of the existence of such an order on the date on which he or she infringed that ban.

---

(1)  OJ C 445, 10.12.2018.

---

| 20.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 240/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 240/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 30 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal de Coimbra — Portugal) — Nelson Antunes da Cunha, Lda v Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas IP (IFAP)

(Case C-627/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - State aids - Article 108 TFEU - Aid scheme incompatible with the internal market - European Commission decision ordering the recovery of unlawful aid - Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 - Article 17(1) - Limitation period of 10 years - Application to the Commission’s recovery powers - Article 16(2) and (3) - Limitation period of a lesser duration provided for by national law - Principle of effectiveness)

(2020/C 240/10)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal de Coimbra

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Nelson Antunes da Cunha, Lda

Defendant: Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas IP (IFAP)

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 17(1) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union must be interpreted as meaning that the limitation period of 10 years laid down in that provision for the exercise of the European Commission’s powers to recover aid applies only to relations between the Commission and the Member State to which the recovery decision emanating from that institution is addressed; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 17(1) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union must be interpreted as meaning that the limitation period of 10 years laid down in that provision for the exercise of the European Commission’s powers to recover aid applies only to relations between the Commission and the Member State to which the recovery decision emanating from that institution is addressed;

| 2. | Article 16(2) of Regulation 2015/1589, under which the aid to be recovered is to include interest, and the principle of effectiveness laid down in Article 16(3) of that regulation, must be interpreted as precluding the application of a national limitation period for the recovery of aid where that period expired even before the adoption of the Commission’s decision declaring that aid unlawful and ordering its recovery or where that limitation period has elapsed, mainly by reason of the delay by the national authorities in implementing that decision. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 16(2) of Regulation 2015/1589, under which the aid to be recovered is to include interest, and the principle of effectiveness laid down in Article 16(3) of that regulation, must be interpreted as precluding the application of a national limitation period for the recovery of aid where that period expired even before the adoption of the Commission’s decision declaring that aid unlawful and ordering its recovery or where that limitation period has elapsed, mainly by reason of the delay by the national authorities in implementing that decision.

---

(1)  OJ C 455, 17.12.2018.

---

| 20.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 240/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 240/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 April 2020 — European Commission v Romania

(Case C-638/18) (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 micro particles (PM10) in Zone RO32101 (Bucharest, Romania) - Article 23(1) - Annex XV - Exceedance period ‘as short as possible’ - Appropriate measures)

(2020/C 240/11)

Language of the case: Romanian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Nicolae and E. Manhaeve, Agents)

Defendant: Romania (represented by: initially, A. Wellman, O.-C. Ichim, M. Chicu and C.-R. Canţăr, then, E. Gane, A. Wellman, O.-C. Ichim and M. Chicu, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that Romania, on the one hand, by systematically and constantly failing, since 2007 and until 2016 at least, to comply with the daily limit values for concentrations of PM10 and by systematically and constantly failing, since 2007 and until 2014 inclusive, with the exception of 2013, to comply with the annual limit values for concentrations of PM10 in Zone RO32101 (Bucharest, Romania), has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13(1) of 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, read in conjunction with Annex XI thereto, and, on the other hand, has failed with regard to that zone, since 11 June 2010, to fulfil its obligations under Article 23(1) of that directive, read in conjunction with Annex XV thereto, in particular the obligation laid down in the second subparagraph of Article 23 (1) of that directive to ensure that the exceedance period be as shorts as possible; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that Romania, on the one hand, by systematically and constantly failing, since 2007 and until 2016 at least, to comply with the daily limit values for concentrations of PM10 and by systematically and constantly failing, since 2007 and until 2014 inclusive, with the exception of 2013, to comply with the annual limit values for concentrations of PM10 in Zone RO32101 (Bucharest, Romania), has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13(1) of 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, read in conjunction with Annex XI thereto, and, on the other hand, has failed with regard to that zone, since 11 June 2010, to fulfil its obligations under Article 23(1) of that directive, read in conjunction with Annex XV thereto, in particular the obligation laid down in the second subparagraph of Article 23 (1) of that directive to ensure that the exceedance period be as shorts as possible;

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

2.

Orders Romania to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 445, 10.12.2018.

---

| 20.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 240/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 240/10

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 May 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova — Italy) — LG and Others v Rina SpA, Ente Registro Italiano Navale

(Case C-641/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 1(1) - Concepts of ‘civil and commercial matters’ and ‘administrative matters’ - Scope - Activities of ship classification and certification societies - Acta iure imperii and acta iure gestionis - Public powers - Immunity from jurisdiction)

(2020/C 240/12)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Genova

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: LG and Others

Defendants: Rina SpA, Ente Registro Italiano Navale

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that an action for damages, brought against private-law corporations engaged in the classification and certification of ships on behalf of and upon delegation from a third State, falls within the concept of ‘civil and commercial matters’, within the meaning of that provision, and, therefore, within the scope of that regulation, provided that that classification and certification activity is not exercised under public powers, within the meaning of EU law, which it is for the referring court to determine. The principle of customary international law concerning immunity from jurisdiction does not preclude the national court seised from exercising the jurisdiction provided for by that regulation in a dispute relating to such an action, where that court finds that such corporations have not had recourse to public powers within the meaning of international law.

---

(1)  OJ C 25, 21.1.2019.

---

| 20.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 240/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 240/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) — Portugal) — CTT — Correios de Portugal v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

(Case C-661/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Deduction of input tax - Article 173 - Mixed taxable person - Deduction methods - Pro rata method - Deduction on the basis of actual use - Article 184 to Article 186 - Adjustment of deductions - Change in the factors used to determine the amount to be deducted - Output transaction incorrectly regarded as VAT-exempt - National measure prohibiting a change in the deduction method for years that have already elapsed - Limitation period - Principles of fiscal neutrality, legal certainty, effectiveness, and proportionality)

(2020/C 240/13)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: CTT — Correios de Portugal

Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 173(2)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in the light of the EU law principles of fiscal neutrality, legal certainty and proportionality, must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State, when authorising a taxable person to deduct VAT on the basis of the use made of all or part of the goods and services used both for transactions in respect of which VAT is deductible and for transactions in respect of which VAT is not deductible pursuant to that provision, from prohibiting such a taxable person from changing the deduction method once the final proportion has been fixed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 173(2)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in the light of the EU law principles of fiscal neutrality, legal certainty and proportionality, must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State, when authorising a taxable person to deduct VAT on the basis of the use made of all or part of the goods and services used both for transactions in respect of which VAT is deductible and for transactions in respect of which VAT is not deductible pursuant to that provision, from prohibiting such a taxable person from changing the deduction method once the final proportion has been fixed.

| 2. | Articles 184 to 186 of the VAT Directive, read in the light of the EU law principles of fiscal neutrality, effectiveness and proportionality, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which a taxable person who deducted VAT charged on the acquisition of goods and services used both for transactions in respect of which VAT is deductible and for transactions in respect of which VAT is not deductible, using the turnover-based method, is denied the opportunity, once the final proportion has been fixed pursuant to Article 175(3) of that directive, to correct those deductions, by using the actual use method in a situation where:






  — | the Member State concerned authorises taxable persons to deduct VAT on the basis of the use made of all or part of the goods and services used both for transactions in respect of which VAT is deductible and for transactions in respect of which VAT is not deductible, pursuant to Article 173(2)(c) of that directive; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Articles 184 to 186 of the VAT Directive, read in the light of the EU law principles of fiscal neutrality, effectiveness and proportionality, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which a taxable person who deducted VAT charged on the acquisition of goods and services used both for transactions in respect of which VAT is deductible and for transactions in respect of which VAT is not deductible, using the turnover-based method, is denied the opportunity, once the final proportion has been fixed pursuant to Article 175(3) of that directive, to correct those deductions, by using the actual use method in a situation where:

—

the Member State concerned authorises taxable persons to deduct VAT on the basis of the use made of all or part of the goods and services used both for transactions in respect of which VAT is deductible and for transactions in respect of which VAT is not deductible, pursuant to Article 173(2)(c) of that directive;

| — | the taxable person was unaware, and acting in good faith, when choosing the deduction method, that a transaction which it regarded as exempt was in fact taxable; |
| --- | --- |

—

the taxable person was unaware, and acting in good faith, when choosing the deduction method, that a transaction which it regarded as exempt was in fact taxable;

| — | the general limitation period fixed by the national law for the purposes of adjusting the deductions has not yet expired, and |
| --- | --- |

—

the general limitation period fixed by the national law for the purposes of adjusting the deductions has not yet expired, and

| — | the change in the deduction method makes it possible to establish more precisely the proportion of VAT relating to transactions in respect of which VAT is deductible. |
| --- | --- |

—

the change in the deduction method makes it possible to establish more precisely the proportion of VAT relating to transactions in respect of which VAT is deductible.

---

(1)  OJ C 25, 21.1.2019.

---

| 20.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 240/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 240/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 May 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof — Belgium) — Orde van Vlaamse Balies, Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone v Ministerraad

(Case C-667/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2009/138/EC - Legal expenses insurance - Article 201 - Insured person’s right freely to choose a lawyer - Proceedings - Meaning - Mediation proceedings)

(2020/C 240/14)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Grondwettelijk Hof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Orde van Vlaamse Balies, Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone

Defendant: Ministerraad

Operative part of the judgment

Article 201(1)(a) of Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II) must be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘proceedings’ referred to in that provision includes judicial and extrajudicial mediation proceedings in which a court is involved or is capable of being involved, whether when those proceedings are initiated or after they are concluded.

---

(1)  OJ C 25, 21.1.2019.

---

| 20.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 240/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 240/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 May 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative — Luxembourg) — B and Others v Administration des contributions directes

(Case C-749/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 49 and 54 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Tax legislation - Corporate taxes - Parent companies and subsidiaries - Vertical and horizontal tax integration)

(2020/C 240/15)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour administrative

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: B and Others

Defendant: Administration des contributions directes

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Articles 49 and 54 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding the legislation of a Member State which, while allowing vertical tax integration between a resident parent company or a permanent establishment, in that Member State, of a non-resident parent company and its resident subsidiaries, does not allow horizontal tax integration between the resident subsidiaries of a non-resident parent company; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Articles 49 and 54 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding the legislation of a Member State which, while allowing vertical tax integration between a resident parent company or a permanent establishment, in that Member State, of a non-resident parent company and its resident subsidiaries, does not allow horizontal tax integration between the resident subsidiaries of a non-resident parent company;

| 2. | Articles 49 and 54 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding the legislation of a Member State which has the effect of compelling a parent company established in another Member State to dissolve an existing vertical tax integration between one of its subsidiaries and a certain number of its resident sub-subsidiaries in order to allow that subsidiary to undertake a horizontal tax integration with other resident subsidiaries of that parent company, even though the resident integrating subsidiary remains the same and dissolution of the vertical tax integration before the end of the minimum duration of the integration, laid down by the national legislation, entails the individual correcting taxation of the companies concerned; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Articles 49 and 54 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding the legislation of a Member State which has the effect of compelling a parent company established in another Member State to dissolve an existing vertical tax integration between one of its subsidiaries and a certain number of its resident sub-subsidiaries in order to allow that subsidiary to undertake a horizontal tax integration with other resident subsidiaries of that parent company, even though the resident integrating subsidiary remains the same and dissolution of the vertical tax integration before the end of the minimum duration of the integration, laid down by the national legislation, entails the individual correcting taxation of the companies concerned;

| 3. | The principles of equivalence and effectiveness must be interpreted as not precluding the legislation of a Member State relating to a tax integration scheme which provides that any request to benefit from such a scheme must necessarily be submitted to the competent authority before the end of the first tax year for which application of that scheme is sought. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The principles of equivalence and effectiveness must be interpreted as not precluding the legislation of a Member State relating to a tax integration scheme which provides that any request to benefit from such a scheme must necessarily be submitted to the competent authority before the end of the first tax year for which application of that scheme is sought.

---

(1)  OJ C 93, 11.3.2019.

---

| 20.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 240/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 240/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 30 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus — Finland) — A v B

(Case C-772/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Trade marks - Directive 2008/95/EC - Article 5(1) - Article 5(3)(b)and (c) - Infringement - Concept of ‘use in the course of trade’ - Goods released for free circulation - Imports - Storage - Retention of goods for marketing - Exports)

(2020/C 240/16)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: A

Defendant: B

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(1) of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks, read in conjunction with Article 5(3)(b) and (c) of that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that a person who does not engage in trade as an occupation, who takes delivery of, releases for free circulation in a Member State and retains goods that are manifestly not intended for private use, where those goods were sent to his or her address from a third country and where a trade mark, without the consent of the proprietor of that trade mark, is affixed to those goods, must be regarded as using that trade mark in the course of trade, within the meaning of Article 5(1) of that directive.

---

(1)  OJ C 72, 25.2.2019.

---

| 20.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 240/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 240/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 30 April 2020 — Hellenic Republic v European Commission

(Case C-797/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) - Expenditure excluded from EU financing - Expenditure incurred by the Hellenic Republic - Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 - Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 - Regulation (EC) No 1120/2009 - Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 - Area-related aid scheme - Concept of ‘permanent pasture’ - Flat-rate financial corrections - Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 - Assessment of the eligibility of expenditure - Managing authority - Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 - Expenses covered by the 24-month period - Regulation (EC) No 817/2004 - System of effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties - Method of calculating the correction)

(2020/C 240/17)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: G. Kanellopoulos and E. Leftheriotou and A. Vasilopoulou, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: M. Konstantinidis, D. Triantafyllou and J. Aquilina, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside point 1 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 4 October 2018, Greece v Commission (T-272/16, not published, EU:T:2018:651), in so far as the General Court dismissed the action brought by the Hellenic Republic concerning the flat-rate corrections of 25 % and 10 % applied to area payments for pasture in respect of the claim years 2012 and 2013 and the one-off correction of EUR 37 163 161,78 in respect of the claim year 2013, imposed by Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/417 of 17 March 2016 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) as a result of weaknesses in the definition and control of eligible permanent pasture; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside point 1 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 4 October 2018, Greece v Commission (T-272/16, not published, EU:T:2018:651), in so far as the General Court dismissed the action brought by the Hellenic Republic concerning the flat-rate corrections of 25 % and 10 % applied to area payments for pasture in respect of the claim years 2012 and 2013 and the one-off correction of EUR 37 163 161,78 in respect of the claim year 2013, imposed by Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/417 of 17 March 2016 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) as a result of weaknesses in the definition and control of eligible permanent pasture;

| 2. | Sets aside point 2 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 4 October 2018, Greece v Commission (T-272/16, not published, EU:T:2018:651) in so far as it ruled on costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Sets aside point 2 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 4 October 2018, Greece v Commission (T-272/16, not published, EU:T:2018:651) in so far as it ruled on costs;

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

3.

Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder;

| 4. | Annuls Implementing Decision 2016/417 in so far as it imposes on the Hellenic Republic flat-rate corrections of 25 % and 10 % applied to area payments for pasture in respect of claim years 2012 and 2013, as well as the one-off correction of EUR 37 163 161,78applied in respect of claim year 2013, in respect of weaknesses in the definition and control of eligible permanent pasture; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Annuls Implementing Decision 2016/417 in so far as it imposes on the Hellenic Republic flat-rate corrections of 25 % and 10 % applied to area payments for pasture in respect of claim years 2012 and 2013, as well as the one-off correction of EUR 37 163 161,78applied in respect of claim year 2013, in respect of weaknesses in the definition and control of eligible permanent pasture;

| 5. | Orders the Hellenic Republic and the European Commission to bear their own costs at first instance and on appeal. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Orders the Hellenic Republic and the European Commission to bear their own costs at first instance and on appeal.

---

(1)  OJ C 72, 25.2.2019.

---

| 20.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 240/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 240/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Trnave — Slovakia) — DHL Logistics (Slovakia) spol. s r. o. v Finančné riaditeľstvo SR

(Case C-810/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 - Customs Union and Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Subheading 8525 80 91 - Digital cameras - Video camera recorders - Digital video camera recorder capable of capturing and recording still images and sequences of video with a resolution quality of less than 800 × 600 pixels)

(2020/C 240/18)

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Krajský súd v Trnave

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: DHL Logistics (Slovakia) spol. s r. o.

Defendant: Finančné riaditeľstvo SR

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 versions resulting, successively, from Commission Regulation (EC) No 1031/2008 of 19 September 2008, Commission Regulation (EC) No 948/2009 of 30 September 2009, Commission Regulation (EU) No 861/2010 of 5 October 2010, Commission Regulation (EU) No 1006/2011 of 27 September 2011 and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 927/2012 of 9 October 2012, must be interpreted as meaning that digital video camera recorders having a dual function, that is to say, to capture and record both still images and sequences of video, come under subheading 8525 80 91 of the Combined Nomenclature as ‘video camera recorders’, even though, with regard to sequences of video, those cameras allow such sequences to be captured and recorded only with an image resolution quality lower than 800 × 600 pixels, provided that the principal function of those digital video camera recorders is to capture and record such sequences, this being a matter which it is for the referring court to ascertain.

---

(1)  OJ C 82, 4.3.2019.

---

| 20.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 240/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 240/15

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 30 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — ‘Оvergas Mrezhi’ AD, Sdruzhenie s nestopanska tsel, ‘Balgarska gazova asotsiatsia’ v Komisia za energiyno i vodno regulirane (KEVR)

(Case C-5/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common rules for the internal market in natural gas - Directive 2009/73/EC - Article 3(1) to (3) and Article 41(16) - Public service obligations - Natural gas storage obligations for the purposes of ensuring the security and regularity of supply - National legislation providing that the financial burden of the public service obligations imposed on the natural gas undertakings is to be passed on to their customers - Conditions - Adoption of a legal act by a national regulatory authority imposing a public service obligation - Procedure - Articles 36 and 38 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)

(2020/C 240/19)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven administrativen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants:‘Оvergas Mrezhi’ AD, Sdruzhenie s nestopanska tsel, ‘Balgarska gazova asotsiatsia’

Defendant: Komisia za energiyno i vodno regulirane

Other party to the proceedings: Prokuratura na Republika Bulgaria

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 3(1) to (3) of Directive 2009/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 2003/55/EC, read in the light of Articles 36 and 38 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State which provides that the costs associated with the natural gas storage obligations imposed on natural gas undertakings in order to ensure the security and regularity of natural gas supply in that Member State are to be borne entirely by those undertakings’ customers, who may be private individuals, provided that that legislation pursues an objective of general economic interest, that it complies with the requirements of the principle of proportionality and that the public service obligations which it lays down are clearly defined, transparent, non-discriminatory, verifiable and guarantee equality of access for EU gas undertakings to national consumers; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 3(1) to (3) of Directive 2009/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 2003/55/EC, read in the light of Articles 36 and 38 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State which provides that the costs associated with the natural gas storage obligations imposed on natural gas undertakings in order to ensure the security and regularity of natural gas supply in that Member State are to be borne entirely by those undertakings’ customers, who may be private individuals, provided that that legislation pursues an objective of general economic interest, that it complies with the requirements of the principle of proportionality and that the public service obligations which it lays down are clearly defined, transparent, non-discriminatory, verifiable and guarantee equality of access for EU gas undertakings to national consumers;

| 2. | Directive 2009/73 must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State which releases the regulatory authority of that Member State, within the meaning of that directive, from the obligation to comply with certain provisions of national legislation governing the procedure for the adoption of normative legal acts where it adopts an act imposing a public service obligation within the meaning of Article 3(2) of the directive, provided that the otherwise applicable national legislation ensures that that legal act complies with the substantive requirements of that provision and is fully reasoned, published while preserving the confidentiality of commercially sensitive information and amenable to judicial review. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Directive 2009/73 must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State which releases the regulatory authority of that Member State, within the meaning of that directive, from the obligation to comply with certain provisions of national legislation governing the procedure for the adoption of normative legal acts where it adopts an act imposing a public service obligation within the meaning of Article 3(2) of the directive, provided that the otherwise applicable national legislation ensures that that legal act complies with the substantive requirements of that provision and is fully reasoned, published while preserving the confidentiality of commercially sensitive information and amenable to judicial review.

---

(1)  OJ C 93, 11.3.2019.

---

| 20.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 240/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 240/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 May 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — AMA — Azienda Municipale Ambiente SpA v Consorzio Laziale Rifiuti — Co.La.Ri.

(Case C-15/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Waste - Directive 1999/31/EC - Existing landfill sites - Period of responsibility for after-care of the landfill following closure - Extension - Costs of the landfill of waste - Polluter pays principle - Temporal scope of the directive)

(2020/C 240/20)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: AMA — Azienda Municipale Ambiente SpA

Respondent: Consorzio Laziale Rifiuti — Co.La.Ri.

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 10 and 14 of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste must be interpreted as not precluding the interpretation of a provision of national law to the effect that a landfill site in operation at the date of transposition of that directive must be subject to the obligations arising under that directive, in particular the obligation to extend the after-care period following the closure of the landfill, without it being necessary to make a distinction according to the date of storage of the waste or to provide for measures to limit the financial impact of that extension in respect of the holder of the waste.

---

(1)  OJ C 164, 13.5.2019.

---

| 20.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 240/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 240/17

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 May 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Criminal proceedings against Bouygues travaux publics, Elco construct Bucarest, Welbond armatures

(Case C-17/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Migrant workers - Social security - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Legislation applicable - Article 14(1)(a) and (2)(b) - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Article 12(1) - Article 13(1)(a) - Posted workers - Workers employed in two or more Member States - Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 - Article 11(1)(a) - Article 12a(2)(a) and(4)(a) - Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 - Article 19(2) - E 101 and A 1 Certificates - Binding effect - Consequences - Social security - Employment law)

(2020/C 240/21)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties in the main criminal proceedings

Bouygues travaux publics, Elco construct Bucarest, Welbond armatures

Operative part of the judgment

Article 11(1)(a), Article 12a(2)(a) and (4)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to their families moving within the Community, in the version amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 647/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 2005, and Article 19(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 an E 101 Certificate, issued by the competent institution of a Member State, under Article 14(1)(a) or Article 14(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to their families moving within the Community, in the version amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1606/98 of 29 June 1998, to workers employed in the territory of another Member State, and an A 1 Certificate, issued by that institution, under Article 12(1) or Article 13(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 (EC) No 465/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012, to such workers, are binding on the courts or tribunals of the latter Member State solely in the area of social security.

---

(1)  OJ C 103, 18.3.2019.

---

| 20.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 240/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 240/17

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 May 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Niederösterreich — Austria) — VO v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Tulln

(Case C-96/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Road transport - Working days and rest days - Digital tachographs - Regulation (EU) No 165/2014 - Working days not recorded on a driver card and no record sheets kept - National legislation requiring the driver to present an attestation from his employer in such circumstances - Validity of the form annexed to Decision 2009/959/EU)

(2020/C 240/22)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesverwaltungsgericht Niederösterreich

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: VO

Respondent: Bezirkshauptmannschaft Tulln

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The second subparagraph of Article 34(3) of Regulation (EU) No 165/2014 of 4 February 2014 on tachographs in road transport, repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 on recording equipment in road transport and amending Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport is to be interpreted such that the prohibition it contains does not encompass national legislation under which the driver of a vehicle fitted with a digital tachograph is required to produce, as secondary evidence of his activities, in the absence of automatic and manual tachograph records, an attestation of activities drawn up by his employer in accordance with the form annexed to Commission Decision 2009/959/EU of 14 December 2009 amending Decision 2007/230/EC on a form concerning social legislation relating to road transport activities; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The second subparagraph of Article 34(3) of Regulation (EU) No 165/2014 of 4 February 2014 on tachographs in road transport, repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 on recording equipment in road transport and amending Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport is to be interpreted such that the prohibition it contains does not encompass national legislation under which the driver of a vehicle fitted with a digital tachograph is required to produce, as secondary evidence of his activities, in the absence of automatic and manual tachograph records, an attestation of activities drawn up by his employer in accordance with the form annexed to Commission Decision 2009/959/EU of 14 December 2009 amending Decision 2007/230/EC on a form concerning social legislation relating to road transport activities;

| 2. | There is nothing arising from the examination of the second question which might affect the validity of the Commission form annexed to Decision 2009/959. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is nothing arising from the examination of the second question which might affect the validity of the Commission form annexed to Decision 2009/959.

---

(1)  OJ C 172, 20.5.2019.

---

| 20.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 240/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 240/18

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 May 2020 — BTB Holding Investments SA, Duferco Participations Holding SA v European Commission, Foreign Strategic Investments Holding (FSIH)

(Case C-148/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Regional aid to the steel industry - Decision declaring that aid incompatible with the common market - Concept of ‘State aid’ - Advantage - Private operator test - Manifest error - Burden of proof - Limits of judicial review)

(2020/C 240/23)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: BTB Holding Investments SA, Duferco Participations Holding SA (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, R. Luff, M. Favert and Q. Declève, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka and G. Luengo, acting as Agents), Foreign Strategic Investments Holding (FSIH)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders BTB Holding Investments SA and Duferco Participations Holding SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders BTB Holding Investments SA and Duferco Participations Holding SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 182, 27.5.2019.

---

| 20.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 240/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 240/19

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 30 April 2020 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Corte dei conti — Sezione Giurisdizionale per la Regione Puglia — Italy) — HB (C-168/19), IC (C-169/19) v Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale

(Joined Cases C-168/19 and C-169/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of movement for persons - Article 21 TFEU - Principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality - Article 18 TFEU - Convention for the avoidance of double taxation - Public sector workers - Pensioner residing in a Member State other than that paying retirement pension and who does not have the nationality of the Member State of residence - Income tax - Alleged loss of tax advantages - Alleged impediment to freedom of movement and alleged discrimination)

(2020/C 240/24)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte dei conti — Sezione Giurisdizionale per la Regione Puglia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: HB (C-168/19), IC (C-169/19)

Defendant: Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 18 TFEU and 21 TFEU do not preclude a tax regime resulting from a convention for the avoidance of double taxation concluded between two Member States, pursuant to which the powers of taxation of those States in relation to the taxation of retirement pensions are allocated according to whether the recipients of those pensions were in employment in the private sector or the public sector and, in the latter case, according to whether or not they are nationals of the Member State of residence.

---

(1)  OJ C 206, 17.6.2019.

---

| 20.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 240/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 240/19

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti — Romania) — Hecta Viticol SRL v Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală (ANAF) — Direcţia Generală de Soluţionare a Contestaţiilor, Biroul Vamal de Interior Buzău, Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Galaţi

(Case C-184/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directives 92/83/EEC and 92/84/EEC - Rates of excise duty on wine and still fermented beverages other than wine and beer - Differentiated rates of excise duty - Principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations)

(2020/C 240/25)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Bucureşti

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Hecta Viticol SRL

Respondents: Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală (ANAF) — Direcţia Generală de Soluţionare a Contestaţiilor, Biroul Vamal de Interior Buzău, Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Galaţi

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Articles 7, 11 and 15 of Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonization of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages and Article 5 of Council Directive 92/84/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the approximation of the rates of excise duty on alcohol and alcoholic beverages must be interpreted as meaning that they do not require that identical rates of excise duty be fixed on alcoholic beverages in the category ‘wine’, within the meaning of Directive 92/83, and on those in the category ‘fermented beverages other than wine and beer’, within the meaning of that directive. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Articles 7, 11 and 15 of Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonization of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages and Article 5 of Council Directive 92/84/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the approximation of the rates of excise duty on alcohol and alcoholic beverages must be interpreted as meaning that they do not require that identical rates of excise duty be fixed on alcoholic beverages in the category ‘wine’, within the meaning of Directive 92/83, and on those in the category ‘fermented beverages other than wine and beer’, within the meaning of that directive.

| 2. | The principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation amending the rate of excise duty on fermented beverages other than wine and beer without laying down transitional arrangements, where such amendment enters into force eight days after the publication of the act on which it is based and where it does not mean that taxable persons carry out consequential economic adjustments, which it is for the referring court to ascertain. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation amending the rate of excise duty on fermented beverages other than wine and beer without laying down transitional arrangements, where such amendment enters into force eight days after the publication of the act on which it is based and where it does not mean that taxable persons carry out consequential economic adjustments, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.

---

(1)  OJ C 187, 3.6.2019.

---

| 20.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 240/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 240/20

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 May 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Spenner GmbH & Co. KG v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-189/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the European Union - Directive 2003/87/EC - Article 10a - Transitional system of free allocation of allowances - Decision 2011/278/EU - Article 9 - Determining the historical activity level - Significant change in the capacity of an installation that took place before the baseline period - Determining the relevant baseline period)

(2020/C 240/26)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant and appellant on a point of law: Spenner GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant and respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 9(9) of Commission Decision 2011/278/EU of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council must be interpreted as meaning that it does not apply to significant capacity extensions of an incumbent installation that took place before the baseline period determined in accordance with Article 9(1) of that decision. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 9(9) of Commission Decision 2011/278/EU of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council must be interpreted as meaning that it does not apply to significant capacity extensions of an incumbent installation that took place before the baseline period determined in accordance with Article 9(1) of that decision.

| 2. | Article 9(1) of Decision 2011/278 must be interpreted as meaning that it does not require the competent national authority itself to determine the relevant baseline period for the purposes of assessing the historical activity levels of an installation. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 9(1) of Decision 2011/278 must be interpreted as meaning that it does not require the competent national authority itself to determine the relevant baseline period for the purposes of assessing the historical activity levels of an installation.

---

(1)  OJ C 182, 27.5.2019.

---

| 20.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 240/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 240/21

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 30 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main — Germany) — OI v Air Nostrum Líneas Aéreas del Mediterráneo SA

(Case C-191/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Compensation for air passengers in the event of denied boarding - Denied boarding - Cancellation - Connecting flights - Change of the reservation in respect of one of the flights comprising the journey by air against the passenger’s will - Arrival of the passenger without delay at his or her final destination)

(2020/C 240/27)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Frankfurt am Main

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: OI

Defendant: Air Nostrum Líneas Aéreas del Mediterráneo SA

Operative part of the judgment

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, and in particular Article 7 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that compensation is not payable to a passenger who had a single reservation for connecting flights in the case where that reservation was amended against the passenger’s will, with the result that, first, the passenger did not board the first of his or her reserved flights even though that flight went ahead and, second, the passenger was given a seat on a later flight which allowed him or her to board the second of his or her reserved flights and thus to reach his or her final destination at the arrival time originally scheduled.

---

(1)  OJ C 206, 17.6.2019.

---

| 20.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 240/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 240/21

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 May 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Graz — Austria) — NK v MS, AS

(Case C-208/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Consumer rights - Directive 2011/83/EU - Scope - Article 3(3)(f) - Concept of ‘contracts for the construction of new buildings’ - Article 16(c) - Concept of ‘goods made to the consumer’s specifications or clearly personalised’ - Contract between an architect and a consumer concerning the drawing up of a plan for a new single-family house)

(2020/C 240/28)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Graz

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: NK

Defendants: MS, AS

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 3(3)(f) 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 meaning that a contract between an architect and a consumer, according to which the former commits to establishing only, for the latter, a project for the construction of a single-family house and, in that context, to preparing plans, is not a contract for the construction of a new building, within the meaning of that provision. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 3(3)(f) 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 meaning that a contract between an architect and a consumer, according to which the former commits to establishing only, for the latter, a project for the construction of a single-family house and, in that context, to preparing plans, is not a contract for the construction of a new building, within the meaning of that provision.

| 2. | Article 2(3) and (4) and Article 16(c) of Directive 2011/83 must be interpreted as meaning that a contract between an architect and a consumer, according to which the former commits to establishing for the latter, in accordance with the latter’s specifications and wishes, a project for the construction of a single-family house and, in that context, to preparing plans, is not a contract for the supply of goods made to the consumer’s specifications or clearly personalised, within the meaning of that provision. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 2(3) and (4) and Article 16(c) of Directive 2011/83 must be interpreted as meaning that a contract between an architect and a consumer, according to which the former commits to establishing for the latter, in accordance with the latter’s specifications and wishes, a project for the construction of a single-family house and, in that context, to preparing plans, is not a contract for the supply of goods made to the consumer’s specifications or clearly personalised, within the meaning of that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 172, 20.5.2019

---

| 20.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 240/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 240/22

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 30 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Miskolci Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — UO v Készenléti Rendőrség

(Case C-211/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Protection of the safety and health of workers - Directive 2003/88/EC - Scope - Derogation - Article 1(3) - Directive 89/391/EEC - Article 2(2) - Activities of rapid intervention police officers)

(2020/C 240/29)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Miskolci Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: UO

Defendant: Készenléti Rendőrség

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(3) 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 Article 2(1) and (2) of that directive applies to members of law enforcement agencies carrying out surveillance functions at the external borders of a Member State in the event of an influx of third-country nationals to those borders, except where it appears, having regard to all relevant circumstances, that the tasks carried out are being performed in the context of exceptional events, the gravity and scale of which require the adoption of measures indispensable for the protection of the life, health and safety of the community at large, measures the proper implementation of which would be jeopardised if all the rules laid down in that directive were to be observed, this being a matter for the referring court to determine.

---

(1)  OJ C 187, 3.6.2019.

---

| 20.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 240/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 240/23

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 30 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — EUROVIA Ipari, Kereskedelmi, Szállítmányozási és Idegenforgalmi Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

(Case C-258/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax - Directive 77/388/EEC - First and third subparagraphs of Article 10(2), Article 17(1) and first subparagraph of Article 18(2) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 63, Article 64(1), subparagraphs (a) to (c) of the first paragraph of Article 66, Article 167 and the first paragraph of Article 179 - Services supplied before Hungary acceded to the European Union - Exact price of that supply determined after accession - Invoice relating to that supply issued and paid after accession - Refusal on the grounds of limitation of the right of deduction based on that invoice - Jurisdiction of the Court)

(2020/C 240/30)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Kúria

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: EUROVIA Ipari, Kereskedelmi, Szállítmányozási és Idegenforgalmi Kft.

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

Operative part of the judgment

The Court of Justice of the European Union has no jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Kúria (Supreme Court, Hungary).

---

(1)  OJ C 187, 3.6.2019.

---

| 20.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 240/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 240/23

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 May 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) –T-Systems Magyarország Zrt., BKK Budapesti Közlekedési Központ Zrt. v Közbeszerzési Hatóság Közbeszerzési Döntőbizottság

(Case C-263/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Award of public contracts - Directive 2014/24/EU - Article 1(2) and Article 72 - Directive 2014/25/EU - Article 1(2) and Article 89 - Review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts - Directive 89/665/EEC - Article 2e(2) - Procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors - Directive 92/13/EEC - Article 2e(2) - Modification of a contract concluded following a public procurement procedure - No new public procurement procedure - Fines imposed on the contracting authority and the tenderer - Principle of proportionality)

(2020/C 240/31)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Törvényszék

Parties in the main proceedings

Applicants: T-Systems Magyarország Zrt., BKK Budapesti Közlekedési Központ Zrt.g

Defendant: Közbeszerzési Hatóság Közbeszerzési Döntőbizottság

Intervener: Közbeszerzési Hatóság Elnöke

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 2e(2) of Council Directive 89/665/ of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Directive 2007/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007, Article 2e(2) of Council Directive 92/13/EEC of 25 February 1992 coordinating the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of Community rules on the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors, as amended by Directive 2007/66, recitals 19 to 21 of Directive 2007/66, as well as recitals 12, 113, 115 and 117, Article 1(2) and Article 89 of Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on procurement by entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors and repealing Directive 2004/17/EC, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which, in the context of a review procedure initiated ex officio by a supervisory authority, allows an infringement to be attributed and a fine imposed not only on the contracting authority but also on the tenderer, in the event that, where a public procurement contract is modified in the course of its performance, public procurement rules have been unlawfully set aside. However, where such a possibility is provided for in national legislation, the review procedure must comply with EU law, including the general principles thereof, in so far as the public contract concerned itself falls within the material scope of the Public Procurement Directives, be it ab initio or further to the unlawful modification of that contract. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 2e(2) of Council Directive 89/665/ of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Directive 2007/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007, Article 2e(2) of Council Directive 92/13/EEC of 25 February 1992 coordinating the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of Community rules on the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors, as amended by Directive 2007/66, recitals 19 to 21 of Directive 2007/66, as well as recitals 12, 113, 115 and 117, Article 1(2) and Article 89 of Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on procurement by entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors and repealing Directive 2004/17/EC, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which, in the context of a review procedure initiated ex officio by a supervisory authority, allows an infringement to be attributed and a fine imposed not only on the contracting authority but also on the tenderer, in the event that, where a public procurement contract is modified in the course of its performance, public procurement rules have been unlawfully set aside. However, where such a possibility is provided for in national legislation, the review procedure must comply with EU law, including the general principles thereof, in so far as the public contract concerned itself falls within the material scope of the Public Procurement Directives, be it ab initio or further to the unlawful modification of that contract.

| 2. | The amount of the fine penalising the unlawful modification of the public contract concluded between a contracting authority and a tenderer must be fixed taking into account the conduct specific to each of those parties. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The amount of the fine penalising the unlawful modification of the public contract concluded between a contracting authority and a tenderer must be fixed taking into account the conduct specific to each of those parties.

---

(1)  OJ C 206, 17.6.2019.

---

| 20.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 240/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 240/24

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 May 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — EIS GmbH v TO

(Case C-266/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 2011/83/EU - Article 6(1)(c) and (h), and Article 6(4) - Annex I.A - Right of withdrawal - Information to be provided by traders in relation to the conditions, time limit and procedures for exercising the right of withdrawal - Obligation for traders to provide a telephone number ‘where available’ - Scope)

(2020/C 240/32)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties in the main proceedings

Applicant: EIS GmbH

Defendant: TO

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(1)(c) 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 meaning that, in a situation where a trader’s telephone number appears on his or her website, in such a way that it suggests, in the eyes of the average consumer, namely a reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect consumer, that that trader uses that telephone number in his or her contacts with consumers, that telephone number must be regarded as being ‘available’, within the meaning of that provision. In such a case, Article 6 (1)(c) and (h), as well as Article 6(4) of that directive, read in conjunction with Annex I.A thereto, must be interpreted as meaning that a trader who provides the consumer, before the latter is bound by a distance or off-premises contract, with the information relating to the procedures for exercising the right of withdrawal using the model instructions set out in Annex I.A, is required to mention the same telephone number so as to allow that consumer to communicate to the trader any decision to exercise that right using that telephone number.

---

(1)  OJ C 230, 8.7.2019.

---

| 20.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 240/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 240/25

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 May 2020 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Trgovački sud u Zagrebu — Croatia) — PARKING d.o.o. v SAWAL d.o.o. (C-267/19), Interplastics s. r. o. v Letifico d.o.o. (C-323/19)

(Joined Cases C-267/19 and C-323/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Notaries acting in enforcement proceedings based on an authentic document - Non adversarial proceedings - Principle of non-discrimination - Article 18 TFEU - Right to a fair trial - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)

(2020/C 240/33)

Language of the case: Croatian

Referring court

Trgovački sud u Zagrebu

Parties in the main proceedings

Applicants: PARKING d.o.o. (C-267/19), Interplastics s. r. o. (C-323/19)

Defendants: SAWAL d.o.o. . (C-267/19), Letifico d.o.o. (C-323/19)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 18 TFEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation authorising notaries, acting within the framework of the powers conferred on them by national law in enforcement proceedings based on an ‘authentic document’, to issue writs of execution which, as is clear from the judgment of 9 March 2017, Pula Parking (C-551/15, EU:C:2017:193), cannot be recognised and enforced in another Member State.

---

(1)  OJ C 263, 5.8.2019.

---

| 20.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 240/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 240/26

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 May 2020 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-276/19) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Derogations - Simplification measures and measures to prevent tax evasion or avoidance - Article 395(2) - Obligation incumbent on Member States to notify the European Commission of special measures intended to simplify the procedure for charging VAT - Substantial amendment of the measure initially notified)

(2020/C 240/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: X. Lewis and J. Jokubauskaitė, acting as Agents)

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: F. Shibli, acting as Agent, O. Thomas QC and R. Hill, Barrister)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that by introducing new simplification measures that extend the zero-rating and the exception to the normal requirement to keep value added tax records which were provided for in the Value Added Tax (Terminal Markets) Order 1973, as amended by the Value Added Tax (Terminal Markets) (Amendment) Order 1975, without submitting an application to the European Commission with a view to seeking the authorisation of the Council of the European Union, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 395(2) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that by introducing new simplification measures that extend the zero-rating and the exception to the normal requirement to keep value added tax records which were provided for in the Value Added Tax (Terminal Markets) Order 1973, as amended by the Value Added Tax (Terminal Markets) (Amendment) Order 1975, without submitting an application to the European Commission with a view to seeking the authorisation of the Council of the European Union, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 395(2) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax;

| 2. | Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 206, 17.6.2019.

---

| 20.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 240/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 240/26

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 May 2020 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Szegedi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — FMS, FNZ (C-924/19 PPU), SA and SA junior (C-925/19 PPU) v Országos Idegenrendészeti Főigazgatóság Dél-alföldi Regionális Igazgatóság, Országos Idegenrendészeti Főigazgatóság,

(Joined Cases C-924/19 PPU and C-925/19 PPU) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Asylum and immigration policy - Directive 2013/32/EU - Application for international protection - Article 33(2) - Grounds of inadmissibility - Article 40 - Subsequent applications - Article 43 - Border procedures - Directive 2013/33/EU - Article 2(h) and Articles 8 and 9 - Detention - Whether lawful - Directive 2008/115/EU - Article 13 - Effective remedies - Article 15 - Detention - Whether lawful - Right to an effective remedy - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Principle of primacy of EU law)

(2020/C 240/35)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Szegedi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: FMS, FNZ (C-924/19 PPU), SA and SA junior (C-925/19 PPU)

Defendants: Országos Idegenrendészeti Főigazgatóság Dél-alföldi Regionális Igazgatóság, Országos Idegenrendészeti Főigazgatóság

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 13 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, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which the amendment by an administrative authority of the country of destination stated in an earlier return decision can be contested by the third-country national concerned only by means of an appeal brought before an administrative authority, without a subsequent judicial review of the decision of that authority being guaranteed. In such a situation, the principle of primacy of EU law and the right to effective judicial protection, guaranteed by Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, must be interpreted as requiring the national court seised of an action contesting the legality, under EU law, of the return decision consisting in such an amendment of the country of destination to declare that it has jurisdiction to hear that action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 13 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, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which the amendment by an administrative authority of the country of destination stated in an earlier return decision can be contested by the third-country national concerned only by means of an appeal brought before an administrative authority, without a subsequent judicial review of the decision of that authority being guaranteed. In such a situation, the principle of primacy of EU law and the right to effective judicial protection, guaranteed by Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, must be interpreted as requiring the national court seised of an action contesting the legality, under EU law, of the return decision consisting in such an amendment of the country of destination to declare that it has jurisdiction to hear that action;

| 2. | Article 33 of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which allows an application for international protection to be rejected as inadmissible on the ground that the applicant arrived on the territory of the Member State concerned via a State in which that person is not exposed to persecution or a risk of serious harm, within the meaning of the national provision transposing Article 15 of Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted, or in which a sufficient degree of protection is guaranteed; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 33 of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which allows an application for international protection to be rejected as inadmissible on the ground that the applicant arrived on the territory of the Member State concerned via a State in which that person is not exposed to persecution or a risk of serious harm, within the meaning of the national provision transposing Article 15 of Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted, or in which a sufficient degree of protection is guaranteed;

| 3. | Directive 2013/32, read in conjunction with Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the principle of sincere cooperation arising under Article 4(3) TEU must be interpreted as meaning that, when an application for asylum has been the subject of a rejection decision that was confirmed by a judicial decision that became final before the incompatibility of that rejection decision with EU law was found, the determining authority, within the meaning of Article 2(f) of Directive 2013/32, is not required to re-examine that application of its own motion. Article 33(2)(d) of Directive 2013/32 must be interpreted as meaning that the existence of a judgment of the Court finding that national legislation which allows an application for international protection to be rejected as inadmissible on the ground that the applicant arrived on the territory of the Member State concerned via a State in which he or she is not exposed to persecution or to a risk of serious harm or in which a sufficient degree of protection is guaranteed is incompatible with EU law constitutes a new element relating to the examination of an application for international protection, within the meaning of that provision. Furthermore, that provision is not applicable to a subsequent application, within the meaning of Article 2(q) of that directive, where the determining authority finds that the definitive rejection of the earlier application is contrary to EU law. Such a finding must necessarily be made by that authority when that incompatibility arises from a judgment of the Court or was established, as an ancillary finding, by a national court; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Directive 2013/32, read in conjunction with Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the principle of sincere cooperation arising under Article 4(3) TEU must be interpreted as meaning that, when an application for asylum has been the subject of a rejection decision that was confirmed by a judicial decision that became final before the incompatibility of that rejection decision with EU law was found, the determining authority, within the meaning of Article 2(f) of Directive 2013/32, is not required to re-examine that application of its own motion. Article 33(2)(d) of Directive 2013/32 must be interpreted as meaning that the existence of a judgment of the Court finding that national legislation which allows an application for international protection to be rejected as inadmissible on the ground that the applicant arrived on the territory of the Member State concerned via a State in which he or she is not exposed to persecution or to a risk of serious harm or in which a sufficient degree of protection is guaranteed is incompatible with EU law constitutes a new element relating to the examination of an application for international protection, within the meaning of that provision. Furthermore, that provision is not applicable to a subsequent application, within the meaning of Article 2(q) of that directive, where the determining authority finds that the definitive rejection of the earlier application is contrary to EU law. Such a finding must necessarily be made by that authority when that incompatibility arises from a judgment of the Court or was established, as an ancillary finding, by a national court;

| 4. | Directive 2008/115 and Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection must be interpreted as meaning that the obligation imposed on a third-country national to remain permanently in a transit zone the perimeter of which is restricted and closed, within which that national’s movements are limited and monitored, and which he or she cannot legally leave voluntarily, in any direction whatsoever, appears to be a deprivation of liberty, characterised by ‘detention’ within the meaning of those directives; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Directive 2008/115 and Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection must be interpreted as meaning that the obligation imposed on a third-country national to remain permanently in a transit zone the perimeter of which is restricted and closed, within which that national’s movements are limited and monitored, and which he or she cannot legally leave voluntarily, in any direction whatsoever, appears to be a deprivation of liberty, characterised by ‘detention’ within the meaning of those directives;

| 5. | Article 43 of Directive 2013/32 must be interpreted as not authorising the detention of an applicant for international protection in a transit zone for a period of more than four weeks; |
| --- | --- |

5.

Article 43 of Directive 2013/32 must be interpreted as not authorising the detention of an applicant for international protection in a transit zone for a period of more than four weeks;

| 6. | Articles 8 and 9 of Directive 2013/33 must be interpreted as precluding, first, an applicant for international protection being detained on the sole ground that he or she is unable to provide for his or her needs, secondly, such detention taking place without a reasoned decision ordering the detention having first been adopted and without the necessity and proportionality of such a measure having been examined and, thirdly, there being no judicial review of the lawfulness of the administrative decision ordering the detention of that applicant. By contrast, Article 9 of that directive must be interpreted as not requiring Member States to set a maximum period for continuing detention provided that their national law guarantees that the detention lasts only so long as the ground on which it was ordered continues to apply and that the administrative procedures linked with that ground are carried out diligently; |
| --- | --- |

6.

Articles 8 and 9 of Directive 2013/33 must be interpreted as precluding, first, an applicant for international protection being detained on the sole ground that he or she is unable to provide for his or her needs, secondly, such detention taking place without a reasoned decision ordering the detention having first been adopted and without the necessity and proportionality of such a measure having been examined and, thirdly, there being no judicial review of the lawfulness of the administrative decision ordering the detention of that applicant. By contrast, Article 9 of that directive must be interpreted as not requiring Member States to set a maximum period for continuing detention provided that their national law guarantees that the detention lasts only so long as the ground on which it was ordered continues to apply and that the administrative procedures linked with that ground are carried out diligently;

| 7. | Article 15 of Directive 2008/115 must be interpreted as precluding, first, a third-country national being detained for the sole reason that he or she is the subject of a return decision and is unable to provide for his or her needs, secondly, such detention taking place without a reasoned decision ordering detention having first been adopted and without the necessity and proportionality of such a measure having been examined, thirdly, there being no judicial review of the lawfulness of the administrative decision ordering detention and, fourthly, such detention being capable of exceeding 18 months and being maintained when the removal arrangements are no longer in progress or are no longer being executed with due diligence; |
| --- | --- |

7.

Article 15 of Directive 2008/115 must be interpreted as precluding, first, a third-country national being detained for the sole reason that he or she is the subject of a return decision and is unable to provide for his or her needs, secondly, such detention taking place without a reasoned decision ordering detention having first been adopted and without the necessity and proportionality of such a measure having been examined, thirdly, there being no judicial review of the lawfulness of the administrative decision ordering detention and, fourthly, such detention being capable of exceeding 18 months and being maintained when the removal arrangements are no longer in progress or are no longer being executed with due diligence;

| 8. | The principle of primacy of EU law and the right to effective judicial protection, guaranteed by Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as requiring the national court, in the absence of a national provision providing for judicial review of the lawfulness of an administrative decision ordering the detention of applicants for international protection or of third-country nationals whose applications for asylum have been rejected, to declare that it has jurisdiction to rule on the legality of such detention and permitting that court to release the persons concerned immediately if it considers that such detention constitutes detention contrary to EU law;
  Article 26 of Directive 2013/33 must be interpreted as requiring that an applicant for international protection whose detention, which is held to be illegal, has come to an end may rely, before the court with jurisdiction under national law, on his or her right to receive either a financial allowance enabling that applicant to house himself or herself, or housing in kind, as that court has, under EU law, the possibility to grant interim relief pending its final decision;
  The principle of primacy of EU law and the right to effective judicial protection, guaranteed by Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as requiring the national court, in the absence of a national provision providing for judicial review of the right to housing, within the meaning of Article 17 of Directive 2013/33, to declare that it has jurisdiction to hear the action seeking to guarantee such a right. |
| --- | --- |

8.

The principle of primacy of EU law and the right to effective judicial protection, guaranteed by Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as requiring the national court, in the absence of a national provision providing for judicial review of the lawfulness of an administrative decision ordering the detention of applicants for international protection or of third-country nationals whose applications for asylum have been rejected, to declare that it has jurisdiction to rule on the legality of such detention and permitting that court to release the persons concerned immediately if it considers that such detention constitutes detention contrary to EU law;

Article 26 of Directive 2013/33 must be interpreted as requiring that an applicant for international protection whose detention, which is held to be illegal, has come to an end may rely, before the court with jurisdiction under national law, on his or her right to receive either a financial allowance enabling that applicant to house himself or herself, or housing in kind, as that court has, under EU law, the possibility to grant interim relief pending its final decision;

The principle of primacy of EU law and the right to effective judicial protection, guaranteed by Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as requiring the national court, in the absence of a national provision providing for judicial review of the right to housing, within the meaning of Article 17 of Directive 2013/33, to declare that it has jurisdiction to hear the action seeking to guarantee such a right.

---

(1)  OJ C 161, 11.5.2020.

---

General Court

| 20.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 240/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 240/29

---

Action brought on 28 May 2020 — Comercializadora Eloro v EUIPO — Zumex Group (JUMEX)

(Case T-310/20)

(2020/C 240/36)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Comercializadora Eloro (Ecatepec, Mexico) (represented by: J.L. Gracia Albero, P. Merino Baylos and E. Cebollero González, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Zumex Group, SA (Moncada, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark JUMEX — Application for registration No 12 329 181

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 March 2020 in Case R 534/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of the present proceedings and order the opponent to pay the costs incurred in the proceedings before the Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal of EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the present proceedings and order the opponent to pay the costs incurred in the proceedings before the Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

Plea in law

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

---

| 20.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 240/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 240/29

---

Action brought on 26 May 2020 — France Agro v EUIPO — Chafay (Choumicha Saveurs)

(Case T-311/20)

(2020/C 240/37)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: France Agro (Avignon, France) (represented by: C. de Haas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Choumicha Chafay (Casablanca, Morocco)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark Choumicha Saveurs in the colours red, orange, yellow, burgundy, gold and white — Application for registration No 13 866 553

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 March 2020 in Case R 1621/2019-5

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 incurred by the applicant in the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the present proceedings.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 20.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 240/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 240/30

---

Action brought on 27 May 2020 — EnergieVerbund Dresden v Commission

(Case T-317/20)

(2020/C 240/38)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: EnergieVerbund Dresden GmbH (Dresden, Germany) (represented by: I. Zenke and T. Heymann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the defendant of 26 February 2019 declaring the concentration ‘RWE/E.ON Assets’ compatible with the internal market (Case M.8871) (OJ 2020 C 111, p. 1); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the defendant of 26 February 2019 declaring the concentration ‘RWE/E.ON Assets’ compatible with the internal market (Case M.8871) (OJ 2020 C 111, p. 1);

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The action is based on three pleas in law, which are essentially identical or similar to those put forward in Case T-312/20, EVH v Commission.

---

| 20.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 240/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 240/31

---

Action brought on 27 May 2020 — eins energie in sachsen v Commission

(Case T-318/20)

(2020/C 240/39)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: eins energie in sachsen GmbH & Co. KG (Chemnitz, Germany) (represented by: I. Zenke and T. Heymann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the defendant’s decision of 26 February 2019 declaring the concentration ‘RWE/E.ON Assets’ to be compatible with the internal market, Case M.8871 (OJ 2020 C 111, p. 1); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the defendant’s decision of 26 February 2019 declaring the concentration ‘RWE/E.ON Assets’ to be compatible with the internal market, Case M.8871 (OJ 2020 C 111, p. 1);

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-312/20, EVH v Commission.

---

| 20.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 240/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 240/31

---

Action brought on 27 May 2020 — GGEW v Commission

(Case T-319/20)

(2020/C 240/40)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: GGEW, Gruppen-Gas- und Elektrizitätswerk Bergstraße AG (Bensheim, Germany) (represented by: I. Zenke and T. Heymann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the defendant’s decision of 26 February 2019 declaring the concentration ‘RWE/E.ON Assets’ to be compatible with the internal market, Case M.8871 (OJ C 111, p. 1); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the defendant’s decision of 26 February 2019 declaring the concentration ‘RWE/E.ON Assets’ to be compatible with the internal market, Case M.8871 (OJ C 111, p. 1);

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-312/20, EVH v Commission.

---

| 20.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 240/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 240/32

---

Action brought on 27 May 2020 — Hell Energy Magyarország v EUIPO (HELL)

(Case T-323/20)

(2020/C 240/41)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: Hell Energy Magyarország Kft. (Budapest, Hungrary) (represented by Á. László and B. Mező, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark HELL — Application for registration No 18 002 048

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 March 2020 in Case R 1712/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | Annul the contested decision and order EUIPO to continue the registration process in relation to the rejected goods. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the contested decision and order EUIPO to continue the registration process in relation to the rejected goods.

Pleas in law

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

—

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

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

—

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

---

| 20.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 240/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 240/32

---

Action brought on 28 May 2020 — Group Nivelles v EUIPO — Easy Sanitary Solutions (Douchegoot)

(Case T-327/20)

(2020/C 240/42)

Language in which the application was lodged: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Group Nivelles (Gingelom, Belgium) (represented by: J.A.M. Jonkhout, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Easy Sanitary Solutions BV (Oldenzaal, Netherlands)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Design at issue: European Union design (Douchegoot) — European Union design No 107 834 0025

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 March 2020 in Case R 2664/2017-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | declare invalid, correcting the grounds as necessary, the European Union design of Easy Sanitary Solutions BV; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare invalid, correcting the grounds as necessary, the European Union design of Easy Sanitary Solutions BV;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea(s) in law

| — | Infringement of Article 64 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 64 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;

| — | Infringement of Article 63(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 63(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;

| — | Infringement of Article 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;

| — | Infringement of Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002.

---

| 20.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 240/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 240/33

---

Action brought on 29 May 2020 — Electrodomesticos Taurus v EUIPO — Shenzhen Aukey E-Business (AICOOK)

(Case T-328/20)

(2020/C 240/43)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Electrodomesticos Taurus, SL (Oliana, Spain) (represented by: E. Manresa Medina, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Shenzhen Aukey E-Business Co. Ltd (Shenzhen, China)

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 word mark AICOOK No 17 174 236

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 March 2020 in Case R 2212/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | declare the use of the opposing trade mark to have been established in relation to ‘Food processors’ in Class 7; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the use of the opposing trade mark to have been established in relation to ‘Food processors’ in Class 7;

| — | refuse registration of trade mark No 17 174 236 on account of its similarity to the opposing mark; |
| --- | --- |

—

refuse registration of trade mark No 17 174 236 on account of its similarity to the opposing mark;

| — | and, subsidiarily, to avoid registration of that trade mark, declare that the use of the opposing trade mark has been established in relation to ‘Food processors’ in Class 7; |
| --- | --- |

—

and, subsidiarily, to avoid registration of that trade mark, declare that the use of the opposing trade mark has been established in relation to ‘Food processors’ in Class 7;

| — | order EUIPO’s Opposition Division to adopt a decision in relation to opposition B 3006619 (MUE No 17 174 236 AICOOK) finding that the use of the opposing trade mark has been established in relation to ‘Food processors’ in Class 7. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO’s Opposition Division to adopt a decision in relation to opposition B 3006619 (MUE No 17 174 236 AICOOK) finding that the use of the opposing trade mark has been established in relation to ‘Food processors’ in Class 7.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 47(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 47(2) 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(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 20.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 240/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 240/34

---

Action brought on 30 May 2020 — Hypo Vorarlberg Bank v SRB

(Case T-336/20)

(2020/C 240/44)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Hypo Vorarlberg Bank AG (Bregenz, Austria) (represented by: G. Eisenberger and A. Brenneis, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 19 March 2020 on the calculation of the 2016 ex-ante contributions due by Banco Cooperativo Español S.A., Hypo Vorarlberg Bank AG (formerly: Vorarl-berger Landes- und Hypothekenbank AG), and Portigon AG to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2020/16), including the annexes thereto, and in any event in so far as that decision, including the annexes thereto, concerns the contribution to be paid by the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 19 March 2020 on the calculation of the 2016 ex-ante contributions due by Banco Cooperativo Español S.A., Hypo Vorarlberg Bank AG (formerly: Vorarl-berger Landes- und Hypothekenbank AG), and Portigon AG to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2020/16), including the annexes thereto, and in any event in so far as that decision, including the annexes thereto, concerns the contribution to be paid by the applicant;

| — | order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-479/19; Hypo Vorarlberg Bank v SRB. (1)

---

(1)  OJ 2019 C 305, p. 58.

---

| 20.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 240/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 240/34

---

Action brought on 2 June 2020 — Portigon v SRB

(Case T-339/20)

(2020/C 240/45)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Portigon AG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: D. Bliesener, V. Jungkind and F. Geber, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the defendant’s decision of 19 March 2020 on the calculation of the ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund for 2016 (ref: SRB/ES/2020/16), in so far as the decision concerns the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the defendant’s decision of 19 March 2020 on the calculation of the ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund for 2016 (ref: SRB/ES/2020/16), in so far as the decision concerns the applicant;

| — | stay the present proceedings under Article 69(c) and (d) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court until a final decision is issued in Cases T-420/17, T-413/18 and T-481/19 or until those cases are otherwise brought to a conclusion; |
| --- | --- |

—

stay the present proceedings under Article 69(c) and (d) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court until a final decision is issued in Cases T-420/17, T-413/18 and T-481/19 or until those cases are otherwise brought to a conclusion;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea, alleging infringement of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council, (1) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/81 (2) and TFEU through increases in the amounts of the contributions to be paid by the applicant to the fund.






  — | The applicant claims that the defendant was wrong to make the applicant subject to an obligation to pay a contribution, since a mandatory contribution for institutions under resolution is not provided for under Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 and Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council. (3) Article 114 TFEU prohibits the levying of contributions on institutions such as the applicant. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea, alleging infringement of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council, (1) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/81 (2) and TFEU through increases in the amounts of the contributions to be paid by the applicant to the fund.

—

The applicant claims that the defendant was wrong to make the applicant subject to an obligation to pay a contribution, since a mandatory contribution for institutions under resolution is not provided for under Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 and Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council. (3) Article 114 TFEU prohibits the levying of contributions on institutions such as the applicant.

| — | The legislature was not entitled to base the obligation to pay a contribution on Article 114 TFEU owing to the lack of relevance to the internal market. Harmonised rules governing contributions throughout the European Union neither facilitate the exercise of fundamental freedoms nor remedy appreciable distortions of competition in relation to institutions that withdraw from the market. |
| --- | --- |

—

The legislature was not entitled to base the obligation to pay a contribution on Article 114 TFEU owing to the lack of relevance to the internal market. Harmonised rules governing contributions throughout the European Union neither facilitate the exercise of fundamental freedoms nor remedy appreciable distortions of competition in relation to institutions that withdraw from the market.

| — | The applicant claims that the defendant was wrong to make the applicant subject to an obligation to pay a contribution, since the institution has no risk exposure, there is no prospect of the institution entering into resolution in accordance with the rules of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 and the institution is of no importance to the stability of the financial system. |
| --- | --- |

—

The applicant claims that the defendant was wrong to make the applicant subject to an obligation to pay a contribution, since the institution has no risk exposure, there is no prospect of the institution entering into resolution in accordance with the rules of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 and the institution is of no importance to the stability of the financial system.

| — | The applicant has not engaged in any new business since 2012 and is under resolution as a result of an aid decision taken by the European Commission. It holds the majority of its remaining liabilities on trust for another entity. |
| --- | --- |

—

The applicant has not engaged in any new business since 2012 and is under resolution as a result of an aid decision taken by the European Commission. It holds the majority of its remaining liabilities on trust for another entity.

| — | Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 (4) infringes Article 114 TFEU and Article 103(7) of Directive 2014/59/EU as an essential element relating to the calculation of the contribution (Article 290 TFEU). |
| --- | --- |

—

Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 (4) infringes Article 114 TFEU and Article 103(7) of Directive 2014/59/EU as an essential element relating to the calculation of the contribution (Article 290 TFEU).

| 2. | Second plea, alleging infringement of Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), on the ground that the calculation procedure does not allow for a complete statement of reasons for the contested decision. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea, alleging infringement of Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), on the ground that the calculation procedure does not allow for a complete statement of reasons for the contested decision.

| 3. | Third plea, alleging infringement of Articles 16 and 20 of the Charter, since, in view of the special situation of the applicant, the contested decision is at variance with the general principle of equality. Furthermore, the contested decision interferes disproportionately with the applicant’s freedom to conduct a business. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea, alleging infringement of Articles 16 and 20 of the Charter, since, in view of the special situation of the applicant, the contested decision is at variance with the general principle of equality. Furthermore, the contested decision interferes disproportionately with the applicant’s freedom to conduct a business.

| 4. | Fourth plea, alleging breach of the principle of legal certainty, since retroactive effect is not necessary for the objective sought by Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 and is not permissible in the present case purely in order to simplify administration. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea, alleging breach of the principle of legal certainty, since retroactive effect is not necessary for the objective sought by Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 and is not permissible in the present case purely in order to simplify administration.

| 5. | Fifth plea, alleging infringement of the essential formal requirements, since the defendant failed sufficiently to explain the factual circumstances, did not hear the applicant before adopting its decision and did not provide an adequate statement of reasons for its decision. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea, alleging infringement of the essential formal requirements, since the defendant failed sufficiently to explain the factual circumstances, did not hear the applicant before adopting its decision and did not provide an adequate statement of reasons for its decision.

| 6. | Sixth plea, alleging, in the alternative, infringement of Article 70(2) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 in conjunction with Article 103(7) of Directive 2014/59/EU, since the defendant, in calculating the amount of the contribution, should have excluded risk-free liabilities from the relevant liabilities. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea, alleging, in the alternative, infringement of Article 70(2) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 in conjunction with Article 103(7) of Directive 2014/59/EU, since the defendant, in calculating the amount of the contribution, should have excluded risk-free liabilities from the relevant liabilities.

| 7. | Seventh plea, alleging, in the alternative, infringement of Article 70(6) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 in conjunction with Article 5(3) and (4) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63, since the defendant wrongly calculated the applicant’s contribution on the basis of a gross approach with regard to derivative contracts. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea, alleging, in the alternative, infringement of Article 70(6) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 in conjunction with Article 5(3) and (4) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63, since the defendant wrongly calculated the applicant’s contribution on the basis of a gross approach with regard to derivative contracts.

| 8. | Eighth plea, alleging, in the alternative, infringement of Article 70(6) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014, in conjunction with Article 6(8)(a) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63, since the defendant wrongly regarded the applicant as an institution undergoing reorganisation. |
| --- | --- |

8.

Eighth plea, alleging, in the alternative, infringement of Article 70(6) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014, in conjunction with Article 6(8)(a) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63, since the defendant wrongly regarded the applicant as an institution undergoing reorganisation.

---

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

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/81 of 19 December 2014 specifying uniform conditions of application of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (OJ 2015 L 15, p. 1).

(3)  Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 establishing a framework for the recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms and amending Council Directive 82/891/EEC, and Directives 2001/24/EC, 2002/47/EC, 2004/25/EC, 2005/56/EC, 2007/36/EC, 2011/35/EU, 2012/30/EU and 2013/36/EU, and Regulations (EU) No 1093/2010 and (EU) No 648/2012, of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2014 L 173, p. 190).

(4)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 of 21 October 2014 supplementing Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ex ante contributions to resolution financing arrangements (OJ 2015 L 11, p. 44).

---

| 20.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 240/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 240/36

---

Order of the General Court of 30 April 2020 — Antonakopoulos v Parliament

(Case T-590/18) (1)

(2020/C 240/46)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.

---

| 20.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 240/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 240/36

---

Order of the General Court of 30 April 2020 — ZD v Parliament

(Case T-591/18) (1)

(2020/C 240/47)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.

---

| 20.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 240/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 240/36

---

Order of the General Court of 30 April 2020 — ZE v Parlement

(Case T-603/18) (1)

(2020/C 240/48)

Language of the case: Greek

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

---

(1)  OJ C 436, 3.12.2018.

---