# Official Journal C 252/17 J

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 252 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6617 July 2023 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 252

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6617 July 2023

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2023/C 252/01 | Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union | 1 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

2023/C 252/01

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

Official Journal of the European Union

1

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2023/C 252/02 | Case C-204/21: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 June 2023. — European Commission v Republic of Poland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU — Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Rule of law — Effective legal protection in the fields covered by EU law — Independence of judges — Article 267 TFEU — Possibility of making a reference to the Court for a preliminary ruling — Primacy of EU law — Jurisdiction in relation to the lifting of the immunity from criminal prosecution of judges and in the field of employment law, social security and retirement of judges of the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court, Poland) conferred on the Disciplinary Chamber of that court — National courts prohibited from calling into question the legitimacy of the constitutional courts and bodies or from establishing or assessing the lawfulness of the appointment of judges or their judicial powers — Verification by a judge of compliance with certain requirements relating to the existence of an independent and impartial tribunal previously established by the law classified as a disciplinary offence — Exclusive jurisdiction to examine questions relating to the lack of independence of a court or judge conferred on the Extraordinary Review and Public Affairs Chamber of the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court) — Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Rights to privacy and the protection of personal data — Regulation (EU) 2016/679 — Article 6(1), first subparagraph, points (c) and (e), and Article 6(3), second subparagraph — Article 9(1) — Sensitive data — National legislation requiring judges to make a declaration as to whether they belong to associations, foundations or political parties, and to the positions held within those associations, foundations or political parties, and providing for the placing online of the data contained in those declarations) | 2 |
| 2023/C 252/03 | Case C-290/21, AKM (Provision of satellite package in Austria): Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 May 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof, Austria) — Staatlich genehmigte Gesellschaft der Autoren, Komponisten und Musikverleger Reg. Gen. mbH (AKM) v Canal+ Luxembourg Sàrl (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual property — Copyright and rights related to copyright applicable to satellite broadcasting and cable retransmission — Directive 93/83/EEC — Article 1(2) — Communication to the public by satellite — Concept — Satellite package provider — Broadcasting of programmes in another Member State — Place of the act of exploitation by which that provider participates in such communication) | 4 |
| 2023/C 252/04 | Case C-575/21, WertInvest Hotelbetrieb: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 May 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Wien — Austria) — WertInvest Hotelbetriebs GmbH v Magistrat der Stadt Wien (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Directive 2011/92/EU — Assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment — Article 2(1) and Article 4(2) — Projects covered by Annex II — Urban development projects — Examination on the basis of thresholds or criteria — Article 4(3) — Relevant selection criteria set in Annex III — Article 11 — Access to justice) | 5 |
| 2023/C 252/05 | Case C-608/21, Politseyski organ pri 02 RU SDVR: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 May 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad — Bulgaria) — criminal proceedings of an administrative nature against XN (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Directive 2012/13/EU — Right to information in criminal proceedings — Article 6 — Right of a person to be informed of the charges brought against him or her — Article 7 — Right of access to documents in the file — Effective exercise of the rights of the defence — Article 6 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Right to liberty and security — Communication of the grounds for the detention of the suspected or accused person in a separate document — Time at which that communication must be made) | 6 |
| 2023/C 252/06 | Case C-700/21, O.G. (Execution of a European arrest warrant issued against a third-country national): Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 June 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte costituzionale- Italy) — Execution of a European arrest warrant issued against O.G. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Grounds for optional non-execution of the European arrest warrant — Article 4(6) — Objective of social rehabilitation — Third-country nationals staying or residing on the territory of the executing Member State — Equal treatment — Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union) | 7 |
| 2023/C 252/07 | Case C-114/22, Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej w Warszawie (VAT — fictitious acquisition): Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 25 May 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej w Warszawie v W. sp. z o.o. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Right to deduct VAT — Refusal — Refusal based on the invalidity of the transaction under national civil law) | 8 |
| 2023/C 252/08 | Case C-141/22, TLL The Longevity Labs: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 25 May 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Graz — Austria) — TLL The Longevity Labs GmbH v Optimize Health Solutions mi GmbH, BM (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Food safety — Novel food — Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 — Sprouted buckwheat flour with a high spermidine content — Germination of buckwheat seeds in a nutrient solution containing spermidine) | 9 |
| 2023/C 252/09 | Case C-364/22, Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Voluntary return): Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 25 May 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Minden — Germany) — J.B., S.B., F.B., legally represented by J.B. and S.B., v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Asylum policy — Common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection — Directive 2013/32/EU — Article 33(2)(d) — Procedure for examining an application for international protection — Inadmissible applications — Subsequent application — Voluntary return and removal) | 9 |
| 2023/C 252/10 | Case C-368/22, Danish Fluid System Technologies: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 25 May 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Denmark) — Skatteministeriet v Danish Fluid System Technologies A/S (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 — Customs Union — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Heading 7307 — Tube or pipe fittings — Subheading 7307 22 10 — Sleeves) | 10 |
| 2023/C 252/11 | Case C-91/22, Edison Next: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 1 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Edison Next SpA, formerly Fenice — Qualità per l’ambiente SpA v Ministero della Transizione Ecologica (formerly Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare), Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Comitato nazionale per la gestione della Direttiva 2003/87/CE e per il supporto nella gestione delle attività di progetto del protocollo di Kyoto (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Requirements to set out the factual context of the dispute in the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need for an answer from the Court to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Lack of sufficient information — Manifest inadmissibility) | 11 |
| 2023/C 252/12 | Case C-92/22, Edison Next: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 1 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Edison Next SpA, formerly Fenice — Qualità per l’ambiente SpA v Ministero della Transizione Ecologica (formerly Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare), Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Comitato nazionale per la gestione della Direttiva 2003/87/CE e per il supporto nella gestione delle attività di progetto del protocollo di Kyoto (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Requirements to set out the factual context of the dispute in the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need for an answer from the Court to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Lack of sufficient information — Manifest inadmissibility) | 12 |
| 2023/C 252/13 | Case C-93/22, Edison Next: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 1 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Edison Next SpA, formerly Fenice — Qualità per l’ambiente SpA v Ministero della Transizione Ecologica (formerly Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare), Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Comitato nazionale per la gestione della Direttiva 2003/87/CE e per il supporto nella gestione delle attività di progetto del protocollo di Kyoto (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Requirements to set out the factual context of the dispute in the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need for an answer from the Court to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Lack of sufficient information — Manifest inadmissibility) | 12 |
| 2023/C 252/14 | Case C-94/22, Gruppo Mauro Saviola: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 1 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Gruppo Mauro Saviola Srl v Ministero della Transizione Ecologica (formerly Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare), Comitato nazionale per la gestione della Direttiva 2003/87/CE e per il supporto nella gestione delle attività di progetto del protocollo di Kyoto (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Requirements to set out the factual context of the dispute in the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need for an answer from the Court to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Lack of sufficient information — Manifest inadmissibility) | 13 |
| 2023/C 252/15 | Case C-135/23, GEMA: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Potsdam (Germany) lodged on 7 March 2023 — Gesellschaft für musikalische Aufführungs- und mechanische Vervielfältigungsrechte (GEMA) v GL | 14 |
| 2023/C 252/16 | Case C-182/23, Makowit: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 22 March 2023 — Dyrektor Krajowej Informacji Skarbowej v J.S. | 14 |
| 2023/C 252/17 | Case C-185/23, BONUL: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší správny súd (Slovak Republic) lodged on 22 March 2023 — BONUL s.r.o. v Výbor Národnej rady Slovenskej republiky na preskúmavanie rozhodnutí Národného bezpečnostného úradu | 15 |
| 2023/C 252/18 | Case C-190/23, VGG: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judiciaire de Paris (France) lodged on 17 February 2023 — Le Procureur de la République de Paris v VGG AG and Others | 16 |
| 2023/C 252/19 | Case C-197/23, S.: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Apelacyjny w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 24 March 2023 — S. S.A. v C. sp. z o.o. | 17 |
| 2023/C 252/20 | Case C-205/23, Engie România: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul București (Romania) lodged on 28 March 2023 — Engie România SA v Autoritatea Națională de Reglementare în Domeniul Energiei | 18 |
| 2023/C 252/21 | Case C-207/23, Finanzamt X: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 29 March 2023 — Finanzamt X v Y KG | 19 |
| 2023/C 252/22 | Case C-218/23 P: Appeal brought on 4 April 2023 by NS against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 25 January 2023 in Case T-805/21, NS v Parliament | 19 |
| 2023/C 252/23 | Case C-224/23 P: Appeal brought on 11 April 2023 by Penya Barça Lyon: Plus que des supporters (PBL) and Issam Abdelmouine against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 8 February 2023 in Case T-538/21, PBL and WA v Commission | 20 |
| 2023/C 252/24 | Case C-227/23, Kwantum Nederland and Kwantum België: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 11 April 2023 — Kwantum Nederland BV, Kwantum België BV v Vitra Collections AG | 21 |
| 2023/C 252/25 | Case C-228/23, AFAÏA: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 12 April 2023 — AFAÏA v Institut national de l’origine et de la qualité (INAO) | 22 |
| 2023/C 252/26 | Case C-230/23, Reprobel: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Ondernemingsrechtbank Gent, afdeling Gent (Belgium) lodged on 13 April 2023 — Reproble SCRL v Copaco Belgium NV | 22 |
| 2023/C 252/27 | Case C-231/23, Eurobank Bulgaria: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 12 April 2023 — Eurobank Bulgaria AD | 24 |
| 2023/C 252/28 | Case C-234/23, Astoria Management: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rayonen sad Nessebar (Bulgaria) lodged on 13 April 2023 — Astoria Management OOD v CW | 24 |
| 2023/C 252/29 | Case C-293/23, Karl und Georg Anwander Güterverwaltung: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Sigmaringen (Germany) lodged on 17 April 2023 — Karl und Georg Anwander GbR Güterverwaltung v Land Baden-Württemberg | 25 |
| 2023/C 252/30 | Case C-241/23, Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej w Warszawie: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 18 April 2023 — P. sp. z o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej w Warszawie | 26 |
| 2023/C 252/31 | Case C-242/23, Tecno*37: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 18 April 2023 — Tecno*37 v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Camera di Commercio Industria Artigianato e Agricoltura di Bologna | 27 |
| 2023/C 252/32 | Case C-254/23, INTERZERO and Others: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Ustavno sodišče Republike Slovenije (Slovenia) lodged on 20 April 2023 — INTERZERO Trajnostne rešitve za svet brez odpadkov d.o.o., Interzero Circular Solutions Europe GmbH and Others v Državni zbor Republike Slovenije | 28 |
| 2023/C 252/33 | Case C-265/23, Volieva: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Okrazhen sad — Sliven (Bulgaria) lodged on 25 April 2023 — Criminal proceedings against DM, AV, WO, AQ | 30 |
| 2023/C 252/34 | Case C-268/23: Action brought on 26 April 2023 — European Commission v French Republic | 31 |
| 2023/C 252/35 | Case C-273/23, Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni and Others: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 26 April 2023 — Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni and Others v Telecom Italia SpA and Others | 32 |
| 2023/C 252/36 | Case C-287/23, Entain Services (Bulgaria): Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 4 May 2023 — Entain Services (Bulgaria) EOOD v Direktor na Direktsia Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika Sofia pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite | 33 |
| 2023/C 252/37 | Case C-304/23: Action brought on 15 May 2023 — European Commission v Republic of Malta | 33 |
| 2023/C 252/38 | Case C-306/23 P: Appeal brought on 16 May 2023 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 8 March 2023 in Case T-94/20, Campine and Campine Recycling v Commission | 34 |
| 2023/C 252/39 | Case C-309/23 P: Appeal brought on 19 May 2023 by SE against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 8 March 2023 in Case T-763/21, SE v Commission | 35 |
| 2023/C 252/40 | Case C-340/23 P: Appeal brought on 30 May 2023 by Association Trinationale de Protection Nucléaire (ATPN) against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 30 March 2023 in Case T-567/22, ATPN v Commission | 36 |
| | General Court |
| 2023/C 252/41 | Case T-650/20: Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — KD v EUIPO (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Members of Staff of EUIPO — Contract for a fixed period — Non-renewal — Competent authority — Principle of sound administration — Right to be heard — Liability — Non-material damage) | 38 |
| 2023/C 252/42 | Case T-2/21: Judgment of the General Court of 24 May 2023 — Emmentaler Switzerland v EUIPO (EMMENTALER) (EU trade mark — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark EMMENTALER — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Collective mark — Article 74(2) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Obligation to state reasons — Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001) | 38 |
| 2023/C 252/43 | Case T-141/21: Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — Shakutin v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Belarus — Freezing of funds — Lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Inclusion and maintenance of the applicant’s name on the lists — Obligation to state reasons — Right to be heard — Right to effective judicial protection — Error of assessment) | 39 |
| 2023/C 252/44 | Case T-268/21: Judgment of the General Court of 24 May 2023 — Ryanair v Commission (Italy; aid scheme; COVID-19) (State aid — Italian air transport market — Compensation scheme for airlines with an Italian operating licence — Decision not to raise any objections — Aid intended to make good the damage caused by an exceptional occurrence — Obligation to state reasons) | 40 |
| 2023/C 252/45 | Case T-477/21: Judgment of the General Court of 24 May 2023 — Glaxo Group v EUIPO — Cipla Europe (Shape of an inhaler) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Three-dimensional EU trade mark — Shape of an inhaler — Absolute ground for invalidity — Distinctive character acquired through use — Article 51(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 59(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Obligation to state reasons — Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001) | 40 |
| 2023/C 252/46 | Case T-581/21: Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — Skryba v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Belarus — Freezing of funds — Lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources to which the freezing of funds and economic resources and the ban on entry into and transit through European Union territory applies — Inclusion of the applicant’s name on the lists — Collective nature of a sanction — Obligation to state reasons — Error of assessment — Proportionality) | 41 |
| 2023/C 252/47 | Case T-582/21: Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — Rubnikovich v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Belarus — Freezing of funds — Lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources to which the freezing of funds and economic resources and the ban on entry into or transit through European Union territory applies — Inclusion of the applicant’s name on the lists — Collective nature of a sanction — Obligation to state reasons — Error of assessment — Proportionality) | 42 |
| 2023/C 252/48 | Case T-583/21: Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — Bakhanovich v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Belarus — Freezing of funds — Lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources to which the freezing of funds and economic resources and the ban on entry into or transit through European Union territory applies — Inclusion of the applicant’s name on the lists — Collective nature of the sanction — Obligation to state reasons — Error of assessment — Proportionality) | 42 |
| 2023/C 252/49 | Case T-714/21: Judgment of the General Court of 24 May 2023 — AL v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Remuneration — Family allowances — Dependent child allowance — Article 2(4) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Person treated as a dependent child — Conditions for granting — Withdrawal of entitlement to the allowance — Recovery of undue payments — Article 85 of the Staff Regulations) | 43 |
| 2023/C 252/50 | Case T-735/21: Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — Aprile and Commerciale Italiana v EUIPO — DC Comics (Representation of a bat in an oval surround) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Figurative EU trade mark representing a bat in an oval surround — Absolute grounds for invalidity — Distinctive character — No descriptive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Restriction of the goods covered by the application for a declaration of invalidity — Obligation to state reasons) | 44 |
| 2023/C 252/51 | Case T-68/22: Judgment of the General Court of 24 May 2023 — Granini France v EUIPO — Pichler (Joro) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark Joro — Earlier national word mark JOKO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of goods — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 44 |
| 2023/C 252/52 | Case T-143/22: Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — OP v Parliament (Civil service — Officials — Survivor’s pension — Refusal to grant — Surviving spouse — Eligibility conditions — Duration of the marriage — Plea of illegality — Article 80, first paragraph, of the Staff Regulations — Article 2 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Orphans’ pension — Refusal to grant — Concept of dependent child — Error of law) | 45 |
| 2023/C 252/53 | Case T-227/22: Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — Cylus Cyber Security v EUIPO — Cylance (CYLUS) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark CYLUS — Earlier EU word mark CYLANCE — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 46 |
| 2023/C 252/54 | Case T-239/22: Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — Cherusci v EUIPO — LexDellmeier (RIALTO) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark RIALTO — No genuine use of the trade mark — No proper reasons for non-use — Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 46 |
| 2023/C 252/55 | Case T-322/22: Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — UNSA Énergie v Commission (State aid — Regulated tariffs for the sale of electricity in France — Increase in the ceiling for regulated access to historical nuclear electricity — Rejection of a complaint — Article 1(h) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 — Trade union — Concept of interested party) | 47 |
| 2023/C 252/56 | Case T-419/22: Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — Medex v EUIPO — Stein (medex) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU figurative mark medex — Genuine use of the mark — Article 18 and Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Classification of the goods for which genuine use has been shown) | 47 |
| 2023/C 252/57 | Case T-764/21: Order of the General Court of 23 May 2023 — Atesos medical and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — Medical devices — Directive 93/42/EEC — Expiry of the validity of certificates for medical devices issued under the mutual recognition agreement by bodies established in Switzerland — Amendment of the entry in the online database of the NANDO information system corresponding to the conformity assessment body for medical devices which had issued the certificates — Act not open to challenge — Manifest inadmissibility) | 48 |
| 2023/C 252/58 | Case T-771/21: Order of the General Court of 22 May 2023 — Bategu Gummitechnologie v Commission (Non-contractual liability — Competition — Decision rejecting a complaint — Material loss — Reality and certainty of the damage — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law) | 49 |
| 2023/C 252/59 | Case T-568/22: Order of the General Court of 8 June 2023 — XNT v EUIPO — Exane (EXANE) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark EXANE — Earlier company name EXANTE — Domain name exante.eu — Relative ground for invalidity — Article 8(4) and Article 53(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) and Article 60(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law) | 49 |
| 2023/C 252/60 | Case T-619/22: Order of the General Court of 23 May 2023 — CMB v Commission (Research, technological development and space — Grant agreement concluded under the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) — Withdrawal of the contested decision — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate) | 50 |
| 2023/C 252/61 | Case T-67/23 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 31 May 2023 — UH v ECB (Application for interim measures — Economic and monetary policy — Prudential supervision of credit institutions — Specific supervisory tasks assigned to the ECB — Decision to withdraw a credit institution’s authorisation — Application for suspension of operation of an act — Lack of urgency) | 50 |
| 2023/C 252/62 | Case T-115/23 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 1 June 2023 — Debreceni Egyetem v Council (Interim relief — Measures for the protection of the Union budget against breaches of the principles of the rule of law in Hungary — Prohibition for the Commission to enter into legal commitments with any public interest trust or any entity maintained by such a public interest trust — Article 2(2) of Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/2506 — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency) | 51 |
| 2023/C 252/63 | Case T-179/23 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 9 June 2023 — FFPE section Conseil v Council (Interim relief — Law governing the institutions — Trade union or professional associations (OSPs) — Agreement concluded between the Council and the OSPs of the General Secretariat of the Council — Procedure for verifying the criteria for the recognition and the representativeness of the OSPs — Suspension of rights flowing from the agreement of an OSP not reaching the threshold of representativeness — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency) | 52 |
| 2023/C 252/64 | Case T-195/23: Action brought on 6 April 2023 — Dansk Avis Omdeling Distribution v Commission | 52 |
| 2023/C 252/65 | Case T-222/23: Action brought on 27 April 2023 — Arysta Lifescience v EFSA | 53 |
| 2023/C 252/66 | Case T-254/23: Action brought on 14 May 2023 — WN v Commission | 54 |
| 2023/C 252/67 | Case T-255/23: Action brought on 15 May 2023 — Escobar v EUIPO (Pablo Escobar) | 55 |
| 2023/C 252/68 | Case T-256/23: Action brought on 15 May 2023 — Mylan Ireland v Commission | 56 |
| 2023/C 252/69 | Case T-257/23: Action brought on 15 May 2023 — Neuraxpharm Pharmaceuticals v Commission | 57 |
| 2023/C 252/70 | Case T-258/23: Action brought on 15 May 2023 — Zaklady Farmaceutyczne Polpharma v Commission | 58 |
| 2023/C 252/71 | Case T-259/23: Action brought on 15 May 2023 — WO v Commission | 59 |
| 2023/C 252/72 | Case T-262/23: Action brought on 16 May 2023 — Mushie & Co. v EUIPO — Diana Dolls Fashions (Mushie) | 60 |
| 2023/C 252/73 | Case T-264/23: Action brought on 16 May 2023 — WP v Commission | 61 |
| 2023/C 252/74 | Case T-266/23: Action brought on 17 May 2023 — Puma v EUIPO — Puma (puma soundproofing) | 62 |
| 2023/C 252/75 | Case T-267/23: Action brought on 16 May 2023 — WQ v Commission | 63 |
| 2023/C 252/76 | Case T-268/23: Action brought on 17 May 2023 — WR v Commission | 64 |
| 2023/C 252/77 | Case T-273/23: Action brought on 19 May 2023 — Impossible Foods v EUIPO — Société des produits Nestlé (IMPOSSIBLE) | 65 |
| 2023/C 252/78 | Case T-275/23: Action brought on 18 May 2023 — Tinkoff Bank v Council | 65 |
| 2023/C 252/79 | Case T-277/23: Action brought on 22 May 2023 — Global 8 Airlines v Commission | 66 |
| 2023/C 252/80 | Case T-278/23: Action brought on 23 May 2023 — Zentiva and Zentiva Pharma v Commission | 67 |
| 2023/C 252/81 | Case T-281/23: Action brought on 23 May 2023 — Dana Astra v Council | 68 |
| 2023/C 252/82 | Case T-284/23: Action brought on 24 May 2023 — Rotenberg v Council | 68 |
| 2023/C 252/83 | Case T-286/23: Action brought on 25 May 2023 — OT v Council | 69 |
| 2023/C 252/84 | Case T-287/23: Action brought on 24 May 2023 — Birių Krovinių Terminalas v Council | 70 |
| 2023/C 252/85 | Case T-288/23: Action brought on 24 May 2023 — Unilab v EUIPO — Cofares (Healthily) | 71 |
| 2023/C 252/86 | Case T-289/23: Action brought on 24 May 2023 — Khan v Council | 72 |
| 2023/C 252/87 | Case T-292/23: Action brought on 25 May 2023 — UC Rusal v Council | 73 |
| 2023/C 252/88 | Case T-293/23: Action brought on 25 May 2023 — EuroChem Group v Council | 73 |
| 2023/C 252/89 | Case T-294/23: Action brought on 25 May 2023 — Suek v Council | 74 |
| 2023/C 252/90 | Case T-295/23: Action brought on 25 May 2023 — WU v Eurojust | 75 |
| 2023/C 252/91 | Case T-296/23: Action brought on 24 May 2023 — Fridman v Council | 76 |
| 2023/C 252/92 | Case T-300/23: Action brought on 30 May 2023 — Dornbracht v EUIPO — Marco Mammoliti (SINQUE) | 77 |
| 2023/C 252/93 | Case T-301/23: Action brought on 31 May 2023 — Vía Atlántica Adegas e Viñedos v EUIPO — Casa Relvas (VIA ATLÁNTICA) | 78 |
| 2023/C 252/94 | Case T-302/23: Action brought on 31 May 2023 — WeinArt Handelsgesellschaft v EUIPO — Donnafugata (KABI) | 78 |
| 2023/C 252/95 | Case T-304/23: Action brought on 31 May 2023 — Coinbase v EUIPO (C) | 79 |
| 2023/C 252/96 | Case T-307/23: Action brought on 1 June 2023 — Jima Projects v EUIPO — Salis Sulam (Device of a sports shoe with two parallel lines placed on one side) | 80 |
| 2023/C 252/97 | Case T-308/23: Action brought on 2 June 2023 — Korkmaz v EUIPO — Intersnack Deutschland (CETOS) | 80 |
| 2023/C 252/98 | Case T-781/17: Order of the General Court of 8 June 2023 — Kraftpojkarna v Commission | 81 |
| 2023/C 252/99 | Case T-759/19: Order of the General Court of 26 May 2023 — Yalwen v Commission | 81 |
| 2023/C 252/100 | Case T-500/22: Order of the General Court of 26 May 2023 — Vleuten Insects and New Generation Nutrition v Commission | 81 |
| 2023/C 252/101 | Case T-678/22: Order of the General Court of 8 June 2023 — van der Linde v CEPD | 82 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2023/C 252/02

Case C-204/21: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 June 2023. — European Commission v Republic of Poland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU — Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Rule of law — Effective legal protection in the fields covered by EU law — Independence of judges — Article 267 TFEU — Possibility of making a reference to the Court for a preliminary ruling — Primacy of EU law — Jurisdiction in relation to the lifting of the immunity from criminal prosecution of judges and in the field of employment law, social security and retirement of judges of the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court, Poland) conferred on the Disciplinary Chamber of that court — National courts prohibited from calling into question the legitimacy of the constitutional courts and bodies or from establishing or assessing the lawfulness of the appointment of judges or their judicial powers — Verification by a judge of compliance with certain requirements relating to the existence of an independent and impartial tribunal previously established by the law classified as a disciplinary offence — Exclusive jurisdiction to examine questions relating to the lack of independence of a court or judge conferred on the Extraordinary Review and Public Affairs Chamber of the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court) — Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Rights to privacy and the protection of personal data — Regulation (EU) 2016/679 — Article 6(1), first subparagraph, points (c) and (e), and Article 6(3), second subparagraph — Article 9(1) — Sensitive data — National legislation requiring judges to make a declaration as to whether they belong to associations, foundations or political parties, and to the positions held within those associations, foundations or political parties, and providing for the placing online of the data contained in those declarations)

2

2023/C 252/03

Case C-290/21, AKM (Provision of satellite package in Austria): Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 May 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof, Austria) — Staatlich genehmigte Gesellschaft der Autoren, Komponisten und Musikverleger Reg. Gen. mbH (AKM) v Canal+ Luxembourg Sàrl (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual property — Copyright and rights related to copyright applicable to satellite broadcasting and cable retransmission — Directive 93/83/EEC — Article 1(2) — Communication to the public by satellite — Concept — Satellite package provider — Broadcasting of programmes in another Member State — Place of the act of exploitation by which that provider participates in such communication)

4

2023/C 252/04

Case C-575/21, WertInvest Hotelbetrieb: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 May 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Wien — Austria) — WertInvest Hotelbetriebs GmbH v Magistrat der Stadt Wien (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Directive 2011/92/EU — Assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment — Article 2(1) and Article 4(2) — Projects covered by Annex II — Urban development projects — Examination on the basis of thresholds or criteria — Article 4(3) — Relevant selection criteria set in Annex III — Article 11 — Access to justice)

5

2023/C 252/05

Case C-608/21, Politseyski organ pri 02 RU SDVR: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 May 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad — Bulgaria) — criminal proceedings of an administrative nature against XN (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Directive 2012/13/EU — Right to information in criminal proceedings — Article 6 — Right of a person to be informed of the charges brought against him or her — Article 7 — Right of access to documents in the file — Effective exercise of the rights of the defence — Article 6 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Right to liberty and security — Communication of the grounds for the detention of the suspected or accused person in a separate document — Time at which that communication must be made)

6

2023/C 252/06

Case C-700/21, O.G. (Execution of a European arrest warrant issued against a third-country national): Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 June 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte costituzionale- Italy) — Execution of a European arrest warrant issued against O.G. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Grounds for optional non-execution of the European arrest warrant — Article 4(6) — Objective of social rehabilitation — Third-country nationals staying or residing on the territory of the executing Member State — Equal treatment — Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)

7

2023/C 252/07

Case C-114/22, Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej w Warszawie (VAT — fictitious acquisition): Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 25 May 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej w Warszawie v W. sp. z o.o. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Right to deduct VAT — Refusal — Refusal based on the invalidity of the transaction under national civil law)

8

2023/C 252/08

Case C-141/22, TLL The Longevity Labs: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 25 May 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Graz — Austria) — TLL The Longevity Labs GmbH v Optimize Health Solutions mi GmbH, BM (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Food safety — Novel food — Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 — Sprouted buckwheat flour with a high spermidine content — Germination of buckwheat seeds in a nutrient solution containing spermidine)

9

2023/C 252/09

Case C-364/22, Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Voluntary return): Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 25 May 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Minden — Germany) — J.B., S.B., F.B., legally represented by J.B. and S.B., v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Asylum policy — Common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection — Directive 2013/32/EU — Article 33(2)(d) — Procedure for examining an application for international protection — Inadmissible applications — Subsequent application — Voluntary return and removal)

9

2023/C 252/10

Case C-368/22, Danish Fluid System Technologies: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 25 May 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Denmark) — Skatteministeriet v Danish Fluid System Technologies A/S (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 — Customs Union — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Heading 7307 — Tube or pipe fittings — Subheading 7307 22 10 — Sleeves)

10

2023/C 252/11

Case C-91/22, Edison Next: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 1 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Edison Next SpA, formerly Fenice — Qualità per l’ambiente SpA v Ministero della Transizione Ecologica (formerly Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare), Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Comitato nazionale per la gestione della Direttiva 2003/87/CE e per il supporto nella gestione delle attività di progetto del protocollo di Kyoto (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Requirements to set out the factual context of the dispute in the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need for an answer from the Court to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Lack of sufficient information — Manifest inadmissibility)

11

2023/C 252/12

Case C-92/22, Edison Next: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 1 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Edison Next SpA, formerly Fenice — Qualità per l’ambiente SpA v Ministero della Transizione Ecologica (formerly Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare), Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Comitato nazionale per la gestione della Direttiva 2003/87/CE e per il supporto nella gestione delle attività di progetto del protocollo di Kyoto (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Requirements to set out the factual context of the dispute in the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need for an answer from the Court to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Lack of sufficient information — Manifest inadmissibility)

12

2023/C 252/13

Case C-93/22, Edison Next: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 1 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Edison Next SpA, formerly Fenice — Qualità per l’ambiente SpA v Ministero della Transizione Ecologica (formerly Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare), Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Comitato nazionale per la gestione della Direttiva 2003/87/CE e per il supporto nella gestione delle attività di progetto del protocollo di Kyoto (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Requirements to set out the factual context of the dispute in the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need for an answer from the Court to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Lack of sufficient information — Manifest inadmissibility)

12

2023/C 252/14

Case C-94/22, Gruppo Mauro Saviola: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 1 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Gruppo Mauro Saviola Srl v Ministero della Transizione Ecologica (formerly Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare), Comitato nazionale per la gestione della Direttiva 2003/87/CE e per il supporto nella gestione delle attività di progetto del protocollo di Kyoto (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Requirements to set out the factual context of the dispute in the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need for an answer from the Court to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Lack of sufficient information — Manifest inadmissibility)

13

2023/C 252/15

Case C-135/23, GEMA: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Potsdam (Germany) lodged on 7 March 2023 — Gesellschaft für musikalische Aufführungs- und mechanische Vervielfältigungsrechte (GEMA) v GL

14

2023/C 252/16

Case C-182/23, Makowit: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 22 March 2023 — Dyrektor Krajowej Informacji Skarbowej v J.S.

14

2023/C 252/17

Case C-185/23, BONUL: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší správny súd (Slovak Republic) lodged on 22 March 2023 — BONUL s.r.o. v Výbor Národnej rady Slovenskej republiky na preskúmavanie rozhodnutí Národného bezpečnostného úradu

15

2023/C 252/18

Case C-190/23, VGG: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judiciaire de Paris (France) lodged on 17 February 2023 — Le Procureur de la République de Paris v VGG AG and Others

16

2023/C 252/19

Case C-197/23, S.: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Apelacyjny w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 24 March 2023 — S. S.A. v C. sp. z o.o.

17

2023/C 252/20

Case C-205/23, Engie România: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul București (Romania) lodged on 28 March 2023 — Engie România SA v Autoritatea Națională de Reglementare în Domeniul Energiei

18

2023/C 252/21

Case C-207/23, Finanzamt X: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 29 March 2023 — Finanzamt X v Y KG

19

2023/C 252/22

Case C-218/23 P: Appeal brought on 4 April 2023 by NS against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 25 January 2023 in Case T-805/21, NS v Parliament

19

2023/C 252/23

Case C-224/23 P: Appeal brought on 11 April 2023 by Penya Barça Lyon: Plus que des supporters (PBL) and Issam Abdelmouine against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 8 February 2023 in Case T-538/21, PBL and WA v Commission

20

2023/C 252/24

Case C-227/23, Kwantum Nederland and Kwantum België: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 11 April 2023 — Kwantum Nederland BV, Kwantum België BV v Vitra Collections AG

21

2023/C 252/25

Case C-228/23, AFAÏA: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 12 April 2023 — AFAÏA v Institut national de l’origine et de la qualité (INAO)

22

2023/C 252/26

Case C-230/23, Reprobel: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Ondernemingsrechtbank Gent, afdeling Gent (Belgium) lodged on 13 April 2023 — Reproble SCRL v Copaco Belgium NV

22

2023/C 252/27

Case C-231/23, Eurobank Bulgaria: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 12 April 2023 — Eurobank Bulgaria AD

24

2023/C 252/28

Case C-234/23, Astoria Management: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rayonen sad Nessebar (Bulgaria) lodged on 13 April 2023 — Astoria Management OOD v CW

24

2023/C 252/29

Case C-293/23, Karl und Georg Anwander Güterverwaltung: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Sigmaringen (Germany) lodged on 17 April 2023 — Karl und Georg Anwander GbR Güterverwaltung v Land Baden-Württemberg

25

2023/C 252/30

Case C-241/23, Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej w Warszawie: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 18 April 2023 — P. sp. z o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej w Warszawie

26

2023/C 252/31

Case C-242/23, Tecno*37: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 18 April 2023 — Tecno*37 v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Camera di Commercio Industria Artigianato e Agricoltura di Bologna

27

2023/C 252/32

Case C-254/23, INTERZERO and Others: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Ustavno sodišče Republike Slovenije (Slovenia) lodged on 20 April 2023 — INTERZERO Trajnostne rešitve za svet brez odpadkov d.o.o., Interzero Circular Solutions Europe GmbH and Others v Državni zbor Republike Slovenije

28

2023/C 252/33

Case C-265/23, Volieva: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Okrazhen sad — Sliven (Bulgaria) lodged on 25 April 2023 — Criminal proceedings against DM, AV, WO, AQ

30

2023/C 252/34

Case C-268/23: Action brought on 26 April 2023 — European Commission v French Republic

31

2023/C 252/35

Case C-273/23, Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni and Others: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 26 April 2023 — Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni and Others v Telecom Italia SpA and Others

32

2023/C 252/36

Case C-287/23, Entain Services (Bulgaria): Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 4 May 2023 — Entain Services (Bulgaria) EOOD v Direktor na Direktsia Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika Sofia pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

33

2023/C 252/37

Case C-304/23: Action brought on 15 May 2023 — European Commission v Republic of Malta

33

2023/C 252/38

Case C-306/23 P: Appeal brought on 16 May 2023 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 8 March 2023 in Case T-94/20, Campine and Campine Recycling v Commission

34

2023/C 252/39

Case C-309/23 P: Appeal brought on 19 May 2023 by SE against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 8 March 2023 in Case T-763/21, SE v Commission

35

2023/C 252/40

Case C-340/23 P: Appeal brought on 30 May 2023 by Association Trinationale de Protection Nucléaire (ATPN) against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 30 March 2023 in Case T-567/22, ATPN v Commission

36

General Court

2023/C 252/41

Case T-650/20: Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — KD v EUIPO (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Members of Staff of EUIPO — Contract for a fixed period — Non-renewal — Competent authority — Principle of sound administration — Right to be heard — Liability — Non-material damage)

38

2023/C 252/42

Case T-2/21: Judgment of the General Court of 24 May 2023 — Emmentaler Switzerland v EUIPO (EMMENTALER) (EU trade mark — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark EMMENTALER — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Collective mark — Article 74(2) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Obligation to state reasons — Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001)

38

2023/C 252/43

Case T-141/21: Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — Shakutin v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Belarus — Freezing of funds — Lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Inclusion and maintenance of the applicant’s name on the lists — Obligation to state reasons — Right to be heard — Right to effective judicial protection — Error of assessment)

39

2023/C 252/44

Case T-268/21: Judgment of the General Court of 24 May 2023 — Ryanair v Commission (Italy; aid scheme; COVID-19) (State aid — Italian air transport market — Compensation scheme for airlines with an Italian operating licence — Decision not to raise any objections — Aid intended to make good the damage caused by an exceptional occurrence — Obligation to state reasons)

40

2023/C 252/45

Case T-477/21: Judgment of the General Court of 24 May 2023 — Glaxo Group v EUIPO — Cipla Europe (Shape of an inhaler) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Three-dimensional EU trade mark — Shape of an inhaler — Absolute ground for invalidity — Distinctive character acquired through use — Article 51(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 59(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Obligation to state reasons — Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001)

40

2023/C 252/46

Case T-581/21: Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — Skryba v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Belarus — Freezing of funds — Lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources to which the freezing of funds and economic resources and the ban on entry into and transit through European Union territory applies — Inclusion of the applicant’s name on the lists — Collective nature of a sanction — Obligation to state reasons — Error of assessment — Proportionality)

41

2023/C 252/47

Case T-582/21: Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — Rubnikovich v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Belarus — Freezing of funds — Lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources to which the freezing of funds and economic resources and the ban on entry into or transit through European Union territory applies — Inclusion of the applicant’s name on the lists — Collective nature of a sanction — Obligation to state reasons — Error of assessment — Proportionality)

42

2023/C 252/48

Case T-583/21: Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — Bakhanovich v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Belarus — Freezing of funds — Lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources to which the freezing of funds and economic resources and the ban on entry into or transit through European Union territory applies — Inclusion of the applicant’s name on the lists — Collective nature of the sanction — Obligation to state reasons — Error of assessment — Proportionality)

42

2023/C 252/49

Case T-714/21: Judgment of the General Court of 24 May 2023 — AL v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Remuneration — Family allowances — Dependent child allowance — Article 2(4) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Person treated as a dependent child — Conditions for granting — Withdrawal of entitlement to the allowance — Recovery of undue payments — Article 85 of the Staff Regulations)

43

2023/C 252/50

Case T-735/21: Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — Aprile and Commerciale Italiana v EUIPO — DC Comics (Representation of a bat in an oval surround) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Figurative EU trade mark representing a bat in an oval surround — Absolute grounds for invalidity — Distinctive character — No descriptive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Restriction of the goods covered by the application for a declaration of invalidity — Obligation to state reasons)

44

2023/C 252/51

Case T-68/22: Judgment of the General Court of 24 May 2023 — Granini France v EUIPO — Pichler (Joro) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark Joro — Earlier national word mark JOKO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of goods — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

44

2023/C 252/52

Case T-143/22: Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — OP v Parliament (Civil service — Officials — Survivor’s pension — Refusal to grant — Surviving spouse — Eligibility conditions — Duration of the marriage — Plea of illegality — Article 80, first paragraph, of the Staff Regulations — Article 2 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Orphans’ pension — Refusal to grant — Concept of dependent child — Error of law)

45

2023/C 252/53

Case T-227/22: Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — Cylus Cyber Security v EUIPO — Cylance (CYLUS) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark CYLUS — Earlier EU word mark CYLANCE — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

46

2023/C 252/54

Case T-239/22: Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — Cherusci v EUIPO — LexDellmeier (RIALTO) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark RIALTO — No genuine use of the trade mark — No proper reasons for non-use — Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

46

2023/C 252/55

Case T-322/22: Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — UNSA Énergie v Commission (State aid — Regulated tariffs for the sale of electricity in France — Increase in the ceiling for regulated access to historical nuclear electricity — Rejection of a complaint — Article 1(h) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 — Trade union — Concept of interested party)

47

2023/C 252/56

Case T-419/22: Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — Medex v EUIPO — Stein (medex) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU figurative mark medex — Genuine use of the mark — Article 18 and Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Classification of the goods for which genuine use has been shown)

47

2023/C 252/57

Case T-764/21: Order of the General Court of 23 May 2023 — Atesos medical and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — Medical devices — Directive 93/42/EEC — Expiry of the validity of certificates for medical devices issued under the mutual recognition agreement by bodies established in Switzerland — Amendment of the entry in the online database of the NANDO information system corresponding to the conformity assessment body for medical devices which had issued the certificates — Act not open to challenge — Manifest inadmissibility)

48

2023/C 252/58

Case T-771/21: Order of the General Court of 22 May 2023 — Bategu Gummitechnologie v Commission (Non-contractual liability — Competition — Decision rejecting a complaint — Material loss — Reality and certainty of the damage — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

49

2023/C 252/59

Case T-568/22: Order of the General Court of 8 June 2023 — XNT v EUIPO — Exane (EXANE) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark EXANE — Earlier company name EXANTE — Domain name exante.eu — Relative ground for invalidity — Article 8(4) and Article 53(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) and Article 60(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

49

2023/C 252/60

Case T-619/22: Order of the General Court of 23 May 2023 — CMB v Commission (Research, technological development and space — Grant agreement concluded under the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) — Withdrawal of the contested decision — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)

50

2023/C 252/61

Case T-67/23 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 31 May 2023 — UH v ECB (Application for interim measures — Economic and monetary policy — Prudential supervision of credit institutions — Specific supervisory tasks assigned to the ECB — Decision to withdraw a credit institution’s authorisation — Application for suspension of operation of an act — Lack of urgency)

50

2023/C 252/62

Case T-115/23 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 1 June 2023 — Debreceni Egyetem v Council (Interim relief — Measures for the protection of the Union budget against breaches of the principles of the rule of law in Hungary — Prohibition for the Commission to enter into legal commitments with any public interest trust or any entity maintained by such a public interest trust — Article 2(2) of Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/2506 — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency)

51

2023/C 252/63

Case T-179/23 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 9 June 2023 — FFPE section Conseil v Council (Interim relief — Law governing the institutions — Trade union or professional associations (OSPs) — Agreement concluded between the Council and the OSPs of the General Secretariat of the Council — Procedure for verifying the criteria for the recognition and the representativeness of the OSPs — Suspension of rights flowing from the agreement of an OSP not reaching the threshold of representativeness — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency)

52

2023/C 252/64

Case T-195/23: Action brought on 6 April 2023 — Dansk Avis Omdeling Distribution v Commission

52

2023/C 252/65

Case T-222/23: Action brought on 27 April 2023 — Arysta Lifescience v EFSA

53

2023/C 252/66

Case T-254/23: Action brought on 14 May 2023 — WN v Commission

54

2023/C 252/67

Case T-255/23: Action brought on 15 May 2023 — Escobar v EUIPO (Pablo Escobar)

55

2023/C 252/68

Case T-256/23: Action brought on 15 May 2023 — Mylan Ireland v Commission

56

2023/C 252/69

Case T-257/23: Action brought on 15 May 2023 — Neuraxpharm Pharmaceuticals v Commission

57

2023/C 252/70

Case T-258/23: Action brought on 15 May 2023 — Zaklady Farmaceutyczne Polpharma v Commission

58

2023/C 252/71

Case T-259/23: Action brought on 15 May 2023 — WO v Commission

59

2023/C 252/72

Case T-262/23: Action brought on 16 May 2023 — Mushie & Co. v EUIPO — Diana Dolls Fashions (Mushie)

60

2023/C 252/73

Case T-264/23: Action brought on 16 May 2023 — WP v Commission

61

2023/C 252/74

Case T-266/23: Action brought on 17 May 2023 — Puma v EUIPO — Puma (puma soundproofing)

62

2023/C 252/75

Case T-267/23: Action brought on 16 May 2023 — WQ v Commission

63

2023/C 252/76

Case T-268/23: Action brought on 17 May 2023 — WR v Commission

64

2023/C 252/77

Case T-273/23: Action brought on 19 May 2023 — Impossible Foods v EUIPO — Société des produits Nestlé (IMPOSSIBLE)

65

2023/C 252/78

Case T-275/23: Action brought on 18 May 2023 — Tinkoff Bank v Council

65

2023/C 252/79

Case T-277/23: Action brought on 22 May 2023 — Global 8 Airlines v Commission

66

2023/C 252/80

Case T-278/23: Action brought on 23 May 2023 — Zentiva and Zentiva Pharma v Commission

67

2023/C 252/81

Case T-281/23: Action brought on 23 May 2023 — Dana Astra v Council

68

2023/C 252/82

Case T-284/23: Action brought on 24 May 2023 — Rotenberg v Council

68

2023/C 252/83

Case T-286/23: Action brought on 25 May 2023 — OT v Council

69

2023/C 252/84

Case T-287/23: Action brought on 24 May 2023 — Birių Krovinių Terminalas v Council

70

2023/C 252/85

Case T-288/23: Action brought on 24 May 2023 — Unilab v EUIPO — Cofares (Healthily)

71

2023/C 252/86

Case T-289/23: Action brought on 24 May 2023 — Khan v Council

72

2023/C 252/87

Case T-292/23: Action brought on 25 May 2023 — UC Rusal v Council

73

2023/C 252/88

Case T-293/23: Action brought on 25 May 2023 — EuroChem Group v Council

73

2023/C 252/89

Case T-294/23: Action brought on 25 May 2023 — Suek v Council

74

2023/C 252/90

Case T-295/23: Action brought on 25 May 2023 — WU v Eurojust

75

2023/C 252/91

Case T-296/23: Action brought on 24 May 2023 — Fridman v Council

76

2023/C 252/92

Case T-300/23: Action brought on 30 May 2023 — Dornbracht v EUIPO — Marco Mammoliti (SINQUE)

77

2023/C 252/93

Case T-301/23: Action brought on 31 May 2023 — Vía Atlántica Adegas e Viñedos v EUIPO — Casa Relvas (VIA ATLÁNTICA)

78

2023/C 252/94

Case T-302/23: Action brought on 31 May 2023 — WeinArt Handelsgesellschaft v EUIPO — Donnafugata (KABI)

78

2023/C 252/95

Case T-304/23: Action brought on 31 May 2023 — Coinbase v EUIPO (C)

79

2023/C 252/96

Case T-307/23: Action brought on 1 June 2023 — Jima Projects v EUIPO — Salis Sulam (Device of a sports shoe with two parallel lines placed on one side)

80

2023/C 252/97

Case T-308/23: Action brought on 2 June 2023 — Korkmaz v EUIPO — Intersnack Deutschland (CETOS)

80

2023/C 252/98

Case T-781/17: Order of the General Court of 8 June 2023 — Kraftpojkarna v Commission

81

2023/C 252/99

Case T-759/19: Order of the General Court of 26 May 2023 — Yalwen v Commission

81

2023/C 252/100

Case T-500/22: Order of the General Court of 26 May 2023 — Vleuten Insects and New Generation Nutrition v Commission

81

2023/C 252/101

Case T-678/22: Order of the General Court of 8 June 2023 — van der Linde v CEPD

82

---

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/1

---

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

(2023/C 252/01)

Last publication

OJ C 235, 3.7.2023

Past publications

OJ C 223, 26.6.2023

OJ C 216, 19.6.2023

OJ C 205, 12.6.2023

OJ C 189, 30.5.2023

OJ C 173, 15.5.2023

OJ C 164, 8.5.2023

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 June 2023. — European Commission v Republic of Poland

(Case C-204/21) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Rule of law - Effective legal protection in the fields covered by EU law - Independence of judges - Article 267 TFEU - Possibility of making a reference to the Court for a preliminary ruling - Primacy of EU law - Jurisdiction in relation to the lifting of the immunity from criminal prosecution of judges and in the field of employment law, social security and retirement of judges of the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court, Poland) conferred on the Disciplinary Chamber of that court - National courts prohibited from calling into question the legitimacy of the constitutional courts and bodies or from establishing or assessing the lawfulness of the appointment of judges or their judicial powers - Verification by a judge of compliance with certain requirements relating to the existence of an independent and impartial tribunal previously established by the law classified as a ‘disciplinary offence’ - Exclusive jurisdiction to examine questions relating to the lack of independence of a court or judge conferred on the Extraordinary Review and Public Affairs Chamber of the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court) - Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Rights to privacy and the protection of personal data - Regulation (EU) 2016/679 - Article 6(1), first subparagraph, points (c) and (e), and Article 6(3), second subparagraph - Article 9(1) - Sensitive data - National legislation requiring judges to make a declaration as to whether they belong to associations, foundations or political parties, and to the positions held within those associations, foundations or political parties, and providing for the placing online of the data contained in those declarations)

(2023/C 252/02)

Language of the case: Polish.

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by K. Herrmann and P.J.O. Van Nuffel, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by B. Majczyna, J. Sawicka, K. Straś and S. Żyrek, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by M. Jacobs, C. Pochet and L. Van den Broeck, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Denmark (represented initially by V. Pasternak Jørgensen, M. Søndahl Wolff and L. Teilgård, and subsequently by J.F. Kronborg, V. Pasternak Jørgensen and M. Søndahl Wolff, acting as Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by M.K. Bulterman, J. Langer, A.M. de Ree and C.S. Schillemans, acting as Agents), Republic of Finland (represented by H. Leppo, acting as Agent), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by H. Eklinder, C. Meyer-Seitz, A. Runeskjöld, M. Salborn Hodgson, R. Shahsavan Eriksson, H. Shev and O. Simonsson, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that by conferring on the Disciplinary Chamber of the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court, Poland), whose independence and impartiality are not guaranteed, jurisdiction to hear and determine cases having a direct impact on the status of judges and trainee judges and the performance of their office, such as, on the one hand, applications for authorisation to initiate criminal proceedings against judges and trainee judges or to detain them and, on the other hand, cases relating to employment and social security law that concern judges of the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court) and cases relating to the compulsory retirement of those judges, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that by conferring on the Disciplinary Chamber of the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court, Poland), whose independence and impartiality are not guaranteed, jurisdiction to hear and determine cases having a direct impact on the status of judges and trainee judges and the performance of their office, such as, on the one hand, applications for authorisation to initiate criminal proceedings against judges and trainee judges or to detain them and, on the other hand, cases relating to employment and social security law that concern judges of the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court) and cases relating to the compulsory retirement of those judges, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU;

| 2. | Declares that by adopting and maintaining in force points 2 and 3 of Article 107(1) of the ustawa — Prawo o ustroju sądów powszechnych (Law relating to the organisation of the ordinary courts) of 27 July 2001, as amended by the ustawa o zmianie ustawy — Prawo o ustroju sądów powszechnych, ustawy o Sądzie Najwyższym oraz niektórych innych ustaw (Law amending the Law relating to the organisation of the ordinary courts, the Law on the Supreme Court and certain other laws) of 20 December 2019, and of points 1 to 3 of Article 72(1) of the ustawa o Sądzie Najwyższym (Law on the Supreme Court) of 8 December 2017, as amended by that law of 20 December 2019, which allow the examination of compliance with the EU requirements relating to an independent and impartial tribunal previously established by law to be classified as a disciplinary offence, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and under Article 267 TFEU; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that by adopting and maintaining in force points 2 and 3 of Article 107(1) of the ustawa — Prawo o ustroju sądów powszechnych (Law relating to the organisation of the ordinary courts) of 27 July 2001, as amended by the ustawa o zmianie ustawy — Prawo o ustroju sądów powszechnych, ustawy o Sądzie Najwyższym oraz niektórych innych ustaw (Law amending the Law relating to the organisation of the ordinary courts, the Law on the Supreme Court and certain other laws) of 20 December 2019, and of points 1 to 3 of Article 72(1) of the ustawa o Sądzie Najwyższym (Law on the Supreme Court) of 8 December 2017, as amended by that law of 20 December 2019, which allow the examination of compliance with the EU requirements relating to an independent and impartial tribunal previously established by law to be classified as a disciplinary offence, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and under Article 267 TFEU;

| 3. | Declares that by adopting and maintaining in force Article 42a(1) and (2) and Article 55(4) of the Law relating to the organisation of the ordinary courts, as amended by the abovementioned law of 20 December 2019, Article 26(3) and Article 29(2) and (3) of the Law on the Supreme Court, as amended by that law of 20 December 2019, Article 5(1a) and (1b) of the ustawa — Prawo o ustroju sądów administracyjnych (Law relating to the organisation of the administrative courts) of 25 July 2002, as amended by the law of 20 December 2019, and Article 8 of the law of 20 December 2019, prohibiting any national court from verifying compliance with the requirements stemming from EU law relating to the guarantee of an independent and impartial tribunal previously established by law, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and under the principle of the primacy of EU law; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Declares that by adopting and maintaining in force Article 42a(1) and (2) and Article 55(4) of the Law relating to the organisation of the ordinary courts, as amended by the abovementioned law of 20 December 2019, Article 26(3) and Article 29(2) and (3) of the Law on the Supreme Court, as amended by that law of 20 December 2019, Article 5(1a) and (1b) of the ustawa — Prawo o ustroju sądów administracyjnych (Law relating to the organisation of the administrative courts) of 25 July 2002, as amended by the law of 20 December 2019, and Article 8 of the law of 20 December 2019, prohibiting any national court from verifying compliance with the requirements stemming from EU law relating to the guarantee of an independent and impartial tribunal previously established by law, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and under the principle of the primacy of EU law;

| 4. | Declares that by adopting and maintaining in force Article 26(2) and (4) to (6) and Article 82(2) to (5) of the Law on the Supreme Court, as amended by the abovementioned law of 20 December 2019, and Article 10 of the law of 20 December 2019, which establish the exclusive jurisdiction of the Izba Kontroli Nadzwyczajnej i Spraw Publicznych (Extraordinary Review and Public Affairs Chamber) of the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court) to examine complaints and questions of law concerning the lack of independence of a court or a judge, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter, and under Article 267 TFEU and the principle of the primacy of EU law; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Declares that by adopting and maintaining in force Article 26(2) and (4) to (6) and Article 82(2) to (5) of the Law on the Supreme Court, as amended by the abovementioned law of 20 December 2019, and Article 10 of the law of 20 December 2019, which establish the exclusive jurisdiction of the Izba Kontroli Nadzwyczajnej i Spraw Publicznych (Extraordinary Review and Public Affairs Chamber) of the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court) to examine complaints and questions of law concerning the lack of independence of a court or a judge, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter, and under Article 267 TFEU and the principle of the primacy of EU law;

| 5. | Declares that by adopting and maintaining in force Article 88a of the amended Law relating to the organisation of the ordinary courts, as amended by the law of 20 December 2019, Article 45(3) of the Law on the Supreme Court, as amended by the law of 20 December 2019, and Article 8(2) of the Law relating to the organisation of the administrative courts, as amended by the law of 20 December 2019, the Republic of Poland has infringed the right to respect for private life and the right to protection of personal data, guaranteed by Article 7 and Article 8(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and by points (c) and (e) of the first subparagraph of Article 6(1), Article 6(3) and Article 9(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation); |
| --- | --- |

5.

Declares that by adopting and maintaining in force Article 88a of the amended Law relating to the organisation of the ordinary courts, as amended by the law of 20 December 2019, Article 45(3) of the Law on the Supreme Court, as amended by the law of 20 December 2019, and Article 8(2) of the Law relating to the organisation of the administrative courts, as amended by the law of 20 December 2019, the Republic of Poland has infringed the right to respect for private life and the right to protection of personal data, guaranteed by Article 7 and Article 8(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and by points (c) and (e) of the first subparagraph of Article 6(1), Article 6(3) and Article 9(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation);

| 6. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

6.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 7. | Orders the Republic of Poland to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, including those relating to the proceedings for interim relief; |
| --- | --- |

7.

Orders the Republic of Poland to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, including those relating to the proceedings for interim relief;

| 8. | Orders the Kingdom of Belgium, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Finland, and the Kingdom of Sweden to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

8.

Orders the Kingdom of Belgium, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Finland, and the Kingdom of Sweden to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 252, 28.6.2021.

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/4

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 May 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof, Austria) — Staatlich genehmigte Gesellschaft der Autoren, Komponisten und Musikverleger Reg. Gen. mbH (AKM) v Canal+ Luxembourg Sàrl

(Case C-290/21, (1) AKM (Provision of satellite package in Austria))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual property - Copyright and rights related to copyright applicable to satellite broadcasting and cable retransmission - Directive 93/83/EEC - Article 1(2) - Communication to the public by satellite - Concept - Satellite package provider - Broadcasting of programmes in another Member State - Place of the act of exploitation by which that provider participates in such communication)

(2023/C 252/03)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Staatlich genehmigte Gesellschaft der Autoren, Komponisten und Musikverleger Reg. Gen. mbH (AKM)

Defendant: Canal+ Luxembourg Sàrl

Interveners in support of the defendant: Tele 5 TM-TV GmbH, Österreichische Rundfunksender GmbH & Co. KG, Seven.One Entertainment Group GmbH, ProSiebenSat.1 PULS 4 GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(2)(b) of Council Directive 93/83/EEC of 27 September 1993 on the coordination of certain rules concerning copyright and rights related to copyright applicable to satellite broadcasting and cable retransmission

must be interpreted as meaning that, where a satellite package provider is required to obtain, for the communication to the public by satellite in which it participates, the authorisation of the holders of the copyright and related rights concerned, that authorisation must be obtained, such as that granted to the broadcasting organisation concerned, only in the Member State in which the programme-carrying signals are introduced into the chain of communication leading to the satellite.

---

(1)  OJ C 320, 9.8.2021.

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 May 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Wien — Austria) — WertInvest Hotelbetriebs GmbH v Magistrat der Stadt Wien

(Case C-575/21, (1) WertInvest Hotelbetrieb)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Directive 2011/92/EU - Assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment - Article 2(1) and Article 4(2) - Projects covered by Annex II - Urban development projects - Examination on the basis of thresholds or criteria - Article 4(3) - Relevant selection criteria set in Annex III - Article 11 - Access to justice)

(2023/C 252/04)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Wien

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: WertInvest Hotelbetriebs GmbH

Defendant: Magistrat der Stadt Wien

intervener: Verein Alliance for Nature

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 2(1), Article 4(2)(b) and Article 4(3) of Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Directive 2014/52/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014, and point 10(b) of Annex II thereto and Annex III thereto,
  must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which makes the carrying out of an environmental impact assessment of ‘urban development projects’ conditional, first, on the attainment of thresholds of land take of at least 15 ha and gross floor area of more than 150 000 m2 and, secondly, on the fact that it is a project for entirely multifunctional development, including at least residential and commercial buildings, a project including the access roads and utilities intended for those buildings, and with a catchment area that extends beyond the area covered by the project. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 2(1), Article 4(2)(b) and Article 4(3) of Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Directive 2014/52/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014, and point 10(b) of Annex II thereto and Annex III thereto,

must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which makes the carrying out of an environmental impact assessment of ‘urban development projects’ conditional, first, on the attainment of thresholds of land take of at least 15 ha and gross floor area of more than 150 000 m2 and, secondly, on the fact that it is a project for entirely multifunctional development, including at least residential and commercial buildings, a project including the access roads and utilities intended for those buildings, and with a catchment area that extends beyond the area covered by the project.

| 2. | Article 4(3) of Directive 2011/92, as amended by Directive 2014/52,
  must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of a case-by-case examination as to whether a project is likely to have significant effects on the environment and must therefore be subject to an environmental impact assessment, the competent authority must examine the project concerned having regard to all the selection criteria listed in Annex III to Directive 2011/92, as amended, in order to determine the relevant criteria in the particular case and must then apply those relevant criteria to the particular situation. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 4(3) of Directive 2011/92, as amended by Directive 2014/52,

must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of a case-by-case examination as to whether a project is likely to have significant effects on the environment and must therefore be subject to an environmental impact assessment, the competent authority must examine the project concerned having regard to all the selection criteria listed in Annex III to Directive 2011/92, as amended, in order to determine the relevant criteria in the particular case and must then apply those relevant criteria to the particular situation.

| 3. | Article 11 of Directive 2011/92, as amended by Directive 2014/52,
  must be interpreted as not precluding any case-by-case examination, as provided for in Article 4(2)(a) of Directive 2011/92, as amended, from being carried out for the first time by a court with jurisdiction to grant development consent, as provided for in Article 1(2)(c) of Directive 2011/92, as amended.
  However, an individual who is part of the ‘public concerned’, within the meaning of Article 1(2)(e) of Directive 2011/92, as amended, and who satisfies the criteria laid down by national law as to ‘sufficient interest’ or, as appropriate, ‘impairment of a right’, referred to in Article 11 of that directive, must have the possibility of challenging, before another court of law or, depending on the case, another independent and impartial body established by law, the substantive or procedural legality of any decision taken by such a court with jurisdiction finding that there is no need for an environmental impact assessment |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 11 of Directive 2011/92, as amended by Directive 2014/52,

must be interpreted as not precluding any case-by-case examination, as provided for in Article 4(2)(a) of Directive 2011/92, as amended, from being carried out for the first time by a court with jurisdiction to grant development consent, as provided for in Article 1(2)(c) of Directive 2011/92, as amended.

However, an individual who is part of the ‘public concerned’, within the meaning of Article 1(2)(e) of Directive 2011/92, as amended, and who satisfies the criteria laid down by national law as to ‘sufficient interest’ or, as appropriate, ‘impairment of a right’, referred to in Article 11 of that directive, must have the possibility of challenging, before another court of law or, depending on the case, another independent and impartial body established by law, the substantive or procedural legality of any decision taken by such a court with jurisdiction finding that there is no need for an environmental impact assessment

| 4. | Directive 2011/92, as amended by Directive 2014/52,
  must be interpreted as precluding the grant, before or during the execution of a required environmental impact assessment or before the completion of a case-by-case assessment of the environmental effects intended to clarify the need for an environmental impact assessment, of building permits for individual construction measures which form part of larger urban development projects. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Directive 2011/92, as amended by Directive 2014/52,

must be interpreted as precluding the grant, before or during the execution of a required environmental impact assessment or before the completion of a case-by-case assessment of the environmental effects intended to clarify the need for an environmental impact assessment, of building permits for individual construction measures which form part of larger urban development projects.

---

(1)  OJ C 2, 3.1.2022.

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 May 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad — Bulgaria) — criminal proceedings of an administrative nature against XN

(Case C-608/21, (1) Politseyski organ pri 02 RU SDVR)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Directive 2012/13/EU - Right to information in criminal proceedings - Article 6 - Right of a person to be informed of the charges brought against him or her - Article 7 - Right of access to documents in the file - Effective exercise of the rights of the defence - Article 6 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Right to liberty and security - Communication of the grounds for the detention of the suspected or accused person in a separate document - Time at which that communication must be made)

(2023/C 252/05)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski rayonen sad

Party to the criminal proceedings

XN

Intervener: Politseyski organ pri 02 RU SDVR

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 6(2) 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 meaning that it does not preclude the application of national legislation under which the grounds for the detention of persons suspected or accused of having committed a criminal offence, including information concerning the criminal act which they are suspected or accused of having committed, may be set out in documents other than the detention order. By contrast, that provision precludes such information from being communicated to those persons only where they challenge the legality of the detention before the courts and not at the time of deprivation of liberty or within a short period of time after being deprived of liberty. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 6(2) 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 meaning that it does not preclude the application of national legislation under which the grounds for the detention of persons suspected or accused of having committed a criminal offence, including information concerning the criminal act which they are suspected or accused of having committed, may be set out in documents other than the detention order. By contrast, that provision precludes such information from being communicated to those persons only where they challenge the legality of the detention before the courts and not at the time of deprivation of liberty or within a short period of time after being deprived of liberty.

| 2. | Article 6(2) of Directive 2012/13
  must be interpreted as meaning that it requires the grounds for the detention of persons suspected or accused of having committed a criminal offence to contain all the information necessary to enable those persons to effectively challenge the lawfulness of their detention. While taking account of the stage of the criminal proceedings so as not to prejudice the progress of an ongoing investigation, that information must contain a description of the relevant facts known to the competent authorities, including the known time and place of the events, the nature of the actual participation of those persons in the alleged offence and the legal classification provisionally adopted. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 6(2) of Directive 2012/13

must be interpreted as meaning that it requires the grounds for the detention of persons suspected or accused of having committed a criminal offence to contain all the information necessary to enable those persons to effectively challenge the lawfulness of their detention. While taking account of the stage of the criminal proceedings so as not to prejudice the progress of an ongoing investigation, that information must contain a description of the relevant facts known to the competent authorities, including the known time and place of the events, the nature of the actual participation of those persons in the alleged offence and the legal classification provisionally adopted.

---

(1)  OJ C 198, 16.5.2022.

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 June 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte costituzionale- Italy) — Execution of a European arrest warrant issued against O.G.

(Case C-700/21, (1) O.G. (Execution of a European arrest warrant issued against a third-country national))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - European arrest warrant - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Grounds for optional non-execution of the European arrest warrant - Article 4(6) - Objective of social rehabilitation - Third-country nationals staying or residing on the territory of the executing Member State - Equal treatment - Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)

(2023/C 252/06)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte costituzionale

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: O.G.

Intervener: Presidenza dei Consiglio dei Ministri

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 4(6) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, read in conjunction with the principle of equality before the law, enshrined in Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,
  must be interpreted as precluding a law of a Member State transposing that Article 4(6), which excludes, absolutely and automatically, any third-country national staying or resident in the territory of that Member State from benefiting from the ground for optional non-execution of a European arrest warrant laid down in that provision, without the executing judicial authority being able to assess the connections that that national has with that Member State. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 4(6) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, read in conjunction with the principle of equality before the law, enshrined in Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

must be interpreted as precluding a law of a Member State transposing that Article 4(6), which excludes, absolutely and automatically, any third-country national staying or resident in the territory of that Member State from benefiting from the ground for optional non-execution of a European arrest warrant laid down in that provision, without the executing judicial authority being able to assess the connections that that national has with that Member State.

| 2. | Article 4(6) of Framework Decision 2002/584
  must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to assess whether it is appropriate to refuse to execute the European arrest warrant issued against a third-country national who is staying or resident in the territory of the executing Member State, the executing judicial authority must make an overall assessment of all the specific elements that characterise that national’s situation which are capable of showing that there are, between that person and the executing Member State, connections demonstrating that he or she is sufficiently integrated into that State such that the execution in that Member State of the custodial sentence or detention order pronounced against that person in the issuing Member State will contribute to increasing the chances of social rehabilitation after that sentence or detention order has been executed. Those elements include the family, linguistic, cultural, social or economic links that the third-country national has with the executing Member State as well as the nature, duration and conditions of his or her stay in that Member State. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 4(6) of Framework Decision 2002/584

must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to assess whether it is appropriate to refuse to execute the European arrest warrant issued against a third-country national who is staying or resident in the territory of the executing Member State, the executing judicial authority must make an overall assessment of all the specific elements that characterise that national’s situation which are capable of showing that there are, between that person and the executing Member State, connections demonstrating that he or she is sufficiently integrated into that State such that the execution in that Member State of the custodial sentence or detention order pronounced against that person in the issuing Member State will contribute to increasing the chances of social rehabilitation after that sentence or detention order has been executed. Those elements include the family, linguistic, cultural, social or economic links that the third-country national has with the executing Member State as well as the nature, duration and conditions of his or her stay in that Member State.

---

(1)  OJ C 73, 14.2.2022.

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 25 May 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej w Warszawie v W. sp. z o.o.

(Case C-114/22, (1) Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej w Warszawie (VAT — fictitious acquisition))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Right to deduct VAT - Refusal - Refusal based on the invalidity of the transaction under national civil law)

(2023/C 252/07)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej w Warszawie

Respondent: W. sp. z o.o.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 167, Article 168(a), Article 178(a) and Article 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2010/45/EU of 13 July 2010, read in the light of the principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which a taxable person is deprived of the right to deduct input value added tax solely because a taxable economic transaction is regarded as fictitious and invalid under the provisions of national civil law, without it being necessary to establish that the criteria for classifying, under EU law, that transaction as fictitious are met or, where that transaction has actually been carried out, that it is the result of value added tax evasion or abuse of rights.

---

(1)  OJ C 284, 25.7.2022.

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 25 May 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Graz — Austria) — TLL The Longevity Labs GmbH v Optimize Health Solutions mi GmbH, BM

(Case C-141/22, (1) TLL The Longevity Labs)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Food safety - Novel food - Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 - Sprouted buckwheat flour with a high spermidine content - Germination of buckwheat seeds in a nutrient solution containing spermidine)

(2023/C 252/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Graz

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: TLL The Longevity Labs GmbH

Defendant: Optimize Health Solutions mi GmbH, BM

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(2)(a)(iv) of Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on novel foods, amending Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1852/2001

must be interpreted as meaning that a food, such as sprouted buckwheat flour with a high spermidine content, which was not used for human consumption to a significant degree within the European Union before 15 May 1997, constitutes a ‘novel food’ within the meaning of that provision given that, first, it is obtained from a plant, secondly, it is not apparent that its safety has been confirmed with compositional data and from experience of continued use for at least 25 years in the customary diet of a significant number of people in at least one country of the European Union, and, thirdly and in any event, it is not obtained by propagating practices, within the meaning of that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 198, 16.5.2022.

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 25 May 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Minden — Germany) — J.B., S.B., F.B., legally represented by J.B. and S.B., v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-364/22, (1) Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Voluntary return))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Asylum policy - Common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection - Directive 2013/32/EU - Article 33(2)(d) - Procedure for examining an application for international protection - Inadmissible applications - Subsequent application - Voluntary return and removal)

(2023/C 252/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Minden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: J.B., S.B., F.B., legally represented by J.B. and S.B.,

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 33(2)(d) 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 not precluding the rejection of a subsequent application for international protection as inadmissible irrespective of (i) the fact that the applicant returned to his or her country of origin after his or her application for international protection was refused and before he or she made that subsequent application for international protection and (ii) whether that return was voluntary or forced. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 33(2)(d) 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 not precluding the rejection of a subsequent application for international protection as inadmissible irrespective of (i) the fact that the applicant returned to his or her country of origin after his or her application for international protection was refused and before he or she made that subsequent application for international protection and (ii) whether that return was voluntary or forced.

| 2. | Article 33(2)(d) of Directive 2013/32
  must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State from rejecting a subsequent application for international protection as inadmissible where the decision on the previous application did not concern the granting of subsidiary protection status, but was adopted following an examination of the existence of grounds prohibiting removal and that examination is comparable, in substance, to the examination carried out with a view to granting that status. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 33(2)(d) of Directive 2013/32

must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State from rejecting a subsequent application for international protection as inadmissible where the decision on the previous application did not concern the granting of subsidiary protection status, but was adopted following an examination of the existence of grounds prohibiting removal and that examination is comparable, in substance, to the examination carried out with a view to granting that status.

---

(1)  OJ C 340, 5.9.2022.

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 25 May 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Denmark) — Skatteministeriet v Danish Fluid System Technologies A/S

(Case C-368/22, (1) Danish Fluid System Technologies)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 - Customs Union - Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Heading 7307 - Tube or pipe fittings - Subheading 7307 22 10 - Sleeves)

(2023/C 252/10)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Vestre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Skatteministeriet

Defendant: Danish Fluid System Technologies A/S

Operative part of the judgment

Subheading 7307 22 10 of the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 254/2000 of 31 January 2000, in the version resulting from Commission Regulation (EU) No 861/2010 of 5 October 2010,

must be interpreted as meaning that stainless steel tube or pipe fittings, other than cast fittings, which have an external thread and do not constitute short tube sections with an interior thread, used to join two tubes by screwing them into that fitting or by simply pushing them into that fitting, cannot be regarded as being ‘sleeves’ coming under that subheading.

---

(1)  OJ C 303, 8.8.2022.

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/11

---

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 1 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Edison Next SpA, formerly Fenice — Qualità per l’ambiente SpA v Ministero della Transizione Ecologica (formerly Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare), Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Comitato nazionale per la gestione della Direttiva 2003/87/CE e per il supporto nella gestione delle attività di progetto del protocollo di Kyoto

(Case C-91/22, (1) Edison Next)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Requirements to set out the factual context of the dispute in the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need for an answer from the Court to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling - Lack of sufficient information - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2023/C 252/11)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Edison Next SpA, formerly Fenice — Qualità per l’ambiente SpA

Defendants: Ministero della Transizione Ecologica (formerly Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare), Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Comitato nazionale per la gestione della Direttiva 2003/87/CE e per il supporto nella gestione delle attività di progetto del protocollo di Kyoto

Other parties: Hera SpA, FCA Italy SpA

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio (Regional Administrative Court, Lazio, Italy) by decision of 25 January 2022 is manifestly inadmissible.

---

(1)  OJ C 191, 10.5.2022.

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/12

---

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 1 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Edison Next SpA, formerly Fenice — Qualità per l’ambiente SpA v Ministero della Transizione Ecologica (formerly Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare), Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Comitato nazionale per la gestione della Direttiva 2003/87/CE e per il supporto nella gestione delle attività di progetto del protocollo di Kyoto

(Case C-92/22, (1) Edison Next)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Requirements to set out the factual context of the dispute in the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need for an answer from the Court to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling - Lack of sufficient information - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2023/C 252/12)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Edison Next SpA, formerly Fenice — Qualità per l’ambiente SpA

Defendants: Ministero della Transizione Ecologica (formerly Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare), Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Comitato nazionale per la gestione della Direttiva 2003/87/CE e per il supporto nella gestione delle attività di progetto del protocollo di Kyoto

Other parties: Hera SpA, Iveco SpA, FPT Industrial SpA

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio (Regional Administrative Court, Lazio, Italy) by decision of 25 January 2022 is manifestly inadmissible.

---

(1)  OJ C 191, 10.5.2022.

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/12

---

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 1 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Edison Next SpA, formerly Fenice — Qualità per l’ambiente SpA v Ministero della Transizione Ecologica (formerly Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare), Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Comitato nazionale per la gestione della Direttiva 2003/87/CE e per il supporto nella gestione delle attività di progetto del protocollo di Kyoto

(Case C-93/22, (1) Edison Next)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Requirements to set out the factual context of the dispute in the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need for an answer from the Court to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling - Lack of sufficient information - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2023/C 252/13)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Edison Next SpA, formerly Fenice — Qualità per l’ambiente SpA

Defendants: Ministero della Transizione Ecologica (formerly Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare), Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Comitato nazionale per la gestione della Direttiva 2003/87/CE e per il supporto nella gestione delle attività di progetto del protocollo di Kyoto

Other parties: Hera SpA, Iveco SpA

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio (Regional Administrative Court, Lazio, Italy) by decision of 25 January 2022 is manifestly inadmissible.

---

(1)  OJ C 191, 10.5.2022.

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/13

---

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 1 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Gruppo Mauro Saviola Srl v Ministero della Transizione Ecologica (formerly Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare), Comitato nazionale per la gestione della Direttiva 2003/87/CE e per il supporto nella gestione delle attività di progetto del protocollo di Kyoto

(Case C-94/22, (1) Gruppo Mauro Saviola)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Requirements to set out the factual context of the dispute in the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need for an answer from the Court to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling - Lack of sufficient information - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2023/C 252/14)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Gruppo Mauro Saviola Srl

Defendants: Ministero della Transizione Ecologica (formerly Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare), Comitato nazionale per la gestione della Direttiva 2003/87/CE e per il supporto nella gestione delle attività di progetto del protocollo di Kyoto

Other parties: Rappresentanza della Commissione europea in Italia

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio (Regional Administrative Court, Lazio, Italy) by decision of 25 January 2022 is manifestly inadmissible.

---

(1)  OJ C 191, 10.5.2022.

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Potsdam (Germany) lodged on 7 March 2023 — Gesellschaft für musikalische Aufführungs- und mechanische Vervielfältigungsrechte (GEMA) v GL

(Case C-135/23, GEMA)

(2023/C 252/15)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Potsdam

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Gesellschaft für musikalische Aufführungs- und mechanische Vervielfältigungsrechte e.V. (GEMA)

Defendant: GL

Question referred

Is there a communication to the public within the meaning of Article 3 of Directive 2001/29/EC (1) when the operator of an apartment building provides televisions in that apartment building which each receive broadcasts via an indoor antenna without a central reception for transmitting the signals?

---

(1)  Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10).

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 22 March 2023 — Dyrektor Krajowej Informacji Skarbowej v J.S.

(Case C-182/23, Makowit (1))

(2023/C 252/16)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Dyrektor Krajowej Informacji Skarbowej

Defendant: J.S.

Question referred

Do the provisions of Article 9(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, (2) in conjunction with Article 14(2)(a) thereof, allow a farmer who is liable to pay VAT under general rules and who transfers the ownership of a plot of land to the State Treasury under an expropriation procedure in exchange for compensation related to the change of its intended use for non-agricultural purposes to be regarded as a taxpayer obliged to pay VAT on that compensation due solely to the fact that the plot was earlier used for agricultural activities subject to VAT?

---

(1)  A fictitious name has been given to this case which does not correspond to the actual name of any of the parties to the proceedings.

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

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/15

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší správny súd (Slovak Republic) lodged on 22 March 2023 — BONUL s.r.o. v Výbor Národnej rady Slovenskej republiky na preskúmavanie rozhodnutí Národného bezpečnostného úradu

(Case C-185/23, BONUL)

(2023/C 252/17)

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Najvyšší správny súd (Slovak Republic)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: BONUL s.r.o.

Defendant: Výbor Národnej rady Slovenskej republiky na preskúmavanie rozhodnutí Národného bezpečnostného úradu

Questions referred

| 1. | Should Article 51(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) be interpreted as meaning that a Member State implements EU law in the case where a court of that Member State assesses the legality of a decision of a special commission of the parliament of that State by which that commission, as an appellate body, has upheld an administrative decision of the national security authority revoking/withdrawing






  — | first, a legal person’s industrial security clearance giving access to classified information in accordance with national law,
  and, at the same time, and only as a consequence of the revocation of that clearance, |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Should Article 51(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) be interpreted as meaning that a Member State implements EU law in the case where a court of that Member State assesses the legality of a decision of a special commission of the parliament of that State by which that commission, as an appellate body, has upheld an administrative decision of the national security authority revoking/withdrawing

—

first, a legal person’s industrial security clearance giving access to classified information in accordance with national law,

and, at the same time, and only as a consequence of the revocation of that clearance,

| — | a facility security clearance issued to that legal person for access to information classified as ‘SECRET UE/EU SECRET’ within the meaning of Article 11 of and Annex V to the Council Decision of 23 September 2013 on the security rules for protecting EU classified information (2013/488/EU)? (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

a facility security clearance issued to that legal person for access to information classified as ‘SECRET UE/EU SECRET’ within the meaning of Article 11 of and Annex V to the Council Decision of 23 September 2013 on the security rules for protecting EU classified information (2013/488/EU)? (1)

| 2. | If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:
  Should the first and second paragraphs of Article 47 of the Charter be interpreted as precluding national legislation and practice under which






  (a) | the decision of a national security authority to revoke/withdraw such clearance and the relevant certificate does not divulge the classified information which led to the authority considering the conditions for revocation/withdrawal to have been met, but merely makes reference to the document in the files of that authority containing the classified information, |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:

Should the first and second paragraphs of Article 47 of the Charter be interpreted as precluding national legislation and practice under which

(a)

the decision of a national security authority to revoke/withdraw such clearance and the relevant certificate does not divulge the classified information which led to the authority considering the conditions for revocation/withdrawal to have been met, but merely makes reference to the document in the files of that authority containing the classified information,

| (b) | the legal person concerned does not have access to the national security authority’s file or to the individual documents containing classified information which led that authority to request justification of the revocation/withdrawal of the clearance and certificate, |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the legal person concerned does not have access to the national security authority’s file or to the individual documents containing classified information which led that authority to request justification of the revocation/withdrawal of the clearance and certificate,

| (c) | access to that file and those documents may be obtained by the lawyer of the legal person concerned, but only with the consent of the head of the national security authority, and possibly with that of the body which provided those documents to the national security authority, whereby, even after having obtained such access, he or she is obliged to keep the content of the file and those documents confidential, |
| --- | --- |

(c)

access to that file and those documents may be obtained by the lawyer of the legal person concerned, but only with the consent of the head of the national security authority, and possibly with that of the body which provided those documents to the national security authority, whereby, even after having obtained such access, he or she is obliged to keep the content of the file and those documents confidential,

| (d) | the court which assesses the legality of the decision referred to in Question 1, however, has full access to those files and documents? |
| --- | --- |

(d)

the court which assesses the legality of the decision referred to in Question 1, however, has full access to those files and documents?

| 3. | If Question 2 is answered in the affirmative:
  Should the first and second paragraphs of Article 47 of the Charter be interpreted as directly permitting (or alternatively obliging) a court assessing the legality of a decision such as that referred to in Question 1 not to apply the rules and practice described in Question 2 and to grant the legal person concerned or its lawyer access to the file of the national security authority and possibly to documents containing classified information, if that court considers this necessary in order to guarantee the right to an effective remedy and an adversarial procedure? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If Question 2 is answered in the affirmative:

Should the first and second paragraphs of Article 47 of the Charter be interpreted as directly permitting (or alternatively obliging) a court assessing the legality of a decision such as that referred to in Question 1 not to apply the rules and practice described in Question 2 and to grant the legal person concerned or its lawyer access to the file of the national security authority and possibly to documents containing classified information, if that court considers this necessary in order to guarantee the right to an effective remedy and an adversarial procedure?

| 4. | If Question 3 is answered in the affirmative:
  Should Article 51(1) and (2) of the Charter be interpreted as meaning that the right of the court to grant access to the file, and possibly to the documents described in Question 3, extends






  — | only to those parts of the file or documents that contain information relevant to the industrial clearance assessment within the meaning of Article 11 of and Annex V to Council Decision 2013/488/EU,
  or |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

If Question 3 is answered in the affirmative:

Should Article 51(1) and (2) of the Charter be interpreted as meaning that the right of the court to grant access to the file, and possibly to the documents described in Question 3, extends

—

only to those parts of the file or documents that contain information relevant to the industrial clearance assessment within the meaning of Article 11 of and Annex V to Council Decision 2013/488/EU,

or

| — | also to those parts of the file or documents that contain information that is relevant only for the assessment of industrial security under national law, that is to say, beyond the prerequisites provided for in Council Decision 2013/488/EU? |
| --- | --- |

—

also to those parts of the file or documents that contain information that is relevant only for the assessment of industrial security under national law, that is to say, beyond the prerequisites provided for in Council Decision 2013/488/EU?

---

(1)  2013/488/EU: Council Decision of 23 September 2013 on the security rules for protecting EU classified information (OJ 2013 L 274, p. 1).

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/16

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judiciaire de Paris (France) lodged on 17 February 2023 — Le Procureur de la République de Paris v VGG AG and Others

(Case C-190/23, VGG)

(2023/C 252/18)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal Judiciaire de Paris

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Le Procureur de la République de Paris

Defendants: VGG AG, VGG Entertainment Inc, Dan A., SAS M. Trade, SASU D., SAS T. Logistique, Arthur C., SAS S., Grégory B., David C., David M., IE, CID

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 56 TFEU be interpreted as allowing the national authorities to apply legislation derived from Article 1 of the French Law of 27 June 1919 prohibiting the touting of theatre tickets and Article 313-6-2 of the French Criminal Code introduced by the Law of 12 March 2012, in so far as those provisions have the effect of prohibiting, save in exceptional cases, the resale or facilitation of the resale between European natural or legal persons, situated in two different Member States, of tickets purchased on the primary market? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 56 TFEU be interpreted as allowing the national authorities to apply legislation derived from Article 1 of the French Law of 27 June 1919 prohibiting the touting of theatre tickets and Article 313-6-2 of the French Criminal Code introduced by the Law of 12 March 2012, in so far as those provisions have the effect of prohibiting, save in exceptional cases, the resale or facilitation of the resale between European natural or legal persons, situated in two different Member States, of tickets purchased on the primary market?

| 2. | Must Articles 56 and 52 TFEU and the associated overriding requirements in the public interest be interpreted as allowing the national authorities, on the basis of legislation derived from Article 1 of the French Law of 27 June 1919 prohibiting the touting of theatre tickets and Article 313-6-2 of the French Criminal Code introduced by the Law of 12 March 2012, to justify restrictions that do not seem capable of effectively protecting the objectives relied on, such as the protection of public policy and consumer protection, or that are disproportionate in view of the alternative measures that could be envisaged? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must Articles 56 and 52 TFEU and the associated overriding requirements in the public interest be interpreted as allowing the national authorities, on the basis of legislation derived from Article 1 of the French Law of 27 June 1919 prohibiting the touting of theatre tickets and Article 313-6-2 of the French Criminal Code introduced by the Law of 12 March 2012, to justify restrictions that do not seem capable of effectively protecting the objectives relied on, such as the protection of public policy and consumer protection, or that are disproportionate in view of the alternative measures that could be envisaged?

| 3. | Must Article 49(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as permitting fines of EUR 15 000 and, in the event of a repeat offence, EUR 30 000 to be imposed on anyone infringing Article 313-6-2 of the French Criminal Code, introduced by the French Law of 12 March 2012, in view of the restrictive nature of the legislative measures put in place and the minor nature of the offences committed? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Must Article 49(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as permitting fines of EUR 15 000 and, in the event of a repeat offence, EUR 30 000 to be imposed on anyone infringing Article 313-6-2 of the French Criminal Code, introduced by the French Law of 12 March 2012, in view of the restrictive nature of the legislative measures put in place and the minor nature of the offences committed?

| 4. | Must the principle of legal certainty enshrined by the Court of Justice of the European Union as a general principle of European Union law, and Article 49(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union enshrining the principle that offences and penalties must be defined by law, be interpreted as allowing Article 1 of the French Law of 27 June 1919 to be maintained, which does not allow interested parties to know whether their sale or transfer relates to a subsidised ticket or a ticket sold on favourable terms, when they could be criminally liable for that fact, and does not allow the defendants to know the exact penalty incurred, since that penalty is expressed in old francs without a specific reference to the applicable legal texts? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Must the principle of legal certainty enshrined by the Court of Justice of the European Union as a general principle of European Union law, and Article 49(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union enshrining the principle that offences and penalties must be defined by law, be interpreted as allowing Article 1 of the French Law of 27 June 1919 to be maintained, which does not allow interested parties to know whether their sale or transfer relates to a subsidised ticket or a ticket sold on favourable terms, when they could be criminally liable for that fact, and does not allow the defendants to know the exact penalty incurred, since that penalty is expressed in old francs without a specific reference to the applicable legal texts?

| 5. | Must the principle of legal certainty enshrined by the Court of Justice of the European Union as a general principle of European Union law, and Article 49(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union enshrining the principle that offences and penalties must be defined by law, be interpreted as precluding the application of Article 313-6-2 of the French Criminal Code, which creates uncertainty for a person presenting or providing the means for the sale of admission tickets to an event or a show since that person is unable to know whether the seller has obtained the authorisation of the producer, organiser or owner of the rights of exploitation, even though the concept of organiser is not clearly defined in the applicable legal texts? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Must the principle of legal certainty enshrined by the Court of Justice of the European Union as a general principle of European Union law, and Article 49(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union enshrining the principle that offences and penalties must be defined by law, be interpreted as precluding the application of Article 313-6-2 of the French Criminal Code, which creates uncertainty for a person presenting or providing the means for the sale of admission tickets to an event or a show since that person is unable to know whether the seller has obtained the authorisation of the producer, organiser or owner of the rights of exploitation, even though the concept of organiser is not clearly defined in the applicable legal texts?

| 6. | Does Article 313-6-2 of the French Criminal Code contribute to a high level of consumer protection as required by EU law and enshrined in Article 38 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, since that provision of criminal law makes it possible to tackle ticket speculation by unauthorised intermediaries? |
| --- | --- |

6.

Does Article 313-6-2 of the French Criminal Code contribute to a high level of consumer protection as required by EU law and enshrined in Article 38 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, since that provision of criminal law makes it possible to tackle ticket speculation by unauthorised intermediaries?

| 7. | Is the prohibition of the resale of tickets by a person who is not the organiser or producer of the event or a person authorised to do so, established by Article 313-6-2 of the French Criminal Code, not contrary to the principle of open competition enshrined in EU law (Articles 101 to 109 TFEU)? |
| --- | --- |

7.

Is the prohibition of the resale of tickets by a person who is not the organiser or producer of the event or a person authorised to do so, established by Article 313-6-2 of the French Criminal Code, not contrary to the principle of open competition enshrined in EU law (Articles 101 to 109 TFEU)?

| 8. | Does Article 313-6-2 of the French Criminal Code not grant an exclusive right to the organisers of events contrary to Article 106(1) TFEU, in so far as it confers on those organisers a monopoly over the sale of their tickets? |
| --- | --- |

8.

Does Article 313-6-2 of the French Criminal Code not grant an exclusive right to the organisers of events contrary to Article 106(1) TFEU, in so far as it confers on those organisers a monopoly over the sale of their tickets?

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/17

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Apelacyjny w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 24 March 2023 — S. S.A. v C. sp. z o.o.

(Case C-197/23, S.)

(2023/C 252/19)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Apelacyjny w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: S. S.A.

Respondent: C. sp. z o.o.

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 2, Article 6(1) and (3) and the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union, in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as meaning that a court of first instance of a Member State of the European Union, the formation of which is composed of a single judge of that court assigned to hear a case in flagrant breach of the provisions of national law on the allocation of cases and the appointment and modification of the formations of a court, does not constitute an independent and impartial tribunal previously established by law which ensures effective legal protection? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 2, Article 6(1) and (3) and the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union, in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as meaning that a court of first instance of a Member State of the European Union, the formation of which is composed of a single judge of that court assigned to hear a case in flagrant breach of the provisions of national law on the allocation of cases and the appointment and modification of the formations of a court, does not constitute an independent and impartial tribunal previously established by law which ensures effective legal protection?

| 2. | Must Article 2, Article 6(1) and (3) and the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union, in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as precluding the application of provisions of national law, such as the second sentence of Article 55(4) of the Ustawa z 27 lipca 2001 r. Prawo o ustroju sądów powszechnych (Law of 27 July 2001 on the system of ordinary courts, consolidated text, Dz.U. of 2020, item 2072, as amended), in conjunction with Article 8 of the Ustawa o zmianie ustawy — Prawo o ustroju sądów powszechnych, ustawy o Sądzie Najwyższym oraz niektórych innych ustaw z 20 grudnia 2019 r. (Law amending the Law on the system of ordinary courts, the Law on the Supreme Court and certain other laws of 20 December 2019, Dz.U. of 2020, item 190), in so far as they prohibit a court of second instance from declaring invalid, pursuant to Article 379(4) of the Ustawa z 17 listopada 1964 r. Kodeks postępowania cywilnego (Law of 17 November 1964 establishing the Code of Civil Procedure, consolidated text, Dz.U. of 2021, item 1805, as amended), proceedings before a national court of first instance in an action brought before that court on the grounds that the composition of that court was contrary to the law, the court was improperly composed, or a person not authorised or competent to adjudicate participated in the decision, as a legal sanction ensuring effective legal protection where a judge is assigned to hear a case in flagrant breach of the provisions of national law on the allocation of cases and the appointment and modification of the formations of a court? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must Article 2, Article 6(1) and (3) and the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union, in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as precluding the application of provisions of national law, such as the second sentence of Article 55(4) of the Ustawa z 27 lipca 2001 r. Prawo o ustroju sądów powszechnych (Law of 27 July 2001 on the system of ordinary courts, consolidated text, Dz.U. of 2020, item 2072, as amended), in conjunction with Article 8 of the Ustawa o zmianie ustawy — Prawo o ustroju sądów powszechnych, ustawy o Sądzie Najwyższym oraz niektórych innych ustaw z 20 grudnia 2019 r. (Law amending the Law on the system of ordinary courts, the Law on the Supreme Court and certain other laws of 20 December 2019, Dz.U. of 2020, item 190), in so far as they prohibit a court of second instance from declaring invalid, pursuant to Article 379(4) of the Ustawa z 17 listopada 1964 r. Kodeks postępowania cywilnego (Law of 17 November 1964 establishing the Code of Civil Procedure, consolidated text, Dz.U. of 2021, item 1805, as amended), proceedings before a national court of first instance in an action brought before that court on the grounds that the composition of that court was contrary to the law, the court was improperly composed, or a person not authorised or competent to adjudicate participated in the decision, as a legal sanction ensuring effective legal protection where a judge is assigned to hear a case in flagrant breach of the provisions of national law on the allocation of cases and the appointment and modification of the formations of a court?

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/18

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul București (Romania) lodged on 28 March 2023 — Engie România SA v Autoritatea Națională de Reglementare în Domeniul Energiei

(Case C-205/23, Engie România)

(2023/C 252/20)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul București

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Engie România SA

Respondent: Autoritatea Națională de Reglementare în Domeniul Energiei

Questions referred

| 1. | Can an alleged breach of the duty of transparency incumbent on natural gas suppliers in their dealings with household consumers, which has been implemented in national legislation and is treated under that legislation as an administrative offence (contravenția), also result in the competent national authority’s requiring a natural gas supplier to apply, in dealings with consumers, a price imposed by administrative means that takes no account of the principle of freedom to fix prices in the natural gas market, that principle being established by Article 3(1) of Directive 2009/73/EC? (1) |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can an alleged breach of the duty of transparency incumbent on natural gas suppliers in their dealings with household consumers, which has been implemented in national legislation and is treated under that legislation as an administrative offence (contravenția), also result in the competent national authority’s requiring a natural gas supplier to apply, in dealings with consumers, a price imposed by administrative means that takes no account of the principle of freedom to fix prices in the natural gas market, that principle being established by Article 3(1) of Directive 2009/73/EC? (1)

| 2. | Can the fact that a natural gas supplier has been fined both by the consumer protection authority and by the energy sector regulatory authority, by means of two separate reports of offences imposing the same measures on the supplier (duplication of administrative acts imposing measures), be regarded as a justified restriction of the principle ne bis in idem, under the provisions of Article 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, or is it a breach of that principle?
  Does such a combination of acts imposing the same measures on the basis of the same facts, drawn up by different authorities, comply with the principle of proportionality? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Can the fact that a natural gas supplier has been fined both by the consumer protection authority and by the energy sector regulatory authority, by means of two separate reports of offences imposing the same measures on the supplier (duplication of administrative acts imposing measures), be regarded as a justified restriction of the principle ne bis in idem, under the provisions of Article 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, or is it a breach of that principle?

Does such a combination of acts imposing the same measures on the basis of the same facts, drawn up by different authorities, comply with the principle of proportionality?

---

(1)  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 (OJ 2009 L 211, p. 94).

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/19

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 29 March 2023 — Finanzamt X v Y KG

(Case C-207/23, Finanzamt X)

(2023/C 252/21)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law: Finanzamt X

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Y KG

Questions referred

| 1. | If a taxable person makes heat from its company available to another taxable person for the latter’s economic operations free of charge (in this case: allocation of heat from the cogeneration plant of an electricity provider for the benefit of an agricultural company for the purpose of heating asparagus fields), is this to be regarded as an ‘application by a taxable person of goods forming part of his business assets’ in the form of a ‘disposal free of charge’ within the meaning of Article 16 of Directive 2006/112/EC (the VAT Directive)? (1)

  Is the answer to this question dependent on whether the taxable person receiving the heat uses it for purposes that would entitle that person to a deduction of input tax? |
| --- | --- |

1.

If a taxable person makes heat from its company available to another taxable person for the latter’s economic operations free of charge (in this case: allocation of heat from the cogeneration plant of an electricity provider for the benefit of an agricultural company for the purpose of heating asparagus fields), is this to be regarded as an ‘application by a taxable person of goods forming part of his business assets’ in the form of a ‘disposal free of charge’ within the meaning of Article 16 of Directive 2006/112/EC (the VAT Directive)? (1)

Is the answer to this question dependent on whether the taxable person receiving the heat uses it for purposes that would entitle that person to a deduction of input tax?

| 2. | In the case of an application of goods (within the meaning of Article 16 of the VAT Directive), is the cost price within the meaning of Article 74 of the VAT Directive to be calculated solely on the basis of those costs that are subject to input tax? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the case of an application of goods (within the meaning of Article 16 of the VAT Directive), is the cost price within the meaning of Article 74 of the VAT Directive to be calculated solely on the basis of those costs that are subject to input tax?

| 3. | Does the cost price include only direct production or generation costs, or does it also include only indirectly attributable costs such as financing costs? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the cost price include only direct production or generation costs, or does it also include only indirectly attributable costs such as financing costs?

---

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

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/19

---

Appeal brought on 4 April 2023 by NS against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 25 January 2023 in Case T-805/21, NS v Parliament

(Case C-218/23 P)

(2023/C 252/22)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: NS (represented by: L. Levi, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the present appeal admissible and founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the present appeal admissible and founded;

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2023 in Case T-805/21; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2023 in Case T-805/21;

| — | consequently, grant the appellant the relief sought at first instance, and, therefore:






  — | annul the decision of 21 January 2021 reassigning the appellant to the post of Adviser in the Directorate-General for the Presidency and, to the extent necessary, the decision of 8 March 2021 to recover the overpayment; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

consequently, grant the appellant the relief sought at first instance, and, therefore:

—

annul the decision of 21 January 2021 reassigning the appellant to the post of Adviser in the Directorate-General for the Presidency and, to the extent necessary, the decision of 8 March 2021 to recover the overpayment;

| — | in so far as necessary, annul the decision of 16 September 2021 rejecting the appellant’s claim of 7 April 2021; |
| --- | --- |

—

in so far as necessary, annul the decision of 16 September 2021 rejecting the appellant’s claim of 7 April 2021;

| — | make good the appellant’s material and non-material damage; |
| --- | --- |

—

make good the appellant’s material and non-material damage;

| — | order the respondent to pay in full the costs of both sets of proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the respondent to pay in full the costs of both sets of proceedings.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of her appeal, the appellant relies on the following grounds;

| 1. | The judgment under appeal fails to have regard to the concept of law giving the opportunity to be heard, makes incorrect legal characterisations and distorts the documents before the Court. The General Court failed to have regard to its obligation to state reasons. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The judgment under appeal fails to have regard to the concept of law giving the opportunity to be heard, makes incorrect legal characterisations and distorts the documents before the Court. The General Court failed to have regard to its obligation to state reasons.

| 2. | The judgment under appeal fails to have regard to the obligation to state reasons. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The judgment under appeal fails to have regard to the obligation to state reasons.

| 3. | The judgment under appeal fails to comply with the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The judgment under appeal fails to comply with the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials.

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/20

---

Appeal brought on 11 April 2023 by Penya Barça Lyon: Plus que des supporters (PBL) and Issam Abdelmouine against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 8 February 2023 in Case T-538/21, PBL and WA v Commission

(Case C-224/23 P)

(2023/C 252/23)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: Penya Barça Lyon: Plus que des supporters (PBL), Issam Abdelmouine (represented by: J. Branco, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 8 February 2023 in Case T-538/21, PBL and WA v Commission in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 8 February 2023 in Case T-538/21, PBL and WA v Commission in its entirety;

| — | uphold the final conclusions presented by the applicants at first instance in their entirety. |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the final conclusions presented by the applicants at first instance in their entirety.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellants rely on several grounds of appeal.

First, the General Court erred in fact and in law by rejecting, as inadmissible, the application for annulment in respect of Penya Barça Lyon, given, (i), that the first applicant’s interest in bringing proceedings takes precedence over that of the second applicant when several people bring one and the same action and, (ii), by refusing the offer of evidence by the applicants in order to demonstrate the first applicant’s interest in bringing proceedings.

Secondly, the General Court infringed the applicants’ procedural rights by failing to rule on a plea presented relating to the discretionary nature of the Commission’s power concerning the complaints lodged before it.

Thirdly, the General Court erred in law by disregarding any direct proprietary and economic interest in the facts of the case of the applicants.

Fourthly, the appellants allege an infringement of Article 1(h) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 (1) in that the General Court disregarded the second applicant’s status as an interested party and by holding that the interests of that applicant would not be comparable to those of a shareholder.

Fifthly, the General Court erred in holding that the new evidence submitted by the applicants on the day of the hearing did not affect the General Court’s assessments of its jurisdiction, of the admissibility and merits of the applicants’ action.

Sixthly, the appellants claim a conflict of interest on the part of a judge forming part of the formation of the judgment of the General Court.

---

(1)  Council Regulation of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (codification) (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9).

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/21

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 11 April 2023 — Kwantum Nederland BV, Kwantum België BV v Vitra Collections AG

(Case C-227/23, Kwantum Nederland and Kwantum België)

(2023/C 252/24)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Kwantum Nederland BV, Kwantum België BV

Respondent: Vitra Collections AG

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the situation at issue in these proceedings fall within the material scope of EU law?
  Should the preceding question be answered in the affirmative, the following questions are also submitted. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the situation at issue in these proceedings fall within the material scope of EU law?

Should the preceding question be answered in the affirmative, the following questions are also submitted.

| 2. | Does the fact that copyright on a work of applied art forms an integral part of the right to protection of intellectual property enshrined in Article 17(2) of the Charter mean that EU law, in particular Article 52(1) of the Charter, in order to limit the exercise of copyright (within the meaning of Directive 2001/29/EC) (1) on a work of applied art by application of the material reciprocity test of Article 2(7) BC, (2) requires this limitation to be provided for by law? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the fact that copyright on a work of applied art forms an integral part of the right to protection of intellectual property enshrined in Article 17(2) of the Charter mean that EU law, in particular Article 52(1) of the Charter, in order to limit the exercise of copyright (within the meaning of Directive 2001/29/EC) (1) on a work of applied art by application of the material reciprocity test of Article 2(7) BC, (2) requires this limitation to be provided for by law?

| 3. | Must Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Directive 2001/29/EC and Articles 17(2) and 52(1) of the Charter, read in the light of Article 2(7) BC, be interpreted as meaning that it is solely for the EU legislature (and not for national legislatures) to determine whether the exercise of copyright (within the meaning of Directive 2001/29/EC) in the European Union can be limited by application of the material reciprocity test provided for in Article 2(7) BC in respect of a work of applied art whose country of origin within the meaning of the Berne Convention is a third country and whose author is not a national of an EU Member State and, if so, to define that limitation clearly and precisely (see judgment of 8 September 2020, Recorded Artists Actors Performers, C-265/19, EU:C:2020:677)? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Must Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Directive 2001/29/EC and Articles 17(2) and 52(1) of the Charter, read in the light of Article 2(7) BC, be interpreted as meaning that it is solely for the EU legislature (and not for national legislatures) to determine whether the exercise of copyright (within the meaning of Directive 2001/29/EC) in the European Union can be limited by application of the material reciprocity test provided for in Article 2(7) BC in respect of a work of applied art whose country of origin within the meaning of the Berne Convention is a third country and whose author is not a national of an EU Member State and, if so, to define that limitation clearly and precisely (see judgment of 8 September 2020, Recorded Artists Actors Performers, C-265/19, EU:C:2020:677)?

| 4. | Must Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Directive 2001/29/EC, read in conjunction with Articles 17(2) and 52(1) of the Charter, be interpreted as meaning that as long as the EU legislature has not provided for a limitation of the exercise of copyright (within the meaning of Directive 2001/29/EC) on a work of applied art by application of the material reciprocity test of Article 2(7) BC, EU Member States may not apply that test in respect of a work of applied art whose country of origin within the meaning of the Berne Convention is a third country and whose author is not a national of an EU Member State? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Must Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Directive 2001/29/EC, read in conjunction with Articles 17(2) and 52(1) of the Charter, be interpreted as meaning that as long as the EU legislature has not provided for a limitation of the exercise of copyright (within the meaning of Directive 2001/29/EC) on a work of applied art by application of the material reciprocity test of Article 2(7) BC, EU Member States may not apply that test in respect of a work of applied art whose country of origin within the meaning of the Berne Convention is a third country and whose author is not a national of an EU Member State?

| 5. | In the circumstances at issue in the present proceedings and given the time of the establishment of (the predecessor of) Article 2(7) BC, are the conditions of the first paragraph of Article 351 TFEU satisfied for Belgium, meaning that Belgium is therefore free to apply the material reciprocity test provided for in Article 2(7) BC, taking into account the fact that in the present case the country of origin acceded to the Berne Convention on 1 May 1989? |
| --- | --- |

5.

In the circumstances at issue in the present proceedings and given the time of the establishment of (the predecessor of) Article 2(7) BC, are the conditions of the first paragraph of Article 351 TFEU satisfied for Belgium, meaning that Belgium is therefore free to apply the material reciprocity test provided for in Article 2(7) BC, taking into account the fact that in the present case the country of origin acceded to the Berne Convention on 1 May 1989?

---

(1)  Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10).

(2)  Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works; ‘BC’.

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/22

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 12 April 2023 — AFAÏA v Institut national de l’origine et de la qualité (INAO)

(Case C-228/23, AFAÏA)

(2023/C 252/25)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: AFAÏA

Defendant: Institut national de l’origine et de la qualité (INAO)

Party to the proceedings: Ministre de l’Agriculture et de l’Alimentation

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Annex II to Commission Regulation (EU) 2021/1165 of 15 July 2021, (1) which was adopted to implement Regulation (EU) 2018/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018, (2) to be interpreted as meaning that the concept of factory farming contained therein is equivalent to that of landless livestock production? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Annex II to Commission Regulation (EU) 2021/1165 of 15 July 2021, (1) which was adopted to implement Regulation (EU) 2018/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018, (2) to be interpreted as meaning that the concept of factory farming contained therein is equivalent to that of landless livestock production?

| 2. | If the concept of factory farming is distinct from the concept of landless livestock production, what criteria must be used to determine whether a livestock holding must be categorised as factory farming within the meaning of Annex II to Regulation (EU) 2021/1165? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the concept of factory farming is distinct from the concept of landless livestock production, what criteria must be used to determine whether a livestock holding must be categorised as factory farming within the meaning of Annex II to Regulation (EU) 2021/1165?

---

(1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1165 of 15 July 2021 authorising certain products and substances for use in organic production and establishing their lists (OJ 2021 L 253, p. 13).

(2)  Regulation (EU) 2018/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 on organic production and labelling of organic products and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 (OJ 2018 L 150, p. 1).

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/22

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Ondernemingsrechtbank Gent, afdeling Gent (Belgium) lodged on 13 April 2023 — Reproble SCRL v Copaco Belgium NV

(Case C-230/23, Reprobel)

(2023/C 252/26)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Ondernemingsrechtbank Gent, afdeling Gent

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Reprobel SCRL

Defendant: Copaco Belgium NV

Questions referred

| 1. | Is an entity such as Reprobel, in so far as it has been entrusted by the State, by means of a royal mandate, to collect and distribute the fair compensation, set by the State, within the meaning of Article 5(2)(a) and (b) of Directive 2001/29, (1) and over which the State exercises control, an entity against which an individual may rely, in his or her defence, on the incompatibility with EU law of a national provision which that entity seeks to impose on that individual? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is an entity such as Reprobel, in so far as it has been entrusted by the State, by means of a royal mandate, to collect and distribute the fair compensation, set by the State, within the meaning of Article 5(2)(a) and (b) of Directive 2001/29, (1) and over which the State exercises control, an entity against which an individual may rely, in his or her defence, on the incompatibility with EU law of a national provision which that entity seeks to impose on that individual?

| 2. | Is it relevant to the answer to that question that the control exercised by the State over that entity includes:






  — | The obligation for that entity to always forward to the competent minister a copy of the requests for data it sends to the persons liable to pay the remuneration, required both for the collection and distribution of the remuneration for reprography, in such a way that the minister is in a position to know how the entity exercises the right of supervision and decide whether it is advisable to stipulate, by means of a ministerial decree, the content, number and frequency of the requests for data in such a way as not to impede, more than is necessary, the activities of the persons receiving those requests; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Is it relevant to the answer to that question that the control exercised by the State over that entity includes:

—

The obligation for that entity to always forward to the competent minister a copy of the requests for data it sends to the persons liable to pay the remuneration, required both for the collection and distribution of the remuneration for reprography, in such a way that the minister is in a position to know how the entity exercises the right of supervision and decide whether it is advisable to stipulate, by means of a ministerial decree, the content, number and frequency of the requests for data in such a way as not to impede, more than is necessary, the activities of the persons receiving those requests;

| — | The obligation for the entity to call upon the minister’s representative to send a request for data, required for the collection of the proportional remuneration for reprography, to the persons liable to pay the remuneration, the dealers, whether wholesalers or retailers, the leasing companies or equipment maintenance companies if the person liable to pay the remuneration has not cooperated in the collection, on the understanding that the entity also has the obligation to send a copy of this request to the competent minister in such a way that the latter can determine that the content, number and frequency of the requests do not impede, more than is necessary, the activities of the persons receiving those requests; |
| --- | --- |

—

The obligation for the entity to call upon the minister’s representative to send a request for data, required for the collection of the proportional remuneration for reprography, to the persons liable to pay the remuneration, the dealers, whether wholesalers or retailers, the leasing companies or equipment maintenance companies if the person liable to pay the remuneration has not cooperated in the collection, on the understanding that the entity also has the obligation to send a copy of this request to the competent minister in such a way that the latter can determine that the content, number and frequency of the requests do not impede, more than is necessary, the activities of the persons receiving those requests;

| — | The obligation for the entity to submit to the competent minister for approval the rules for the distribution of reprography remuneration and any amendment it makes to them; |
| --- | --- |

—

The obligation for the entity to submit to the competent minister for approval the rules for the distribution of reprography remuneration and any amendment it makes to them;

| — | The obligation for the entity to submit the declaration form it has prepared to the competent minister for approval, without which it cannot be issued. |
| --- | --- |

—

The obligation for the entity to submit the declaration form it has prepared to the competent minister for approval, without which it cannot be issued.

| 3. | Is it also relevant to the answer to the question referred that the entity has the following powers?






  — | The power to request all data necessary for collecting the remuneration for reprography from all persons who are liable to pay the remuneration, liable to pay a contribution, dealers, whether wholesalers or retailers, leasing companies and equipment maintenance companies. Every request must always state the criminal penalties applicable in the event of failure to comply with the time limit set or provision of incomplete or inaccurate information; |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Is it also relevant to the answer to the question referred that the entity has the following powers?

—

The power to request all data necessary for collecting the remuneration for reprography from all persons who are liable to pay the remuneration, liable to pay a contribution, dealers, whether wholesalers or retailers, leasing companies and equipment maintenance companies. Every request must always state the criminal penalties applicable in the event of failure to comply with the time limit set or provision of incomplete or inaccurate information;

| — | The power to require all persons liable to pay remuneration to provide all data relating to copied works necessary for the distribution of the remuneration for reprography; |
| --- | --- |

—

The power to require all persons liable to pay remuneration to provide all data relating to copied works necessary for the distribution of the remuneration for reprography;

| — | The power to obtain all information necessary for the performance of its task from the Administratie der Douane en Accijnzen (Belgian Customs and Excise), the Administratie van de btw (Belgian VAT Administration) and the Rijksdienst voor Sociale Zekerheid (Belgian National Office for Social Security). |
| --- | --- |

—

The power to obtain all information necessary for the performance of its task from the Administratie der Douane en Accijnzen (Belgian Customs and Excise), the Administratie van de btw (Belgian VAT Administration) and the Rijksdienst voor Sociale Zekerheid (Belgian National Office for Social Security).

| 4. | Does Article 5(2)(a) and (b) of Directive 2001/29 have direct effect? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Does Article 5(2)(a) and (b) of Directive 2001/29 have direct effect?

| 5. | Is a national court required, on the application of an individual, to disapply a national provision where that provision, imposed by the State, contravenes Article 5(2)(a) and (b) of Directive 2001/29, referred to above, in particular because that provision, contrary to the aforementioned article, obliges that individual to pay charges? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Is a national court required, on the application of an individual, to disapply a national provision where that provision, imposed by the State, contravenes Article 5(2)(a) and (b) of Directive 2001/29, referred to above, in particular because that provision, contrary to the aforementioned article, obliges that individual to pay charges?

---

(1)  Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10).

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/24

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 12 April 2023 — ‘Eurobank Bulgaria’ AD

(Case C-231/23, Eurobank Bulgaria)

(2023/C 252/27)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski rayonen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘Eurobank Bulgaria’ AD

Questions referred

| 1. | Under Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, is national case-law permissible under which, where only part of a claim arising from a consumer contract which may contain unfair terms has been the subject matter of a judgment which has become final and acquired the force of res judicata, the conclusion of the court which delivered it, according to which the contractual terms are binding on the consumer and not unfair, is to bind the courts hearing subsequent applications for orders requiring the consumer to pay the balance of his or her debt with regard to whether that balance is due? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Under Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, is national case-law permissible under which, where only part of a claim arising from a consumer contract which may contain unfair terms has been the subject matter of a judgment which has become final and acquired the force of res judicata, the conclusion of the court which delivered it, according to which the contractual terms are binding on the consumer and not unfair, is to bind the courts hearing subsequent applications for orders requiring the consumer to pay the balance of his or her debt with regard to whether that balance is due?

| 2. | If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative (that is, if that national case-law is permissible under EU law), is it compatible with Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC if, although the judgment finding that there are no unfair terms does contain a statement of reasons on that point, that statement of reasons is nevertheless [not] sufficiently clear or related to the specific contractual terms? On the basis of what criterion should the national court assess the completeness of the statement of reasons in the second set of proceedings? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative (that is, if that national case-law is permissible under EU law), is it compatible with Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC if, although the judgment finding that there are no unfair terms does contain a statement of reasons on that point, that statement of reasons is nevertheless [not] sufficiently clear or related to the specific contractual terms? On the basis of what criterion should the national court assess the completeness of the statement of reasons in the second set of proceedings?

---

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

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/24

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rayonen sad Nessebar (Bulgaria) lodged on 13 April 2023 — ‘Astoria Management’ OOD v CW

(Case C-234/23, Astoria Management)

(2023/C 252/28)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Rayonen sad Nessebar

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘Astoria Management’ OOD

Defendant: CW

Questions referred

| 1. | Is a limitation within the meaning of Article 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union of the right to ‘freedom of contract’ in the relationship between trader and consumer enshrined in Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as it results from Article 51 of the Zakon za upravlenie na etazhnata sobstvenost (Law on the management of co-owned property; ‘the ZUES’), as interpreted in accordance with the settled case-law of the Republic of Bulgaria — according to which a contract concluded by an individual owner of a property in a building in co-ownership, who in the present case is a consumer within the meaning of Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993, on matters governed by Article 51 of the ZUES, irrespective of whether the contract also governs other matters which fall outside of the exclusive competence of the general assembly of apartment owners, is void under Article 26(1) variant 1 of the Zakon zu zadalzheniyata i dogovorite (Law on obligations and contracts; ‘the ZZD’) for breach of substantive law — permissible? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is a limitation within the meaning of Article 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union of the right to ‘freedom of contract’ in the relationship between trader and consumer enshrined in Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as it results from Article 51 of the Zakon za upravlenie na etazhnata sobstvenost (Law on the management of co-owned property; ‘the ZUES’), as interpreted in accordance with the settled case-law of the Republic of Bulgaria — according to which a contract concluded by an individual owner of a property in a building in co-ownership, who in the present case is a consumer within the meaning of Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993, on matters governed by Article 51 of the ZUES, irrespective of whether the contract also governs other matters which fall outside of the exclusive competence of the general assembly of apartment owners, is void under Article 26(1) variant 1 of the Zakon zu zadalzheniyata i dogovorite (Law on obligations and contracts; ‘the ZZD’) for breach of substantive law — permissible?

| 2. | Is a limitation within the meaning of Article 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union of the right to ‘freedom of contract’ in the relationship between trader and consumer guaranteed in Article 38 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and by Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993, as it results from Article 51 of the ZUES, as interpreted in accordance with the settled case-law of the Republic of Bulgaria — according to which a contract concluded by an individual owner of a property in a building in co-ownership, who in the present case is a consumer within the meaning of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993, on matters governed by Article 51 of the ZUES, irrespective of whether the contract also governs other matters which fall outside of the exclusive competence of the general assembly of apartment owners, is void under Article 26(1) variant 1 of the ZZD for breach of substantive law — permissible? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is a limitation within the meaning of Article 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union of the right to ‘freedom of contract’ in the relationship between trader and consumer guaranteed in Article 38 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and by Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993, as it results from Article 51 of the ZUES, as interpreted in accordance with the settled case-law of the Republic of Bulgaria — according to which a contract concluded by an individual owner of a property in a building in co-ownership, who in the present case is a consumer within the meaning of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993, on matters governed by Article 51 of the ZUES, irrespective of whether the contract also governs other matters which fall outside of the exclusive competence of the general assembly of apartment owners, is void under Article 26(1) variant 1 of the ZZD for breach of substantive law — permissible?

---

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

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/25

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Sigmaringen (Germany) lodged on 17 April 2023 — Karl und Georg Anwander GbR Güterverwaltung v Land Baden-Württemberg

(Case C-293/23, Karl und Georg Anwander Güterverwaltung)

(2023/C 252/29)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Sigmaringen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Karl und Georg Anwander GbR Güterverwaltung

Defendant: Land Baden-Württemberg

Interested party: Freistaat Bayern

Questions referred

| 1. | Is a national administrative regulation and support practice whereby the payment of a compensatory allowance for land in mountain areas and certain areas facing constraints is precluded solely because the land to be supported by the compensatory allowance is outside the region of the Member State, within the meaning of point (b) of the second subparagraph of Article 2(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013, (1) that grants the compensatory allowance compatible with the first subparagraph of Article 31(1), Article 31(2), Article 32(1)(a), the first subparagraph of Article 32(2) and the second and third subparagraphs of Article 32(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013? Is the place of business of the farmer managing the land a permissible criterion for differentiation in that regard? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is a national administrative regulation and support practice whereby the payment of a compensatory allowance for land in mountain areas and certain areas facing constraints is precluded solely because the land to be supported by the compensatory allowance is outside the region of the Member State, within the meaning of point (b) of the second subparagraph of Article 2(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013, (1) that grants the compensatory allowance compatible with the first subparagraph of Article 31(1), Article 31(2), Article 32(1)(a), the first subparagraph of Article 32(2) and the second and third subparagraphs of Article 32(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013? Is the place of business of the farmer managing the land a permissible criterion for differentiation in that regard?

| 2. | Is the first subparagraph of Article 31(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 to be interpreted as meaning that the rules of a Member State or a region of the Member State which has decided to grant payments to farmers in mountain areas and other areas facing constraints, within the meaning of Article 31(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013, must be defined in such a way that the payment must also be granted in respect of land that has been classified as a mountain area or other area facing constraints, within the meaning of Article 32(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013, by another Member State or another region of the same Member State which has also decided to grant payments to farmers in mountain areas and other areas facing constraints within the meaning of Article 31(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the first subparagraph of Article 31(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 to be interpreted as meaning that the rules of a Member State or a region of the Member State which has decided to grant payments to farmers in mountain areas and other areas facing constraints, within the meaning of Article 31(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013, must be defined in such a way that the payment must also be granted in respect of land that has been classified as a mountain area or other area facing constraints, within the meaning of Article 32(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013, by another Member State or another region of the same Member State which has also decided to grant payments to farmers in mountain areas and other areas facing constraints within the meaning of Article 31(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013?

| 3. | Are the first subparagraph of Article 31(1) and Article 31(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 to be interpreted as meaning that, in principle, a farmer derives directly from those provisions an entitlement under EU law to the grant of the payment (compensatory allowance) by the Member State or the region of the Member State if the farmer is an active farmer and manages land which has been classified as a mountain area or other area facing constraints, within the meaning of Article 32(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013, by the Member State or the region of the Member State and the Member State concerned or the region thereof has decided to grant payments (compensatory allowances) within the meaning of the first subparagraph of Article 31(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013?
  If that question is answered in the affirmative:






  (a) | Against whom is the entitlement under EU law derived from Article 31(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 directed? Is it always directed against the Member State itself or, in any event, against the region (point (b) of the second subparagraph of Article 2(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013) of the Member State if the region has decided, independently of the Member State, to grant compensatory allowances to farmers pursuant to Article 31 of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013? |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Are the first subparagraph of Article 31(1) and Article 31(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 to be interpreted as meaning that, in principle, a farmer derives directly from those provisions an entitlement under EU law to the grant of the payment (compensatory allowance) by the Member State or the region of the Member State if the farmer is an active farmer and manages land which has been classified as a mountain area or other area facing constraints, within the meaning of Article 32(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013, by the Member State or the region of the Member State and the Member State concerned or the region thereof has decided to grant payments (compensatory allowances) within the meaning of the first subparagraph of Article 31(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013?

If that question is answered in the affirmative:

(a)

Against whom is the entitlement under EU law derived from Article 31(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 directed? Is it always directed against the Member State itself or, in any event, against the region (point (b) of the second subparagraph of Article 2(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013) of the Member State if the region has decided, independently of the Member State, to grant compensatory allowances to farmers pursuant to Article 31 of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013?

| (b) | Does the entitlement under EU law require, in principle, that the farmer meets further requirements in excess of those laid down in the first subparagraph of Article 31(1) and Article 31(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013, which are stipulated by the Member State granting the compensatory allowance or the region thereof in its national implementing measures? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Does the entitlement under EU law require, in principle, that the farmer meets further requirements in excess of those laid down in the first subparagraph of Article 31(1) and Article 31(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013, which are stipulated by the Member State granting the compensatory allowance or the region thereof in its national implementing measures?

| 4. | If Question 3 is answered in the negative:
  Is the first subparagraph of Article 31(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 to be interpreted as meaning that the rules of a Member State or one of its regions laying down the conditions for the grant of the payment (compensatory allowance) within the meaning of the first subparagraph of Article 31(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 must have such legal status that farmers are entitled to the grant of the payment (compensatory allowance) if they meet the conditions for payment laid down by the Member State in question or the regions thereof, irrespective of the actual support practice of the Member State or the region thereof? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If Question 3 is answered in the negative:

Is the first subparagraph of Article 31(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 to be interpreted as meaning that the rules of a Member State or one of its regions laying down the conditions for the grant of the payment (compensatory allowance) within the meaning of the first subparagraph of Article 31(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 must have such legal status that farmers are entitled to the grant of the payment (compensatory allowance) if they meet the conditions for payment laid down by the Member State in question or the regions thereof, irrespective of the actual support practice of the Member State or the region thereof?

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 487).

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/26

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 18 April 2023 — P. sp. z o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej w Warszawie

(Case C-241/23, Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej w Warszawie)

(2023/C 252/30)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: P. sp. z o.o.

Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej w Warszawie

Question referred

Is consideration obtained or to be obtained by the supplier in return for a supply of goods, as referred to in Article 73 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, (1) to be understood as meaning the nominal value of the shares acquired or the issue value, if the parties have stipulated that the consideration is to be the issue value of the shares?

---

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

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/27

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 18 April 2023 — Tecno*37 v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Camera di Commercio Industria Artigianato e Agricoltura di Bologna

(Case C-242/23, Tecno*37)

(2023/C 252/31)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Tecno*37

Defendant: Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Camera di Commercio Industria Artigianato e Agricoltura di Bologna

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 5(3) of Law 39/1989 as reworded following infringement proceeding No 2018/2175 now be regarded as fully consistent with [EU] law, in particular in the light of the closure of the infringement proceeding itself? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 5(3) of Law 39/1989 as reworded following infringement proceeding No 2018/2175 now be regarded as fully consistent with [EU] law, in particular in the light of the closure of the infringement proceeding itself?

| 2. | Do the principles and objectives of Article 59(3) of Directive 2005/36/EC (1) (as amended by Directive 2013/55/[EU] (2)) and Article 25(1) of Directive 2006/123/EC (3) and, more generally, of Article 49 TFEU preclude rules such as the Italian rule contained in Article 5(3) of Law No 39/1989, which establishes, as a preventive and general provision, incompatibility between property brokerage activity and property management activity due to the mere fact that the two activities are carried out jointly and, therefore, without there being any need for chambers of commerce to subsequently ascertain on a case-by-case basis the nature of the brokerage carried out, without this being based on a specifically identified and proved ‘overriding reason in the public interest’ or, in any event, on a demonstration of the proportionality of the general incompatibility provided for with regard to the objective pursued? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Do the principles and objectives of Article 59(3) of Directive 2005/36/EC (1) (as amended by Directive 2013/55/[EU] (2)) and Article 25(1) of Directive 2006/123/EC (3) and, more generally, of Article 49 TFEU preclude rules such as the Italian rule contained in Article 5(3) of Law No 39/1989, which establishes, as a preventive and general provision, incompatibility between property brokerage activity and property management activity due to the mere fact that the two activities are carried out jointly and, therefore, without there being any need for chambers of commerce to subsequently ascertain on a case-by-case basis the nature of the brokerage carried out, without this being based on a specifically identified and proved ‘overriding reason in the public interest’ or, in any event, on a demonstration of the proportionality of the general incompatibility provided for with regard to the objective pursued?

| 3. | Can a property agent in any case also act as a property manager, provided he or she does not seek to sell or purchase the property he or she manages since a conflict of interest would arise in this case? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Can a property agent in any case also act as a property manager, provided he or she does not seek to sell or purchase the property he or she manages since a conflict of interest would arise in this case?

---

(1)  Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22).

(2)  Directive 2013/55/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2013 amending Directive 2005/36/EC on the recognition of professional qualifications and Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 on administrative cooperation through the Internal Market Information System (‘the IMI Regulation’) (OJ 2013 L 354, p. 132).

(3)  Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (OJ 2006 L 376, p. 36).

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/28

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Ustavno sodišče Republike Slovenije (Slovenia) lodged on 20 April 2023 — INTERZERO Trajnostne rešitve za svet brez odpadkov d.o.o., Interzero Circular Solutions Europe GmbH and Others v Državni zbor Republike Slovenije

(Case C-254/23, INTERZERO and Others)

(2023/C 252/32)

Language of the case: Slovenian

Referring court

Ustavno sodišče Republike Slovenije

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: INTERZERO Trajnostne rešitve za svet brez odpadkov d.o.o., Interzero Circular Solutions Europe GmbH and Others

Defendant: Državni zbor Republike Slovenije

Questions referred

| 1. | Must a legal person that has the exclusive right to carry out the collective fulfilment of extended producer responsibility obligations in respect of products of the same type within the territory of the Republic of Slovenia be regarded as an undertaking entrusted with the operation of a service of general economic interest, within the meaning of Article 106(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (read in the light of Article 14 TFEU, Protocol No 26 on services of general interest and Articles 8 and 8a of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain directives), (1) where that activity includes:






  — | the conclusion of contracts with the producers of certain products pursuant to which those producers entrust that legal person with the task of ensuring on their behalf the proper management of the waste resulting from those products; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Must a legal person that has the exclusive right to carry out the collective fulfilment of extended producer responsibility obligations in respect of products of the same type within the territory of the Republic of Slovenia be regarded as an undertaking entrusted with the operation of a service of general economic interest, within the meaning of Article 106(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (read in the light of Article 14 TFEU, Protocol No 26 on services of general interest and Articles 8 and 8a of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain directives), (1) where that activity includes:

—

the conclusion of contracts with the producers of certain products pursuant to which those producers entrust that legal person with the task of ensuring on their behalf the proper management of the waste resulting from those products;

| — | the organisation of a system for the collection and treatment of waste (the conclusion of contracts with commercial companies to carry out, on the Organisation’s behalf, the collection and proper treatment of all waste resulting from products to which extended producer responsibility applies), and |
| --- | --- |

—

the organisation of a system for the collection and treatment of waste (the conclusion of contracts with commercial companies to carry out, on the Organisation’s behalf, the collection and proper treatment of all waste resulting from products to which extended producer responsibility applies), and

| — | the keeping of a register of the products to which extended producer responsibility applies and which are placed on the market in the Republic of Slovenia, and the keeping of a register of the collected and treated waste resulting from the products to which extended producer responsibility applies, and the transmission of that data to the Ministry,
  and where that legal person is obliged, in order to carry out that activity, to conclude contracts both with producers having extended producer responsibility and with the commercial companies that will carry out the collection and treatment of waste? |
| --- | --- |

—

the keeping of a register of the products to which extended producer responsibility applies and which are placed on the market in the Republic of Slovenia, and the keeping of a register of the collected and treated waste resulting from the products to which extended producer responsibility applies, and the transmission of that data to the Ministry,

and where that legal person is obliged, in order to carry out that activity, to conclude contracts both with producers having extended producer responsibility and with the commercial companies that will carry out the collection and treatment of waste?

| 2. | Must Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Articles 49, 56 and 106 TFEU, Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (2) and Articles 8 and 8a of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain directives be interpreted as precluding legislation pursuant to which the collective fulfilment of extended producer responsibility obligations in respect of products of the same type may be carried out by only one legal person in the territory of the Member State and only on a non-profit-making basis, meaning that income must not exceed actual expenditure incurred in the collective fulfilment of the extended producer responsibility obligations and that the legal person in question must use any profits solely for carrying out its activities and implementing measures for the collective fulfilment of the extended producer responsibility obligations? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Articles 49, 56 and 106 TFEU, Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (2) and Articles 8 and 8a of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain directives be interpreted as precluding legislation pursuant to which the collective fulfilment of extended producer responsibility obligations in respect of products of the same type may be carried out by only one legal person in the territory of the Member State and only on a non-profit-making basis, meaning that income must not exceed actual expenditure incurred in the collective fulfilment of the extended producer responsibility obligations and that the legal person in question must use any profits solely for carrying out its activities and implementing measures for the collective fulfilment of the extended producer responsibility obligations?

| 3. | In the event that question 2 is answered in the negative, must Article 16 of the Charter of Fundament Rights of the European Union, Articles 49, 56 and 106 TFEU, the principles of legal certainty and of the protection of legitimate interests and Articles 8 and 8a of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain directives be interpreted as precluding legislation by means of which a Member State changes the activity of the collective fulfilment of extended producer responsibility obligations in respect of products of the same type, transforming it from a regulated, market-oriented profit-making activity carried on by a number of economic operators into an activity that only one organisation is authorised to carry on and which must be carried out on a non-profit-making basis, as described in question 2? |
| --- | --- |

3.

In the event that question 2 is answered in the negative, must Article 16 of the Charter of Fundament Rights of the European Union, Articles 49, 56 and 106 TFEU, the principles of legal certainty and of the protection of legitimate interests and Articles 8 and 8a of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain directives be interpreted as precluding legislation by means of which a Member State changes the activity of the collective fulfilment of extended producer responsibility obligations in respect of products of the same type, transforming it from a regulated, market-oriented profit-making activity carried on by a number of economic operators into an activity that only one organisation is authorised to carry on and which must be carried out on a non-profit-making basis, as described in question 2?

| 4. | Must the provisions of EU law referred to in question 3 be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, by reason of the entry into force of a new legislative framework for the collective fulfilment of extended producer responsibility obligations, results, by operation of law (ex lege), in interference in individual relationships such as to terminate all contracts concluded between the economic operators that carried on the collective fulfilment of extended producer responsibility obligations in accordance with the previous regime and the producers having extended producer responsibility obligations, and between the economic operators that carried on the collective fulfilment of extended producer responsibility obligations in accordance with the previous regime and the economic operators that collected and treated waste resulting from products in respect of which the collective fulfilment of extended producer responsibility obligations must be carried out? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Must the provisions of EU law referred to in question 3 be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, by reason of the entry into force of a new legislative framework for the collective fulfilment of extended producer responsibility obligations, results, by operation of law (ex lege), in interference in individual relationships such as to terminate all contracts concluded between the economic operators that carried on the collective fulfilment of extended producer responsibility obligations in accordance with the previous regime and the producers having extended producer responsibility obligations, and between the economic operators that carried on the collective fulfilment of extended producer responsibility obligations in accordance with the previous regime and the economic operators that collected and treated waste resulting from products in respect of which the collective fulfilment of extended producer responsibility obligations must be carried out?

| 5. | In circumstances where new legislation as described in questions 3 and 4 is adopted, must the principles of legal certainty and of the protection of legitimate expectations be interpreted as requiring the legislature to establish a transition period and/or to introduce a system of compensation? If so, what criteria determine the reasonableness of the transition period or the system of compensation? |
| --- | --- |

5.

In circumstances where new legislation as described in questions 3 and 4 is adopted, must the principles of legal certainty and of the protection of legitimate expectations be interpreted as requiring the legislature to establish a transition period and/or to introduce a system of compensation? If so, what criteria determine the reasonableness of the transition period or the system of compensation?

| 6. | Must Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Articles 49, 56 and 106 TFEU, Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market and Articles 8 and 8a of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain directives be interpreted as precluding legislation pursuant to which producers that have extended producer responsibility obligations and place on the market 51 % of the products of the same type to which the extended producer responsibility obligation applies are required to establish a legal person entrusted with the collective fulfilment of the extended producer responsibility obligations, and pursuant to which producers of products of the same type must, in the event that authorisation is withdrawn, establish such a legal person anew, or must the abovementioned provisions of EU law be interpreted as precluding rules pursuant to which only producers may hold a share in such legal person? |
| --- | --- |

6.

Must Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Articles 49, 56 and 106 TFEU, Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market and Articles 8 and 8a of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain directives be interpreted as precluding legislation pursuant to which producers that have extended producer responsibility obligations and place on the market 51 % of the products of the same type to which the extended producer responsibility obligation applies are required to establish a legal person entrusted with the collective fulfilment of the extended producer responsibility obligations, and pursuant to which producers of products of the same type must, in the event that authorisation is withdrawn, establish such a legal person anew, or must the abovementioned provisions of EU law be interpreted as precluding rules pursuant to which only producers may hold a share in such legal person?

| 7. | Must Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Articles 49, 56 and 106 TFEU, Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market and Articles 8 and 8a of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain directives be interpreted as precluding legislation pursuant to which producers that hold a share in the legal person that carries out the collective fulfilment of extended producer responsibility obligations may not be persons that carry on the collection or treatment of waste resulting from the products to which the collective fulfilment of extended producer responsibility obligations applies in that legal person? |
| --- | --- |

7.

Must Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Articles 49, 56 and 106 TFEU, Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market and Articles 8 and 8a of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain directives be interpreted as precluding legislation pursuant to which producers that hold a share in the legal person that carries out the collective fulfilment of extended producer responsibility obligations may not be persons that carry on the collection or treatment of waste resulting from the products to which the collective fulfilment of extended producer responsibility obligations applies in that legal person?

| 8. | Must Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Articles 49, 56 and 106 TFEU, Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market and Articles 8 and 8a of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain directives be interpreted as precluding legislation pursuant to which a producer that holds a share in the legal person that carries out the collective fulfilment of extended producer responsibility obligations and the legal person that carries on the collective fulfilment of extended producer responsibility obligations may not:






  — | have direct or indirect capital links with the person carrying on the collection or treatment of waste resulting from products to which the collective fulfilment of obligations applies in the legal person that carries on the collective fulfilment of extended producer responsibility obligations or have management or control rights in that legal person; |
| --- | --- | --- |

8.

Must Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Articles 49, 56 and 106 TFEU, Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market and Articles 8 and 8a of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain directives be interpreted as precluding legislation pursuant to which a producer that holds a share in the legal person that carries out the collective fulfilment of extended producer responsibility obligations and the legal person that carries on the collective fulfilment of extended producer responsibility obligations may not:

—

have direct or indirect capital links with the person carrying on the collection or treatment of waste resulting from products to which the collective fulfilment of obligations applies in the legal person that carries on the collective fulfilment of extended producer responsibility obligations or have management or control rights in that legal person;

| — | have capital links or family ties with a person that holds or controls voting rights in the governing body or supervisory body of the legal person referred to in the previous indent or with that legal person’s representative? |
| --- | --- |

—

have capital links or family ties with a person that holds or controls voting rights in the governing body or supervisory body of the legal person referred to in the previous indent or with that legal person’s representative?

| 9. | Must Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Articles 49, 56 and 106 TFEU, Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market and Articles 8 and 8a of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain directives be interpreted as precluding legislation pursuant to which the restrictions mentioned in questions 7 and 8 apply equally to members of the governing body of the legal person that carries on the collective fulfilment of extended producer responsibility obligations, to members of the supervisory body of that legal person and to that legal person’s representative? |
| --- | --- |

9.

Must Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Articles 49, 56 and 106 TFEU, Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market and Articles 8 and 8a of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain directives be interpreted as precluding legislation pursuant to which the restrictions mentioned in questions 7 and 8 apply equally to members of the governing body of the legal person that carries on the collective fulfilment of extended producer responsibility obligations, to members of the supervisory body of that legal person and to that legal person’s representative?

| 10. | Must Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Articles 49 and 56 TFEU be interpreted as precluding legislation pursuant to which producers that have extended producer responsibility obligations and place on the market products intended for household use must without exception conclude a contract under which they entrust the legal person that has the authorisation to carry on the collective fulfilment of extended producer responsibility obligations with the task of fulfilling their obligations flowing from extended producer responsibility? |
| --- | --- |

10.

Must Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Articles 49 and 56 TFEU be interpreted as precluding legislation pursuant to which producers that have extended producer responsibility obligations and place on the market products intended for household use must without exception conclude a contract under which they entrust the legal person that has the authorisation to carry on the collective fulfilment of extended producer responsibility obligations with the task of fulfilling their obligations flowing from extended producer responsibility?

---

(1)  OJ 2008 L 312, p. 3.

(2)  OJ 2006 L 176, p. 36.

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/30

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Okrazhen sad — Sliven (Bulgaria) lodged on 25 April 2023 — Criminal proceedings against DM, AV, WO, AQ

(Case C-265/23, Volieva (1))

(2023/C 252/33)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Okrazhen sad — Sliven

Parties to the main proceedings

DM, AV, WO, AQ

Questions referred

| 1. | In criminal cases concerning offences falling within the scope of EU law, must Article 52 in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 4 of Council Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA (2) of 24 October 2008 on the fight against organised crime and the third sentence of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union be interpreted as precluding national legislation such as that contained in Chapter XXVI of the Nakazatelno-protsesualen kodeks (Code of Criminal Procedure) (as amended by Darzhaven vestnik [State Gazette] No 63/2017, in force since 5 November 2017), which abrogates the right of an accused person to have the criminal proceedings against him or her discontinued, where that right arose under a law providing for such a possibility but, as a result of a judicial error, was established only after that law had been repealed? |
| --- | --- |

1.

In criminal cases concerning offences falling within the scope of EU law, must Article 52 in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 4 of Council Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA (2) of 24 October 2008 on the fight against organised crime and the third sentence of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union be interpreted as precluding national legislation such as that contained in Chapter XXVI of the Nakazatelno-protsesualen kodeks (Code of Criminal Procedure) (as amended by Darzhaven vestnik [State Gazette] No 63/2017, in force since 5 November 2017), which abrogates the right of an accused person to have the criminal proceedings against him or her discontinued, where that right arose under a law providing for such a possibility but, as a result of a judicial error, was established only after that law had been repealed?

| 2. | What effective remedies, within the meaning of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, should be available to such an accused person, and, in particular, is a national court required to discontinue entirely the criminal proceedings against such an accused person if a formation of the court previously seised had failed to do so, even though the relevant conditions were satisfied under the national law then in force? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What effective remedies, within the meaning of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, should be available to such an accused person, and, in particular, is a national court required to discontinue entirely the criminal proceedings against such an accused person if a formation of the court previously seised had failed to do so, even though the relevant conditions were satisfied under the national law then in force?

---

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

(2)  OJ 2008 L 300, p. 42.

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/31

---

Action brought on 26 April 2023 — European Commission v French Republic

(Case C-268/23)

(2023/C 252/34)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Sanfrutos Cano and C. Valero, acting as Agents)

Defendant: French Republic

Form of order sought

The European Commission claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, in not having taken the measures necessary to:






  — | ensure that, by 31 December 2000 at the latest, in 23 agglomerations referred to in the present application of 15 000 population equivalent and above, collected urban waste water, before being discharged, is subject to secondary treatment in accordance with Article 4 of Directive 91/271/EEC (1) conforming to the parameters set out in Annex I.B to that directive or an equivalent treatment; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

declare that, in not having taken the measures necessary to:

—

ensure that, by 31 December 2000 at the latest, in 23 agglomerations referred to in the present application of 15 000 population equivalent and above, collected urban waste water, before being discharged, is subject to secondary treatment in accordance with Article 4 of Directive 91/271/EEC (1) conforming to the parameters set out in Annex I.B to that directive or an equivalent treatment;

| — | ensure that, by 31 December 2005 at the latest, in 6 agglomerations referred to in the present application of between 10 000 and 15 000 population equivalent, collected urban waste water, before being discharged, is subject to secondary treatment in accordance with Article 4 of Directive 91/271 conforming to the parameters set out in Annex I.B to that directive or an equivalent treatment; |
| --- | --- |

—

ensure that, by 31 December 2005 at the latest, in 6 agglomerations referred to in the present application of between 10 000 and 15 000 population equivalent, collected urban waste water, before being discharged, is subject to secondary treatment in accordance with Article 4 of Directive 91/271 conforming to the parameters set out in Annex I.B to that directive or an equivalent treatment;

| — | ensure that, by 31 December 2005 at the latest, in 58 agglomerations referred to in the present application of between 2 000 and 10 000 population equivalent and which discharge to fresh-water and estuaries, collected urban waste water, before being discharged, is subject to secondary treatment in accordance with Article 4 of Directive 91/271 conforming to the parameters set out in Annex I.B to that directive or an equivalent treatment; |
| --- | --- |

—

ensure that, by 31 December 2005 at the latest, in 58 agglomerations referred to in the present application of between 2 000 and 10 000 population equivalent and which discharge to fresh-water and estuaries, collected urban waste water, before being discharged, is subject to secondary treatment in accordance with Article 4 of Directive 91/271 conforming to the parameters set out in Annex I.B to that directive or an equivalent treatment;

| — | ensure that, by 31 December 1998 at the latest, in 13 agglomerations referred to in the present application of 10 000 population equivalent and above and which discharge urban waste water to receiving waters classified as ‘sensitive areas’ within the meaning of Directive 91/271, the said urban water is subject to more stringent treatment than secondary treatment or an equivalent treatment in accordance with Article 5 of Directive 91/271 in conformity with the parameters prescribed in Annex I.B thereto; |
| --- | --- |

—

ensure that, by 31 December 1998 at the latest, in 13 agglomerations referred to in the present application of 10 000 population equivalent and above and which discharge urban waste water to receiving waters classified as ‘sensitive areas’ within the meaning of Directive 91/271, the said urban water is subject to more stringent treatment than secondary treatment or an equivalent treatment in accordance with Article 5 of Directive 91/271 in conformity with the parameters prescribed in Annex I.B thereto;

| — | ensure that the urban waste water treatment plants of the 87 agglomerations identified in the present application are designed, constructed, operated and maintained to ensure sufficient performance under all normal local climatic conditions and that their design takes into account seasonal variations of the load in accordance with Article 10 of Directive 91/271; |
| --- | --- |

—

ensure that the urban waste water treatment plants of the 87 agglomerations identified in the present application are designed, constructed, operated and maintained to ensure sufficient performance under all normal local climatic conditions and that their design takes into account seasonal variations of the load in accordance with Article 10 of Directive 91/271;

| — | ensure that competent authorities or appropriate bodies monitor discharges from urban waste water treatment plants of the 87 agglomerations identified in that application to verify compliance with the requirements of Annex I.B in accordance with the control procedures laid down in Annex I.D, as is required by the first indent of Article 15(1) of Directive 91/271; |
| --- | --- |

—

ensure that competent authorities or appropriate bodies monitor discharges from urban waste water treatment plants of the 87 agglomerations identified in that application to verify compliance with the requirements of Annex I.B in accordance with the control procedures laid down in Annex I.D, as is required by the first indent of Article 15(1) of Directive 91/271;

the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4 and/or Article 5, read in combination with Annex I.B, and under Article 10 and Article 15, read in combination with Annexes I.B and I.D to Directive 91/271,

| — | order the French Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the French Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission puts forward four main complaints.

First, the French Republic has failed to take the measures necessary to ensure that, in 87 agglomerations, collected urban waste water, before being discharged, is subject to secondary treatment in accordance with Article 4 of Directive 91/271, in conformity with the parameters set out in Annex I.B to that directive or an equivalent treatment.

Second, France has failed to take the measures necessary to ensure that, in 13 agglomerations which discharge urban waste water to sensitive areas, the said waste water is subject, before being discharged, to more stringent treatment than secondary treatment or an equivalent treatment in accordance with Article 5 of Directive 91/271 in conformity with the parameters prescribed in Annex I.B thereto.

Third, France has failed to take the measures necessary to ensure that, in 87 agglomerations, urban waste water treatment plants are designed, constructed, operated and maintained to ensure sufficient performance under all normal local climatic conditions and that their design takes into account seasonal variations of the load in accordance with Article 10 of Directive 91/271.

Fourth, France has failed to take the measures necessary to ensure that competent authorities or appropriate bodies monitor discharges from urban waste water treatment plants in 87 agglomerations to verify compliance with the requirements of Annex I.B in accordance with the control procedures laid down in Annex I.D, as is required by the first indent of Article 15(1) of Directive 91/271.

---

(1)  Council Directive of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment (OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40).

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/32

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 26 April 2023 — Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni and Others v Telecom Italia SpA and Others

(Case C-273/23, Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni and Others)

(2023/C 252/35)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Ministero dello Sviluppo economico, Telecom Italia SpA

Respondents: Telecom Italia SpA, Vodafone Italia SpA, Fastweb SpA, Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Tiscali Italia SpA, BT Italia SpA

Question referred

Must Directive 97/33/EC, (1) and in particular Article 5 thereof, and Directive 2002/22/EC, (2) and in particular Article 13 thereof, applicable ratione temporis, and the principles of transparency, least market distortion, non-discrimination and proportionality, be interpreted as meaning that:

| (a) | it is permissible for national legislation to impose by law the extension to mobile telephone operators of obligations to contribute to the financing of unfair burdens arising from the provision of the same universal service, without making such cases subject to verification by the NRA that there is a competitive relationship or substitutability between the contributing operators and the designated operator for the provision of that service within the same relevant market under competition law; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

it is permissible for national legislation to impose by law the extension to mobile telephone operators of obligations to contribute to the financing of unfair burdens arising from the provision of the same universal service, without making such cases subject to verification by the NRA that there is a competitive relationship or substitutability between the contributing operators and the designated operator for the provision of that service within the same relevant market under competition law;

| (b) | NRAs are permitted, in addition to or as an alternative to the criterion of substitutability between fixed and mobile network services, for the purposes of verifying the unfair nature of the burden, to use other criteria — and if so, which ones — to establish a financing obligation on mobile operators? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

NRAs are permitted, in addition to or as an alternative to the criterion of substitutability between fixed and mobile network services, for the purposes of verifying the unfair nature of the burden, to use other criteria — and if so, which ones — to establish a financing obligation on mobile operators?

---

(1)  Directive 97/33/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997 on interconnection in Telecommunications with regard to ensuring universal service and interoperability through application of the principles of Open Network Provision (ONP) (OJ 1997 L 199, p. 32).

(2)  Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 51).

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/33

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 4 May 2023 — ‘Entain Services (Bulgaria)’ EOOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Sofia pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

(Case C-287/23, Entain Services (Bulgaria))

(2023/C 252/36)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven administrativen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘Entain Services (Bulgaria)’ EOOD

Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Sofia pri sentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

Questions referred

| 1. | Do national rules and national interpretative practice under which dividends distributed to companies resident in Gibraltar are taxed at source (whereas dividends distributed to companies resident in Bulgaria or in other Member States are exempt from withholding tax without those companies having to satisfy any requirement) constitute a discriminatory restriction on the freedom of establishment guaranteed under EU law pursuant to Article 49 and on the free movement of capital guaranteed under EU law pursuant to Article 63 TFEU? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do national rules and national interpretative practice under which dividends distributed to companies resident in Gibraltar are taxed at source (whereas dividends distributed to companies resident in Bulgaria or in other Member States are exempt from withholding tax without those companies having to satisfy any requirement) constitute a discriminatory restriction on the freedom of establishment guaranteed under EU law pursuant to Article 49 and on the free movement of capital guaranteed under EU law pursuant to Article 63 TFEU?

| 2. | If the first question is answered in the affirmative, is that discriminatory restriction compatible with EU law where the legislator, in enacting the relevant national legislation, has not set out any public policy, public security or public health reasons justifying the need to impose those restrictions in respect of the companies incorporated in Gibraltar? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the first question is answered in the affirmative, is that discriminatory restriction compatible with EU law where the legislator, in enacting the relevant national legislation, has not set out any public policy, public security or public health reasons justifying the need to impose those restrictions in respect of the companies incorporated in Gibraltar?

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/33

---

Action brought on 15 May 2023 — European Commission v Republic of Malta

(Case C-304/23)

(2023/C 252/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Sanfrutos Cano and C. Schembri, agents)

Defendant: Republic of Malta

The applicant claim that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by not taking the necessary measures to ensure that for the Malta South and Malta North agglomerations, urban waste water entering collecting systems is subject to secondary treatment or an equivalent treatment before discharge, the Republic of Malta has failed its obligations under Articles 4 and 10 of the Directive 91/271/EEC (1) concerning urban waste water treatment1 (‘the Directive’); |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by not taking the necessary measures to ensure that for the Malta South and Malta North agglomerations, urban waste water entering collecting systems is subject to secondary treatment or an equivalent treatment before discharge, the Republic of Malta has failed its obligations under Articles 4 and 10 of the Directive 91/271/EEC (1) concerning urban waste water treatment1 (‘the Directive’);

| — | declare that, by not taking the necessary measures to ensure that for the Malta North agglomeration, urban wastewater entering collecting systems is, before discharge into sensitive areas or catchments of sensitive areas, made subject to more stringent treatment than that described in Article 4, the Republic of Malta has failed its obligations under Articles 5 of the Directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by not taking the necessary measures to ensure that for the Malta North agglomeration, urban wastewater entering collecting systems is, before discharge into sensitive areas or catchments of sensitive areas, made subject to more stringent treatment than that described in Article 4, the Republic of Malta has failed its obligations under Articles 5 of the Directive;

| — | declare that, by not monitoring discharges of urban waste waters for the Malta South and Malta North agglomerations to verify compliance with the requirements of Annex I.B., in accordance with the control procedures laid down in Annex I.D, the Republic of Malta has failed its obligations under Article 15 and Annexes I.B and I.D of the Directive, and |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by not monitoring discharges of urban waste waters for the Malta South and Malta North agglomerations to verify compliance with the requirements of Annex I.B., in accordance with the control procedures laid down in Annex I.D, the Republic of Malta has failed its obligations under Article 15 and Annexes I.B and I.D of the Directive, and

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

—

order Republic of Malta to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for transposing the directive expired on 31 October 2006 and 31 March 2007 for the Malta North and Malta South agglomerations respectively.

Article 4(1) of the Directive requires Member States to ensure that urban waste-water entering collecting systems shall before discharge be subject to secondary treatment or an equivalent treatment. The Commission claims that the Malta South and the Malta North agglomerations do not comply with the requirements of this provision essentially because the treatment plant's capacity for both agglomerations remain insufficient to treat the reported load.

The Commission also claims that the Republic of Malta’s breach of Article 4 of the Directive inevitably implies an infringement of Article 10 of the same Directive, on the basis that those agglomerations that cannot attain an adequate level of treatment of urban waste water in conformity with Article 4 are a fortiori unable to ensure sufficient performance under varying local climatic conditions.

As regards Malta North agglomeration, the Commission argues additionally a violation of article 5 of the Directive. The treatment plant for this agglomeration discharges into areas which have been designated as sensitive areas to nitrogen by the Maltese authorities on 22 April 2005, and therefore the Republic of Malta had to comply with Article 5 and apply a more stringent treatment by 22 April 2012 (i.e. within seven years after identification of the sensitive area). Given the lack of capacity of the treatment plant, as described above, which means that part of the generated load is discharged without any treatment, the Commission claims that article 5 is also breached for this agglomeration.

Finally, the Commission considers that both Malta South and Malta North agglomerations fail to comply with the requirements of article 15 of the Directive, as the breach of Article 4 and 5 of the Directive inevitably implies that compliance of the discharges is not being monitored in accordance with Annexes I.B and I.D of the Directive and therefore an infringement of article 15.

---

(1)  Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment (OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40).

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/34

---

Appeal brought on 16 May 2023 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 8 March 2023 in Case T-94/20, Campine and Campine Recycling v Commission

(Case C-306/23 P)

(2023/C 252/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: P. Rossi, M. Domecq, T. Isacu de Groot, L. Wildpanner, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Campine NV, Campine Recycling NV

Form of order sought

The Appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court of 8 March 2023 in Case T-94/20, Campine and Campine Recycling v Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of 8 March 2023 in Case T-94/20, Campine and Campine Recycling v Commission;

| — | rule itself on the outstanding points of the dispute, or |
| --- | --- |

—

rule itself on the outstanding points of the dispute, or

| — | in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court for a fresh decision, in so far as it has not yet been decided; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court for a fresh decision, in so far as it has not yet been decided;

| — | order Campine to bear the entirety of the costs of these proceedings and of the proceedings before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Campine to bear the entirety of the costs of these proceedings and of the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its first ground of appeal, the Commission submits that the General Court erred in law in finding that the Commission infringed Article 266(1) TFEU by refusing to pay to Campine and Campine Recycling (‘Campine’) default interest for late payment at the ECB REFI rate plus 3,5 %, when, on 11 December 2019, the Commission reimbursed the amount of fine reduction that Campine had provisionally paid pursuant to Commission Decision C(2017)900 final (1) of 8 February 2017 in Case AT.40018, in implementing the judgment of the General Court of 7 November 2019 in the Case T-240/17 for the period between the date of provisional payment and the reimbursement of the amount. In support of the first ground, the Commission submits:

| (i) | that the General Court erred in law when finding that the conditions for an action for damages were met (first part of the first plea); |
| --- | --- |

(i)

that the General Court erred in law when finding that the conditions for an action for damages were met (first part of the first plea);

| (ii) | that the General Court erred in law by misapplying the EU law on the interest applicable to comply with judgments annulling or reducing competition fines (second part of the first plea); |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

that the General Court erred in law by misapplying the EU law on the interest applicable to comply with judgments annulling or reducing competition fines (second part of the first plea);

| (iii) | that the General Court erred in finding that the Commission infringed Article 266(1) TFEU by not paying default interest in the amount claimed by Campine (third part of the first plea); |
| --- | --- |

(iii)

that the General Court erred in finding that the Commission infringed Article 266(1) TFEU by not paying default interest in the amount claimed by Campine (third part of the first plea);

| (iv) | that the judgment under appeal is contrary to the case-law prior to the Printeos judgment (fourth part of the first plea); |
| --- | --- |

(iv)

that the judgment under appeal is contrary to the case-law prior to the Printeos judgment (fourth part of the first plea);

| (v) | that the General Court erred in finding that the ex tunc effect of the judgments annulling competition fines entail a retroactive obligation to repay the fines before these are cancelled (fifth part of the first plea); |
| --- | --- |

(v)

that the General Court erred in finding that the ex tunc effect of the judgments annulling competition fines entail a retroactive obligation to repay the fines before these are cancelled (fifth part of the first plea);

| (vi) | that the General Court erred in holding that the obligation to pay default interest for late payment from the date of the provisional payment of a fine reduced by the Court does not reduce the deterrent effect of that fine (sixth part of the first plea). |
| --- | --- |

(vi)

that the General Court erred in holding that the obligation to pay default interest for late payment from the date of the provisional payment of a fine reduced by the Court does not reduce the deterrent effect of that fine (sixth part of the first plea).

Should the Court reject the first ground of appeal, by its second ground of appeal, the Commission submits that the General Court erred in law in finding that the Commission had to pay default interest at the ECB REFI rate plus 3,5 %.

By its third ground of appeal, the Commission submits that the General Court erred in law in finding that the Commission owed compound interest from the date of the partial reimbursement the fine.

---

(1)  Commission Decision C(2017) 900 final of 8 February 2017 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU (Case AT.40018 — Car battery recycling).

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/35

---

Appeal brought on 19 May 2023 by SE against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 8 March 2023 in Case T-763/21, SE v Commission

(Case C-309/23 P)

(2023/C 252/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: SE (represented by: L. Levi, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

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

—

set aside the judgment under appeal.

| — | consequently, give the appellant the benefit of his application of first instance. |
| --- | --- |

—

consequently, give the appellant the benefit of his application of first instance.

| — | order the Commission to pay all the costs of both the appeal and of the first instance. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay all the costs of both the appeal and of the first instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on 11 pleas in law:

| 1) | The General Court erred in finding that the claims related to infringement of art. 2 and 9 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants (‘CEOS’) are inadmissible (pars. 33-36). |
| --- | --- |

1)

The General Court erred in finding that the claims related to infringement of art. 2 and 9 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants (‘CEOS’) are inadmissible (pars. 33-36).

| 2) | The General Court erred in finding that Blue-Book trainees are one of the four categories of staff working for the Commission (par. 78 of the judgement). |
| --- | --- |

2)

The General Court erred in finding that Blue-Book trainees are one of the four categories of staff working for the Commission (par. 78 of the judgement).

| 3) | Erroneous qualification of the age discrimination as indirect, instead of direct (para. 56 |
| --- | --- |

3)

Erroneous qualification of the age discrimination as indirect, instead of direct (para. 56

| 4) | Erroneous application of the law (para. 70-71 and 75) in justifying indirect discrimination based on legal provisions applicable to direct discrimination. |
| --- | --- |

4)

Erroneous application of the law (para. 70-71 and 75) in justifying indirect discrimination based on legal provisions applicable to direct discrimination.

| 5) | Failure to apply the correct ‘high’ standard of proof required to justify discriminatory treatment based on age (pars. 62 to 89) |
| --- | --- |

5)

Failure to apply the correct ‘high’ standard of proof required to justify discriminatory treatment based on age (pars. 62 to 89)

| 6) | Erroneous application of the law in finding legitimate objectives (pars. 62-64 and 65-72) |
| --- | --- |

6)

Erroneous application of the law in finding legitimate objectives (pars. 62-64 and 65-72)

| 7) | Erroneous interpretation and application of the law (par. 73) in finding that the objectives are of ‘public interest nature.’ |
| --- | --- |

7)

Erroneous interpretation and application of the law (par. 73) in finding that the objectives are of ‘public interest nature.’

| 8) | Erroneous application of the law in finding that Blue-Book trainees were not favored because the Call was also open to other staff categories (paras. 80-81) |
| --- | --- |

8)

Erroneous application of the law in finding that Blue-Book trainees were not favored because the Call was also open to other staff categories (paras. 80-81)

| 9) | Erroneous in finding that the difference of treatment on grounds of age is proportionate (par. 84 to 89) |
| --- | --- |

9)

Erroneous in finding that the difference of treatment on grounds of age is proportionate (par. 84 to 89)

| 10) | The General Court erred (pars. 91 to 96) in finding that the DG Human Resources and Security has received a mandate to impose the requirement of having ‘a maximum 3 years of professional experience’ as an eligibility criterion. |
| --- | --- |

10)

The General Court erred (pars. 91 to 96) in finding that the DG Human Resources and Security has received a mandate to impose the requirement of having ‘a maximum 3 years of professional experience’ as an eligibility criterion.

| 11) | The General Court failed to address the discrepancy between content of the note of information — PERS(2018) 38/2 which provided for ‘a maximum of 3 years’ experience ... accumulated within the 5 years preceding the application’ and the requirement imposed by DG HR providing for a ‘maximum of 3 years professional experience’ in general . |
| --- | --- |

11)

The General Court failed to address the discrepancy between content of the note of information — PERS(2018) 38/2 which provided for ‘a maximum of 3 years’ experience ... accumulated within the 5 years preceding the application’ and the requirement imposed by DG HR providing for a ‘maximum of 3 years professional experience’ in general .

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/36

---

Appeal brought on 30 May 2023 by Association Trinationale de Protection Nucléaire (ATPN) against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 30 March 2023 in Case T-567/22, ATPN v Commission

(Case C-340/23 P)

(2023/C 252/40)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Association Trinationale de Protection Nucléaire (ATPN) (represented by: C. Lepage, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

| — | declare the appeal admissible and well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the appeal admissible and well founded;

| — | set aside in its entirety the order of 30 March 2023 delivered by the General Court in Case T-567/22; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside in its entirety the order of 30 March 2023 delivered by the General Court in Case T-567/22;

| — | grant the form of order sought before the General Court and, consequently, dealing with the substance of the case, |
| --- | --- |

—

grant the form of order sought before the General Court and, consequently, dealing with the substance of the case,

| — | annul Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/1214 of 9 March 2022 amending Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2139 as regards economic activities in certain energy sectors and Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2178 as regards specific public disclosures for those economic activities;
  and, in any event, |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/1214 of 9 March 2022 amending Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2139 as regards economic activities in certain energy sectors and Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2178 as regards specific public disclosures for those economic activities;

and, in any event,

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the appellant relies on:

| — | two grounds seeking to have the order set aside:






  1. | The General Court erred in law in holding, in paragraphs 16 to 27 of the order under appeal, that the appellant did not have standing to bring an action in its own name, pursuant to the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

two grounds seeking to have the order set aside:

1.

The General Court erred in law in holding, in paragraphs 16 to 27 of the order under appeal, that the appellant did not have standing to bring an action in its own name, pursuant to the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU;

| 2. | The General Court erred in law and made a manifest error of assessment in holding, in paragraphs 28 to 42 of the order under appeal, that the appellant did not have standing to bring an action on behalf of its members, pursuant to the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The General Court erred in law and made a manifest error of assessment in holding, in paragraphs 28 to 42 of the order under appeal, that the appellant did not have standing to bring an action on behalf of its members, pursuant to the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU.

| — | five grounds seeking annulment of the regulation:






  1. | The procedure is unlawful in that it disregards the provisions of Regulation 2020/852 of 18 June 2020; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

five grounds seeking annulment of the regulation:

1.

The procedure is unlawful in that it disregards the provisions of Regulation 2020/852 of 18 June 2020;

| 2. | The rules of taxonomy were breached; |
| --- | --- |

2.

The rules of taxonomy were breached;

| 3. | The provisions of Article 19 of Regulation 2020/852 of 18 June 2020 were disregarded and the objectives are insufficiently ambitious; |
| --- | --- |

3.

The provisions of Article 19 of Regulation 2020/852 of 18 June 2020 were disregarded and the objectives are insufficiently ambitious;

| 4. | The general principles of EU law and, more specifically, the precautionary principle provided for in Article 19 of Regulation 2020/852 were disregarded; |
| --- | --- |

4.

The general principles of EU law and, more specifically, the precautionary principle provided for in Article 19 of Regulation 2020/852 were disregarded;

| 5. | Investments in nuclear energy and green investments are incompatible in terms of financial reporting. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Investments in nuclear energy and green investments are incompatible in terms of financial reporting.

---

General Court

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/38

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — KD v EUIPO

(Case T-650/20) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Members of Staff of EUIPO - Contract for a fixed period - Non-renewal - Competent authority - Principle of sound administration - Right to be heard - Liability - Non-material damage)

(2023/C 252/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: KD (represented by: S. Pappas, D.-A. Pappa and A. Pappas, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Lukošiūtė, K. Tóth and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Re:

By her action under Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks, first, annulment of the decision of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 1 April 2020 not to renew her contract and, secondly, compensation in respect of the non-material damage she claims to have suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 1 April 2020 not to renew the contract of KD; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 1 April 2020 not to renew the contract of KD;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders EUIPO, in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay three quarters of the costs incurred by KD; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders EUIPO, in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay three quarters of the costs incurred by KD;

| 4. | Orders KD to bear a quarter of her own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders KD to bear a quarter of her own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 19, 18.1.2021.

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/38

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 May 2023 — Emmentaler Switzerland v EUIPO (EMMENTALER)

(Case T-2/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark EMMENTALER - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Collective mark - Article 74(2) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2023/C 252/42)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Emmentaler Switzerland (Berne, Switzerland) (represented by: S. Völker and M. Pemsel, lawyers)

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

Interveners in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: J. Möller, M. Hellmann, U. Bartl and J. Heitz, acting as Agents), French Republic (represented by: A.-L. Desjonquères and G. Bain, acting as Agents), Centre national interprofessionnel de l’économie laitière (CNIEL) (Paris, France) (represented by: E. Baud and P. Marchiset, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 28 October 2020 (Case R 2402/2019-2).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Emmentaler Switzerland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Emmentaler Switzerland to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 62, 22.2.2021.

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/39

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — Shakutin v Council

(Case T-141/21) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Belarus - Freezing of funds - Lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Inclusion and maintenance of the applicant’s name on the lists - Obligation to state reasons - Right to be heard - Right to effective judicial protection - Error of assessment)

(2023/C 252/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Aleksandr Vasilevich Shakutin (Minsk, Belarus) (represented by: B. Evtimov, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union, (represented by S. Van Overmeire, T. Haas and B. Driessen, acting as Agents),

Re:

By his action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of, first, Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2020/2130 of 17 December 2020 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus (OJ 2020 L 426I, p. 14) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2129 of 17 December 2020 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ 2020 L 426I, p. 1); second, Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/353 of 25 February 2021 amending Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus (OJ 2021 L 68, p. 189) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/339 of 25 February 2021 implementing Article 8a of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ 2021 L 68, p. 29); and, third, Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/307 of 24 February 2022 amending Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus (OJ 2022 L 46, p. 97) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/300 of 24 February 2022 implementing Article 8a of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus (OJ 2022 L 46, p. 3), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Aleksandr Vasilevich Shakutin to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Aleksandr Vasilevich Shakutin to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 182, 10.5.2021.

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/40

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 May 2023 — Ryanair v Commission (Italy; aid scheme; COVID-19)

(Case T-268/21) (1)

(State aid - Italian air transport market - Compensation scheme for airlines with an Italian operating licence - Decision not to raise any objections - Aid intended to make good the damage caused by an exceptional occurrence - Obligation to state reasons)

(2023/C 252/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ryanair DAC (Swords, Ireland) (represented by: E. Vahida, F.-C. Laprévote, V. Blanc, S. Rating, I.-G. Metaxas-Maranghidis and D. Pérez de Lamo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, C. Georgieva and F. Tomat, acting as Agents)

Intervening parties in support of the defendant: Neos SpA (Somma, Lombardo, Italy), Blue panorama airlines SpA (Somma, Lombardo), Air Dolomiti SpA — Linee aeree regionali Europee (Villafranca de Verona, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola and A. Cogoni, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2020) 9625 final of 22 December 2020 on State aid SA.59029 (2020/N) — Italy — COVID-19: Compensation scheme for airlines with an Italian operating licence.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision C(2020) 9625 final of 22 December 2020 on State aid SA.59029 (2020/N) — Italy — COVID-19: Compensation scheme for airlines with an Italian operating licence; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision C(2020) 9625 final of 22 December 2020 on State aid SA.59029 (2020/N) — Italy — COVID-19: Compensation scheme for airlines with an Italian operating licence;

| 2. | Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Ryanair DAC; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Ryanair DAC;

| 3. | Orders Neos SpA, Blue panorama airlines SpA and Air Dolomiti SpA — Linee aeree regionali Europee to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Neos SpA, Blue panorama airlines SpA and Air Dolomiti SpA — Linee aeree regionali Europee to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 252, 28.6.2021.

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/40

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 May 2023 — Glaxo Group v EUIPO — Cipla Europe (Shape of an inhaler)

(Case T-477/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Three-dimensional EU trade mark - Shape of an inhaler - Absolute ground for invalidity - Distinctive character acquired through use - Article 51(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 59(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Obligation to state reasons - Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2023/C 252/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Glaxo Group Ltd (Brentford, United Kingdom) (represented by: T. de Haan and F. Verhoestraete, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Cipla Europe NV (Antwerp, Belgium)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 19 May 2021 (Case R 1835/2016-1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 19 May 2021 (Case R 1835/2016-1); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 19 May 2021 (Case R 1835/2016-1);

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

---

(1)  OJ C 382, 20.9.2021.

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/41

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — Skryba v Council

(Case T-581/21) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Belarus - Freezing of funds - Lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources to which the freezing of funds and economic resources and the ban on entry into and transit through European Union territory applies - Inclusion of the applicant’s name on the lists - Collective nature of a sanction - Obligation to state reasons - Error of assessment - Proportionality)

(2023/C 252/46)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Siarheï Skryba (Marialivo, Belarus) (represented by: D. Litvinski, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Limonet and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action based on Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2021/1002 of 21 June 2021 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus (OJ 2021 L 219 I, p. 70), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 221/997 of 21 June 2021 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ 2021 L 219 I, p. 3), to the extent that those two acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Siarheï Skryba to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Siarheï Skryba to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 11, 10.1.2022.

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/42

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — Rubnikovich v Council

(Case T-582/21) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Belarus - Freezing of funds - Lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources to which the freezing of funds and economic resources and the ban on entry into or transit through European Union territory applies - Inclusion of the applicant’s name on the lists - Collective nature of a sanction - Obligation to state reasons - Error of assessment - Proportionality)

(2023/C 252/47)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Siarhei Rubnikovich (Tarasovo, Belarus) (represented by: D. Litvinski, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Limonet and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action based on Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2021/1002 of 21 June 2021 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus (OJ 2021 L 219 I, p. 70), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 221/997 of 21 June 2021 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ 2021 L 219 I, p. 3), to the extent that those two acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Siarhei Rubnikovich to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Siarhei Rubnikovich to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 11, 10.1.2022.

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/42

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — Bakhanovich v Council

(Case T-583/21) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Belarus - Freezing of funds - Lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources to which the freezing of funds and economic resources and the ban on entry into or transit through European Union territory applies - Inclusion of the applicant’s name on the lists - Collective nature of the sanction - Obligation to state reasons - Error of assessment - Proportionality)

(2023/C 252/48)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Aliaksandr Bakhanovich (Brest, Belarus) (represented by: D. Litvinski, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Limonet and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action based on Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2021/1002 of 21 June 2021 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus (OJ 2021 L 219 I, p. 70), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/997 of 21 June 2021 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ 2021 L 219 I, p. 3), to the extent that those two acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the application;

| 2. | Orders Mr Aliaksandr Bakhanovich to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Aliaksandr Bakhanovich to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 11, 10.1.2022.

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/43

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 May 2023 — AL v Commission

(Case T-714/21) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Remuneration - Family allowances - Dependent child allowance - Article 2(4) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Person treated as a dependent child - Conditions for granting - Withdrawal of entitlement to the allowance - Recovery of undue payments - Article 85 of the Staff Regulations)

(2023/C 252/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T.S. Bohr, L. Hohenecker and D. Milanowska, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his action based on Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (PMO) of the European Commission of 11 January 2021, which sought, in essence (i) to reject his request for an allowance for his mother as a person treated as a dependent child on the basis of Article 2(4) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union for the period from 1 November 2020 to 31 October 2021 and, (ii) to order the recovery of the sums which he had received by way of that allowance for the period from 1 November 2019 to 31 October 2020.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

Orders AL to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 51, 31.1.2022.

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/44

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — Aprile and Commerciale Italiana v EUIPO — DC Comics (Representation of a bat in an oval surround)

(Case T-735/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Figurative EU trade mark representing a bat in an oval surround - Absolute grounds for invalidity - Distinctive character - No descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Restriction of the goods covered by the application for a declaration of invalidity - Obligation to state reasons)

(2023/C 252/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Luigi Aprile (San Giuseppe Vesuviano, Italy), Commerciale Italiana Srl (Nola, Italy) (represented by: C. Saettel, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: T. Frydendahl, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: DC Comics (Burbank, California, United States) (represented by: G. Glas, P. Van Dyck and E. Taelman, lawyers)

Re:

By their action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicants seek annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 6 September 2021 (Case R 1447/2020-2).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Luigi Aprile and Commerciale Italiana Srl to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Luigi Aprile and Commerciale Italiana Srl to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 37, 24.1.2022.

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/44

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 May 2023 — Granini France v EUIPO — Pichler (Joro)

(Case T-68/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark Joro - Earlier national word mark JOKO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of goods - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2023/C 252/51)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Granini France (Mâcon, France) (represented by: J. Wachsmuth, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Josef Pichler (San Leonardo in Passiria, Italy)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 8 November 2021 (Case R 2336/2020-1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 8 November 2021 (Case R 2336/2020-1); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 8 November 2021 (Case R 2336/2020-1);

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

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

3.

Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 128, 21.3.2022.

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/45

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — OP v Parliament

(Case T-143/22) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Survivor’s pension - Refusal to grant - Surviving spouse - Eligibility conditions - Duration of the marriage - Plea of illegality - Article 80, first paragraph, of the Staff Regulations - Article 2 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Orphans’ pension - Refusal to grant - Concept of ‘dependent child’ - Error of law)

(2023/C 252/52)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: OP (represented by: F. Moyse, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: J. Van Pottelberge and M. Windisch, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and M. Alver, acting as Agents)

Re:

By her action based on Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks, first, annulment of the decision of the European Parliament of 7 June 2021, in so far as it rejects her application for a survivor’s pension on account of the death of her husband, a former official of the Parliament and, on behalf of her son A, annulment of that decision in so far as it rejects her application for an orphans’ pension for their son who has a disability.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the European Parliament of 7 June 2021 in so far as it refuses to grant A an orphans’ pension; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the European Parliament of 7 June 2021 in so far as it refuses to grant A an orphans’ pension;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders the Parliament to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by OP; |
| --- | --- |

3.

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

| 4. | Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 191, 10.5.2022.

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/46

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — Cylus Cyber Security v EUIPO — Cylance (CYLUS)

(Case T-227/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark CYLUS - Earlier EU word mark CYLANCE - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2023/C 252/53)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Cylus Cyber Security Ltd (Tel-Aviv, Israel) (represented by: S. Bailey, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Cylance, Inc. (Irvine, California, United States) (represented by B. Levy, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 21 February 2022 (Case R 692/2020-4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court hereby:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Cylus Cyber Security Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Cylus Cyber Security Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 244, 27.6.2022.

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/46

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — Cherusci v EUIPO — LexDellmeier (RIALTO)

(Case T-239/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark RIALTO - No genuine use of the trade mark - No proper reasons for non-use - Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2023/C 252/54)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Cherusci Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Reinhard, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: LexDellmeier Intellectual Property Law Firm (Munich, Germany) (represented by: J. Bogatz, Y. Stone and C. Dory, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 10 February 2022 (Case R 695/2021-2).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Cherusci Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Cherusci Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 237, 20.6.2022.

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/47

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — UNSA Énergie v Commission

(Case T-322/22) (1)

(State aid - Regulated tariffs for the sale of electricity in France - Increase in the ceiling for regulated access to historical nuclear electricity - Rejection of a complaint - Article 1(h) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 - Trade union - Concept of ‘interested party’)

(2023/C 252/55)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: UNSA Énergie (Bagnolet, France) (represented by: M.-P. Ogel, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C.-M. Carrega and I. Georgiopoulos, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the European Commission, contained in its letter of 8 April 2022, rejecting its complaint against the increase, by France, of the maximum overall volume of electricity capable of being sold by Electricité de France (EDF) to alternative electricity suppliers under the regulated access to historical nuclear electricity and the price of additional volumes of electricity accordingly sold.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Unsa Énergie to bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Unsa Énergie to bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 284, 25.7.2022.

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/47

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — Medex v EUIPO — Stein (medex)

(Case T-419/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU figurative mark medex - Genuine use of the mark - Article 18 and Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Classification of the goods for which genuine use has been shown)

(2023/C 252/56)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Medex, živilska industrija, d.o.o. (Ljubljana, Slovenia) (represented by: N. Čuden, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Gerrit Cornelis Johan Stein (Elp, Netherlands)

Re:

By its action on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 3 May 2022 (Case R 1361/2021-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 326, 29.8.2022.

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/48

---

Order of the General Court of 23 May 2023 — Atesos medical and Others v Commission

(Case T-764/21) (1)

(Action for annulment - Medical devices - Directive 93/42/EEC - Expiry of the validity of certificates for medical devices issued under the mutual recognition agreement by bodies established in Switzerland - Amendment of the entry in the online database of the NANDO information system corresponding to the conformity assessment body for medical devices which had issued the certificates - Act not open to challenge - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2023/C 252/57)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Atesos medical AG (Aarau, Switzerland) and the 7 other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the order (represented by: M. Meulenbelt and S. De Knop, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: E. Sanfrutos Cano, C. Vollrath and C. Hödlmayr, acting as Agents)

Re:

By their action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicants seek annulment of a European Commission decision stating that the designation of ‘Schweizerische Vereinigung für Qualitäts- und Management Systeme’ as a conformity assessment body for medical devices under Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices (OJ 1993 L 169, p. 1) had expired, and amending SQS’s entry in the database of notified and designated bodies, with effect from 28 September 2021.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

| 2. | Atesos medical AG, Bonebridge AG, Heico-Switzerland AG, Keri Medical SA, Medcem GmbH, MPS Precimed SA, PX Dental SA and Stemcup Medical Products AG shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission, including those relating to the proceedings for interim relief. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Atesos medical AG, Bonebridge AG, Heico-Switzerland AG, Keri Medical SA, Medcem GmbH, MPS Precimed SA, PX Dental SA and Stemcup Medical Products AG shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission, including those relating to the proceedings for interim relief.

---

(1)  OJ C 95, 28.2.2022.

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/49

---

Order of the General Court of 22 May 2023 — Bategu Gummitechnologie v Commission

(Case T-771/21) (1)

(Non-contractual liability - Competition - Decision rejecting a complaint - Material loss - Reality and certainty of the damage - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

(2023/C 252/58)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Bategu Gummitechnologie GmbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: G. Maderbacher, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Szczodrowski and A. Keidel, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action based on Article 268 TFEU, the applicant seeks compensation for the material loss which it allegedly suffered as a result of the European Commission’s unlawful conduct in proceedings ‘AT.40492 — Fire Protection Bogies’ concerning a complaint lodged pursuant to Article 7 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles [101 and 102 TFEU] (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Bategu Gummitechnologie GmbH shall pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Bategu Gummitechnologie GmbH shall pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 73, 14.2.2022.

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/49

---

Order of the General Court of 8 June 2023 — XNT v EUIPO — Exane (EXANE)

(Case T-568/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark EXANE - Earlier company name EXANTE - Domain name ‘exante.eu’ - Relative ground for invalidity - Article 8(4) and Article 53(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) and Article 60(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

(2023/C 252/59)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: XNT ltd. (St. Julian’s, Malta) (represented by: A. Renck, C. Stöber and M.-A. de Dampierre, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Exane (Paris, France) (represented by: C.-A. Joly, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 14 June 2022 (Case R 2093/2020-2).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | XNT ltd. shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Exane. |
| --- | --- |

2.

XNT ltd. shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Exane.

| 3. | The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 418, 31.10.2022.

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/50

---

Order of the General Court of 23 May 2023 — CMB v Commission

(Case T-619/22) (1)

(Research, technological development and space - Grant agreement concluded under the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) - Withdrawal of the contested decision - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)

(2023/C 252/60)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: CMB Colorex Master Batches BV (Helmond, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Wolf, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Romoli, T. Van Noyen and O. Verheecke, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant, which is the beneficiary of grant agreement No 232216 concluded for the purpose of carrying out the Brew-Pack project, seeks the annulment of the decision by which the European Commission requires it to pay into the beneficiary guarantee fund, established under Regulation (EC) No 1906/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 laying down the rules for the participation of undertakings, research centres and universities in actions under the Seventh Framework Programme and for the dissemination of research results (2007-2013) (OJ 2006 L 391, p. 1), an amount of EUR 125 166,68, plus EUR 24 592,68 in default interest and to be increased by EUR 12 per additional day of delay.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

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

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

2.

Each party shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 451, 28.11.2022.

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/50

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 31 May 2023 — UH v ECB

(Case T-67/23 R)

(Application for interim measures - Economic and monetary policy - Prudential supervision of credit institutions - Specific supervisory tasks assigned to the ECB - Decision to withdraw a credit institution’s authorisation - Application for suspension of operation of an act - Lack of urgency)

(2023/C 252/61)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: UH (represented by: M. Burianski, R. Janjuah and W. Häring, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: V. Hümpfner, K. Klausch and E. Yoo, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its application based on Articles 278 and 279 TFEU, the applicant seeks suspension of operation of Decision ECB-SSM-2023-DE-7 WHD-2022-0001 of the European Central Bank (ECB) of 24 March 2023, by which the ECB withdrew the applicant’s authorisation as a credit institution.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

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

2.

The costs are reserved.

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/51

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 1 June 2023 — Debreceni Egyetem v Council

(Case T-115/23 R)

(Interim relief - Measures for the protection of the Union budget against breaches of the principles of the rule of law in Hungary - Prohibition for the Commission to enter into legal commitments with any public interest trust or any entity maintained by such a public interest trust - Article 2(2) of Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/2506 - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency)

(2023/C 252/62)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: Debreceni Egyetem (Debrecen, Hungary) (represented by: J. Rausch and Á. Papp, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: E. Rebasti, M. Bencze, L. Vétillard and B. Tószegi, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its application on the basis of Articles 278 and 279 TFEU, the applicant seeks suspension of the operation of Article 2(2) of Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/2506 of 15 December 2022 on measures for the protection of the Union budget against breaches of the principles of the rule of law in Hungary (OJ 2022 L 325, p. 94).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

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

2.

The costs are reserved.

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/52

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 9 June 2023 — FFPE section Conseil v Council

(Case T-179/23 R)

(Interim relief - Law governing the institutions - Trade union or professional associations (OSPs) - Agreement concluded between the Council and the OSPs of the General Secretariat of the Council - Procedure for verifying the criteria for the recognition and the representativeness of the OSPs - Suspension of rights flowing from the agreement of an OSP not reaching the threshold of representativeness - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency)

(2023/C 252/63)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Fédération de la fonction publique européenne section Conseil (FFPE section Conseil) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A. Champetier and S. Rodrigues, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and I. Demoulin, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its application based on Articles 278 and 279 TFEU, the applicant seeks suspension of operation of the Council of the European Union’s note of 3 April 2023 (ORG.1.F/7053/23) on the outcome of the second verification procedure of the FFPE.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

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

2.

The costs are reserved.

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/52

---

Action brought on 6 April 2023 — Dansk Avis Omdeling Distribution v Commission

(Case T-195/23)

(2023/C 252/64)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Dansk Avis Omdeling Distribution A/S (Vejle, Denmark) (represented by: L. Sandberg-Mørch, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the application admissible and well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the application admissible and well founded;

| — | annul Commission Decision C(2022) 5706 final of 10 August 2022 on the State aid SA. 57991 — 2021/C (ex 2021/NN) implemented by Denmark for USO compensation to Post Danmark A/S for 2020; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Decision C(2022) 5706 final of 10 August 2022 on the State aid SA. 57991 — 2021/C (ex 2021/NN) implemented by Denmark for USO compensation to Post Danmark A/S for 2020; and

| — | order the Commission to pay its own costs and those of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay its own costs and those of the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the aid granted by Denmark to Post Danmark for the universal service obligations for 2020 is not compatible with the internal market because it does not comply with the framework for services of general economic interest (1) (‘the SGEI Framework’), in that:






  — | the Commission did not conduct a complete and sufficient examination of the matter; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the aid granted by Denmark to Post Danmark for the universal service obligations for 2020 is not compatible with the internal market because it does not comply with the framework for services of general economic interest (1) (‘the SGEI Framework’), in that:

—

the Commission did not conduct a complete and sufficient examination of the matter;

| — | Post Danmark’s cost allocation does not comply with paragraph 18 of the SGEI Framework. |
| --- | --- |

—

Post Danmark’s cost allocation does not comply with paragraph 18 of the SGEI Framework.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the compensation for universal service obligations is not compatible with the internal market because the Net Avoided Cost (NAC) calculation is vitiated by errors of law and fact, in that:






  — | the NAC calculation is based on the assumption that the Post Danmark’s transformation has only taken place in the counterfactual scenario; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the compensation for universal service obligations is not compatible with the internal market because the Net Avoided Cost (NAC) calculation is vitiated by errors of law and fact, in that:

—

the NAC calculation is based on the assumption that the Post Danmark’s transformation has only taken place in the counterfactual scenario;

| — | the Commission does not explain why Post Danmark could not increase prices to cover the excess universal service obligations costs; |
| --- | --- |

—

the Commission does not explain why Post Danmark could not increase prices to cover the excess universal service obligations costs;

| — | the amount resulting from the NAC calculation is excessive as it by far exceeds Post Danmark’s net losses from the universal service obligations activities as reflected in Post Danmark’s 2020 annual report; |
| --- | --- |

—

the amount resulting from the NAC calculation is excessive as it by far exceeds Post Danmark’s net losses from the universal service obligations activities as reflected in Post Danmark’s 2020 annual report;

| — | errors have been committed in the counterfactual scenario; |
| --- | --- |

—

errors have been committed in the counterfactual scenario;

| — | the Commission erred is its assessment of the advantages deriving from the following intangible benefits relating to the universal service obligations: (a) intellectual property assets; (b) economies of scale; (c) bargaining power; (d) universal coverage; (e) ubiquity and corporate reputation; |
| --- | --- |

—

the Commission erred is its assessment of the advantages deriving from the following intangible benefits relating to the universal service obligations: (a) intellectual property assets; (b) economies of scale; (c) bargaining power; (d) universal coverage; (e) ubiquity and corporate reputation;

| — | the benchmarking exercise carried out for verifying the results of the NAC calculation is flawed. |
| --- | --- |

—

the benchmarking exercise carried out for verifying the results of the NAC calculation is flawed.

---

(1)  Communication from the Commission — European Union framework for State aid in the form of public service compensation (2011) (OJ 2012 C 8, p. 15).

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/53

---

Action brought on 27 April 2023 — Arysta Lifescience v EFSA

(Case T-222/23)

(2023/C 252/65)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Arysta Lifescience (Noguères, France) (represented by: D. Abrahams, Z. Romata, H. Widemann and R. Spangenberg, lawyers)

Defendant: European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul EFSA’s decision dated 17 February 2023 (Ref. PAD 2022/175) ‘Notification of full disclosure of the list of co-formulants present in the formulation for representative uses Captan 80 WG relating to the renewal of the approval of the active substance Captan’; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul EFSA’s decision dated 17 February 2023 (Ref. PAD 2022/175) ‘Notification of full disclosure of the list of co-formulants present in the formulation for representative uses Captan 80 WG relating to the renewal of the approval of the active substance Captan’;

| — | order EFSA to pay the costs of these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EFSA to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, divided into two limbs: that, by its decision of full disclosure of the list of co-formulants present in the formulation for representative uses, EFSA committed an error of law and a manifest error of assessment.

| — | The applicant submits that the list of co-formulants that EFSA wishes to disclose — which relates to the representative product submitted for the active substance renewal dossier — pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 (1) is commercially sensitive and confidential information. |
| --- | --- |

—

The applicant submits that the list of co-formulants that EFSA wishes to disclose — which relates to the representative product submitted for the active substance renewal dossier — pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 (1) is commercially sensitive and confidential information.

| — | The applicant further submits that disclosure by EFSA would breach Article 4(2), first indent, of Regulation No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001, (2) and Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006. (3) It would also breach Article 63 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

The applicant further submits that disclosure by EFSA would breach Article 4(2), first indent, of Regulation No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001, (2) and Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006. (3) It would also breach Article 63 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (OJ 2009 L 309, p. 1).

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

(3)  Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13).

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/54

---

Action brought on 14 May 2023 — WN v Commission

(Case T-254/23)

(2023/C 252/66)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: WN (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | Annul the measure of 5 May 2022 by means of which the applicant was not included on the reserve list of Competition EPSO/AD/380/19-AD7; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the measure of 5 May 2022 by means of which the applicant was not included on the reserve list of Competition EPSO/AD/380/19-AD7;

| — | Annul the measure of 15 July 2022 refusing the request to review the failure to include the applicant in the reserve list of Competition EPSO/AD/380/19-AD 7; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the measure of 15 July 2022 refusing the request to review the failure to include the applicant in the reserve list of Competition EPSO/AD/380/19-AD 7;

| — | Annul the measure of the appointing authority of 14 February 2023, which was wrongfully drawn up following the silence maintained by the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) for over four months, and by which the complaint lodged on 14 October 2022 under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) was rejected; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the measure of the appointing authority of 14 February 2023, which was wrongfully drawn up following the silence maintained by the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) for over four months, and by which the complaint lodged on 14 October 2022 under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) was rejected;

| — | Order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| — | First plea in law, alleging infringement of the provisions of law governing the rules on languages in the EU institutions. Holding the written and oral test in a language (English and French) other than the applicant’s mother tongue made it impossible to assess accurately her skills, since the result of the tests was also conditional on her level of knowledge of that language. This also led to an infringement of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations. |
| --- | --- |

—

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the provisions of law governing the rules on languages in the EU institutions. Holding the written and oral test in a language (English and French) other than the applicant’s mother tongue made it impossible to assess accurately her skills, since the result of the tests was also conditional on her level of knowledge of that language. This also led to an infringement of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations.

| — | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment among candidates, a failure to assess candidates objectively (case-law in Glantenay) and infringement of Article 5(1) and (3) of Annex III to the Staff Regulations. Some of them in fact resat the written tests, which were markedly less difficult.
  The comparison between the candidates in the tests in the assessment centre was distorted because the selection board had not checked in advance the accuracy of the information from the talent screener. |
| --- | --- |

—

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment among candidates, a failure to assess candidates objectively (case-law in Glantenay) and infringement of Article 5(1) and (3) of Annex III to the Staff Regulations. Some of them in fact resat the written tests, which were markedly less difficult.

The comparison between the candidates in the tests in the assessment centre was distorted because the selection board had not checked in advance the accuracy of the information from the talent screener.

| — | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons and of the related principle of equality of the parties to the proceedings (Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union) since the applicant was not put in a position to know all of the reasons for her exclusion from the competition before she lodged the action. That also constituted an infringement of the principle of equality of arms in proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons and of the related principle of equality of the parties to the proceedings (Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union) since the applicant was not put in a position to know all of the reasons for her exclusion from the competition before she lodged the action. That also constituted an infringement of the principle of equality of arms in proceedings.

| — | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 5(5) and (6) of Annex III to the Staff Regulations, in that the selection board failed to include on that reserve list at least twice as many candidates as there were posts available in the competition. |
| --- | --- |

—

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 5(5) and (6) of Annex III to the Staff Regulations, in that the selection board failed to include on that reserve list at least twice as many candidates as there were posts available in the competition.

| — | Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the competition notice, Article 5(1) of Annex III to the Staff Regulations and a consequential manifest error of assessment since, in the AD 7 competition, the candidates’ leadership abilities were assessed, whereas that quality should have been assessed solely vis-à-vis the AD 9 candidates. |
| --- | --- |

—

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the competition notice, Article 5(1) of Annex III to the Staff Regulations and a consequential manifest error of assessment since, in the AD 7 competition, the candidates’ leadership abilities were assessed, whereas that quality should have been assessed solely vis-à-vis the AD 9 candidates.

| — | Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles in the case-law in Di Prospero v Commission and infringement of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations and of the principle of equality in that the competition notice did not allow candidates to participate in both the AD 7 and AD 9 competitions, whereas certain candidates who had applied for the AD 9 competition were automatically transferred to the AD 7 reserve list. |
| --- | --- |

—

Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles in the case-law in Di Prospero v Commission and infringement of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations and of the principle of equality in that the competition notice did not allow candidates to participate in both the AD 7 and AD 9 competitions, whereas certain candidates who had applied for the AD 9 competition were automatically transferred to the AD 7 reserve list.

| — | Seventh plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equality of candidates and lack of objectivity of assessment, due to the lack of stability in the selection board as a result of frequent changes to the composition of the selection board and the absence of shadowing by the President. |
| --- | --- |

—

Seventh plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equality of candidates and lack of objectivity of assessment, due to the lack of stability in the selection board as a result of frequent changes to the composition of the selection board and the absence of shadowing by the President.

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/55

---

Action brought on 15 May 2023 — Escobar v EUIPO (Pablo Escobar)

(Case T-255/23)

(2023/C 252/67)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Escobar Inc. (Guaynabo, Puerto Rico, United States) (represented by: D. Slopek, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark Pablo Escobar — Application for registration No 18 568 583

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 February 2023 in Case R 1364/2022-5

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. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

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

—

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

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

—

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

| — | Violation of presumption of innocence. |
| --- | --- |

—

Violation of presumption of innocence.

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/56

---

Action brought on 15 May 2023 — Mylan Ireland v Commission

(Case T-256/23)

(2023/C 252/68)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Mylan Ireland Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: K. Roox, T. De Meese, J. Stuyck and C. Dumont, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare its request for annulment admissible and well-founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare its request for annulment admissible and well-founded;

| — | annul Commission Implementing Decision C(2023)3067(final) of 2 May 2023 (published on 4 May 2023) amending the marketing authorisation granted by Decision C(2014)601(final) for ‘Tecfidera — Dimethyl fumarate’, a medicinal product for human use (‘the contested decision’), as well as any later decision, to the extent that they perpetuate and/or replace that decision including any follow-up regulatory actions, in so far as they relate to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Implementing Decision C(2023)3067(final) of 2 May 2023 (published on 4 May 2023) amending the marketing authorisation granted by Decision C(2014)601(final) for ‘Tecfidera — Dimethyl fumarate’, a medicinal product for human use (‘the contested decision’), as well as any later decision, to the extent that they perpetuate and/or replace that decision including any follow-up regulatory actions, in so far as they relate to the applicant;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging failure by the European Commission to observe the time limit for obtaining an extension of market protection as required by Article 14(11) Regulation EC No. 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council. (1) |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging failure by the European Commission to observe the time limit for obtaining an extension of market protection as required by Article 14(11) Regulation EC No. 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council. (1)

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the European Commission misapplies the law, as the Commission erred with respect to the scope of the judgment of 16 March 2023, Commission and Others v Pharmaceutical Works Polpharma (C-438/21 P to C-440/21 P, EU:C:2023:213) and in particular by considering the ad hoc assessment report of 11 November 2021 irrelevant. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the European Commission misapplies the law, as the Commission erred with respect to the scope of the judgment of 16 March 2023, Commission and Others v Pharmaceutical Works Polpharma (C-438/21 P to C-440/21 P, EU:C:2023:213) and in particular by considering the ad hoc assessment report of 11 November 2021 irrelevant.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the European Commission made an error in basing the contested decision on the wrong scientific facts available at the time of its decision. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the European Commission made an error in basing the contested decision on the wrong scientific facts available at the time of its decision.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, invoking a plea of illegality against Biogen’s marketing authorisation granted by the Commission Implementing Decision C(2014)601(final) (2) and requesting the annulment of the contested decision as a consequence. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, invoking a plea of illegality against Biogen’s marketing authorisation granted by the Commission Implementing Decision C(2014)601(final) (2) and requesting the annulment of the contested decision as a consequence.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the fundamental rights and in particular, the right to a fair trial, the right of defence, the right to be heard, and the right to a legal basis pursuant to Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the fundamental rights and in particular, the right to a fair trial, the right of defence, the right to be heard, and the right to a legal basis pursuant to Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes the applicant’s legal certainty. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes the applicant’s legal certainty.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates the applicant’s legitimate expectations. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates the applicant’s legitimate expectations.

| 8. | Eight plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates the applicant’s right to property, laid down in Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

8.

Eight plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates the applicant’s right to property, laid down in Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| 9. | Ninth plea in law, alleging the contested decision amounts to a misuse of power by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

9.

Ninth plea in law, alleging the contested decision amounts to a misuse of power by the European Commission.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 1).

(2)  Commission Implementing Decision C(2014)601(final) of 30 January 2014 granting marketing authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council for ‘Tecfidera — Dimethyl fumarate’, a medicinal product for human use.

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/57

---

Action brought on 15 May 2023 — Neuraxpharm Pharmaceuticals v Commission

(Case T-257/23)

(2023/C 252/69)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Neuraxpharm Pharmaceuticals SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: K. Roox, T. De Meese, J. Stuyck and C. Dumont, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare its request for annulment admissible and well-founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare its request for annulment admissible and well-founded;

| — | annul Commission Implementing Decision C(2023)3067(final) of 2 May 2023 (published on 4 May 2023) amending the marketing authorisation granted by Decision C(2014)601(final) for ‘Tecfidera — Dimethyl fumarate’, a medicinal product for human use (‘the contested decision’), as well as any later decision, to the extent that they perpetuate and/or replace that decision including any follow-up regulatory actions, in so far as they relate to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Implementing Decision C(2023)3067(final) of 2 May 2023 (published on 4 May 2023) amending the marketing authorisation granted by Decision C(2014)601(final) for ‘Tecfidera — Dimethyl fumarate’, a medicinal product for human use (‘the contested decision’), as well as any later decision, to the extent that they perpetuate and/or replace that decision including any follow-up regulatory actions, in so far as they relate to the applicant;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging failure by the European Commission to observe the time limit for obtaining an extension of market protection as required by Article 14(11) Regulation EC No. 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council. (1) |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging failure by the European Commission to observe the time limit for obtaining an extension of market protection as required by Article 14(11) Regulation EC No. 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council. (1)

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the European Commission misapplies the law, as the Commission erred with respect to the scope of the judgment of 16 March 2023, Commission and Others v Pharmaceutical Works Polpharma (C-438/21 P to C-440/21 P, EU:C:2023:213) and in particular by considering the ad hoc assessment report of 11 November 2021 irrelevant. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the European Commission misapplies the law, as the Commission erred with respect to the scope of the judgment of 16 March 2023, Commission and Others v Pharmaceutical Works Polpharma (C-438/21 P to C-440/21 P, EU:C:2023:213) and in particular by considering the ad hoc assessment report of 11 November 2021 irrelevant.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the European Commission made an error in basing the contested decision on the wrong scientific facts available at the time of its decision. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the European Commission made an error in basing the contested decision on the wrong scientific facts available at the time of its decision.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, invoking a plea of illegality against Biogen’s marketing authorisation granted by the Commission Implementing Decision C(2014)601(final) (2) and requesting the annulment of the contested decision as a consequence. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, invoking a plea of illegality against Biogen’s marketing authorisation granted by the Commission Implementing Decision C(2014)601(final) (2) and requesting the annulment of the contested decision as a consequence.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the fundamental rights and in particular, the right to a fair trial, the right of defence, the right to be heard, and the right to a legal basis pursuant to Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the fundamental rights and in particular, the right to a fair trial, the right of defence, the right to be heard, and the right to a legal basis pursuant to Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes the applicant’s legal certainty. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes the applicant’s legal certainty.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates the applicant’s legitimate expectations. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates the applicant’s legitimate expectations.

| 8. | Eight plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates the applicant’s right to property, laid down in Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

8.

Eight plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates the applicant’s right to property, laid down in Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| 9. | Ninth plea in law, alleging the contested decision amounts to a misuse of power by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

9.

Ninth plea in law, alleging the contested decision amounts to a misuse of power by the European Commission.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 1).

(2)  Commission Implementing Decision C(2014)601(final) of 30 January 2014 granting marketing authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council for ‘Tecfidera — Dimethyl fumarate’, a medicinal product for human use.

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/58

---

Action brought on 15 May 2023 — Zaklady Farmaceutyczne Polpharma v Commission

(Case T-258/23)

(2023/C 252/70)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Zaklady Farmaceutyczne Polpharma S.A. (Starogard Gdański, Poland) (represented by: K. Roox, T. De Meese, J. Stuyck and C. Dumont, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare its request for annulment admissible and well-founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare its request for annulment admissible and well-founded;

| — | annul Commission Implementing Decision C(2023)3067(final) of 2 May 2023 (published on 4 May 2023) amending the marketing authorisation granted by Decision C(2014)601(final) for ‘Tecfidera — Dimethyl fumarate’, a medicinal product for human use (‘the contested decision’), as well as any later decision, to the extent that they perpetuate and/or replace that decision including any follow-up regulatory actions, in so far as they relate to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Implementing Decision C(2023)3067(final) of 2 May 2023 (published on 4 May 2023) amending the marketing authorisation granted by Decision C(2014)601(final) for ‘Tecfidera — Dimethyl fumarate’, a medicinal product for human use (‘the contested decision’), as well as any later decision, to the extent that they perpetuate and/or replace that decision including any follow-up regulatory actions, in so far as they relate to the applicant;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging failure by the European Commission to observe the time limit for obtaining an extension of market protection as required by Article 14(11) Regulation EC No. 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council. (1) |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging failure by the European Commission to observe the time limit for obtaining an extension of market protection as required by Article 14(11) Regulation EC No. 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council. (1)

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the European Commission misapplies the law, as the Commission erred with respect to the scope of the judgment of 16 March 2023, Commission and Others v Pharmaceutical Works Polpharma (C-438/21 P to C-440/21 P, EU:C:2023:213) and in particular by considering the ad hoc assessment report of 11 November 2021 irrelevant. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the European Commission misapplies the law, as the Commission erred with respect to the scope of the judgment of 16 March 2023, Commission and Others v Pharmaceutical Works Polpharma (C-438/21 P to C-440/21 P, EU:C:2023:213) and in particular by considering the ad hoc assessment report of 11 November 2021 irrelevant.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the European Commission made an error in basing the contested decision on the wrong scientific facts available at the time of its decision. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the European Commission made an error in basing the contested decision on the wrong scientific facts available at the time of its decision.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, invoking a plea of illegality against Biogen’s marketing authorisation granted by the Commission Implementing Decision C(2014)601(final) (2) and requesting the annulment of the contested decision as a consequence. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, invoking a plea of illegality against Biogen’s marketing authorisation granted by the Commission Implementing Decision C(2014)601(final) (2) and requesting the annulment of the contested decision as a consequence.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the fundamental rights and in particular, the right to a fair trial, the right of defence, the right to be heard, and the right to a legal basis pursuant to Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the fundamental rights and in particular, the right to a fair trial, the right of defence, the right to be heard, and the right to a legal basis pursuant to Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes the applicant’s legal certainty. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes the applicant’s legal certainty.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates the applicant’s legitimate expectations. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates the applicant’s legitimate expectations.

| 8. | Eight plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates the applicant’s right to property, laid down in Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

8.

Eight plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates the applicant’s right to property, laid down in Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| 9. | Ninth plea in law, alleging the contested decision amounts to a misuse of power by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

9.

Ninth plea in law, alleging the contested decision amounts to a misuse of power by the European Commission.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 1).

(2)  Commission Implementing Decision C(2014)601(final) of 30 January 2014 granting marketing authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council for ‘Tecfidera — Dimethyl fumarate’, a medicinal product for human use.

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/59

---

Action brought on 15 May 2023 — WO v Commission

(Case T-259/23)

(2023/C 252/71)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: WO (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul the measure of 5 May 2022 by means of which the applicant was not included on the reserve list for competition EPSO/AD/380/19-AD9; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the measure of 5 May 2022 by means of which the applicant was not included on the reserve list for competition EPSO/AD/380/19-AD9;

| — | annul the measure of 15 July 2022 refusing the request for review of the failure to include the applicant on the reserve list for competition EPSO/AD/380/19-AD9; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the measure of 15 July 2022 refusing the request for review of the failure to include the applicant on the reserve list for competition EPSO/AD/380/19-AD9;

| — | annul the measure of the appointing authority of 14 February 2023 which was wrongfully drawn up following the silence maintained by EPSO for over four months and by which the complaint lodged on 14 October 2022 under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) was rejected; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the measure of the appointing authority of 14 February 2023 which was wrongfully drawn up following the silence maintained by EPSO for over four months and by which the complaint lodged on 14 October 2022 under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) was rejected; and

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| — | First plea in law, alleging infringement of the provisions of law governing the rules on languages in the EU institutions. Holding the written and oral tests in a language (English and French) other than her mother tongue made it impossible to assess accurately her skills, since the result of her tests was also conditional on her level of knowledge of that language. This also led to an infringement of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations. |
| --- | --- |

—

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the provisions of law governing the rules on languages in the EU institutions. Holding the written and oral tests in a language (English and French) other than her mother tongue made it impossible to assess accurately her skills, since the result of her tests was also conditional on her level of knowledge of that language. This also led to an infringement of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations.

| — | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment among candidates, in that only some of the candidates were offered the possibility of resitting the written tests, as well as a failure to assess candidates objectively (case-law in Glantenay) and infringement of Article 5(1) and (3) of Annex III to the Staff Regulations.
  The comparison between the candidates in the tests in the assessment centre was distorted because the selection board had not checked in advance the accuracy of the information from the talent screener. |
| --- | --- |

—

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment among candidates, in that only some of the candidates were offered the possibility of resitting the written tests, as well as a failure to assess candidates objectively (case-law in Glantenay) and infringement of Article 5(1) and (3) of Annex III to the Staff Regulations.

The comparison between the candidates in the tests in the assessment centre was distorted because the selection board had not checked in advance the accuracy of the information from the talent screener.

| — | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons and of the related principle of equality of the parties to proceedings (Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union) since the applicant was not put in a position to know all of the reasons for which she was excluded from the competition before she lodged her action. That also constituted an infringement of the principle of equality of arms in proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons and of the related principle of equality of the parties to proceedings (Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union) since the applicant was not put in a position to know all of the reasons for which she was excluded from the competition before she lodged her action. That also constituted an infringement of the principle of equality of arms in proceedings.

| — | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 5(5) and (6) of Annex III to the Staff Regulations, in that the selection board failed to include on that reserve list at least twice as many candidates as there were posts available in the competition. |
| --- | --- |

—

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 5(5) and (6) of Annex III to the Staff Regulations, in that the selection board failed to include on that reserve list at least twice as many candidates as there were posts available in the competition.

| — | Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles in the case-law in Di Prospero v Commission and infringement of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations and of the principle of equality in that the competition notice did not allow candidates to participate in both the AD 7 and AD 9 competitions, whereas certain candidates who had applied for the AD 9 competition were automatically transferred to the AD 7 reserve list. |
| --- | --- |

—

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles in the case-law in Di Prospero v Commission and infringement of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations and of the principle of equality in that the competition notice did not allow candidates to participate in both the AD 7 and AD 9 competitions, whereas certain candidates who had applied for the AD 9 competition were automatically transferred to the AD 7 reserve list.

| — | Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equality of candidates and lack of objectivity of assessment, due to the lack of stability in the selection board as a result of frequent changes to the composition of the selection board and the absence of shadowing by the President. |
| --- | --- |

—

Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equality of candidates and lack of objectivity of assessment, due to the lack of stability in the selection board as a result of frequent changes to the composition of the selection board and the absence of shadowing by the President.

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/60

---

Action brought on 16 May 2023 — Mushie & Co. v EUIPO — Diana Dolls Fashions (Mushie)

(Case T-262/23)

(2023/C 252/72)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Mushie & Co. (Houston, Texas, United States) (represented by: S. Vasegård, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Diana Dolls Fashions Inc. (Stoney Creek, Canada)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark Mushie — Application for registration No 18 381 490

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 March 2023 in Case R 2062/2022-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 120(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 120(1) 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.

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/61

---

Action brought on 16 May 2023 — WP v Commission

(Case T-264/23)

(2023/C 252/73)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: WP (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul the measure of 5 May 2022 by means of which the applicant was not included on the reserve list for competition EPSO/AD/380/19-AD9; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the measure of 5 May 2022 by means of which the applicant was not included on the reserve list for competition EPSO/AD/380/19-AD9;

| — | annul the measure of 15 July 2022 refusing the request for review of the failure to include the applicant on the reserve list for competition EPSO/AD/380/19-AD9; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the measure of 15 July 2022 refusing the request for review of the failure to include the applicant on the reserve list for competition EPSO/AD/380/19-AD9;

| — | annul the measure of the appointing authority of 10 February 2023 which was wrongfully drawn up following the silence maintained by EPSO for over four months and by which the complaint lodged on 10 October 2022 under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) was rejected; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the measure of the appointing authority of 10 February 2023 which was wrongfully drawn up following the silence maintained by EPSO for over four months and by which the complaint lodged on 10 October 2022 under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) was rejected; and

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| — | First plea in law, alleging infringement of the provisions of law governing the rules on languages in the EU institutions. Holding the written and oral tests in a language (English and French) other than his mother tongue made it impossible to assess accurately his skills, since the result of his tests was also conditional on his level of knowledge of that language. This also led to an infringement of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations. |
| --- | --- |

—

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the provisions of law governing the rules on languages in the EU institutions. Holding the written and oral tests in a language (English and French) other than his mother tongue made it impossible to assess accurately his skills, since the result of his tests was also conditional on his level of knowledge of that language. This also led to an infringement of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations.

| — | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment among candidates, a failure to assess candidates objectively (case-law in Glantenay) and infringement of Article 5(1) and (3) of Annex III to the Staff Regulations. Some of them in fact resat the written tests, which were markedly less difficult.
  The comparison between the candidates in the tests in the assessment centre was distorted because the selection board had not checked in advance the accuracy of the information from the talent screener. |
| --- | --- |

—

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment among candidates, a failure to assess candidates objectively (case-law in Glantenay) and infringement of Article 5(1) and (3) of Annex III to the Staff Regulations. Some of them in fact resat the written tests, which were markedly less difficult.

The comparison between the candidates in the tests in the assessment centre was distorted because the selection board had not checked in advance the accuracy of the information from the talent screener.

| — | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons and of the related principle of equality of the parties to proceedings (Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union) since the applicant was not put in a position to know all of the reasons for which he was excluded from the competition before he lodged his action. That also constituted an infringement of the principle of equality of arms in proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons and of the related principle of equality of the parties to proceedings (Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union) since the applicant was not put in a position to know all of the reasons for which he was excluded from the competition before he lodged his action. That also constituted an infringement of the principle of equality of arms in proceedings.

| — | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 5(5) and (6) of Annex III to the Staff Regulations, in that the selection board failed to include on that reserve list at least twice as many candidates as there were posts available in the competition. |
| --- | --- |

—

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 5(5) and (6) of Annex III to the Staff Regulations, in that the selection board failed to include on that reserve list at least twice as many candidates as there were posts available in the competition.

| — | Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles in the case-law in Di Prospero v Commission and infringement of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations and of the principle of equality in that the competition notice did not allow candidates to participate in both the AD 7 and AD 9 competitions, whereas certain candidates who had applied for the AD 9 competition were automatically transferred to the AD 7 reserve list. |
| --- | --- |

—

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles in the case-law in Di Prospero v Commission and infringement of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations and of the principle of equality in that the competition notice did not allow candidates to participate in both the AD 7 and AD 9 competitions, whereas certain candidates who had applied for the AD 9 competition were automatically transferred to the AD 7 reserve list.

| — | Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equality of candidates and lack of objectivity of assessment, due to the lack of stability in the selection board as a result of frequent changes to the composition of the selection board and the absence of shadowing by the President. |
| --- | --- |

—

Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equality of candidates and lack of objectivity of assessment, due to the lack of stability in the selection board as a result of frequent changes to the composition of the selection board and the absence of shadowing by the President.

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/62

---

Action brought on 17 May 2023 — Puma v EUIPO — Puma (puma soundproofing)

(Case T-266/23)

(2023/C 252/74)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

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

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Puma Srl (Settimo Milanese, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark puma soundproofing — Application for registration No 18 165 411

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 February 2023 in Case R 1399/2021-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred before the Board of Appeal.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/63 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/63

---

Action brought on 16 May 2023 — WQ v Commission

(Case T-267/23)

(2023/C 252/75)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: WQ (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul the measure of 5 May 2022 by means of which the applicant was not included on the reserve list for competition EPSO/AD/380/19-AD9; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the measure of 5 May 2022 by means of which the applicant was not included on the reserve list for competition EPSO/AD/380/19-AD9;

| — | annul the measure of 15 July 2022 refusing the request for review of the failure to include the applicant on the reserve list for competitions EPSO/AD/380/19-AD9; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the measure of 15 July 2022 refusing the request for review of the failure to include the applicant on the reserve list for competitions EPSO/AD/380/19-AD9;

| — | annul the measure of the appointing authority of 10 February 2023 which was wrongfully drawn up following the silence maintained by EPSO for over four months and by which the complaint lodged on 10 October 2022 under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) was rejected; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the measure of the appointing authority of 10 February 2023 which was wrongfully drawn up following the silence maintained by EPSO for over four months and by which the complaint lodged on 10 October 2022 under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) was rejected; and

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| — | First plea in law, alleging infringement of the provisions of law governing the rules on languages in the EU institutions. Holding the written and oral tests in a language (English and French) other than his mother tongue made it impossible to assess accurately his skills, since the result of his tests was also conditional on his level of knowledge of that language. This also led to an infringement of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations. |
| --- | --- |

—

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the provisions of law governing the rules on languages in the EU institutions. Holding the written and oral tests in a language (English and French) other than his mother tongue made it impossible to assess accurately his skills, since the result of his tests was also conditional on his level of knowledge of that language. This also led to an infringement of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations.

| — | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment among candidates, a failure to assess candidates objectively (case-law in Glantenay) and infringement of Article 5(1) and (3) of Annex III to the Staff Regulations. Some of them in fact resat the written tests a third time, without the same conditions laid down for those who had repeated them a second time.
  The comparison between the candidates in the tests in the assessment centre was distorted because the selection board had not checked in advance the accuracy of the information from the talent screener. |
| --- | --- |

—

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment among candidates, a failure to assess candidates objectively (case-law in Glantenay) and infringement of Article 5(1) and (3) of Annex III to the Staff Regulations. Some of them in fact resat the written tests a third time, without the same conditions laid down for those who had repeated them a second time.

The comparison between the candidates in the tests in the assessment centre was distorted because the selection board had not checked in advance the accuracy of the information from the talent screener.

| — | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons and of the related principle of equality of the parties to proceedings (Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union) since the applicant was not put in a position to know all of the reasons for which he was excluded from the competition before he lodged his action. That also constituted an infringement of the principle of equality of arms in proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons and of the related principle of equality of the parties to proceedings (Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union) since the applicant was not put in a position to know all of the reasons for which he was excluded from the competition before he lodged his action. That also constituted an infringement of the principle of equality of arms in proceedings.

| — | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 5(5) and (6) of Annex III to the Staff Regulations, in that the selection board failed to include on that reserve list at least twice as many candidates as there were posts available in the competition. |
| --- | --- |

—

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 5(5) and (6) of Annex III to the Staff Regulations, in that the selection board failed to include on that reserve list at least twice as many candidates as there were posts available in the competition.

| — | Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles in the case-law in Di Prospero v Commission and infringement of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations and of the principle of equality in that the competition notice did not allow candidates to participate in both the AD 7 and AD 9 competitions, whereas certain candidates who had applied for the AD 9 competition were automatically transferred to the AD 7 reserve list. |
| --- | --- |

—

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles in the case-law in Di Prospero v Commission and infringement of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations and of the principle of equality in that the competition notice did not allow candidates to participate in both the AD 7 and AD 9 competitions, whereas certain candidates who had applied for the AD 9 competition were automatically transferred to the AD 7 reserve list.

| — | Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equality of candidates and lack of objectivity of assessment, due to the lack of stability in the selection board as a result of frequent changes to the composition of the selection board and the absence of shadowing by the President. |
| --- | --- |

—

Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equality of candidates and lack of objectivity of assessment, due to the lack of stability in the selection board as a result of frequent changes to the composition of the selection board and the absence of shadowing by the President.

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/64 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/64

---

Action brought on 17 May 2023 — WR v Commission

(Case T-268/23)

(2023/C 252/76)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: WR (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul the measure of 5 May 2022 by means of which the applicant was not included on the reserve list for competitions EPSO/AD/380/19-AD 7 and EPSO/AD/380/19-AD9; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the measure of 5 May 2022 by means of which the applicant was not included on the reserve list for competitions EPSO/AD/380/19-AD 7 and EPSO/AD/380/19-AD9;

| — | annul the measure of 15 July 2022 refusing the request for review of the failure to include the applicant on the reserve list for competitions EPSO/AD/380/19-AD 7 and EPSO/AD/380/19-AD9; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the measure of 15 July 2022 refusing the request for review of the failure to include the applicant on the reserve list for competitions EPSO/AD/380/19-AD 7 and EPSO/AD/380/19-AD9;

| — | annul the measure of the appointing authority of 12 February 2023 which was wrongfully drawn up following the silence maintained by EPSO for over four months and by which the complaint lodged on 12 October 2022 under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) was rejected; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the measure of the appointing authority of 12 February 2023 which was wrongfully drawn up following the silence maintained by EPSO for over four months and by which the complaint lodged on 12 October 2022 under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) was rejected; and

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| — | First plea in law, alleging infringement of the provisions of law governing the rules on languages in the EU institutions. Holding the written and oral tests in a language (English and French) other than his mother tongue made it impossible to assess accurately his skills, since the result of his tests was also conditional on his level of knowledge of that language. This also led to an infringement of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations. |
| --- | --- |

—

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the provisions of law governing the rules on languages in the EU institutions. Holding the written and oral tests in a language (English and French) other than his mother tongue made it impossible to assess accurately his skills, since the result of his tests was also conditional on his level of knowledge of that language. This also led to an infringement of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations.

| — | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment among candidates, a failure to assess candidates objectively (case-law in Glantenay) and infringement of Article 5(1) and (3) of Annex III to the Staff Regulations. The resitting of the written tests took place in the absence of objective criteria.
  The comparison between the candidates in the tests in the assessment centre was distorted because the selection board had not checked in advance the accuracy of the information from the talent screener. |
| --- | --- |

—

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment among candidates, a failure to assess candidates objectively (case-law in Glantenay) and infringement of Article 5(1) and (3) of Annex III to the Staff Regulations. The resitting of the written tests took place in the absence of objective criteria.

The comparison between the candidates in the tests in the assessment centre was distorted because the selection board had not checked in advance the accuracy of the information from the talent screener.

| — | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons and of the related principle of equality of the parties to proceedings (Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union) since the applicant was not put in a position to know all of the reasons for which he was excluded from the competition before he lodged his action. That also constituted an infringement of the principle of equality of arms in proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons and of the related principle of equality of the parties to proceedings (Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union) since the applicant was not put in a position to know all of the reasons for which he was excluded from the competition before he lodged his action. That also constituted an infringement of the principle of equality of arms in proceedings.

| — | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 5(5) and (6) of Annex III to the Staff Regulations, in that the selection board failed to include on that reserve list at least twice as many candidates as there were posts available in the competition. |
| --- | --- |

—

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 5(5) and (6) of Annex III to the Staff Regulations, in that the selection board failed to include on that reserve list at least twice as many candidates as there were posts available in the competition.

| — | Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the competition notice, Article 5(1) of Annex III to the Staff Regulations and a consequential manifest error of assessment since, in the AD 7 competition, the candidates’ leadership abilities were assessed, whereas that quality should have been assessed solely vis-à-vis the AD 9 candidates. |
| --- | --- |

—

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the competition notice, Article 5(1) of Annex III to the Staff Regulations and a consequential manifest error of assessment since, in the AD 7 competition, the candidates’ leadership abilities were assessed, whereas that quality should have been assessed solely vis-à-vis the AD 9 candidates.

| — | Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles in the case-law in Di Prospero v Commission and infringement of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations and of the principle of equality in that the competition notice did not allow candidates to participate in both the AD 7 and AD 9 competitions, whereas certain candidates who had applied for the AD 9 competition were automatically transferred to the AD 7 reserve list. |
| --- | --- |

—

Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles in the case-law in Di Prospero v Commission and infringement of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations and of the principle of equality in that the competition notice did not allow candidates to participate in both the AD 7 and AD 9 competitions, whereas certain candidates who had applied for the AD 9 competition were automatically transferred to the AD 7 reserve list.

| — | Seventh plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equality of candidates and lack of objectivity of assessment, due to the lack of stability in the selection board as a result of frequent changes to the composition of the selection board and the absence of shadowing by the President. |
| --- | --- |

—

Seventh plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equality of candidates and lack of objectivity of assessment, due to the lack of stability in the selection board as a result of frequent changes to the composition of the selection board and the absence of shadowing by the President.

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/65 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/65

---

Action brought on 19 May 2023 — Impossible Foods v EUIPO — Société des produits Nestlé (IMPOSSIBLE)

(Case T-273/23)

(2023/C 252/77)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Impossible Foods Inc. (Redwood City, California, United States) (represented by: T. Cohen Jehoram, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Société des produits Nestlé SA (Vevey, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark IMPOSSIBLE — European Union trade mark No 12 775 664

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 March 2023 in Case R 665/2022-5

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 of these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/65 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/65

---

Action brought on 18 May 2023 — Tinkoff Bank v Council

(Case T-275/23)

(2023/C 252/78)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Tinkoff Bank SA (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: A. Genko, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | find its application for annulment to be admissible and well-founded and therefore: |
| --- | --- |

—

find its application for annulment to be admissible and well-founded and therefore:

| — | annul Council Regulation (EU) 269/2014 of 17 March 2014 as amended on 25 February 2023 by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/429 (OJ L 59 I/ 278) in so far as it adds the applicant to the list of sanctioned entities under number 200; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Regulation (EU) 269/2014 of 17 March 2014 as amended on 25 February 2023 by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/429 (OJ L 59 I/ 278) in so far as it adds the applicant to the list of sanctioned entities under number 200;

| — | annul Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP of 17 March 2014 as amended on 25 February 2023 by Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/432 (OJ L 59 I/ 437) in so far as it adds the applicant to the list of sanctioned entities under number 200; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP of 17 March 2014 as amended on 25 February 2023 by Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/432 (OJ L 59 I/ 437) in so far as it adds the applicant to the list of sanctioned entities under number 200;

| — | annul Council Regulation (EU) 269/2014 of 17 March 2014 as amended on 25 February 2022 by Regulation (EU) 2022/330 (OJ 51/ 1) by the addition of a new criterion making it possible to sanction ‘leading businesspersons or legal persons, entities or bodies involved in economic sectors providing a substantial source of revenue to the Government of the Russian Federation ...’ in so far as it concerns the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Regulation (EU) 269/2014 of 17 March 2014 as amended on 25 February 2022 by Regulation (EU) 2022/330 (OJ 51/ 1) by the addition of a new criterion making it possible to sanction ‘leading businesspersons or legal persons, entities or bodies involved in economic sectors providing a substantial source of revenue to the Government of the Russian Federation ...’ in so far as it concerns the applicant;

| — | annul Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP of 17 March 2014 as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/329 of 25 February 2022 (OJ L 50/1) by the addition of a new criterion making it possible to sanction ‘leading businesspersons involved in economic sectors providing a substantial source of revenue to the Government of the Russian Federation ...’ in so far as it concerns the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP of 17 March 2014 as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/329 of 25 February 2022 (OJ L 50/1) by the addition of a new criterion making it possible to sanction ‘leading businesspersons involved in economic sectors providing a substantial source of revenue to the Government of the Russian Federation ...’ in so far as it concerns the applicant;

| — | annul the maintaining acts in so far as they concern the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the maintaining acts in so far as they concern the applicant;

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

—

order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on eight pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-270/23, Rosbank v Council.

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/66 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/66

---

Action brought on 22 May 2023 — Global 8 Airlines v Commission

(Case T-277/23)

(2023/C 252/79)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Global 8 Airlines (Bichkek, Kirghizstan) (represented by: E. Novicāne, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the individual measure adopted by the European Commission (Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport) regarding inclusion of the two light business jets (‘the aircrafts’) owned by the applicant in the list subject to grounding ban under Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine, in its entirety as it relates to the applicant (‘the contested decision’), of which the applicant learned on 20 March 2023; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the individual measure adopted by the European Commission (Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport) regarding inclusion of the two light business jets (‘the aircrafts’) owned by the applicant in the list subject to grounding ban under Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine, in its entirety as it relates to the applicant (‘the contested decision’), of which the applicant learned on 20 March 2023;

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

—

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the defendant has improperly applied Article 3c of Regulation 833/2014 in relation to the applicant as a non-European Union incorporated entity operating with non-European Union aircraft outside the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant has improperly applied Article 3c of Regulation 833/2014 in relation to the applicant as a non-European Union incorporated entity operating with non-European Union aircraft outside the European Union.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant has improperly found the aircrafts to be under the control of the Russian individuals or entities. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant has improperly found the aircrafts to be under the control of the Russian individuals or entities.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision lacked any sufficient and adequate reasoning or justification to enable the applicant to understand it. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision lacked any sufficient and adequate reasoning or justification to enable the applicant to understand it.

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/67 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/67

---

Action brought on 23 May 2023 — Zentiva and Zentiva Pharma v Commission

(Case T-278/23)

(2023/C 252/80)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Zentiva k.s. (Prague, Czech Republic), Zentiva Pharma GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: K. Roox, T. De Meese and J. Stuyck, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | declare their request for annulment admissible and well-founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare their request for annulment admissible and well-founded;

| — | annul Commission Implementing Decision C(2023)3067(final) of 2 May 2023 (published on 4 May 2023) amending the marketing authorisation granted by Decision C(2014)601(final) for ‘Tecfidera — Dimethyl fumarate’, a medicinal product for human use (‘the contested decision’), as well as any later decision, to the extent that they perpetuate and/or replace that decision including any follow-up regulatory actions, in so far as they relate to the applicants; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Implementing Decision C(2023)3067(final) of 2 May 2023 (published on 4 May 2023) amending the marketing authorisation granted by Decision C(2014)601(final) for ‘Tecfidera — Dimethyl fumarate’, a medicinal product for human use (‘the contested decision’), as well as any later decision, to the extent that they perpetuate and/or replace that decision including any follow-up regulatory actions, in so far as they relate to the applicants;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging failure by the European Commission to observe the time limit for obtaining an extension of market protection as required by Article 14(11) Regulation EC No. 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council. (1) |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging failure by the European Commission to observe the time limit for obtaining an extension of market protection as required by Article 14(11) Regulation EC No. 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council. (1)

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the European Commission misapplies the law, as the Commission erred with respect to the scope of the judgment of 16 March 2023, Commission and Others v Pharmaceutical Works Polpharma (C-438/21 P to C-440/21 P, EU:C:2023:213) and in particular by considering the ad hoc assessment report of 11 November 2021 irrelevant. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the European Commission misapplies the law, as the Commission erred with respect to the scope of the judgment of 16 March 2023, Commission and Others v Pharmaceutical Works Polpharma (C-438/21 P to C-440/21 P, EU:C:2023:213) and in particular by considering the ad hoc assessment report of 11 November 2021 irrelevant.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the European Commission made an error in basing the contested decision on the wrong scientific facts available at the time of its decision. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the European Commission made an error in basing the contested decision on the wrong scientific facts available at the time of its decision.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, invoking a plea of illegality against Biogen’s marketing authorisation granted by the Commission Implementing Decision C(2014)601(final) (2) and requesting the annulment of the contested decision as a consequence. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, invoking a plea of illegality against Biogen’s marketing authorisation granted by the Commission Implementing Decision C(2014)601(final) (2) and requesting the annulment of the contested decision as a consequence.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the fundamental rights and in particular, the right to a fair trial, the right of defence, the right to be heard, and the right to a legal basis pursuant to Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the fundamental rights and in particular, the right to a fair trial, the right of defence, the right to be heard, and the right to a legal basis pursuant to Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes the applicants’ legal certainty. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes the applicants’ legal certainty.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates the applicants’ legitimate expectations. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates the applicants’ legitimate expectations.

| 8. | Eight plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates the applicants’ right to property, laid down in Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

8.

Eight plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates the applicants’ right to property, laid down in Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 1).

(2)  Commission Implementing Decision C(2014)601(final) of 30 January 2014 granting marketing authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council for ‘Tecfidera — Dimethyl fumarate’, a medicinal product for human use.

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/68 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/68

---

Action brought on 23 May 2023 — Dana Astra v Council

(Case T-281/23)

(2023/C 252/81)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Dana Astra IOOO (Minsk, Belarus) (represented by: M. Lester, Barrister-at-Law, and P. Sellar, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/421 of 24 February 2023 (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/419 of 24 February 2023 (2) (‘contested measures’) insofar as they apply to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/421 of 24 February 2023 (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/419 of 24 February 2023 (2) (‘contested measures’) insofar as they apply to the applicant;

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

—

order the Council to pay the applicant’s costs.

Plea in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, being that the contested measures are vitiated by a manifest error of assessment.

---

(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/421 of 24 February 2023 amending Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus and the involvement of Belarus in the Russian aggression against Ukraine (OJ 2023 L 61, p. 41).

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/419 of 24 February 2023 implementing Article 8a of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus and the involvement of Belarus in the Russian aggression against Ukraine (OJ 2023 L 61, p. 20).

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/68 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/68

---

Action brought on 24 May 2023 — Rotenberg v Council

(Case T-284/23)

(2023/C 252/82)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Igor Rotenberg (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: D. Rovetta, M. Campa, M. Moretto and V. Villante, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/572 of 13 March 2023 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine; (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/572 of 13 March 2023 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine; (1)

| — | annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/571 of 13 March 2023 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine; (2) |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/571 of 13 March 2023 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine; (2)

| — | annul the Decision to maintain the applicant on the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures under Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP, (3) as amended by the Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/572, and Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014, (4) as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2023/571, adopted by the Council of the European Union by letter to the applicant of 14 March 2023; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Decision to maintain the applicant on the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures under Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP, (3) as amended by the Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/572, and Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014, (4) as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2023/571, adopted by the Council of the European Union by letter to the applicant of 14 March 2023;

| — | order the Council of the European Union to bear the costs of the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council of the European Union to bear the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons, of Article 296 TFEU and of Article 41 (2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as well as breach of the right to effective judicial protection and of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons, of Article 296 TFEU and of Article 41 (2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as well as breach of the right to effective judicial protection and of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment, failure to discharge the burden of proof, breach of the listing criteria set forth in article 1(1)(a) and (e) and 2(1)(a) and (g) of Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP of 17 March 2014 and in Article 3(1)(a) and (g) of Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 of 17 March 2014. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment, failure to discharge the burden of proof, breach of the listing criteria set forth in article 1(1)(a) and (e) and 2(1)(a) and (g) of Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP of 17 March 2014 and in Article 3(1)(a) and (g) of Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 of 17 March 2014.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality, breach of the applicant’s fundamental rights to property and freedom to conduct business and breach of Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality, breach of the applicant’s fundamental rights to property and freedom to conduct business and breach of Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

---

(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/572 of 13 March 2023 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2023 LI 75I, p. 134).

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/571 of 13 March 2023 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2023 L 75I, p. 1).

(3)  Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP of 17 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (JO 2014 L 78, p. 16).

(4)  Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 of 17 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 78, p. 6).

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/69 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/69

---

Action brought on 25 May 2023 — OT v Council

(Case T-286/23)

(2023/C 252/83)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: OT (represented by: J.-P. Hordies, C. Sand and P. Blanchetier, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Council [Implementing Regulation (EU)] 2023/571 of 13 March 2023 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2023 L 75 I, p. 1), in so far as it concerns the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council [Implementing Regulation (EU)] 2023/571 of 13 March 2023 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2023 L 75 I, p. 1), in so far as it concerns the applicant;

| — | annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/572 of 13 March 2023 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2023 L 75 I, p. 134), in so far as it concerns the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/572 of 13 March 2023 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2023 L 75 I, p. 134), in so far as it concerns the applicant;

| — | consequently, order the Council to remove the applicant’s name from the annexes to Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/572 of 13 March 2023 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/571 of 14 March 2023 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine; |
| --- | --- |

—

consequently, order the Council to remove the applicant’s name from the annexes to Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/572 of 13 March 2023 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/571 of 14 March 2023 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine;

| — | order the Council to bear the full costs and expenses of the proceedings, including those incurred by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to bear the full costs and expenses of the proceedings, including those incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Council manifestly erred in its assessment of the facts. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Council manifestly erred in its assessment of the facts.

| 2. | Second plea in law, raising a plea of illegality in respect of points (d) and (g) of Article 1 of Council Regulation (EU) 2022/330 of 25 February 2022 amending Regulation (EU) 269/2014, inasmuch as that text undermines the values of freedom and the rule of law enshrined in Article 2 [TEU], as well as the principles of foreseeability of European Union acts and of proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, raising a plea of illegality in respect of points (d) and (g) of Article 1 of Council Regulation (EU) 2022/330 of 25 February 2022 amending Regulation (EU) 269/2014, inasmuch as that text undermines the values of freedom and the rule of law enshrined in Article 2 [TEU], as well as the principles of foreseeability of European Union acts and of proportionality.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence, the right to effective judicial protection and the right to an effective remedy. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence, the right to effective judicial protection and the right to an effective remedy.

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/70 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/70

---

Action brought on 24 May 2023 — Birių Krovinių Terminalas v Council

(Case T-287/23)

(2023/C 252/84)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Birių Krovinių Terminalas UAB (Klaipeda, Lithuania) (represented by: V. Ostrovskis, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Articles 2g(1) and 2g(1a) of Council Decision 2012/642/CFSP of 15 October 2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus and the involvement of Belarus in the Russian aggression against Ukraine, as amended by Council Decision 2023/421/CFSP, insofar as its restrictions on transfer of potash from Belarus and the restrictions on the ability of EU operators to provide, directly or indirectly, technical assistance, brokering services, financing or financial assistance, including financial derivatives, as well as insurance and re-insurance in connection with the same (together, the ‘Relevant Restrictions’) prohibit the transit of potash from Belarus via the territory of Lithuania, in particular through the sea the port of Klaipeda. |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Articles 2g(1) and 2g(1a) of Council Decision 2012/642/CFSP of 15 October 2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus and the involvement of Belarus in the Russian aggression against Ukraine, as amended by Council Decision 2023/421/CFSP, insofar as its restrictions on transfer of potash from Belarus and the restrictions on the ability of EU operators to provide, directly or indirectly, technical assistance, brokering services, financing or financial assistance, including financial derivatives, as well as insurance and re-insurance in connection with the same (together, the ‘Relevant Restrictions’) prohibit the transit of potash from Belarus via the territory of Lithuania, in particular through the sea the port of Klaipeda.

| — | annul Article 1i and Annex VIII of Council Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 of 18 May 2006 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus and the involvement of Belarus in the Russian aggression against Ukraine, as amended by Council Decision 2023/421/CFSP, insofar as the Relevant Restrictions prohibit the transit of potash from Belarus via the territory of Lithuania, in particular through the sea the port of Klaipeda. |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Article 1i and Annex VIII of Council Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 of 18 May 2006 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus and the involvement of Belarus in the Russian aggression against Ukraine, as amended by Council Decision 2023/421/CFSP, insofar as the Relevant Restrictions prohibit the transit of potash from Belarus via the territory of Lithuania, in particular through the sea the port of Klaipeda.

| — | order the Council to pay the costs and expenses of the proceedings, including those incurred by the applicant for its defence. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay the costs and expenses of the proceedings, including those incurred by the applicant for its defence.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Relevant Restrictions effected by the Contested Acts violate the principle of legality and legal certainty. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Relevant Restrictions effected by the Contested Acts violate the principle of legality and legal certainty.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Relevant Restrictions effected by the Contested Acts violate the EU’s WTO obligations insofar as they restrict transit of goods via the EU’s territory to other WTO Members in breach of Article V:2 of the GATT 1994. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Relevant Restrictions effected by the Contested Acts violate the EU’s WTO obligations insofar as they restrict transit of goods via the EU’s territory to other WTO Members in breach of Article V:2 of the GATT 1994.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Relevant Restrictions effected by the Contested Acts, insofar as they prohibit the transit of potash from Belarus via the territory of Lithuania, are in violation of the Agreement on the Conditions of Transit of cargo from the Republic of Belarus using the ports and other transport infrastructure of the Republic of Lithuania. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Relevant Restrictions effected by the Contested Acts, insofar as they prohibit the transit of potash from Belarus via the territory of Lithuania, are in violation of the Agreement on the Conditions of Transit of cargo from the Republic of Belarus using the ports and other transport infrastructure of the Republic of Lithuania.

| 4. | Forth plea in law, alleging that the Relevant Restrictions effected by the Contested Acts violate the freedom of transit provided for in the United Nations on the Law of the Sea (‘UNCLOS’). |
| --- | --- |

4.

Forth plea in law, alleging that the Relevant Restrictions effected by the Contested Acts violate the freedom of transit provided for in the United Nations on the Law of the Sea (‘UNCLOS’).

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging the violation of the right of the Applicant to pursue a trade and of the principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging the violation of the right of the Applicant to pursue a trade and of the principle of proportionality.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging the violation of the principle of legitimate expectations. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging the violation of the principle of legitimate expectations.

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/71 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/71

---

Action brought on 24 May 2023 — Unilab v EUIPO — Cofares (Healthily)

(Case T-288/23)

(2023/C 252/85)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Unilab LP (Rockville, Maryland, United States) (represented by: M. Kondrat, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cofares, Sociedad Cooperativa Farmaceutica Española (Madrid, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark Healthily — Application for registration No 18 324 697

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 March 2023 in Case R 1959/2022-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and refer the case back to the EUIPO for reconsideration; or |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and refer the case back to the EUIPO for reconsideration; or

| — | alter the contested decision by stating that there are no relative grounds for refusal of registration of the trade mark at issue for all goods in classes 3, 5, 10 and the trademark shall be registered in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

alter the contested decision by stating that there are no relative grounds for refusal of registration of the trade mark at issue for all goods in classes 3, 5, 10 and the trademark shall be registered in its entirety;

| — | award the costs in the applicant’s favour. |
| --- | --- |

—

award the costs in the applicant’s favour.

Pleas in law

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

—

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

| — | Infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and the principle of legal certainty; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and the principle of legal certainty;

| — | Infringement of Articles 94(1) and 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 94(1) and 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/72 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/72

---

Action brought on 24 May 2023 — Khan v Council

(Case T-289/23)

(2023/C 252/86)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: German Khan (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: T. Marembert and A. Bass, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/572 (1) of 13 March 2023 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, in so far as it concerns the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/572 (1) of 13 March 2023 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, in so far as it concerns the applicant;

| — | annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/571 (2) of 13 March 2023 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, in so far as it concerns the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/571 (2) of 13 March 2023 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, in so far as it concerns the applicant;

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

—

order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law, which are identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-283/23, Aven v Council.

---

(1)  (OJ 2023 L 75 I, p. 134).

(2)  (OJ 2023 L 75 I, p. 1).

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/73 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/73

---

Action brought on 25 May 2023 — UC Rusal v Council

(Case T-292/23)

(2023/C 252/87)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: United Company Rusal MKPAO (UC Rusal) (Kaliningrad, Russia) (represented by: N. Tuominen and L. Engelen, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | partially annul, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, (1) Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/572 of 13 March 2023 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/571 of 13 March 2023 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, (2) and (2) any subsequent Council Decision (CFSP) and Council Implementing Regulation amending or annulling these acts, in so far as they identify the Applicant as being owned by Mr Deripaska; |
| --- | --- |

—

partially annul, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, (1) Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/572 of 13 March 2023 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/571 of 13 March 2023 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, (2) and (2) any subsequent Council Decision (CFSP) and Council Implementing Regulation amending or annulling these acts, in so far as they identify the Applicant as being owned by Mr Deripaska;

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

—

order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment for including the applicant’s name in the Statement of Reasons of a person subject to restrictive measures. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment for including the applicant’s name in the Statement of Reasons of a person subject to restrictive measures.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence, of the right to a fair hearing as the applicant was not provided with the possibility to effectively exercise its rights of defence, in particular the right to be heard. Given the close relationship between the right of defence and the right to effective judicial review, the applicant’s right to an effective judicial remedy has also been infringed. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence, of the right to a fair hearing as the applicant was not provided with the possibility to effectively exercise its rights of defence, in particular the right to be heard. Given the close relationship between the right of defence and the right to effective judicial review, the applicant’s right to an effective judicial remedy has also been infringed.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the contested measures are disproportionate and infringe the applicant’s rights under Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the contested measures are disproportionate and infringe the applicant’s rights under Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

---

(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/572 of 13 March 2023 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2023 L 75I, p. 134).

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/571 of 13 March 2023 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2023 L 75I, p. 1).

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/73 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/73

---

Action brought on 25 May 2023 — EuroChem Group v Council

(Case T-293/23)

(2023/C 252/88)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: EuroChem Group AG (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by: N. Tuominen and M. Krestiyanova, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | partially annul, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, (1) Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/572 of 13 March 2023 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/571 of 13 March 2023 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, (2) (2) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/806 of 13 April 2023 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (3) and Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/811 of 13 April 2023 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, (4) and (3) any subsequent Council Decision (CFSP) and Council Implementing Regulation, in so far as those acts incorrectly associate the Applicant to Mr and Mrs Melnichenko, Mr Rashevsky or certain alleged activities; |
| --- | --- |

—

partially annul, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, (1) Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/572 of 13 March 2023 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/571 of 13 March 2023 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, (2) (2) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/806 of 13 April 2023 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (3) and Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/811 of 13 April 2023 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, (4) and (3) any subsequent Council Decision (CFSP) and Council Implementing Regulation, in so far as those acts incorrectly associate the Applicant to Mr and Mrs Melnichenko, Mr Rashevsky or certain alleged activities;

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

—

order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the contested measures are vitiated by a manifest error of assessment for including applicant’s name in the statement of reasons of the lists of the persons to whom restrictive measures apply. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested measures are vitiated by a manifest error of assessment for including applicant’s name in the statement of reasons of the lists of the persons to whom restrictive measures apply.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the contested measures infringe the rights of defence and the right to a fair hearing in that they do not provide the applicant with the possibility to effectively exercise its rights of defence, in particular the right to be heard. Given the close relationship between the right of defence and the right to effective judicial review, the applicant’s right to effective judicial remedy has also been infringed. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested measures infringe the rights of defence and the right to a fair hearing in that they do not provide the applicant with the possibility to effectively exercise its rights of defence, in particular the right to be heard. Given the close relationship between the right of defence and the right to effective judicial review, the applicant’s right to effective judicial remedy has also been infringed.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the contested measures are disproportionate, encroach upon the Union’s legislative competences and breach the applicant’s fundamental rights. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the contested measures are disproportionate, encroach upon the Union’s legislative competences and breach the applicant’s fundamental rights.

---

(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/572 of 13 March 2023 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2023 L 75I, p. 134).

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/571 of 13 March 2023 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2023 L 75I, p. 1).

(3)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/806 of 13 April 2023 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2023 L 101, p. 1).

(4)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/811 of 13 April 2023 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2023 L 101, p. 67).

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/74 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/74

---

Action brought on 25 May 2023 — Suek v Council

(Case T-294/23)

(2023/C 252/89)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Siberian Coal Energy Company AO (Suek) (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: N. Tuominen and M. Krestiyanova, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | partially annul, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, (1) Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/572 of 13 March 2023 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/571 of 13 March 2023 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, (2) (2) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/806 of 13 April 2023 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (3) and Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/811 of 13 April 2023 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, (4) and (3) any subsequent Council Decision (CFSP) and Council Implementing Regulation, in so far as those acts incorrectly associate the Applicant to Mr and Mrs Melnichenko, Mr Rashevsky or certain alleged activities; |
| --- | --- |

—

partially annul, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, (1) Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/572 of 13 March 2023 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/571 of 13 March 2023 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, (2) (2) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/806 of 13 April 2023 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (3) and Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/811 of 13 April 2023 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, (4) and (3) any subsequent Council Decision (CFSP) and Council Implementing Regulation, in so far as those acts incorrectly associate the Applicant to Mr and Mrs Melnichenko, Mr Rashevsky or certain alleged activities;

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

—

order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the contested measures are vitiated by a manifest error of assessment for including applicant’s name in the statement of reasons of the lists of the persons to whom restrictive measures apply. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested measures are vitiated by a manifest error of assessment for including applicant’s name in the statement of reasons of the lists of the persons to whom restrictive measures apply.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the contested measures infringe the rights of defence and the right to a fair hearing in that they do not provide the applicant with the possibility to effectively exercise its rights of defence, in particular the right to be heard. Given the close relationship between the right of defence and the right to effective judicial review, the applicant’s right to effective judicial remedy has also been infringed. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested measures infringe the rights of defence and the right to a fair hearing in that they do not provide the applicant with the possibility to effectively exercise its rights of defence, in particular the right to be heard. Given the close relationship between the right of defence and the right to effective judicial review, the applicant’s right to effective judicial remedy has also been infringed.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the contested measures are disproportionate, encroach upon the Union’s legislative competences and breach the applicant’s fundamental rights. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the contested measures are disproportionate, encroach upon the Union’s legislative competences and breach the applicant’s fundamental rights.

---

(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/572 of 13 March 2023 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2023 L 75I, p. 134).

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/571 of 13 March 2023 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2023 L 75I, p. 1).

(3)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/806 of 13 April 2023 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2023 L 101, p. 1).

(4)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/811 of 13 April 2023 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2023 L 101, p. 67).

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/75 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/75

---

Action brought on 25 May 2023 — WU v Eurojust

(Case T-295/23)

(2023/C 252/90)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare and order,






  — | the decision of 15 July 2022 of the Executive Board No [confidential] (1) to be annulled; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

declare and order,

—

the decision of 15 July 2022 of the Executive Board No [confidential] (1) to be annulled;

| — | the applicant to be compensated ex aequo et bono in the amount of EUR 5 000 for the damage caused by the illegalities complained of, inadequately covered by the annulment of the decision adversely affecting him; |
| --- | --- |

—

the applicant to be compensated ex aequo et bono in the amount of EUR 5 000 for the damage caused by the illegalities complained of, inadequately covered by the annulment of the decision adversely affecting him;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) through the unlawful replication of the procedures and of the authorities empowered to conclude contracts of employment (‘AECE’) for the treatment of the request for assistance of the applicant, that rendered the file unnecessarily complex with the examination of the second request being largely disregarded resulting in the distortion of the context. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) through the unlawful replication of the procedures and of the authorities empowered to conclude contracts of employment (‘AECE’) for the treatment of the request for assistance of the applicant, that rendered the file unnecessarily complex with the examination of the second request being largely disregarded resulting in the distortion of the context.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging the replication of the AECE and infringement of the principle of impartiality, at least objectively. The applicant raises a conflict of interest and being deprived of the right to a second administrative review of his file that would be neutral. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging the replication of the AECE and infringement of the principle of impartiality, at least objectively. The applicant raises a conflict of interest and being deprived of the right to a second administrative review of his file that would be neutral.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging an error in law on the part of the AECE where it only considered the request for assistance of the applicant under Article 12a of the Staff Regulations, without assessing it under Article 12, which lead to a manifest error of assessment as regards the existence of inappropriate behaviour with respect to the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging an error in law on the part of the AECE where it only considered the request for assistance of the applicant under Article 12a of the Staff Regulations, without assessing it under Article 12, which lead to a manifest error of assessment as regards the existence of inappropriate behaviour with respect to the applicant.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to be heard in an effective manner, on the ground that the applicant was not provided with all the factors upon which the investigators based their administrative investigation report or on the basis of which the AECE adopted its decision, at least in a timely manner, infringing the right to a fair trial. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to be heard in an effective manner, on the ground that the applicant was not provided with all the factors upon which the investigators based their administrative investigation report or on the basis of which the AECE adopted its decision, at least in a timely manner, infringing the right to a fair trial.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to provide assistance in that the defendant did not adopt appropriate measures during the inquiry in breach of a reasonable period of time. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to provide assistance in that the defendant did not adopt appropriate measures during the inquiry in breach of a reasonable period of time.

---

(1)  Confidential information redacted.

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/76 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/76

---

Action brought on 24 May 2023 — Fridman v Council

(Case T-296/23)

(2023/C 252/91)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Mikhail Fridman (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: T. Marembert and A. Bass, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/572 (1) of 13 March 2023 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, in so far as it concerns the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/572 (1) of 13 March 2023 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, in so far as it concerns the applicant;

| — | annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/571 (2) of 13 March 2023 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, in so far as it concerns the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/571 (2) of 13 March 2023 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, in so far as it concerns the applicant;

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

—

order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law, which are identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-283/23, Aven v Council.

---

(1)  (OJ 2023 L 75 I, p. 134).

(2)  (OJ 2023 L 75 I, p. 1).

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/77 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/77

---

Action brought on 30 May 2023 — Dornbracht v EUIPO — Marco Mammoliti (SINQUE)

(Case T-300/23)

(2023/C 252/92)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Dornbracht AG & Co. KG (Iserlohn, Germany) (represented by: J. Künzel, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Marco Mammoliti SpA (Aosta, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark SINQUE — Application for registration No 18 261 008

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 March 2023 in Case R 1374/2022-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul and alter orders No 1, No 2 and No 3 of the contested decision, thereby rejecting the appeal before the Board of Appeal, upholding the decision of the Opposition Division and rejecting the EUTM application; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul and alter orders No 1, No 2 and No 3 of the contested decision, thereby rejecting the appeal before the Board of Appeal, upholding the decision of the Opposition Division and rejecting the EUTM application;

| — | order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/78 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/78

---

Action brought on 31 May 2023 — Vía Atlántica Adegas e Viñedos v EUIPO — Casa Relvas (VIA ATLÁNTICA)

(Case T-301/23)

(2023/C 252/93)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Vía Atlántica Adegas e Viñedos, SL (Chantada, Spain) (represented by: E. Manresa Medina, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Casa Relvas Lda (Redondo, Portugal)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark VIA ATLÁNTICA — Application for registration No 18 205 496

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 March 2023 in Case R 1419/2022-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and the intervener, if any, to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the intervener, if any, to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/78 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/78

---

Action brought on 31 May 2023 — WeinArt Handelsgesellschaft v EUIPO — Donnafugata (KABI)

(Case T-302/23)

(2023/C 252/94)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: WeinArt Handelsgesellschaft mbH (Geisenheim, Germany) (represented by: M. Heinrich, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Donnafugata Srl (Marsala, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark KABI — Application for registration No 18 178 376

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 March 2023 in Case R 2064/2022-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and order the registration of the trade mark at issue for the contested goods; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and order the registration of the trade mark at issue for the contested goods;

| — | order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear the applicant’s costs for the proceedings, including the opposition, the appeal proceedings and the proceedings concerning the application before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear the applicant’s costs for the proceedings, including the opposition, the appeal proceedings and the proceedings concerning the application before the General Court.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/79 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/79

---

Action brought on 31 May 2023 — Coinbase v EUIPO (C)

(Case T-304/23)

(2023/C 252/95)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Coinbase, Inc. (Oakland, California, United-States) (represented by: M. Zintler, N. Schmidt-Hamkens and F. Stoll, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPOs

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark C — Application for registration No 1 629 156

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 March 2023 in Case R 2001/2022-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | declare that Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council does not preclude the registration of the trade mark at issue in respect of the claimed goods and services; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council does not preclude the registration of the trade mark at issue in respect of the claimed goods and services;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

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

—

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

| — | Infringement of the principles of equal treatment and sound administration. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the principles of equal treatment and sound administration.

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/80 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/80

---

Action brought on 1 June 2023 — Jima Projects v EUIPO — Salis Sulam (Device of a sports shoe with two parallel lines placed on one side)

(Case T-307/23)

(2023/C 252/96)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Jima Projects BV (Oudenaarde, Belgium) (represented by: J. Løje, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Eli Salis Sulam (Alicante, Spain)

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 (Device of a sports shoe with two parallel lines placed on one side) — European Union trade mark No 2 810 299

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 March 2023 in Case R 1215/2022-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94;

| — | Infringement of Articles 17 and 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and general principles EU law. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 17 and 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and general principles EU law.

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/80 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/80

---

Action brought on 2 June 2023 — Korkmaz v EUIPO — Intersnack Deutschland (CETOS)

(Case T-308/23)

(2023/C 252/97)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Elif Korkmaz (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: C. Weil, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Intersnack Deutschland SE (Cologne)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Application for the EU trade mark CETOS — Application No 18 514 974

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 April 2023 in Case R 2031/2022-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | uphold the claim; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the claim;

| — | dismiss the opponent’s claim/appellant’s appeal and confirm the decision of the Opposition Division of 14 October 2022 in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

dismiss the opponent’s claim/appellant’s appeal and confirm the decision of the Opposition Division of 14 October 2022 in its entirety;

| — | order the opponent and appellant Intersnack Deutschland SE to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the opponent and appellant Intersnack Deutschland SE to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/81 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/81

---

Order of the General Court of 8 June 2023 — Kraftpojkarna v Commission

(Case T-781/17) (1)

(2023/C 252/98)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 42, 5.2.2018.

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/81 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/81

---

Order of the General Court of 26 May 2023 — Yalwen v Commission

(Case T-759/19) (1)

(2023/C 252/99)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 27, 27.1.2020.

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/81 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/81

---

Order of the General Court of 26 May 2023 — Vleuten Insects and New Generation Nutrition v Commission

(Case T-500/22) (1)

(2023/C 252/100)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 424, 7.11.2022.

---

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/82 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/82

---

Order of the General Court of 8 June 2023 — van der Linde v CEPD

(Case T-678/22) (1)

(2023/C 252/101)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 24, 23.1.2023.

---