# Official Journal C 109/7 Ma

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 109 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 657 March 2022 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 109

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 657 March 2022

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2022/C 109/01 | 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

2022/C 109/01

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 |
| 2022/C 109/02 | Joined Cases C-177/19 P to C-179/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 January 2022 — Federal Republic of Germany v Ville de Paris (France), Ville de Bruxelles (Belgium), Ayuntamiento de Madrid (Spain), European Commission (C-177/19 P), Hungary v Ville de Paris (France), Ville de Bruxelles (Belgium), Ayuntamiento de Madrid (Spain), European Commission (C-178/19 P), European Commission v Ville de Paris (France), Ville de Bruxelles (Belgium), Ayuntamiento de Madrid (Spain) (C-179/19 P) (Appeal — Action for annulment — Environment — Type approval of motor vehicles — Regulation (EU) 2016/646 — Emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 6) — Setting of the not-to-exceed (NTE) values for emissions of oxides of nitrogen during the real driving emission (RDE) tests — Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU — Admissibility of an action — Infra-State entity with powers in the field of environmental protection to limit the circulation of certain vehicles — Condition that the applicant must be directly concerned) | 2 |
| 2022/C 109/03 | Case C-282/19: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 January 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Napoli — Italy) — YT and Others v Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca — MIUR, Ufficio Scolastico Regionale per la Campania (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 1999/70/EC — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Clauses 4 and 5 — Fixed-term employment contracts in the public sector — Catholic religious education teachers — Concept of objective reasons justifying the renewal of such contracts — Permanent need for replacement staff) | 3 |
| 2022/C 109/04 | Case C-377/19: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 January 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Benedetti Pietro e Angelo Ss and Others v Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Milk and milk products sector — Quotas — Additional levy — Regulation (EC) No 1788/2003 — Deliveries exceeding the producer’s available reference quantity — Collection of the contribution to the excess levy by the purchaser — Refund of levies overpaid — Regulation (EC) No 595/2004 — Article 16 — Criteria for redistributing the excess levy) | 4 |
| 2022/C 109/05 | Case C-881/19: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 January 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud v Brně — Czech Republic) — Tesco Stores ČR a.s. v Ministerstvo zemědělství (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Approximation of the laws — Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 — Point 2(a) of Part E of Annex VII — Provision of food information to consumers — Labelling and presentation of foodstuffs — Directive 2000/36/EC — Point 2(c) of Part A of Annex I — Cocoa and chocolate products — List of ingredients of a food intended for consumers in a Member State) | 4 |
| 2022/C 109/06 | Case C-55/20: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 January 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Dyscyplinarny Izby Adwokackiej w Warszawie — Poland) — Proceedings initiated by the Minister Sprawiedliwości (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Article 267 TFEU — Definition of court or tribunal of a Member State — Bar Association Disciplinary Court — Disciplinary investigation initiated against a lawyer — Decision of the Disciplinary Agent finding that there was no disciplinary offence and terminating the investigation — Appeal by the Minister for Justice to the Bar Association Disciplinary Court — Directive 2006/123/EC — Services in the internal market — Article 4, point (6), and Article 10(6) — Authorisation scheme — Withdrawal of authorisation — Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Not applicable) | 5 |
| 2022/C 109/07 | Case C-110/20: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 January 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Regione Puglia v Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Energy — Directive 94/22/EC — Conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons — Authorisation for the prospection of hydrocarbons in a specific geographical area for a specified period — Contiguous areas — Grant of several authorisations to the same operator — Directive 2011/92/EU — Article 4(2) and (3) — Environmental impact assessment) | 6 |
| 2022/C 109/08 | Case C-156/20: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 January 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom — United Kingdom) — Zipvit Ltd v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 168 — Right of deduction — Supply of postal services mistakenly exempted — VAT deemed to be included in the commercial price of the supply for the purpose of exercising the right of deduction — Not included — Concept of VAT due or paid) | 6 |
| 2022/C 109/09 | Case C-326/20: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 January 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā apgabaltiesa — Latvia) — MONO SIA v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Excise duties — Directive 2008/118/EC — Exemption from the harmonised excise duty — Goods intended for use in the context of diplomatic or consular relations — Conditions for the application of the exemption laid down by the host Member State — Payment by means other than cash) | 7 |
| 2022/C 109/10 | Case C-327/20: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 13 January 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Opolu — Poland) — Skarb Państwa — Starosta Nyski v New Media Development & Hotel Services Sp. z o.o. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2011/7/EU — Combating late payment in commercial transactions — Scope — Concept of commercial transactions — Public authority acting as a creditor of an undertaking — Excluded — Handing over by a public authority of an immovable property in perpetual usufruct to an undertaking against payment of an annual fee) | 8 |
| 2022/C 109/11 | Case C-351/20 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 January 2022 — Liviu Dragnea v European Commission (Appeal — Investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) — Investigation reports — Request for an investigation to be opened into the conduct of previous OLAF investigations — Request to access documents — Letter of refusal — Article 263 TFEU — Decision against which an action for annulment may be brought — Time limit for bringing proceedings — Action against a letter confirming OLAF’s investigation reports — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Article 6 and Article 7(2) — Obligation to inform the applicant of his or her right to make a confirmatory application) | 8 |
| 2022/C 109/12 | Case C-361/20 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 January 2022 — YG v European Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Official — Promotion — 2017 promotion procedure — Decision not to promote the appellant — Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union — Comparison of the merits — Principle of equal treatment — Duty to state reasons) | 9 |
| 2022/C 109/13 | Case C-363/20: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 January 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — MARCAS MC Szolgáltató Zrt. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Companies — Corporate tax — Tax audit — Scope of application of EU law — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 51(1) — Implementation of EU law — Absence — Fourth Directive 78/660/EEC — Annual accounts of certain types of companies — Accounting of revenue from intellectual property rights — Article 2(3) — Principle of true and fair view — Article 31 — Valuation of items in the annual accounts — Compliance with accounting principles) | 9 |
| 2022/C 109/14 | Case C-513/20: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 January 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira v Termas Sulfurosas de Alcafache SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 132(1)(b) — Exemptions for certain activities in the public interest — Exemption of hospital and medical care — Closely related activities — Thermal treatment — Amount charged for compiling an individual file including the user’s clinical history) | 10 |
| 2022/C 109/15 | Case C-514/20: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 January 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — DS v Koch Personaldienstleistungen GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 31(2) — Directive 2003/88/EC — Organisation of working time — Article 7 — Annual leave — Working time — Overtime — Calculation of working time on a monthly basis — No overtime pay when taking annual leave) | 11 |
| 2022/C 109/16 | Case C-683/20: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 January 2022 — European Commission v Slovak Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environment — Directive 2002/49/EC — Assessment and management of environmental noise — Major roads and major railways — Article 8(2) — Action plans — Article 10(2) — Annex VI — Summaries of action plans — Failure to communicate to the Commission within the prescribed period) | 11 |
| 2022/C 109/17 | Case C-724/20: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 January 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Paget Approbois SAS v Depeyre entreprises SARL, Alpha Insurance A/S (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Business of Insurance and Reinsurance — Directive 2009/138/EC — Winding-up of insurance undertakings — Article 292 — Effects of winding-up proceedings on pending lawsuits — Exception to the application of the lex concursus — Lex processus) | 12 |
| 2022/C 109/18 | Case C-623/21: Order of the President of the Court of 29 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Stuttgart — Germany) — Société Air France SA v AQ and Others (Air transport — Compensation to air passengers in the event of cancellation or long delay of flights — Distinction between denied boarding, cancellation and long delay where there is a re-routing flight resulting in a delay shorter than the delay caused by taking the flight originally booked) | 13 |
| 2022/C 109/19 | Case C-697/21: Order of the President of the Court of 5 January 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — PW v Eurowings GmbH (Air transport — Compensation to air passengers in the event of cancellation of flights — Means by which the cost of the ticket is reimbursed — Reimbursement by travel voucher — Request to be reimbursed in cash) | 13 |
| 2022/C 109/20 | Case C-548/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Tirol (Austria) lodged on 6 September 2021 — C.G. v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Landeck | 14 |
| 2022/C 109/21 | Case C-725/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije (Slovenia) lodged on 30 November 2021 — SOMEO S.A., formerly PEARL STREAM S.A. v Republic of Slovenia | 14 |
| 2022/C 109/22 | Case C-752/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Haskovo (Bulgaria) lodged on 7 December 2021 — JP EOOD v Otdel Mitnichesko razsledvane i razuznavane v Teritorialna direktsia Mitnitsa Burgas | 15 |
| 2022/C 109/23 | Case C-767/21 P: Appeal brought on 8 December 2021 by Jérôme Rivière and Others against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 6 October 2021 in Case T-88/20, Rivière and Others v Parliament | 16 |
| 2022/C 109/24 | Case C-788/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Retten i Esbjerg (Denmark) lodged on 17 December 2021 — Skatteministeriet Departementet v Global Gravity ApS | 17 |
| 2022/C 109/25 | Case C-808/21: Action brought on 21 December 2021 — European Commission v Czech Republic | 18 |
| 2022/C 109/26 | Case C-29/22 P: Appeal brought on 12 January 2022 by KS and KD against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 10 November 2021 in Case T-771/20, KS and KD v Council and Others | 18 |
| 2022/C 109/27 | Case C-44/22 P: Appeal brought on 19 January 2022 by European Commission against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 10 November 2021 in Case T-771/20, KS and KD v Council and Others | 19 |
| | General Court |
| 2022/C 109/28 | Case T-321/17: Order of the General Court of 20 December 2021 — Niemelä and Others v ECB (Action for annulment — Economic and monetary policy — Prudential supervision of credit institutions — Specific supervisory tasks assigned to the ECB — Decision to withdraw a credit institution’s authorisation — Replacement of the contested measure in the course of the proceedings — Action which has become devoid of purpose — Loss of interest in bringing proceedings — No need to adjudicate — Action for damages — Manifest inadmissibility) | 21 |
| 2022/C 109/29 | Case T-682/20: Order of the General Court of 15 December 2021 — Legero Schuhfabrik v EUIPO — Rieker Schuh (Shoe) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a shoe — Earlier national and Community designs produced after the filing of the application for a declaration of invalidity — Article 28(1)(b)(v) of Regulation (EC) No 2245/2002 — Grounds for invalidity — Lack of novelty — No individual character — Degree of freedom of the designer — No different overall impression — Articles 5 and 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law) | 22 |
| 2022/C 109/30 | Case T-683/20: Order of the General Court of 15 December 2021 — Legero Schuhfabrik v EUIPO — Rieker Schuh (Shoe) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a shoe — Earlier national and Community designs produced after the filing of the application for a declaration of invalidity — Article 28(1)(b)(v) of Regulation (EC) No 2245/2002 — Grounds for invalidity — Lack of novelty — No individual character — Degree of freedom of the designer — No different overall impression — Articles 5 and 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law) | 22 |
| 2022/C 109/31 | Case T-684/20: Order of the General Court of 15 December 2021 — Legero Schuhfabrik v EUIPO — Rieker Schuh (Shoe) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a shoe — Earlier national and Community designs produced after the filing of the application for a declaration of invalidity — Article 28(1)(b)(v) of Regulation (EC) No 2245/2002 — Grounds for invalidity — Lack of novelty — No individual character — Degree of freedom of the designer — No different overall impression — Articles 5 and 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law) | 23 |
| 2022/C 109/32 | Case T-734/20: Order of the General Court of 15 December 2021 — Boquoi Handels v EUIPO (Representation of an ice crystal on a blue circular background) (EU trade mark — Application for registration of a figurative sign representing an ice crystal on a blue circular background — Partial rejection of the application — Withdrawal of the application for registration — No need to adjudicate) | 23 |
| 2022/C 109/33 | Case T-785/21: Action brought on 20 December 2021 — SC Ha Ha Ha Production v EUIPO — The Smiley Company (SMILEY) | 24 |
| 2022/C 109/34 | Case T-803/21: Action brought on 27 December 2021 — NQ v Council and Others | 25 |
| 2022/C 109/35 | Case T-4/22: Action brought on 4 January 2022 — Puma v EUIPO — Doosan Machine Tools (PUMA) | 26 |
| 2022/C 109/36 | Case T-11/22: Action brought on 7 January 2022 — Medivet Group v EUIPO (MEDIVET) | 27 |
| 2022/C 109/37 | Case T-12/22: Action brought on 7 January 2022 — Hasco TM v EUIPO — Esi (NATURCAPS) | 27 |
| 2022/C 109/38 | Case T-22/22: Action brought on 13 January 2022 — AL v Council | 28 |
| 2022/C 109/39 | Case T-26/22: Action brought on 13 January 2022 — CIMV v Commission | 30 |
| 2022/C 109/40 | Case T-27/22: Action brought on 18 January 2022 — Innovaciones Cosmético Farmacéuticas v EUIPO — Benito Oliver (th pharma) | 30 |
| 2022/C 109/41 | Case T-28/22: Action brought on 14 January 2022 — Ryanair v Commission | 31 |
| 2022/C 109/42 | Case T-32/22: Action brought on 19 January 2022 — Vyatsky Plywood Mill v Commission | 32 |
| 2022/C 109/43 | Case T-34/22: Action brought on 20 January 2022 — Cunsorziu di i Salamaghji Corsi — Consortium des Charcutiers Corses and Others v Commission | 33 |
| 2022/C 109/44 | Case T-45/22: Action brought on 24 January 2022 — Weider Germany v EUIPO — Den i Nosht (YIPPIE!) | 34 |
| 2022/C 109/45 | Case T-46/22: Action brought on 25 January 2022 — Esedra v Parliament | 34 |
| 2022/C 109/46 | Case T-836/19: Order of the General Court of 20 December 2021 — Première Vision v EUIPO — Vente Privee.com (PV) | 35 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2022/C 109/02

Joined Cases C-177/19 P to C-179/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 January 2022 — Federal Republic of Germany v Ville de Paris (France), Ville de Bruxelles (Belgium), Ayuntamiento de Madrid (Spain), European Commission (C-177/19 P), Hungary v Ville de Paris (France), Ville de Bruxelles (Belgium), Ayuntamiento de Madrid (Spain), European Commission (C-178/19 P), European Commission v Ville de Paris (France), Ville de Bruxelles (Belgium), Ayuntamiento de Madrid (Spain) (C-179/19 P) (Appeal — Action for annulment — Environment — Type approval of motor vehicles — Regulation (EU) 2016/646 — Emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 6) — Setting of the not-to-exceed (NTE) values for emissions of oxides of nitrogen during the real driving emission (RDE) tests — Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU — Admissibility of an action — Infra-State entity with powers in the field of environmental protection to limit the circulation of certain vehicles — Condition that the applicant must be directly concerned)

2

2022/C 109/03

Case C-282/19: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 January 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Napoli — Italy) — YT and Others v Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca — MIUR, Ufficio Scolastico Regionale per la Campania (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 1999/70/EC — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Clauses 4 and 5 — Fixed-term employment contracts in the public sector — Catholic religious education teachers — Concept of objective reasons justifying the renewal of such contracts — Permanent need for replacement staff)

3

2022/C 109/04

Case C-377/19: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 January 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Benedetti Pietro e Angelo Ss and Others v Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Milk and milk products sector — Quotas — Additional levy — Regulation (EC) No 1788/2003 — Deliveries exceeding the producer’s available reference quantity — Collection of the contribution to the excess levy by the purchaser — Refund of levies overpaid — Regulation (EC) No 595/2004 — Article 16 — Criteria for redistributing the excess levy)

4

2022/C 109/05

Case C-881/19: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 January 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud v Brně — Czech Republic) — Tesco Stores ČR a.s. v Ministerstvo zemědělství (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Approximation of the laws — Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 — Point 2(a) of Part E of Annex VII — Provision of food information to consumers — Labelling and presentation of foodstuffs — Directive 2000/36/EC — Point 2(c) of Part A of Annex I — Cocoa and chocolate products — List of ingredients of a food intended for consumers in a Member State)

4

2022/C 109/06

Case C-55/20: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 January 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Dyscyplinarny Izby Adwokackiej w Warszawie — Poland) — Proceedings initiated by the Minister Sprawiedliwości (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Article 267 TFEU — Definition of court or tribunal of a Member State — Bar Association Disciplinary Court — Disciplinary investigation initiated against a lawyer — Decision of the Disciplinary Agent finding that there was no disciplinary offence and terminating the investigation — Appeal by the Minister for Justice to the Bar Association Disciplinary Court — Directive 2006/123/EC — Services in the internal market — Article 4, point (6), and Article 10(6) — Authorisation scheme — Withdrawal of authorisation — Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Not applicable)

5

2022/C 109/07

Case C-110/20: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 January 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Regione Puglia v Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Energy — Directive 94/22/EC — Conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons — Authorisation for the prospection of hydrocarbons in a specific geographical area for a specified period — Contiguous areas — Grant of several authorisations to the same operator — Directive 2011/92/EU — Article 4(2) and (3) — Environmental impact assessment)

6

2022/C 109/08

Case C-156/20: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 January 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom — United Kingdom) — Zipvit Ltd v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 168 — Right of deduction — Supply of postal services mistakenly exempted — VAT deemed to be included in the commercial price of the supply for the purpose of exercising the right of deduction — Not included — Concept of VAT due or paid)

6

2022/C 109/09

Case C-326/20: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 January 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā apgabaltiesa — Latvia) — MONO SIA v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Excise duties — Directive 2008/118/EC — Exemption from the harmonised excise duty — Goods intended for use in the context of diplomatic or consular relations — Conditions for the application of the exemption laid down by the host Member State — Payment by means other than cash)

7

2022/C 109/10

Case C-327/20: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 13 January 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Opolu — Poland) — Skarb Państwa — Starosta Nyski v New Media Development & Hotel Services Sp. z o.o. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2011/7/EU — Combating late payment in commercial transactions — Scope — Concept of commercial transactions — Public authority acting as a creditor of an undertaking — Excluded — Handing over by a public authority of an immovable property in perpetual usufruct to an undertaking against payment of an annual fee)

8

2022/C 109/11

Case C-351/20 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 January 2022 — Liviu Dragnea v European Commission (Appeal — Investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) — Investigation reports — Request for an investigation to be opened into the conduct of previous OLAF investigations — Request to access documents — Letter of refusal — Article 263 TFEU — Decision against which an action for annulment may be brought — Time limit for bringing proceedings — Action against a letter confirming OLAF’s investigation reports — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Article 6 and Article 7(2) — Obligation to inform the applicant of his or her right to make a confirmatory application)

8

2022/C 109/12

Case C-361/20 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 January 2022 — YG v European Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Official — Promotion — 2017 promotion procedure — Decision not to promote the appellant — Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union — Comparison of the merits — Principle of equal treatment — Duty to state reasons)

9

2022/C 109/13

Case C-363/20: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 January 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — MARCAS MC Szolgáltató Zrt. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Companies — Corporate tax — Tax audit — Scope of application of EU law — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 51(1) — Implementation of EU law — Absence — Fourth Directive 78/660/EEC — Annual accounts of certain types of companies — Accounting of revenue from intellectual property rights — Article 2(3) — Principle of true and fair view — Article 31 — Valuation of items in the annual accounts — Compliance with accounting principles)

9

2022/C 109/14

Case C-513/20: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 January 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira v Termas Sulfurosas de Alcafache SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 132(1)(b) — Exemptions for certain activities in the public interest — Exemption of hospital and medical care — Closely related activities — Thermal treatment — Amount charged for compiling an individual file including the user’s clinical history)

10

2022/C 109/15

Case C-514/20: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 January 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — DS v Koch Personaldienstleistungen GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 31(2) — Directive 2003/88/EC — Organisation of working time — Article 7 — Annual leave — Working time — Overtime — Calculation of working time on a monthly basis — No overtime pay when taking annual leave)

11

2022/C 109/16

Case C-683/20: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 January 2022 — European Commission v Slovak Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environment — Directive 2002/49/EC — Assessment and management of environmental noise — Major roads and major railways — Article 8(2) — Action plans — Article 10(2) — Annex VI — Summaries of action plans — Failure to communicate to the Commission within the prescribed period)

11

2022/C 109/17

Case C-724/20: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 January 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Paget Approbois SAS v Depeyre entreprises SARL, Alpha Insurance A/S (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Business of Insurance and Reinsurance — Directive 2009/138/EC — Winding-up of insurance undertakings — Article 292 — Effects of winding-up proceedings on pending lawsuits — Exception to the application of the lex concursus — Lex processus)

12

2022/C 109/18

Case C-623/21: Order of the President of the Court of 29 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Stuttgart — Germany) — Société Air France SA v AQ and Others (Air transport — Compensation to air passengers in the event of cancellation or long delay of flights — Distinction between denied boarding, cancellation and long delay where there is a re-routing flight resulting in a delay shorter than the delay caused by taking the flight originally booked)

13

2022/C 109/19

Case C-697/21: Order of the President of the Court of 5 January 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — PW v Eurowings GmbH (Air transport — Compensation to air passengers in the event of cancellation of flights — Means by which the cost of the ticket is reimbursed — Reimbursement by travel voucher — Request to be reimbursed in cash)

13

2022/C 109/20

Case C-548/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Tirol (Austria) lodged on 6 September 2021 — C.G. v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Landeck

14

2022/C 109/21

Case C-725/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije (Slovenia) lodged on 30 November 2021 — SOMEO S.A., formerly PEARL STREAM S.A. v Republic of Slovenia

14

2022/C 109/22

Case C-752/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Haskovo (Bulgaria) lodged on 7 December 2021 — JP EOOD v Otdel Mitnichesko razsledvane i razuznavane v Teritorialna direktsia Mitnitsa Burgas

15

2022/C 109/23

Case C-767/21 P: Appeal brought on 8 December 2021 by Jérôme Rivière and Others against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 6 October 2021 in Case T-88/20, Rivière and Others v Parliament

16

2022/C 109/24

Case C-788/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Retten i Esbjerg (Denmark) lodged on 17 December 2021 — Skatteministeriet Departementet v Global Gravity ApS

17

2022/C 109/25

Case C-808/21: Action brought on 21 December 2021 — European Commission v Czech Republic

18

2022/C 109/26

Case C-29/22 P: Appeal brought on 12 January 2022 by KS and KD against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 10 November 2021 in Case T-771/20, KS and KD v Council and Others

18

2022/C 109/27

Case C-44/22 P: Appeal brought on 19 January 2022 by European Commission against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 10 November 2021 in Case T-771/20, KS and KD v Council and Others

19

General Court

2022/C 109/28

Case T-321/17: Order of the General Court of 20 December 2021 — Niemelä and Others v ECB (Action for annulment — Economic and monetary policy — Prudential supervision of credit institutions — Specific supervisory tasks assigned to the ECB — Decision to withdraw a credit institution’s authorisation — Replacement of the contested measure in the course of the proceedings — Action which has become devoid of purpose — Loss of interest in bringing proceedings — No need to adjudicate — Action for damages — Manifest inadmissibility)

21

2022/C 109/29

Case T-682/20: Order of the General Court of 15 December 2021 — Legero Schuhfabrik v EUIPO — Rieker Schuh (Shoe) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a shoe — Earlier national and Community designs produced after the filing of the application for a declaration of invalidity — Article 28(1)(b)(v) of Regulation (EC) No 2245/2002 — Grounds for invalidity — Lack of novelty — No individual character — Degree of freedom of the designer — No different overall impression — Articles 5 and 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

22

2022/C 109/30

Case T-683/20: Order of the General Court of 15 December 2021 — Legero Schuhfabrik v EUIPO — Rieker Schuh (Shoe) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a shoe — Earlier national and Community designs produced after the filing of the application for a declaration of invalidity — Article 28(1)(b)(v) of Regulation (EC) No 2245/2002 — Grounds for invalidity — Lack of novelty — No individual character — Degree of freedom of the designer — No different overall impression — Articles 5 and 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

22

2022/C 109/31

Case T-684/20: Order of the General Court of 15 December 2021 — Legero Schuhfabrik v EUIPO — Rieker Schuh (Shoe) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a shoe — Earlier national and Community designs produced after the filing of the application for a declaration of invalidity — Article 28(1)(b)(v) of Regulation (EC) No 2245/2002 — Grounds for invalidity — Lack of novelty — No individual character — Degree of freedom of the designer — No different overall impression — Articles 5 and 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

23

2022/C 109/32

Case T-734/20: Order of the General Court of 15 December 2021 — Boquoi Handels v EUIPO (Representation of an ice crystal on a blue circular background) (EU trade mark — Application for registration of a figurative sign representing an ice crystal on a blue circular background — Partial rejection of the application — Withdrawal of the application for registration — No need to adjudicate)

23

2022/C 109/33

Case T-785/21: Action brought on 20 December 2021 — SC Ha Ha Ha Production v EUIPO — The Smiley Company (SMILEY)

24

2022/C 109/34

Case T-803/21: Action brought on 27 December 2021 — NQ v Council and Others

25

2022/C 109/35

Case T-4/22: Action brought on 4 January 2022 — Puma v EUIPO — Doosan Machine Tools (PUMA)

26

2022/C 109/36

Case T-11/22: Action brought on 7 January 2022 — Medivet Group v EUIPO (MEDIVET)

27

2022/C 109/37

Case T-12/22: Action brought on 7 January 2022 — Hasco TM v EUIPO — Esi (NATURCAPS)

27

2022/C 109/38

Case T-22/22: Action brought on 13 January 2022 — AL v Council

28

2022/C 109/39

Case T-26/22: Action brought on 13 January 2022 — CIMV v Commission

30

2022/C 109/40

Case T-27/22: Action brought on 18 January 2022 — Innovaciones Cosmético Farmacéuticas v EUIPO — Benito Oliver (th pharma)

30

2022/C 109/41

Case T-28/22: Action brought on 14 January 2022 — Ryanair v Commission

31

2022/C 109/42

Case T-32/22: Action brought on 19 January 2022 — Vyatsky Plywood Mill v Commission

32

2022/C 109/43

Case T-34/22: Action brought on 20 January 2022 — Cunsorziu di i Salamaghji Corsi — Consortium des Charcutiers Corses and Others v Commission

33

2022/C 109/44

Case T-45/22: Action brought on 24 January 2022 — Weider Germany v EUIPO — Den i Nosht (YIPPIE!)

34

2022/C 109/45

Case T-46/22: Action brought on 25 January 2022 — Esedra v Parliament

34

2022/C 109/46

Case T-836/19: Order of the General Court of 20 December 2021 — Première Vision v EUIPO — Vente Privee.com (PV)

35

---

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 7.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/1

---

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

(2022/C 109/01)

Last publication

OJ C 95, 28.2.2022

Past publications

OJ C 84, 21.2.2022

OJ C 73, 14.2.2022

OJ C 64, 7.2.2022

OJ C 51, 31.1.2022

OJ C 37, 24.1.2022

OJ C 24, 17.1.2022

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 7.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 January 2022 — Federal Republic of Germany v Ville de Paris (France), Ville de Bruxelles (Belgium), Ayuntamiento de Madrid (Spain), European Commission (C-177/19 P), Hungary v Ville de Paris (France), Ville de Bruxelles (Belgium), Ayuntamiento de Madrid (Spain), European Commission (C-178/19 P), European Commission v Ville de Paris (France), Ville de Bruxelles (Belgium), Ayuntamiento de Madrid (Spain) (C-179/19 P)

(Joined Cases C-177/19 P to C-179/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Action for annulment - Environment - Type approval of motor vehicles - Regulation (EU) 2016/646 - Emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 6) - Setting of the not-to-exceed (NTE) values for emissions of oxides of nitrogen during the real driving emission (RDE) tests - Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU - Admissibility of an action - Infra-State entity with powers in the field of environmental protection to limit the circulation of certain vehicles - Condition that the applicant must be directly concerned)

(2022/C 109/02)

Language of the case: Spanish and French

Parties

(Case C-177/19 P)

Appellant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: J. Möller, D. Klebs and S. Eisenberg, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Ville de Paris (France) (represented by: J. Assous, avocat), Ville de Bruxelles (Belgium) (represented by: M. Uyttendaele, C. Derave, N. Mouraux and A. Feyt, avocats, and by S. Kaisergruber, Rechtsanwalt), Ayuntamiento de Madrid (Spain) (represented by: J. Assous, avocat), European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland and M. Huttunen, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the appellant: European Automobile Manufacturers Association (represented by: F. Di Gianni and G. Coppo, avvocati), Romania (represented: initially by E. Gane, O.C. Ichim, L. Liţu and C.R. Canţăr, and subsequently by E. Gane, O. C. Ichim and L. Liţu, acting as Agents), Slovak Republic (represented by: B. Ricziová, acting as Agent)

(Case C-178/19 P)

Appellant: Hungary (represented by: M.Z. Fehér, acting as Agent)

Other parties to the proceedings: Ville de Paris (France) (represented by: J. Assous, avocat), Ville de Bruxelles (Belgium) (represented by: M. Uyttendaele, C. Derave, N. Mouraux and A. Feyt, avocats, and by S. Kaisergruber, Rechtsanwalt), Ayuntamiento de Madrid (Spain) (represented by: J. Assous, avocat), European Commission (represented by: J.F. Brakeland and M. Huttunen, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the appellant: European Automobile Manufacturers Association (represented by: F. Di Gianni and G. Coppo, avvocati)

(Case C-179/19 P)

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: J.F. Brakeland, acting as Agent)

Other parties to the proceedings: Ville de Paris (France) (represented by: J. Assous, avocat), Ville de Bruxelles (Belgium) (represented by: M. Uyttendaele, C. Derave, N. Mouraux and A. Feyt, avocats, and by S. Kaisergruber, Rechtsanwalt), Ayuntamiento de Madrid (Spain) (represented by: J. Assous, avocat)

Intervener in support of the appellant: European Automobile Manufacturers Association (represented by: F. Di Gianni and G. Coppo, avvocati)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 13 December 2018, Ville de Paris, Ville de Bruxelles and Ayuntamiento de Madrid v Commission (T-339/16, T-352/16 and T-391/16, EU:T:2018:927); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 13 December 2018, Ville de Paris, Ville de Bruxelles and Ayuntamiento de Madrid v Commission (T-339/16, T-352/16 and T-391/16, EU:T:2018:927);

| 2. | Dismisses as inadmissible the actions for annulment in Joined Cases T-339/16, T-352/16 and T-391/16, brought, respectively, by the ville de Paris, the ville de Bruxelles and the ayuntamiento de Madrid; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses as inadmissible the actions for annulment in Joined Cases T-339/16, T-352/16 and T-391/16, brought, respectively, by the ville de Paris, the ville de Bruxelles and the ayuntamiento de Madrid;

| 3. | Orders each party to bear its own costs relating to the appeals; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders each party to bear its own costs relating to the appeals;

| 4. | Orders the ville de Paris, the ville de Bruxelles and the ayuntamiento de Madrid to pay, in addition to their own costs relating to the proceedings at first instance and the appeals, the costs incurred by the European Commission in relation to proceedings at first instance. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the ville de Paris, the ville de Bruxelles and the ayuntamiento de Madrid to pay, in addition to their own costs relating to the proceedings at first instance and the appeals, the costs incurred by the European Commission in relation to proceedings at first instance.

---

(1)  OJ C 155, 6.5.2019.

---

| 7.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 January 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Napoli — Italy) — YT and Others v Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca — MIUR, Ufficio Scolastico Regionale per la Campania

(Case C-282/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 1999/70/EC - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Clauses 4 and 5 - Fixed-term employment contracts in the public sector - Catholic religious education teachers - Concept of ‘objective reasons’ justifying the renewal of such contracts - Permanent need for replacement staff)

(2022/C 109/03)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Napoli

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: YT, ZU, AW, BY, CX, DZ, EA, FB, GC, IE, JF, KG, LH, MI, NY, PL, HD, OK

Defendants: Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca — MIUR, Ufficio Scolastico Regionale per la Campania

Intervener: Federazione GILDA-UNAMS

Operative part of the judgment

Clause 5 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999, which is annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted, first, as precluding national legislation excluding Catholic religious education teachers in public education establishments from the scope of the rules intended to penalise abuse arising from the use of successive fixed-term contracts where there is no other effective measure in the domestic legal system penalising that abuse and, second, as meaning that the requirement to hold a suitability certificate issued by an ecclesiastical authority for the purposes of allowing those teachers to provide Catholic religious education does not constitute an ‘objective reason’ within the meaning of Clause 5(1)(a) of the framework agreement, because that certificate is issued once and not before each school year leading to the conclusion of a fixed-term employment contract.

---

(1)  OJ C 206, 17.6.2019.

---

| 7.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 January 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Benedetti Pietro e Angelo Ss and Others v Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA)

(Case C-377/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Milk and milk products sector - Quotas - Additional levy - Regulation (EC) No 1788/2003 - Deliveries exceeding the producer’s available reference quantity - Collection of the contribution to the excess levy by the purchaser - Refund of levies overpaid - Regulation (EC) No 595/2004 - Article 16 - Criteria for redistributing the excess levy)

(2022/C 109/04)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Benedetti Pietro e Angelo Ss, Capparotto Giampaolo e Lorenzino Ss, Gonzo Dino Ss, Mantovani Giuseppe e Giorgio Ss, Azienda agricola Padovani Luigi, Azienda agricola La Pila di Mastrotto Piergiorgio e C. Ss, Azienda agricola Mastrotto Giuseppe, Soc. agr. semplice F.lli Isolan

Respondent: Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 16(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 595/2004 of 30 March 2004 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1788/2003 establishing a levy in the milk and milk products sector must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which has the effect that reimbursement of the excess amount of the additional levy must, as a matter of priority, benefit producers in respect of whom purchasers have fulfilled their obligation to pay that levy on a monthly basis.

---

(1)  OJ C 312, 16.9.2019.

---

| 7.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 January 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud v Brně — Czech Republic) — Tesco Stores ČR a.s. v Ministerstvo zemědělství

(Case C-881/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Approximation of the laws - Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 - Point 2(a) of Part E of Annex VII - Provision of food information to consumers - Labelling and presentation of foodstuffs - Directive 2000/36/EC - Point 2(c) of Part A of Annex I - Cocoa and chocolate products - List of ingredients of a food intended for consumers in a Member State)

(2022/C 109/05)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Krajský soud v Brně

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Tesco Stores ČR a.s.

Defendant: Ministerstvo zemědělství

Operative part of the judgment

Point 2(a) of Part E of Annex VII to Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on the provision of food information to consumers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1924/2006 and (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Commission Directive 87/250/EEC, Council Directive 90/496/EEC, Commission Directive 1999/10/EC, Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Commission Directives 2002/67/EC and 2008/5/EC and Commission Regulation (EC) No 608/2004, must be interpreted as meaning that an economic operator, when labelling products marketed in the territory of a Member State, is exempt from the obligation to list all the ingredients constituting a compound ingredient, within the meaning of Article 2(2)(h) of that regulation, only if that compound ingredient, which is the subject of a sales name under Part A of Annex I to Directive 2000/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 June 2000 relating to cocoa and chocolate products intended for human consumption, is designated in the list of ingredients using that sales name, in the language version of the Member State concerned.

---

(1)  OJ C 68, 2.3.2020.

---

| 7.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 January 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Dyscyplinarny Izby Adwokackiej w Warszawie — Poland) — Proceedings initiated by the Minister Sprawiedliwości

(Case C-55/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Admissibility - Article 267 TFEU - Definition of ‘court or tribunal of a Member State’ - Bar Association Disciplinary Court - Disciplinary investigation initiated against a lawyer - Decision of the Disciplinary Agent finding that there was no disciplinary offence and terminating the investigation - Appeal by the Minister for Justice to the Bar Association Disciplinary Court - Directive 2006/123/EC - Services in the internal market - Article 4, point (6), and Article 10(6) - Authorisation scheme - Withdrawal of authorisation - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Not applicable)

(2022/C 109/06)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Dyscyplinarny Izby Adwokackiej w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Minister Sprawiedliwości

Intervening parties: Prokurator Krajowy — Pierwszy Zastępca Prokuratora Generalnego, Rzecznik Dyscyplinarny Izby Adwokackiej w Warszawie

Operative part of the judgment

Article 10(6) of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market must be interpreted as not having the effect of rendering Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union applicable to appeal proceedings brought by a State authority before a Bar Association Disciplinary Court and seeking annulment of a decision by which a Disciplinary Agent closed an investigation into a lawyer after finding that there was no disciplinary offence attributable to that lawyer and, should that decision be annulled, to the referral back of the file to that disciplinary agent.

---

(1)  OJ C 191, 8.6.2020.

---

| 7.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 January 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Regione Puglia v Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare and Others

(Case C-110/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Energy - Directive 94/22/EC - Conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons - Authorisation for the prospection of hydrocarbons in a specific geographical area for a specified period - Contiguous areas - Grant of several authorisations to the same operator - Directive 2011/92/EU - Article 4(2) and (3) - Environmental impact assessment)

(2022/C 109/07)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Regione Puglia

Respondents: Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare, Ministero dei Beni e delle Attività culturali e del Turismo, Ministero dello Sviluppo economico, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Commissione tecnica di verifica dell’impatto ambientale

Intervener: Global Petroleum Ltd

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons and Article 4(2) and (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 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which lays down an upper limit on the size of the area that may be covered by a hydrocarbon exploration permit, but does not expressly prohibit granting the same operator more than one permit for adjacent areas that together cover an area exceeding that limit, provided that doing so is such as to ensure the best possible exercise of the exploration activity concerned from both a technical and economic point of view, and the achievement of the objectives pursued by Directive 94/22. It is also necessary, in the context of the environmental impact assessment, to assess the cumulative effect of projects likely to have significant effects on the environment, which are presented by that operator in its applications for hydrocarbon exploration permits.

---

(1)  OJ C 247, 27.7.2020.

---

| 7.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/6

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 January 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom — United Kingdom) — Zipvit Ltd v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

(Case C-156/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 168 - Right of deduction - Supply of postal services mistakenly exempted - VAT deemed to be included in the commercial price of the supply for the purpose of exercising the right of deduction - Not included - Concept of VAT ‘due or paid’)

(2022/C 109/08)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Zipvit Ltd

Defendant: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Operative part of the judgment

Article 168(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that value added tax (VAT) cannot be regarded as being due or paid, within the meaning of that provision, and is therefore not deductible by the taxable person, in the case where, first, that person and its supplier have mistakenly assumed, on the basis of an incorrect interpretation of EU law by the national authorities, that the supplies at issue were exempt from VAT and that, consequently, the invoices issued did not refer to it, in a situation where the contract between those two persons provides that, if that tax were due, the recipient of the supply should bear the cost of it, and, second, no step to recover the VAT was taken in good time, with the result that any action by the supplier and the tax and customs administration to recover the unpaid VAT is time-barred.

---

(1)  OJ C 215, 29.6.2020.

---

| 7.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 January 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā apgabaltiesa — Latvia) — ‘MONO’ SIA v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

(Case C-326/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Excise duties - Directive 2008/118/EC - Exemption from the harmonised excise duty - Goods intended for use in the context of diplomatic or consular relations - Conditions for the application of the exemption laid down by the host Member State - Payment by means other than cash)

(2022/C 109/09)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Administratīvā apgabaltiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘MONO’ SIA

Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Operative part of the judgment

Article 12 of Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC must be interpreted as precluding the host Member State, where it lays down conditions and limits for the application of the exemption from excise duty on goods used in the context of diplomatic and consular relations, from making the application of that exemption subject to the condition that the purchase price of those goods be paid by means of payment other than cash.

---

(1)  OJ C 329, 5.10.2020.

---

| 7.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 13 January 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Opolu — Poland) — Skarb Państwa — Starosta Nyski v New Media Development & Hotel Services Sp. z o.o.

(Case C-327/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2011/7/EU - Combating late payment in commercial transactions - Scope - Concept of ‘commercial transactions’ - Public authority acting as a creditor of an undertaking - Excluded - Handing over by a public authority of an immovable property in perpetual usufruct to an undertaking against payment of an annual fee)

(2022/C 109/10)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Opolu

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Skarb Państwa — Starosta Nyski

Defendant: New Media Development & Hotel Services Sp. z o.o.

Operative part of the judgment

The concept of ‘commercial transaction’ within the meaning of Article 2(1) of Directive 2011/7/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on combating late payment in commercial transactions must be interpreted as meaning that it does not cover the collection, by a public authority, of a payment due as remuneration for the perpetual usufruct of a plot of land from an undertaking of which that public authority is the creditor.

---

(1)  OJ C 28, 25.1.2021.

---

| 7.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 January 2022 — Liviu Dragnea v European Commission

(Case C-351/20 P) (1)

(Appeal - Investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) - Investigation reports - Request for an investigation to be opened into the conduct of previous OLAF investigations - Request to access documents - Letter of refusal - Article 263 TFEU - Decision against which an action for annulment may be brought - Time limit for bringing proceedings - Action against a letter confirming OLAF’s investigation reports - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Article 6 and Article 7(2) - Obligation to inform the applicant of his or her right to make a confirmatory application)

(2022/C 109/11)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Liviu Dragnea (represented by: C. Toby, O. Riffaud and B. Entringer, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J.-P. Keppenne and J. Baquero Cruz, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court hereby:

| 1. | Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 12 May 2020, Dragnea v Commission, (T-738/18, not published, EU:T:2020:208), to the extent that, by that order, the General Court dismissed as inadmissible the action brought by Mr Liviu Dragnea for annulment of the letter from the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) of 1 October 2018, in so far as, by that letter, OLAF refused to grant him access to the documents requested in his letter of 22 August 2018; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 12 May 2020, Dragnea v Commission, (T-738/18, not published, EU:T:2020:208), to the extent that, by that order, the General Court dismissed as inadmissible the action brought by Mr Liviu Dragnea for annulment of the letter from the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) of 1 October 2018, in so far as, by that letter, OLAF refused to grant him access to the documents requested in his letter of 22 August 2018;

| 2. | Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for judgment on this head of the application for annulment; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for judgment on this head of the application for annulment;

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

3.

Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder;

| 4. | Orders Mr Liviu Dragnea and the European Commission to bear their own costs incurred in the context of the present appeal; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Mr Liviu Dragnea and the European Commission to bear their own costs incurred in the context of the present appeal;

| 5. | Reserves the costs as to the remainder. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Reserves the costs as to the remainder.

---

(1)  OJ C 313, 21.9.2020.

---

| 7.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 January 2022 — YG v European Commission

(Case C-361/20 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Official - Promotion - 2017 promotion procedure - Decision not to promote the appellant - Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union - Comparison of the merits - Principle of equal treatment - Duty to state reasons)

(2022/C 109/12)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: YG (represented by: A. Champetier and S. Rodrigues, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Hohenecker, L. Vernier and L. Radu Bouyon, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

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

2.

Orders YG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 433, 14.12.2020.

---

| 7.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 January 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — MARCAS MC Szolgáltató Zrt. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

(Case C-363/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Companies - Corporate tax - Tax audit - Scope of application of EU law - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 51(1) - Implementation of EU law - Absence - Fourth Directive 78/660/EEC - Annual accounts of certain types of companies - Accounting of revenue from intellectual property rights - Article 2(3) - Principle of true and fair view - Article 31 - Valuation of items in the annual accounts - Compliance with accounting principles)

(2022/C 109/13)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: MARCAS MC Szolgáltató Zrt.

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The Court of Justice of the European Union does not have jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Budapest High Court, Hungary) by decision of 29 June 2020 in so far as they concern practices of the tax authorities of a Member State relating to the monitoring and sanctioning of tax offences in the field of corporate tax; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Court of Justice of the European Union does not have jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Budapest High Court, Hungary) by decision of 29 June 2020 in so far as they concern practices of the tax authorities of a Member State relating to the monitoring and sanctioning of tax offences in the field of corporate tax;

| 2. | Article 2(3) and Article 31 of Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC of 25 July 1978 based on Article [50(2)(g) TFEU] on the annual accounts of certain types of companies, as amended by Directive 2003/51/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2003 must be interpreted as not precluding a practice of the tax authorities of a Member State challenging the accounting entries of a company on the ground that they do not comply with the principles of completeness and independence of financial years, as set out in the legislation of that Member State, even though all the other accounting principles laid down by that legislation are complied with, where such non-compliance does not constitute an exceptional and necessary derogation to ensure compliance with the principle of true and fair view, which must be disclosed in the notes to the annual accounts and duly substantiated, together with a statement regarding its effect on the assets, liabilities, financial position and profit or loss. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 2(3) and Article 31 of Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC of 25 July 1978 based on Article [50(2)(g) TFEU] on the annual accounts of certain types of companies, as amended by Directive 2003/51/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2003 must be interpreted as not precluding a practice of the tax authorities of a Member State challenging the accounting entries of a company on the ground that they do not comply with the principles of completeness and independence of financial years, as set out in the legislation of that Member State, even though all the other accounting principles laid down by that legislation are complied with, where such non-compliance does not constitute an exceptional and necessary derogation to ensure compliance with the principle of true and fair view, which must be disclosed in the notes to the annual accounts and duly substantiated, together with a statement regarding its effect on the assets, liabilities, financial position and profit or loss.

---

(1)  OJ C 413, 7.12.2020.

---

| 7.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 January 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira v Termas Sulfurosas de Alcafache SA

(Case C-513/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 132(1)(b) - Exemptions for certain activities in the public interest - Exemption of hospital and medical care - Closely related activities - Thermal treatment - Amount charged for compiling an individual file including the user’s clinical history)

(2022/C 109/14)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Respondent: Termas Sulfurosas de Alcafache SA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 132(1)(b) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that an activity consisting in compiling an individual file, including the user’s clinical record, which entitles the user to purchase ‘traditional thermal cure’ medical care within a spa establishment, is liable to come within the exemption from value added tax provided for in that provision as an activity closely related to medical care, where those files set out data relating to the user’s state of health, planned and prescribed medical care as well as the manner in which that care is to be administered which must be consulted for the provision of care and to achieve the therapeutic objectives pursued. That medical care and activities closely related to it must also be undertaken, under social conditions comparable with those applicable to bodies governed by public law, by a centre for medical treatment or diagnosis or by another duly recognised establishment of a similar nature within the meaning of Article 132(1)(b).

---

(1)  OJ C 19, 18.1.2021.

---

| 7.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 January 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — DS v Koch Personaldienstleistungen GmbH

(Case C-514/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 31(2) - Directive 2003/88/EC - Organisation of working time - Article 7 - Annual leave - Working time - Overtime - Calculation of working time on a monthly basis - No overtime pay when taking annual leave)

(2022/C 109/15)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: DS

Defendant: Koch Personaldienstleistungen GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, read in the light of Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as precluding a provision in a collective labour agreement under which, in order to determine whether the threshold of hours worked granting entitlement to overtime pay is reached, the hours corresponding to the period of paid annual leave taken by the worker are not to be taken into account as hours worked.

---

(1)  OJ C 19, 18.1.2021.

---

| 7.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 January 2022 — European Commission v Slovak Republic

(Case C-683/20) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Directive 2002/49/EC - Assessment and management of environmental noise - Major roads and major railways - Article 8(2) - Action plans - Article 10(2) - Annex VI - Summaries of action plans - Failure to communicate to the Commission within the prescribed period)

(2022/C 109/16)

Language of the case: Slovak

Parties

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

Defendant: Slovak Republic (represented by: B. Ricziová, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing, first, to draw up action plans for the major roads and major railways referred to in the annex to this judgment, and, secondly, by not communicating to the European Commission summaries of those action plans, the Slovak Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8(2) and under Article 10(2) of Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise, read in conjunction with Annex VI thereto, respectively; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing, first, to draw up action plans for the major roads and major railways referred to in the annex to this judgment, and, secondly, by not communicating to the European Commission summaries of those action plans, the Slovak Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8(2) and under Article 10(2) of Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise, read in conjunction with Annex VI thereto, respectively;

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

2.

Orders the Slovak Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 53, 15.2.2021.

---

| 7.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 January 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Paget Approbois SAS v Depeyre entreprises SARL, Alpha Insurance A/S

(Case C-724/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of establishment - Freedom to provide services - Business of Insurance and Reinsurance - Directive 2009/138/EC - Winding-up of insurance undertakings - Article 292 - Effects of winding-up proceedings on pending lawsuits - Exception to the application of the lex concursus - Lex processus)

(2022/C 109/17)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Paget Approbois SAS

Defendant: Depeyre entreprises SARL, Alpha Insurance A/S

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 292 of Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II) must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘pending lawsuit concerning an asset or a right of which the insurance undertaking has been divested’, referred to in that article, includes a pending lawsuit concerning an insurance compensation claim brought by a policyholder in respect of losses sustained in one Member State against an insurance undertaking subject to winding-up proceedings in another Member State. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 292 of Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II) must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘pending lawsuit concerning an asset or a right of which the insurance undertaking has been divested’, referred to in that article, includes a pending lawsuit concerning an insurance compensation claim brought by a policyholder in respect of losses sustained in one Member State against an insurance undertaking subject to winding-up proceedings in another Member State.

| 2. | Article 292 of Directive 2009/138/EC must be interpreted as meaning that the law of the Member State in which the proceedings are pending, within the meaning of that article, is intended to govern all the effects of the winding-up proceedings on the pending lawsuit. In particular, it is appropriate to apply the law of that Member State which, first, provides that the opening of such proceedings results in the suspension of the pending lawsuit, secondly, make the resumption of the proceedings conditional upon the creditor having lodged his claim for an insurance indemnity against the insurance undertaking and upon notice of the dispute having been given to the bodies responsible for conducting the winding-up proceedings, and thirdly, precludes an order to pay the insurance compensation, since such an order can no longer be the subject of a judgment except relating to the determination and fixing the amount of the compensation, since, in principle, such provisions do not encroach on the jurisdiction reserved to the law of the home Member State pursuant to Article 274(2) of that directive. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 292 of Directive 2009/138/EC must be interpreted as meaning that the law of the Member State in which the proceedings are pending, within the meaning of that article, is intended to govern all the effects of the winding-up proceedings on the pending lawsuit. In particular, it is appropriate to apply the law of that Member State which, first, provides that the opening of such proceedings results in the suspension of the pending lawsuit, secondly, make the resumption of the proceedings conditional upon the creditor having lodged his claim for an insurance indemnity against the insurance undertaking and upon notice of the dispute having been given to the bodies responsible for conducting the winding-up proceedings, and thirdly, precludes an order to pay the insurance compensation, since such an order can no longer be the subject of a judgment except relating to the determination and fixing the amount of the compensation, since, in principle, such provisions do not encroach on the jurisdiction reserved to the law of the home Member State pursuant to Article 274(2) of that directive.

---

(1)  OJ C 79, 8.3.2021.

---

| 7.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/13

---

Order of the President of the Court of 29 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Stuttgart — Germany) — Société Air France SA v AQ and Others

(Case C-623/21) (1)

(Air transport - Compensation to air passengers in the event of cancellation or long delay of flights - Distinction between denied boarding, cancellation and long delay where there is a re-routing flight resulting in a delay shorter than the delay caused by taking the flight originally booked)

(2022/C 109/18)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Stuttgart

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Société Air France SA

Respondents: AQ, TP, IO, ON and XZ

Operative part of the order

Case C-623/21 is removed from the Register of the Court.

---

(1)  Date of filing: 8/10/2021.

---

| 7.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/13

---

Order of the President of the Court of 5 January 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — PW v Eurowings GmbH

(Case C-697/21) (1)

(Air transport - Compensation to air passengers in the event of cancellation of flights - Means by which the cost of the ticket is reimbursed - Reimbursement by travel voucher - Request to be reimbursed in cash)

(2022/C 109/19)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: PW

Defendant: Eurowings GmbH

Operative part of the order

Case C-697/21 is removed from the Register of the Court.

---

(1)  Date of filing: 19/11/2021.

---

| 7.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Tirol (Austria) lodged on 6 September 2021 — C.G. v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Landeck

(Case C-548/21)

(2022/C 109/20)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesverwaltungsgericht Tirol

Parties to the main proceedings

Complainant: C.G.

Respondent authority: Bezirkshauptmannschaft Landeck

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 15(1) (possibly read in combination with Article 5) of Directive 2002/58/EC, (1) as amended by Directive 2009/136/EC, (2) read in the light of Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, to be interpreted as meaning that public authorities’ access to data stored on mobile telephones entails interference with fundamental rights enshrined in those articles of the Charter which is sufficiently serious to entail that access being limited, in areas of prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences, to the objective of fighting serious crime? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 15(1) (possibly read in combination with Article 5) of Directive 2002/58/EC, (1) as amended by Directive 2009/136/EC, (2) read in the light of Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, to be interpreted as meaning that public authorities’ access to data stored on mobile telephones entails interference with fundamental rights enshrined in those articles of the Charter which is sufficiently serious to entail that access being limited, in areas of prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences, to the objective of fighting serious crime?

| 2. | Is Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58/EC, as amended by Directive 2009/136, read in the light of Articles 7, 8 and 11 and Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, to be interpreted as meaning that it precludes a national rule, such as that enacted in Paragraph 18 of the Strafprozessordnung (Austrian Code of Criminal Procedure), read in combination with Paragraph 99(1) thereof, which allows security authorities to grant themselves full and uncontrolled access to all digital data stored on a mobile telephone in the course of a criminal investigation without the authorisation of a court or independent administrative body? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58/EC, as amended by Directive 2009/136, read in the light of Articles 7, 8 and 11 and Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, to be interpreted as meaning that it precludes a national rule, such as that enacted in Paragraph 18 of the Strafprozessordnung (Austrian Code of Criminal Procedure), read in combination with Paragraph 99(1) thereof, which allows security authorities to grant themselves full and uncontrolled access to all digital data stored on a mobile telephone in the course of a criminal investigation without the authorisation of a court or independent administrative body?

| 3. | Is Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, possibly read in combination with Articles 41 and 52 thereof, to be interpreted, from the point of view of equality of arms and from the point of view of an effective remedy, as meaning that it precludes a national rule, such as that enacted in Paragraph 18 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, read in combination with Paragraph 99(1) thereof, which allows data processing of a mobile telephone without advising the data subject before or, at the very least, after the measure is taken? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, possibly read in combination with Articles 41 and 52 thereof, to be interpreted, from the point of view of equality of arms and from the point of view of an effective remedy, as meaning that it precludes a national rule, such as that enacted in Paragraph 18 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, read in combination with Paragraph 99(1) thereof, which allows data processing of a mobile telephone without advising the data subject before or, at the very least, after the measure is taken?

---

(1)  Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications) (OJ 2002 L 201, p. 37).

(2)  Directive 2009/136/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 amending Directive 2002/22/EC on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services, Directive 2002/58/EC concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 on cooperation between national authorities responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws (OJ 2009 L 337, p. 11).

---

| 7.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije (Slovenia) lodged on 30 November 2021 — SOMEO S.A., formerly PEARL STREAM S.A. v Republic of Slovenia

(Case C-725/21)

(2022/C 109/21)

Language of the case: Slovenian

Referring court

Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: SOMEO S.A., formerly PEARL STREAM S.A.

Respondent: Republic of Slovenia

Questions referred

| 1. | In order to classify an individual product as a ‘part’ of a seat for motor vehicles for the purposes of Chapter 94 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, (1) in the versions applicable to the main proceedings, is it necessary for the seat to be incapable of carrying out its essential and principal function (in the sense of its being a functional unit) without that product, or is it sufficient for the individual part, which is intended solely to be attached to car seats, to be identifiable as part of a seat? |
| --- | --- |

1.

In order to classify an individual product as a ‘part’ of a seat for motor vehicles for the purposes of Chapter 94 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, (1) in the versions applicable to the main proceedings, is it necessary for the seat to be incapable of carrying out its essential and principal function (in the sense of its being a functional unit) without that product, or is it sufficient for the individual part, which is intended solely to be attached to car seats, to be identifiable as part of a seat?

| 2. | Does the possibility of a general (non-)autonomous use of the two products at issue have an impact on whether they are classified (or not classified) under subheading 9401 90 80? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the possibility of a general (non-)autonomous use of the two products at issue have an impact on whether they are classified (or not classified) under subheading 9401 90 80?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1).

---

| 7.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/15

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Haskovo (Bulgaria) lodged on 7 December 2021 — JP EOOD v Otdel ‘Mitnichesko razsledvane i razuznavane’ v Teritorialna direktsia ‘Mitnitsa Burgas’

(Case C-752/21)

(2022/C 109/22)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad — Haskovo

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant in cassation: JP EOOD

Respondent in cassation: Otdel ‘Mitnichesko razsledvane i razuznavane’ v Teritorialna direktsia ‘Mitnitsa Burgas’

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 44(1) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013, (1) read in conjunction with Article 13 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as Article 59(2) of the Zakon za administrativnite narushenia i nakazania (Law on administrative offences and administrative penalties, ‘the ZANN’), which excludes the owner of property confiscated pursuant to a penalty notice from the group of persons entitled to lodge an appeal against that penalty notice if the owner did not commit the offence? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 44(1) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013, (1) read in conjunction with Article 13 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as Article 59(2) of the Zakon za administrativnite narushenia i nakazania (Law on administrative offences and administrative penalties, ‘the ZANN’), which excludes the owner of property confiscated pursuant to a penalty notice from the group of persons entitled to lodge an appeal against that penalty notice if the owner did not commit the offence?

| 2. | Is Article 22(7) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013, read in conjunction with Articles 29 and 44 thereof and Article 13 of the ECHR and Article 47 of the Charter, to be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as Article 232(1) of the Zakon za mitnitsite (Law on Customs, ‘the ZM’), which excludes appeals in respect of a penalty notice issued against an unknown offender, where national law allows property belonging to a third party not party to the administrative offence proceedings to be confiscated for the benefit of the State pursuant to that notice? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is Article 22(7) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013, read in conjunction with Articles 29 and 44 thereof and Article 13 of the ECHR and Article 47 of the Charter, to be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as Article 232(1) of the Zakon za mitnitsite (Law on Customs, ‘the ZM’), which excludes appeals in respect of a penalty notice issued against an unknown offender, where national law allows property belonging to a third party not party to the administrative offence proceedings to be confiscated for the benefit of the State pursuant to that notice?

| 3. | Is Article 4 of Council Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA, (2) read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter, to be interpreted as meaning that it applies a fortiori where the act is not a criminal offence and as precluding national legislation, such as Article 59(2) of the ZANN, which excludes the owner of property confiscated from the group of persons entitled to lodge an appeal, or, such as Article 232 of the ZM, which expressly states that a notice by which property is confiscated under national law from a third party not party to the administrative offence proceedings is not open to appeal? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is Article 4 of Council Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA, (2) read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter, to be interpreted as meaning that it applies a fortiori where the act is not a criminal offence and as precluding national legislation, such as Article 59(2) of the ZANN, which excludes the owner of property confiscated from the group of persons entitled to lodge an appeal, or, such as Article 232 of the ZM, which expressly states that a notice by which property is confiscated under national law from a third party not party to the administrative offence proceedings is not open to appeal?

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code (OJ 2013 L 269, p. 1).

(2)  Council Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA of 24 February 2005 on Confiscation of Crime-Related Proceeds, Instrumentalities and Property (OJ 2005 L 68, p. 49).

---

| 7.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/16

---

Appeal brought on 8 December 2021 by Jérôme Rivière and Others against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 6 October 2021 in Case T-88/20, Rivière and Others v Parliament

(Case C-767/21 P)

(2022/C 109/23)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: Jérôme Rivière, Dominique Bilde, Joëlle Mélin, Aurélia Beigneux, Thierry Mariani, Jordan Bardella, Jean-Paul Garraud, Jean-François Jalkh, Gilbert Collard, Gilles Lebreton, Nicolaus Fest, Gunnar Beck, Philippe Olivier (represented by: F. Wagner, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

| — | Set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 6 October 2021 in Case T-88/20, Rivière and Others v Parliament; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 6 October 2021 in Case T-88/20, Rivière and Others v Parliament;

| — | Declare the application admissible, having regard to Articles 263 and 277 TFEU; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the application admissible, having regard to Articles 263 and 277 TFEU;

| — | Consequently, find that the oral decision of the President of the European Parliament of 13 January 2020 had no legal basis and annul it; |
| --- | --- |

—

Consequently, find that the oral decision of the President of the European Parliament of 13 January 2020 had no legal basis and annul it;

| — | Order the European Parliament to pay the entire costs |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the European Parliament to pay the entire costs

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of their appeal, the appellants rely on two grounds of appeal.

The first ground of appeal alleges distortion of the facts and mischaracterisation of the legal nature of the facts. In particular, the appellants claim that the second sentence of paragraph 38 of the judgment is a distortion of the facts. The contested measure did have the practical effect of denying the floor to MEPs who refused to remove their flags. That distortion of the facts led the General Court to disregard the second consequence of the decision of 13 January 2020. Accordingly, the General Court erred in its characterisation of the legal nature of the facts. It did not take into account the deprivation of one of the essential aspects of an MEP’s exercise of his or her mandate, namely taking the floor.

The second ground of appeal alleges infringement and distortion in law and in fact of Article 10 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament and a manifest error of assessment. According to the appellants, the General Court was in fact required to analyse whether the small flag used by MEPs was a banner, and then whether the presence of that flag disrupted the good order of the sittings or constituted inappropriate behaviour, and interfered with the smooth conduct of parliamentary business, in order to draw a legal conclusion. Through its comparison with other official languages of the European Union, the General Court had failed to have regard to Article 1 of Regulation No 1 of 15 April 1958 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community, (1) which confirms French as an official language and working language of the institutions of the European Union, thus of the Parliament. In respect of French MEPs, Article 10 of the Rules of Procedure should be read in accordance with the scope given to it by the French language.

The General Court also failed to analyse the expression: ‘They shall not display banners’ and to carry out an analysis of paragraph 3 in the context of Article 10, in particular paragraph 2 thereof. Proof that the presence of a flag caused no disruption was provided in the response to the plea of inadmissibility, since MEPs could display small European flags and Belgian MEP Guy Verhofstadt could speak with such a flag before him.

By setting out, in paragraphs 43 to 49 of its judgment, a line of reasoning derived from that of the Parliament on an entirely different legal basis from Article 10, and by relying on Article 171 of the Rules of Procedure, which is entitled Allocation of speaking time and list of speakers, in order to invoke equality between MEPs as regards speaking time, the General Court added to Article 10 a subject matter which it does not have. That constitutes a distortion of the text which led the General Court to give that article legal effects which it does not have. According to the appellants, the decision of 13 January 2020 did produce legal effects liable to affect the conditions for exercising the appellants’ mandate by bringing about a distinct change in their legal position. The measure is therefore an act open to challenge and the judgment should be set aside.

---

(1)  OJ 17, 6.10.1958, p. 385.

---

| 7.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/17

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Retten i Esbjerg (Denmark) lodged on 17 December 2021 — Skatteministeriet Departementet v Global Gravity ApS

(Case C-788/21)

(2022/C 109/24)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Retten i Esbjerg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Skatteministeriet Departementet

Defendant: Global Gravity ApS

Questions referred

| 1. | What criteria must be applied in order to determine whether an article constitutes a container under subheading 8609 00 9000 of the Combined Nomenclature of the Common Customs Tariff, as set out in Annex I to Commission Regulation (EU) No 1001/2013 (1) of 4 October 2013 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (2) on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, including:





  a) | whether these criteria, each viewed in isolation, can lead to the classification of an article as a container; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

a)

whether these criteria, each viewed in isolation, can lead to the classification of an article as a container;

| b) | whether an overall assessment of criteria should be made in order to determine whether an article should be classified as a container, so that the fulfilment of several criteria — but not all criteria — results in the article being classified as a container;
  or |
| --- | --- |

b)

whether an overall assessment of criteria should be made in order to determine whether an article should be classified as a container, so that the fulfilment of several criteria — but not all criteria — results in the article being classified as a container;

or

| c) | whether all the criteria must be met cumulatively before an article can be classified as a container? |
| --- | --- |

c)

whether all the criteria must be met cumulatively before an article can be classified as a container?

| 2. | Should the term ‘container’ under subheading 8609 00 9000 of the Combined Nomenclature of the Common Customs Tariff, in the version set out in Annex I to Commission Regulation (EU) No 1001/2013 of 4 October 2013 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, be interpreted as covering an article which is a system for transporting pipes, consisting of a number of aluminium lifting profiles, two steel lifting poles per lifting profile and two M20 bolts per lifting profile used to secure the lifting profiles. The pipes are placed on top of the lifting profiles. A new set of lifting profiles are added and then pipes are placed on top of those lifting profiles, and so on until the desired quantity of pipes is packed. A set of lifting profiles are always used to finish the system. Once the pipes are finished being packed in the lifting profiles, steel chains are attached to the lifting poles through each of the four corners (via eyelets on the lifting poles) and the article is ready to be loaded either by crane or by forklift truck if transport is by land. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Should the term ‘container’ under subheading 8609 00 9000 of the Combined Nomenclature of the Common Customs Tariff, in the version set out in Annex I to Commission Regulation (EU) No 1001/2013 of 4 October 2013 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, be interpreted as covering an article which is a system for transporting pipes, consisting of a number of aluminium lifting profiles, two steel lifting poles per lifting profile and two M20 bolts per lifting profile used to secure the lifting profiles. The pipes are placed on top of the lifting profiles. A new set of lifting profiles are added and then pipes are placed on top of those lifting profiles, and so on until the desired quantity of pipes is packed. A set of lifting profiles are always used to finish the system. Once the pipes are finished being packed in the lifting profiles, steel chains are attached to the lifting poles through each of the four corners (via eyelets on the lifting poles) and the article is ready to be loaded either by crane or by forklift truck if transport is by land.

---

(1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1001/2013 of 4 October 2013 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2013 L 290, p. 1).

(2)  OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1.

---

| 7.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/18

---

Action brought on 21 December 2021 — European Commission v Czech Republic

(Case C-808/21)

(2022/C 109/25)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Ondrůšek and J. Tomkin, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Czech Republic

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Declare that, by denying citizens of the Union who are not nationals of the Czech Republic but who are resident in the Czech Republic the right to become members of a political party or political movement, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 22 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by denying citizens of the Union who are not nationals of the Czech Republic but who are resident in the Czech Republic the right to become members of a political party or political movement, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 22 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

| — | Order the Czech Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Czech Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Under Article 22 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, every citizen of the Union residing in a Member State of which he or she is not a national is to have the right to vote and to stand as a candidate at municipal elections and in elections to the European Parliament in the Member State in which he or she resides, under the same conditions as nationals of that State.

In the Commission’s opinion, having regard to the fact that citizens of the Union who are not nationals of the Czech Republic but who are resident in the Czech Republic do not have the right to become members of political parties or political movements, those citizens of the Union cannot exercise the political rights conferred on them under Article 22 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union under the same conditions as nationals of the Czech Republic.

---

| 7.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/18

---

Appeal brought on 12 January 2022 by KS and KD against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 10 November 2021 in Case T-771/20, KS and KD v Council and Others

(Case C-29/22 P)

(2022/C 109/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: KS and KD (represented by: J. Stojsavljevic-Savic, Solicitor, F. Randolph QC and P. Koutrakos, Barrister)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European External Action Service (EEAS)

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

| — | allow the appeal, set aside the order under appeal and grant the relief sought before the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

allow the appeal, set aside the order under appeal and grant the relief sought before the General Court;

| — | alternatively, allow the appeal and remit the case to the General Court for final determination; and |
| --- | --- |

—

alternatively, allow the appeal and remit the case to the General Court for final determination; and

| — | order the respondents to pay the costs of this appeal, proceedings before the General Court and proceedings before the Human Rights Review Panel of EULEX. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the respondents to pay the costs of this appeal, proceedings before the General Court and proceedings before the Human Rights Review Panel of EULEX.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appeal is based on the ground that the General Court erred in law by concluding that it lacked jurisdiction to hear and determine the action that the appellants had brought seeking reparation for the damage they have suffered as a result of the violation of their fundamental human rights by the respondents. The ground of appeal is divided in four parts.

First, the General Court erred in law by interpreting broadly the CFSP (European Union’s Common Foreign and Security Policy) exclusion laid down in the last sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 24(1) TEU and the first paragraph of Article 275 TFEU.

Second, the General Court erred in law by misapplying the judgment of 6 October 2020, Bank Refah Kargaran v Council (C-134/19 P, EU:C:2020:793).

Third, the General Court erred in law by misapplying the judgment of 25 March 2021, Carvalho and Others v Parliament and Council (C-565/19 P, not published, EU:C:2021:252).

Fourth, the General Court erred in law by failing to address material parts of the claim and not providing sufficient reasons for its decision.

---

| 7.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/19

---

Appeal brought on 19 January 2022 by European Commission against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 10 November 2021 in Case T-771/20, KS and KD v Council and Others

(Case C-44/22 P)

(2022/C 109/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: Y. Marinova and J. Roberti di Sarsina, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: KS, KD, Council of the European Union, European External Action Service (EEAS)

Form of order sought

The appellant claim that the Court should:

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

—

set aside in its entirety the order under appeal;

| — | establish that the Union Courts have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine the case; |
| --- | --- |

—

establish that the Union Courts have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine the case;

| — | refer the case back to the General Court for decision on the admissibility and on the merits; |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back to the General Court for decision on the admissibility and on the merits;

| — | reserve the costs of these proceedings and the previous related proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

reserve the costs of these proceedings and the previous related proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on four grounds of appeal.

First ground: The General Court erred in law by i) failing to recognize the nature of the limitation to the Court’s of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) jurisdiction in Articles 24 TEU and 275 TFEU as a derogation from the general jurisdiction of the CJEU, ii) failing to interpret this derogation in a restrictive way, contrary to the CJEU settled case-law, and by iii) wrongly interpreting in this context the judgments in H (1), SatCen (2) and Elitaliana (3) as not supporting the jurisdiction of the CJEU in the case at hand.

Second ground: The General Court erred in law by failing to properly qualify the action as an action for damages concerning alleged violations of fundamental human rights, and by failing to interpret the limitations to jurisdiction of the CJEU in the light of the human rights and rule of law requirements under EU primary law, which establish the jurisdiction of the CJEU in the case at hand.

First limb: The General Court erred in law by qualifying the acts, actions or omissions challenged by the applicants as falling within political or strategic issues connected with the Mission and concerning the definition or implementation of CFSP (European Union’s Common Foreign and Security Policy), and not as acts, actions or omissions causing a damage arising from alleged human rights violations in a CFSP context.

Second limb: The General Court erred in law by failing to interpret Articles 24 TEU and 275 TFEU in the light of the EU fundamental rights and freedoms under the Charter and the ECHR, and the EU founding values of the rule of law and respect for human rights in the Treaties (Articles 2, 3(5), 6(1) and (3), 21(2)(b) and 23 TEU, and Article 19 TEU, and Article 47 of the Charter).

Third ground: The General Court erred in law in incorrectly interpreting the judgment Bank Refah (4) and in failing to consider the action for damages as an independent legal action for which there is no exemption from the jurisdiction of the CJEU under Articles 268 and 340, second paragraph, TFEU.

Fourth ground: The General Court erred in law by failing to ensure the autonomy of the EU legal order and by depriving the applicants of an effective remedy.

First limb: The General Court erred in law by failing to establish the exclusive jurisdiction of Union Courts to hear and determine the case at hand.

Second limb: The General Court erred in law by depriving in the case at hand the applicants of any effective remedy and effectively leaving them without any viable option to ensure protection of their fundamental rights.

---

(1)  Judgment of the Court of 19 July 2016, H v Council and Others, C-455/14 P, EU:C:2016:569.

(2)  Judgment of the General Court of 25 October 2018, KF v SatCen, T-286/15, EU:T:2018:718; judgment of the Court of 25 June 2020, SatCen v KF, C-14/19 P, ECLI:EU:C:2020:492; order of the General Court of 10 July 2020, KF v SatCen, T-619/19, not published, EU:T:2020:337; judgment of the Court of 14 October 2021, KF v SatCen, C-464/20 P, not published, ECLI:EU:C:2021:848.

(3)  Judgment of the Court of 12 November 2015, Elitaliana v Eulex Kosovo, C-439/13 P, EU:C:2015:753.

(4)  Judgment of the Court of 6 October 2020, Bank Refah Kargaran v Council, C-134/19 P, EU:C:2020:793.

---

General Court

| 7.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/21

---

Order of the General Court of 20 December 2021 — Niemelä and Others v ECB

(Case T-321/17) (1)

(Action for annulment - Economic and monetary policy - Prudential supervision of credit institutions - Specific supervisory tasks assigned to the ECB - Decision to withdraw a credit institution’s authorisation - Replacement of the contested measure in the course of the proceedings - Action which has become devoid of purpose - Loss of interest in bringing proceedings - No need to adjudicate - Action for damages - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2022/C 109/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Heikki Niemelä (Ohain, Belgium), Mika Lehto (Espoo, Finland), Nemea plc (St Julians, Malta), Nevestor SA (Ohain), Nemea Bank plc (St Julians) (represented by: A. Meriläinen, lawyer)

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

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

Re:

Application, first, under Article 263 TFEU, for annulment of the decision of the European Central Bank of 23 March 2017, ECB/SSM/2017 — 213800JENPXTUY75VSO/1 WHD-2017-0003, withdrawing Nemea Bank plc’s authorisation to operate as a credit institution and, second, under Article 268 TFEU, seeking compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicants.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for annulment. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for annulment.

| 2. | The claim for compensation is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The claim for compensation is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 3. | Heikki Niemelä, Mika Lehto, Nemea plc, Nevestor SA and Nemea Bank plc and the European Central Bank (ECB) are ordered each to bear their own costs in relation to the application for annulment. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Heikki Niemelä, Mika Lehto, Nemea plc, Nevestor SA and Nemea Bank plc and the European Central Bank (ECB) are ordered each to bear their own costs in relation to the application for annulment.

| 4. | Heikki Niemelä, Mika Lehto, Nemea, Nevestor and Nemea Bank are ordered to bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the ECB in relation to the claim for compensation. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Heikki Niemelä, Mika Lehto, Nemea, Nevestor and Nemea Bank are ordered to bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the ECB in relation to the claim for compensation.

| 5. | The European Commission is ordered to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The European Commission is ordered to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 283, 28.8.2017.

---

| 7.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/22

---

Order of the General Court of 15 December 2021 — Legero Schuhfabrik v EUIPO — Rieker Schuh (Shoe)

(Case T-682/20) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a shoe - Earlier national and Community designs produced after the filing of the application for a declaration of invalidity - Article 28(1)(b)(v) of Regulation (EC) No 2245/2002 - Grounds for invalidity - Lack of novelty - No individual character - Degree of freedom of the designer - No different overall impression - Articles 5 and 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

(2022/C 109/29)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Legero Schuhfabrik GmbH (Feldkirchen bei Graz, Austria) (represented by: M. Gail, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Rieker Schuh AG (Thayngen, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Schabenberger, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 September 2020 (Case R 1650/2019-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Legero Schuhfabrik and Rieker Schuh.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Legero Schuhfabrik GmbH shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Legero Schuhfabrik GmbH shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 19, 18.1.2021.

---

| 7.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/22

---

Order of the General Court of 15 December 2021 — Legero Schuhfabrik v EUIPO — Rieker Schuh (Shoe)

(Case T-683/20) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a shoe - Earlier national and Community designs produced after the filing of the application for a declaration of invalidity - Article 28(1)(b)(v) of Regulation (EC) No 2245/2002 - Grounds for invalidity - Lack of novelty - No individual character - Degree of freedom of the designer - No different overall impression - Articles 5 and 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

(2022/C 109/30)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Legero Schuhfabrik GmbH (Feldkirchen bei Graz, Austria) (represented by: M. Gail, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Rieker Schuh AG (Thayngen, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Schabenberger, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 September 2020 (Case R 1648/2019-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Legero Schuhfabrik and Rieker Schuh.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Legero Schuhfabrik GmbH shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Legero Schuhfabrik GmbH shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 19, 18.1.2021.

---

| 7.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/23

---

Order of the General Court of 15 December 2021 — Legero Schuhfabrik v EUIPO — Rieker Schuh (Shoe)

(Case T-684/20) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a shoe - Earlier national and Community designs produced after the filing of the application for a declaration of invalidity - Article 28(1)(b)(v) of Regulation (EC) No 2245/2002 - Grounds for invalidity - Lack of novelty - No individual character - Degree of freedom of the designer - No different overall impression - Articles 5 and 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

(2022/C 109/31)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Legero Schuhfabrik GmbH (Feldkirchen bei Graz, Austria) (represented by: M. Gail, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Rieker Schuh AG (Thayngen, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Schabenberger, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 September 2020 (Case R 1649/2019-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Legero Schuhfabrik and Rieker Schuh.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Legero Schuhfabrik GmbH shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Legero Schuhfabrik GmbH shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 19, 18.1.2021.

---

| 7.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/23

---

Order of the General Court of 15 December 2021 — Boquoi Handels v EUIPO (Representation of an ice crystal on a blue circular background)

(Case T-734/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for registration of a figurative sign representing an ice crystal on a blue circular background - Partial rejection of the application - Withdrawal of the application for registration - No need to adjudicate)

(2022/C 109/32)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Boquoi Handels OHG (Grünwald, Germany) (represented by: S. Lorenz, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 September 2020 (Case R 522/2020-2), concerning an application for registration of a figurative sign representing an ice crystal on a blue circular background as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

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

| 2. | Boquoi Handels OHG shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Boquoi Handels OHG shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 53, 15.2.2021.

---

| 7.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/24

---

Action brought on 20 December 2021 — SC Ha Ha Ha Production v EUIPO — The Smiley Company (SMILEY)

(Case T-785/21)

(2022/C 109/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: SC Ha Ha Ha Production SRL (Calinesti, Romania) (represented by: O. Anghel, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: The Smiley Company SPRL (Brussels, Belgium)

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 SMILEY — Application for registration No 17 569 641

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decisions: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 September 2021 in Case R 2936/2019-5 relative to the revocation of its decision issued on 15 January 2021 and Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 October 2021 in Case R 2936/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 September 2021 relative to the revocation of its Decision of 15 January 2021; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 September 2021 relative to the revocation of its Decision of 15 January 2021;

| — | set aside of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of 21 October 2021 in order to register the requested European trade mark, SMILEY no. 17 569 641, for the class of products and services 41; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of 21 October 2021 in order to register the requested European trade mark, SMILEY no. 17 569 641, for the class of products and services 41;

| — | order the defendant and, if appropriate, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred during the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant and, if appropriate, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred during the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 103 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 103 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;

| — | Infringement of the general principles of EU law. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the general principles of EU law.

---

| 7.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/25

---

Action brought on 27 December 2021 — NQ v Council and Others

(Case T-803/21)

(2022/C 109/34)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: NQ (represented by: R. Leandro Vasconcelos and M. Martins Pereira, lawyers)

Defendants: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European External Action Service (EEAS)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Commission’s Service for Foreign Policy Instruments (FPI) of 1 December 2021 and the decision not to recommend the applicant for future EU election observation missions (EOM) for five years; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Commission’s Service for Foreign Policy Instruments (FPI) of 1 December 2021 and the decision not to recommend the applicant for future EU election observation missions (EOM) for five years;

in the alternative, in the event that the Court finds that these are not the acts to be contested,

annul the appraisal of 16 October [2021];

in the further alternative, in the event that the Court finds that none of these are the acts to be contested,

annul the decision of the Deputy Chief Observer (DCO) of 22 October [2021];

| — | order the European Commission and, should the Court so find, the EEAS and the Council of the European Union to bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission and, should the Court so find, the EEAS and the Council of the European Union to bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the applicant.

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 breach of the right to be heard
  The appraisal procedure, which culminated in the appraisal report of 16 October 2021, was conducted in breach of the applicant’s right to be heard with regard to the draft appraisal report, that is to say, before the final decision was adopted. That right follows from the right to sound administration, enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’). |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging breach of the right to be heard

The appraisal procedure, which culminated in the appraisal report of 16 October 2021, was conducted in breach of the applicant’s right to be heard with regard to the draft appraisal report, that is to say, before the final decision was adopted. That right follows from the right to sound administration, enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’).

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging breach of the obligation to state reasons
  The contested decision was adopted by the FPI in breach of the obligation to state reasons. That obligation is enshrined in the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU. It is also referred to in Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter. It is not possible to identify, in the grounds of the contested decision, the reasons for the decision not to recommend the applicant and to apply a five-year exclusion measure. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging breach of the obligation to state reasons

The contested decision was adopted by the FPI in breach of the obligation to state reasons. That obligation is enshrined in the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU. It is also referred to in Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter. It is not possible to identify, in the grounds of the contested decision, the reasons for the decision not to recommend the applicant and to apply a five-year exclusion measure.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of legal certainty
  The contested decision was adopted in breach of the principle of legal certainty. The principle of legal certainty is a general principle of EU law. The contested decision does not refer to the legal basis of the exclusion measure, and the latter also cannot be identified by reference to other elements of the decision. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of legal certainty

The contested decision was adopted in breach of the principle of legal certainty. The principle of legal certainty is a general principle of EU law. The contested decision does not refer to the legal basis of the exclusion measure, and the latter also cannot be identified by reference to other elements of the decision.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality
  The imposition of a decision not to recommend the applicant for future missions for a period of five years is disproportionate, since the alleged breaches of the Code of Conduct at issue lack seriousness. |
| --- | --- |

4.

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

The imposition of a decision not to recommend the applicant for future missions for a period of five years is disproportionate, since the alleged breaches of the Code of Conduct at issue lack seriousness.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to private and family life
  The contested decision infringes the right to private and family life, enshrined in Article 7 of the Charter and in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (‘ECHR’). The applicant’s family commitments did not prevent the applicant from carrying out her remaining tasks. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to private and family life

The contested decision infringes the right to private and family life, enshrined in Article 7 of the Charter and in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (‘ECHR’). The applicant’s family commitments did not prevent the applicant from carrying out her remaining tasks.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of freedom of expression
  The contested decision infringes the applicant’s freedom of expression. Freedom of expression is enshrined in Article 11 of the Charter and Article 10 ECHR. That freedom extends to the expression, orally or in writing, of opinions that dissent from or conflict with those held by the employing institution. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of freedom of expression

The contested decision infringes the applicant’s freedom of expression. Freedom of expression is enshrined in Article 11 of the Charter and Article 10 ECHR. That freedom extends to the expression, orally or in writing, of opinions that dissent from or conflict with those held by the employing institution.

---

| 7.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/26

---

Action brought on 4 January 2022 — Puma v EUIPO — Doosan Machine Tools (PUMA)

(Case T-4/22)

(2022/C 109/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Doosan Machine Tools Co. Ltd (Seongsan-gu, Changwon-si, South Korea)

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 — Application for registration No 11 376 209

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 October 2021 in Case R 1677/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and Doosan Machine Tools Co., Ltd to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and Doosan Machine Tools Co., Ltd to pay the costs of the proceedings.

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.

---

| 7.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/27

---

Action brought on 7 January 2022 — Medivet Group v EUIPO (MEDIVET)

(Case T-11/22)

(2022/C 109/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Medivet Group Ltd (Watford, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Kloth, R. Briske and M. Tillwich, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark MEDIVET — Application for registration No 18 132 743

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 October 2021 in Case R 1066/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

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

—

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

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

—

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

---

| 7.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/27

---

Action brought on 7 January 2022 — Hasco TM v EUIPO — Esi (NATURCAPS)

(Case T-12/22)

(2022/C 109/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Hasco TM sp. z o.o. sp.k. (Wrocław, Poland) (represented by: M. Krekora, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Esi Srl (Albisola Superiore, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark NATURCAPS — European Union trade mark No 16 289 795

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 November 2021 in Case R 617/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | accept the application and declare it well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

accept the application and declare it well founded;

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of articles 64(2), 47(2), and 33(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in conjunction with article 2(1) of Nice Agreement concerning the international classification of goods and services for the purposes of the registration of Marks, article 1(2) of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001, article 2(a) of Directive 2002/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 June 2002 and article 24 of Treaty of Accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia (2003); |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of articles 64(2), 47(2), and 33(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in conjunction with article 2(1) of Nice Agreement concerning the international classification of goods and services for the purposes of the registration of Marks, article 1(2) of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001, article 2(a) of Directive 2002/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 June 2002 and article 24 of Treaty of Accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia (2003);

| — | Infringement of article 60(1) in conjunction with article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of article 60(1) in conjunction with article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 7.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/28

---

Action brought on 13 January 2022 — AL v Council

(Case T-22/22)

(2022/C 109/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | primarily, annul the defendant’s decision of 27 September 2021 by which the applicant was removed from his post; |
| --- | --- |

—

primarily, annul the defendant’s decision of 27 September 2021 by which the applicant was removed from his post;

| — | reinstate the applicant as a GSC official on his previous post and position; |
| --- | --- |

—

reinstate the applicant as a GSC official on his previous post and position;

| — | resend the file to the GSC for the reopening of the disciplinary procedure in accordance with Article 28 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations in the light of all the facts established in the Appointing Authority decisions taken after the date of the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

resend the file to the GSC for the reopening of the disciplinary procedure in accordance with Article 28 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations in the light of all the facts established in the Appointing Authority decisions taken after the date of the contested decision;

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

—

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

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

—

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging the violation by the Council of Article 22(1) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations and maladministration. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging the violation by the Council of Article 22(1) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations and maladministration.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging the violation of Article 10(a) of the Annex IX to the Staff Regulations, in so far as (i) the penalty is not proportionate to the nature of the presumed misconduct (regarding the allowances received in respect of the applicant’s mother as dependent child) and to the circumstances in which the alleged misconduct occurred; (ii) the contested decision lacks motivation; (iii) the contested decision disregards the presumption of innocence; and (iv) the contested decision results from a manifest error of assessment. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging the violation of Article 10(a) of the Annex IX to the Staff Regulations, in so far as (i) the penalty is not proportionate to the nature of the presumed misconduct (regarding the allowances received in respect of the applicant’s mother as dependent child) and to the circumstances in which the alleged misconduct occurred; (ii) the contested decision lacks motivation; (iii) the contested decision disregards the presumption of innocence; and (iv) the contested decision results from a manifest error of assessment.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging the violation of Article 10(a) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations, in so far as (i) the penalty imposed is not proportionate to the nature of the misconduct (regarding the allowances received in consideration of the foster care of A and B) and to the circumstances in which the alleged misconduct occurred; (ii) the contested decision lacks motivation; (iii) the contested decision disregards the presumption of innocence; and (iv) the contested decision results from manifest error of assessment. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging the violation of Article 10(a) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations, in so far as (i) the penalty imposed is not proportionate to the nature of the misconduct (regarding the allowances received in consideration of the foster care of A and B) and to the circumstances in which the alleged misconduct occurred; (ii) the contested decision lacks motivation; (iii) the contested decision disregards the presumption of innocence; and (iv) the contested decision results from manifest error of assessment.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging the violation of Article 10(a) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations, in so far as (i) the penalty imposed is not proportionate to the nature of the misconduct (regarding the requests submitted in 2014 for dependent child status for C and D) and to the circumstances in which the alleged misconduct occurred; (ii) the contested decision lacks motivation; (iii) the contested decision disregards the presumption of innocence; and (iv) the contested decision results from manifest error of assessment. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging the violation of Article 10(a) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations, in so far as (i) the penalty imposed is not proportionate to the nature of the misconduct (regarding the requests submitted in 2014 for dependent child status for C and D) and to the circumstances in which the alleged misconduct occurred; (ii) the contested decision lacks motivation; (iii) the contested decision disregards the presumption of innocence; and (iv) the contested decision results from manifest error of assessment.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging the violation of Article 10(b) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations, in so far as (i) the presumed misconduct did not adversely affect the integrity, reputation, or interests of the GSC; (ii) the contested decision lacks motivation; (iii) the contested decision disregards the presumption of innocence; and (iv) the contested decision results from manifest error of assessment. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging the violation of Article 10(b) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations, in so far as (i) the presumed misconduct did not adversely affect the integrity, reputation, or interests of the GSC; (ii) the contested decision lacks motivation; (iii) the contested decision disregards the presumption of innocence; and (iv) the contested decision results from manifest error of assessment.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging the violation of Article 10(c) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations, in so far as (i) the misconduct did not involve intentional actions but rather negligence; (ii) the contested decision lacks motivation; (iii) the contested decision disregards the presumption of innocence; and (iv) the contested decision results from manifest error of assessment and violation of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations for absence of any intention to mislead the administration. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging the violation of Article 10(c) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations, in so far as (i) the misconduct did not involve intentional actions but rather negligence; (ii) the contested decision lacks motivation; (iii) the contested decision disregards the presumption of innocence; and (iv) the contested decision results from manifest error of assessment and violation of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations for absence of any intention to mislead the administration.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging the violation of Article 10(d) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations, in so far as (i) the motivation of the misconduct was principally the children’s best interests and wellbeing; (ii) the contested decision lacks motivation; (iii) the contested decision disregards the presumption of innocence; and (iv) the contested decision results from manifest error of assessment. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging the violation of Article 10(d) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations, in so far as (i) the motivation of the misconduct was principally the children’s best interests and wellbeing; (ii) the contested decision lacks motivation; (iii) the contested decision disregards the presumption of innocence; and (iv) the contested decision results from manifest error of assessment.

| 8. | Eighth plea in law, alleging the violation of Article 10(e) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations, in so far as (i) the applicant’s grade and seniority were moderate to low; (ii) the contested decision lacks motivation; (iii) the contested decision disregards the presumption of innocence; and (iv) the contested decision results from manifest error of assessment. |
| --- | --- |

8.

Eighth plea in law, alleging the violation of Article 10(e) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations, in so far as (i) the applicant’s grade and seniority were moderate to low; (ii) the contested decision lacks motivation; (iii) the contested decision disregards the presumption of innocence; and (iv) the contested decision results from manifest error of assessment.

| 9. | Ninth plea in law, alleging the violation of Article 10(g) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations, in so far as (i) the level of the applicant’s responsibilities and duties was moderate to low; (ii) the contested decision lacks motivation; (iii) the contested decision disregards the presumption of innocence; and (iv) the contested decision results from manifest error of assessment. |
| --- | --- |

9.

Ninth plea in law, alleging the violation of Article 10(g) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations, in so far as (i) the level of the applicant’s responsibilities and duties was moderate to low; (ii) the contested decision lacks motivation; (iii) the contested decision disregards the presumption of innocence; and (iv) the contested decision results from manifest error of assessment.

| 10. | Tenth plea in law, alleging the violation of Article 10(h) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations, in so far as (i) the misconduct did not involve repeated action or behaviour; (ii) the contested decision lacks motivation; (iii) the contested decision disregards the presumption of innocence; and (iv) the contested decision results from manifest error of assessment. |
| --- | --- |

10.

Tenth plea in law, alleging the violation of Article 10(h) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations, in so far as (i) the misconduct did not involve repeated action or behaviour; (ii) the contested decision lacks motivation; (iii) the contested decision disregards the presumption of innocence; and (iv) the contested decision results from manifest error of assessment.

| 11. | Eleventh plea in law, alleging the violation of Article 10(i) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations, in so far as (i) the conduct of the applicant through the course of his career was irreproachable; (ii) the contested decision lacks motivation; (iii) the contested decision disregards the presumption of innocence; and (iv) the contested decision results from manifest error of assessment. |
| --- | --- |

11.

Eleventh plea in law, alleging the violation of Article 10(i) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations, in so far as (i) the conduct of the applicant through the course of his career was irreproachable; (ii) the contested decision lacks motivation; (iii) the contested decision disregards the presumption of innocence; and (iv) the contested decision results from manifest error of assessment.

| 12. | Twelfth plea in law, alleging the violation of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations and of the principle of good administration. |
| --- | --- |

12.

Twelfth plea in law, alleging the violation of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations and of the principle of good administration.

| 13. | Thirteenth plea in law, alleging the violation of the duty to have regard to the welfare of officials and his dependants. |
| --- | --- |

13.

Thirteenth plea in law, alleging the violation of the duty to have regard to the welfare of officials and his dependants.

---

| 7.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/30

---

Action brought on 13 January 2022 — CIMV v Commission

(Case T-26/22)

(2022/C 109/39)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Compagnie industrielle de la matière végétale (CIMV) (Neuilly sur-Seine, France) (represented by: B. Le Bret, R. Rard and P. Renié, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Declare the present action admissible and well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the present action admissible and well founded;

| — | Annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the contested decision;

| — | In the alternative, annul Article 3 of the contested decision in so far as it provides for enforcement; |
| --- | --- |

—

In the alternative, annul Article 3 of the contested decision in so far as it provides for enforcement;

| — | 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 against Decision C(2021) 7932 final of the European Commission of 28 October 2021, concerning the recovery of a sum of EUR 5 888 214,59, plus interest, owed by the CIMV, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a clear substantive error resulting from the failure to take into account the schedule proposed by the CIMV and failure to state adequate reasons for the contested decision. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a clear substantive error resulting from the failure to take into account the schedule proposed by the CIMV and failure to state adequate reasons for the contested decision.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of legitimate expectations and legal certainty. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of legitimate expectations and legal certainty.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence, the right to be heard and the principle of sound administration. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence, the right to be heard and the principle of sound administration.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality and failure to have regard for the aim of effective protection of the financial interests of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality and failure to have regard for the aim of effective protection of the financial interests of the European Union.

---

| 7.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/30

---

Action brought on 18 January 2022 — Innovaciones Cosmético Farmacéuticas v EUIPO — Benito Oliver (th pharma)

(Case T-27/22)

(2022/C 109/40)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Innovaciones Cosmético Farmacéuticas SL (Alhama de Murcia, Spain) (represented by: J. Oria Sousa-Montes, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Miguel Ángel Benito Oliver (Pont D’Inca-Marratxi, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark th pharma — Application for registration No 17 916 522

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 November 2021 in Case R 1605/2020-1

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.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and Article 47(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 7.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/31

---

Action brought on 14 January 2022 — Ryanair v Commission

(Case T-28/22)

(2022/C 109/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ryanair DAC (Swords, Ireland) (represented by: E. Vahida, S. Rating and G.-I. Metaxas-Maranghidis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the defendant’s decision of 26 July 2021 on State aid SA.63203 (2021/N) — Germany — Restructuring aid for Condor; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the defendant’s decision of 26 July 2021 on State aid SA.63203 (2021/N) — Germany — Restructuring aid for Condor; and

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed an error of law and that the contested State aid falls outside the material scope of the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines (1), because Condor Flugdienst GmbH (‘Condor’) is being taken over by a larger business group and its difficulties are not intrinsic and result of an arbitrary allocation of costs. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed an error of law and that the contested State aid falls outside the material scope of the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines (1), because Condor Flugdienst GmbH (‘Condor’) is being taken over by a larger business group and its difficulties are not intrinsic and result of an arbitrary allocation of costs.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to demonstrate a market failure and social hardship. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to demonstrate a market failure and social hardship.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to provide a comparison with a credible alternative scenario not involving a State aid and does not establish that ‘Condor’ has exhausted all market options. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to provide a comparison with a credible alternative scenario not involving a State aid and does not establish that ‘Condor’ has exhausted all market options.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision does not establish that the restructuring plan is realistic, coherent and far-reaching and is suitable to restore ‘Condor’s’ long-term viability without relying on further State aid within a reasonable period of time. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision does not establish that the restructuring plan is realistic, coherent and far-reaching and is suitable to restore ‘Condor’s’ long-term viability without relying on further State aid within a reasonable period of time.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision does not establish the appropriateness of the State aid to the damage caused by the COVID-19 crisis. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision does not establish the appropriateness of the State aid to the damage caused by the COVID-19 crisis.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision does not establish the proportionality of the State aid to the damage caused by the COVID-19 crisis. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision does not establish the proportionality of the State aid to the damage caused by the COVID-19 crisis.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging that the contested decision does not adequately review the negative effects of the State aid. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging that the contested decision does not adequately review the negative effects of the State aid.

| 8. | Eighth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violated specific provisions of the TFEU and the general principles of European law that have underpinned the liberalisation of air transport in the EU since the late 1980s (i.e., non-discrimination, the free provision of services — applied to air transport through Regulation 1008/2008 (2) — and free establishment). |
| --- | --- |

8.

Eighth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violated specific provisions of the TFEU and the general principles of European law that have underpinned the liberalisation of air transport in the EU since the late 1980s (i.e., non-discrimination, the free provision of services — applied to air transport through Regulation 1008/2008 (2) — and free establishment).

| 9. | Ninth plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to initiate a formal investigation procedure despite serious difficulties and violated the applicant’s procedural rights. |
| --- | --- |

9.

Ninth plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to initiate a formal investigation procedure despite serious difficulties and violated the applicant’s procedural rights.

| 10. | Tenth plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated its duty to state reasons. |
| --- | --- |

10.

Tenth plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated its duty to state reasons.

---

(1)  Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring non-financial undertakings in difficulty (OJ 2014 C 249, p. 1-28).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community (Recast) (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2008 L 293, p. 3–20).

---

| 7.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/32

---

Action brought on 19 January 2022 — Vyatsky Plywood Mill v Commission

(Case T-32/22)

(2022/C 109/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Vyatsky Plywood Mill OOO (Kirov, Russia) (represented by: M. Krestiyanova and N. Tuominen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1930 of 8 November 2021 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of birch plywood originating in Russia (1) in its entirety insofar as it affects the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1930 of 8 November 2021 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of birch plywood originating in Russia (1) in its entirety insofar as it affects the applicant;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs of and occasioned by these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of and occasioned by these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached Articles 3 and 4 of the Basic Regulation (2), made a manifest error of assessment by failing to consider the submissions of the EU Plywood Associations in its determination of the product scope, the composition and definition of the Union industry and breached the principle of good administration. In fact, as an unbiased investigating authority, the Commission should have focused on evidence submitted by the EU Plywood Associations on its own initiative, verified it and given a proper factual and legal assessment in the context of the product scope, which is a fundamental element of an anti-dumping investigation affecting all findings. The Commission also effectively rejected/disregarded any evidence or argument from the applicant concerning the EU Plywood Associations’ submission. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached Articles 3 and 4 of the Basic Regulation (2), made a manifest error of assessment by failing to consider the submissions of the EU Plywood Associations in its determination of the product scope, the composition and definition of the Union industry and breached the principle of good administration. In fact, as an unbiased investigating authority, the Commission should have focused on evidence submitted by the EU Plywood Associations on its own initiative, verified it and given a proper factual and legal assessment in the context of the product scope, which is a fundamental element of an anti-dumping investigation affecting all findings. The Commission also effectively rejected/disregarded any evidence or argument from the applicant concerning the EU Plywood Associations’ submission.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached Article 3 of the Basic Regulation by conducting a flawed price analysis in the context of injury and causal link. First, the Commission ignored post-IP price developments and failed to take due account of the apparent market segmentation. Second, the Commission omitted to assess the effect of access to the main raw material by the Union industry, the impact of imports from third countries and of any potential discrimination against Russia. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached Article 3 of the Basic Regulation by conducting a flawed price analysis in the context of injury and causal link. First, the Commission ignored post-IP price developments and failed to take due account of the apparent market segmentation. Second, the Commission omitted to assess the effect of access to the main raw material by the Union industry, the impact of imports from third countries and of any potential discrimination against Russia.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached Article 21 of the Basic Regulation, as the imposition of anti-dumping measures on imports of birch plywood originating in Russia goes against overall Union interest. Union industry, unrelated importers and users will be exposed to a scarcity of high quality, environmentally friendly and affordably priced birch plywood. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached Article 21 of the Basic Regulation, as the imposition of anti-dumping measures on imports of birch plywood originating in Russia goes against overall Union interest. Union industry, unrelated importers and users will be exposed to a scarcity of high quality, environmentally friendly and affordably priced birch plywood.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging — alternatively, if the General Court considers that the Contested Regulation should be upheld — that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment by imposing the measure in its current form, which is against Union interest. The scope of the proceedings would be better served if the measures took the form of a variable duty based on an ad valorem duty capped by a minimum import price. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging — alternatively, if the General Court considers that the Contested Regulation should be upheld — that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment by imposing the measure in its current form, which is against Union interest. The scope of the proceedings would be better served if the measures took the form of a variable duty based on an ad valorem duty capped by a minimum import price.

---

(1)  OJ 2021, L 394, p. 7.

(2)  Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (OJ 2016, L 176, p. 21).

---

| 7.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/33

---

Action brought on 20 January 2022 — Cunsorziu di i Salamaghji Corsi — Consortium des Charcutiers Corses and Others v Commission

(Case T-34/22)

(2022/C 109/43)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Cunsorziu di i Salamaghji Corsi — Consortium des Charcutiers Corses (Borgo, France) and nine other applicants (represented by: T. de Haan and V. Le Meur-Baudry, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | Annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/1879 of 26 October 2021 rejecting three applications for protection of a geographical indication in accordance with Article 52(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council ‘Jambon sec de l’Île de Beauté’ (PGI), ‘Lonzo de l’Île de Beauté’ (PGI), ‘Coppa de l’Île de Beauté’ (PGI); (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/1879 of 26 October 2021 rejecting three applications for protection of a geographical indication in accordance with Article 52(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council ‘Jambon sec de l’Île de Beauté’ (PGI), ‘Lonzo de l’Île de Beauté’ (PGI), ‘Coppa de l’Île de Beauté’ (PGI); (1)

| — | 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 applicants rely on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging, first, infringement of Articles 49, 50 and 52 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 2012 L 343, p. 1) and, second, infringement of the general legal principle of the force of res judicata, in that the Commission exceeded the limits of the powers conferred on it by that regulation. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging, first, infringement of Articles 49, 50 and 52 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 2012 L 343, p. 1) and, second, infringement of the general legal principle of the force of res judicata, in that the Commission exceeded the limits of the powers conferred on it by that regulation.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 7 and 13 of Regulation No 1151/2012, in that the Commission erred in its application of the above provisions. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 7 and 13 of Regulation No 1151/2012, in that the Commission erred in its application of the above provisions.

---

(1)  OJ 2021 L 383, p. 1.

---

| 7.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/34

---

Action brought on 24 January 2022 — Weider Germany v EUIPO — Den i Nosht (YIPPIE!)

(Case T-45/22)

(2022/C 109/44)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Weider Germany GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: T. Pfeifer and N. Böhmer, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Den i Nosht Ltd (Gorna Oryahovitsa, Bulgaria)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark YIPPIE! — EU trade mark No 12 411 567

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 November 2021 in Case R 2227/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | uphold the appeal against the decision of the Cancellation Division in Case 36 243 C; and |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the appeal against the decision of the Cancellation Division in Case 36 243 C; and

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and order the potential intervener (‘Den i Nosht’ Limited) to pay the costs of the invalidity proceedings and of the appeal proceedings before EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and order the potential intervener (‘Den i Nosht’ Limited) to pay the costs of the invalidity proceedings and of the appeal proceedings before EUIPO.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 64(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 64(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

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

—

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

---

| 7.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/34

---

Action brought on 25 January 2022 — Esedra v Parliament

(Case T-46/22)

(2022/C 109/45)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Esedra (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Vastmans, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the action for annulment admissible and well founded;
  consequently;






  — | annul the decision of the European Parliament to award the contract at issue to SAS PEOPLE & BABY and to reject the tender from SRL ESEDRA; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

declare the action for annulment admissible and well founded;

consequently;

—

annul the decision of the European Parliament to award the contract at issue to SAS PEOPLE & BABY and to reject the tender from SRL ESEDRA;

| — | compensate SRL ESEDRA for the damage sustained as a result of that illegal decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

compensate SRL ESEDRA for the damage sustained as a result of that illegal decision;

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

—

order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action against the decision of the European Parliament of 26 November 2021, rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant under tender procedure No PE PERS 2021 027 for the full management of the early childhood care facility of the European Parliament at Rue Wayenberg in Brussels, and awarding the contract to SAS People & Baby, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, infringement of Article 170 TFEU, infringement of Article 16.1. of the tender specifications, infringement of general principles of law and, more specifically, of the principle of detailed and exhaustive examination, the principle that formal reasons should be stated and the principle of patere legem quam ipse fecisti, and manifest error of assessment. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, infringement of Article 170 TFEU, infringement of Article 16.1. of the tender specifications, infringement of general principles of law and, more specifically, of the principle of detailed and exhaustive examination, the principle that formal reasons should be stated and the principle of patere legem quam ipse fecisti, and manifest error of assessment.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 3.13. of the tender specifications, infringement of the Decree of 21 February 2019 aimed at reinforcing the quality and accessibility of early childhood care in the French Community and of the Decree of 2 May 2019 of the Government of the French Community laying down the system of authorisation and subsidies for crèches, childcare services and independent (co-)carers of children and/or of the Decree of 22 November 2013 of the Flemish Government laying down the approval conditions and the quality policy for family and group care of babies and toddlers, infringement of general principles of law and, more specifically, of the principles of detailed and exhaustive examination and patere legem quam ipse fecisti, and a manifest error of assessment. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 3.13. of the tender specifications, infringement of the Decree of 21 February 2019 aimed at reinforcing the quality and accessibility of early childhood care in the French Community and of the Decree of 2 May 2019 of the Government of the French Community laying down the system of authorisation and subsidies for crèches, childcare services and independent (co-)carers of children and/or of the Decree of 22 November 2013 of the Flemish Government laying down the approval conditions and the quality policy for family and group care of babies and toddlers, infringement of general principles of law and, more specifically, of the principles of detailed and exhaustive examination and patere legem quam ipse fecisti, and a manifest error of assessment.

---

| 7.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/35

---

Order of the General Court of 20 December 2021 — Première Vision v EUIPO — Vente Privee.com (PV)

(Case T-836/19) (1)

(2022/C 109/46)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 45, 10.2.2020.

---